[ SECRET POST #1832 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #1832 ⌋


Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________

02.


__________________________________________________

03.


__________________________________________________

04.


__________________________________________________

05.


__________________________________________________

06.


__________________________________________________

07.


__________________________________________________

08.


__________________________________________________

09.


__________________________________________________

10.


__________________________________________________

11.


__________________________________________________

12.


__________________________________________________

13.


__________________________________________________

14.


__________________________________________________

15.


__________________________________________________

16.


__________________________________________________

17.


__________________________________________________

18.


__________________________________________________

19.


__________________________________________________

20.


__________________________________________________

21.


__________________________________________________

22.






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 139 secrets from Secret Submission Post #262.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeats ]
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom.livejournal.com]

11. http://i.imgur.com/yyh12.jpg

[(Anonymous)]

Aw, this secret is so cheerful and sweet, it put me in a good mood. :3 I enjoyed their relationship too.

[noforcenosound.livejournal.com]

I think people respect that relationship way too much to ever portray it with malice. I agree, I think it was perfect and well-done and should be a model for same-sex relationships in hollywood movies, even if they weren't even together. they don't have to be having sex for their mutual love and admiration to show on screen.

[seiberwing.livejournal.com]

What I liked about it was that we get Holmes and Watson as self-contained, interesting characters with flaws and virtues but also time and attention is paid to their relationship.

We need more relationships period depicted that way.

[deadtree.livejournal.com]

I think it would be kind of awesome for their relationship to be the model for ANY kind of romantic relationship. That kind of balance rarely seems to come up no matter what gender the partners are :\

[inboots.livejournal.com]

this secret reminded me of this recent tumblr post -

http://whatisa.tumblr.com/post/15467958945/hollywoods-gay-sex-hate-why-movies-avoid-same-sex

[darkmanifest.livejournal.com]

Love that post. Truth, it is spoken.

[meadowphoenix]

This is exactly why I love the promos for the spy movie with the CIA agent, in which I hope there's not a shred of romance, and the Katherine Heigl movie, who I normally dislike, which isn't being promoted as the romcom it so clearly is, but instead as some woman's adventures as a bondsman.

[violence4.livejournal.com]

I hate to be a killjoy, and I'm not trying to bash this movie in particular cos I like it, but I don't really understand why everyone acts like bromances with subtext are so gay positive. I get it's probably still too much to expect mainstream Hollywood to treat a real gay relationship completely positively, especially in a blockbuster movie like Sherlock Holmes, but to me it just seems like they still can't be open about gay relationships so they just throw in a bit of fanservice.

Meh, maybe I'm just a pessimist :/

[(Anonymous)]

I feel the same way. It's like, 'look at the subtext! We're totally gay positive! I mean, we'd never *actually* make them gay, but there's definitely subtext! Ain't we awesome?'

[lolofielding.livejournal.com]

To join the 'glass half empty' club...

Yeah. Personally I have no problem with this particular pairing not being written as an openly gay couple because what I love about Holmes/Watson in all versions is just the epic friendship (I'm lame like that). The slash is played up in the movie, clearly, but until anything is actually said out loud about their feelings or either's sexuality then I don't really see how it's an uber "support gay rights" agenda. More just a "these guys are straight - hence love interests - but they're comfortable enough with that to be all close with each other" thang. Not saying that's EXACTLY how they're written to be, ymmv, but it's the way it seems to be played up for general audiences. If they wanted them to be gay then surely they could just let them be gay and no shame in being open about it. *shrug*

[(Anonymous)]

And I couldn't see anything past the giant, blinking "NO HOMO" sign stamped over every other scene.

(You could argue that RDJHolmes was presented as The Miserable Queer but that's not exactly a new Hollywood trope. After The Evil Queer, it's the oldest one in the book.)

Different strokes, I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

It actually kinda did the opposite for me. I was irritated. I mean, this is apparently a 'thing' now, where the subtext between two men is laid on so thick that it's practically impossible not to see it - but god forebid they ACTUALLY end up a couple, because then even the homophobes would have to notice and we can't have them not buying tickets and complaining. It just... it feels hypocritical to me. Like, they want to seem progressive, but not actually go the whole way. Have their cake and eat it too.

[oflittlebrain.livejournal.com]

on one hand, i agree

on the other hand, there's this: http://bookshop.livejournal.com/1017712.html

[(Anonymous)]

This reminded me of this excellent rant.

http://bookshop.livejournal.com/1017712.html

[(Anonymous)]

I thought it was implied they are a couple - or at least were? But then Watson switched his bachelor life (aka being with Holmes) for Mary, as was the usual thing to do in those times. (Interesting fact: you weren't a worthy person in the Victorian times if you didn't have a wife and a household, and bachelors were often segregated from the married couples's lives as the man wasn't considered an "honest man" and a married couple shouldn't spend too much time with people like that, even in private. A wife was practically a status symbol, and people honestly thought you couldn't be happy if you weren't married and your house didn't have a mistress.)
I honestly don't think it was bromance or subtext, it was full-on text. Holmes was definitely in love with Watson and Watson was trying his hardest to keep himself from going back to his ex's manly arms.

I mean, the whole Holmes dressed up as a woman was probably a metaphor for Holmes trying to become "the woman" in the relationship so Watson could feel like a man and thus wouldn't need Mary anymore. And the dancing scene was a metaphor for Watson accepting Holmes as he was and accepting what they were together, to the point of appreciation.

Idk, maybe I'm reading too much into things, but I don't even ship them, so what do you make of that?

[goobbledigook.livejournal.com]

I just don't get this line of thinking. What good does a bromance do to gay representation when the whole point is that it's gay but not really(and a big emphasis on the not really)?

This reminds me of this one interview from the first movie where Jude Law was, wait for it, talking about the bromance in the movie, and he said something like "oh, just because those two characters are affectionate with eachother it doesn't have to be gay". This goes with what you say about their relationship having no malice to it. You know what would make it malicious in their eyes? If they were actually gay and not just straight characters that are totally married, bro.

Honestly, I wouldn't hold my breath for many gay characters in the future if Hollywood and television in general keeps it up with this no homo shit.

[megalomaniageek.livejournal.com]

I, like oflittlebrain, am kinda of two minds about this. Because it sucks that Hollywood won't just take the goddamn plunge, unless the movie is specifically about gayness. But I agree with you also, because I really like how it was done. I just, I dunno, I really found a lot of joy in their intimacy. It takes a certain level of complete comfort to be able to just lie down together on a train car floor, barely dressed, without addressing it or having any anxiety about it at all. And I, too, really like that it's not played for laughs. They're just really comfortable with each other.
The thing is, if Holmes had been a woman, just about nobody would be questioning that it was an explicit love triangle story. The lying down half-naked, the closeness, the dancing...it would be heteronormative movie short-hand for heterosexual romance. But when it's two guys, it's assumed to be just close non-sexual homosocial intimacy unless it's explicitly spelled out as gay.

I'm pleased as long as Hollywood doesn't dust off its hands and say "look how far we've come" without striving to go any further.

[sister-wife.livejournal.com]

Yeaeaaah... no.

I think it was the opposite. Execs have realized by now that ~~bromance~~ sells and they're playing it up in every other blockbuster, but here's the thing: at the end of the day, they're still straight characters.

Yes, there wouldn't have been much change in how the relationship was shown if they were actually gay, but THEY AREN'T. Movie and TV studios are unwilling to ACTUALLY show gay people, so they keep showing these homoerotic ~~friendships~~ because they know it sells and gets people interested, but in the long run they aren't doing anything for real life gay people, because there's still no mainstream cinema showing real, actual gays. At the end of the movie, they still get with the girl.

To quote tumblr user reelaroundthefountain (http://reelaroundthefountain.tumblr.com/post/15261640352/the-only-difference-between-pre-1950-male-centric): The only difference between pre-1950 male-centric narratives and modern male-centric narratives is that modern ones give a patronizing nod to the popularity of homoeroticism in their efforts to exclude all non heterosexual-white-males.

[(Anonymous)]

The third movie will definitely go Brokeback Mountain on everyone's asses.

[(Anonymous)]

Am I the only one thinks this one had less gay subtext? And that a lot of people are projecting onto it/viewing the movie through slash goggles? Yeah, I know, Holmes is always invading Waston's personal space, they dance, and that fight on the train. But none of that screamed romantic or sexual to me; I thought it just showed how important they are to each other, and how Holmes and Waston are in really close emotional/platonic relationship. It reminded me of me and my best friend.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't see how it was portrayed any differently than any other 'bromance' relationship on TV. It still had that annoying NO HOMO vibe that they all have.

[intrigueing.livejournal.com]

*lots of smiles* I love this secret. I never thought about the implications of that relationship in that way before, but it's a great thing to think and it (and you) are so sweet :)

[kryptoncat.livejournal.com]

Now Hollywood needs to take the next step and put actual gay characters out there done sincerely. Maybe it will happen in our lifetimes?

[heretherebefic.livejournal.com]

With you, OP.

Usually, I get at least a little bit annoyed with movies that are full of homoerotic subtext but never dare to actually explicitly state that a character is anything but heterosexual.

BUT

This movie... Holmes is in love with Watson. It's really, really obvious. They made it about as clear as they possibly could without having him actually say it, and I'm pretty sure I read that Guy Ritchie was told that if he did something like that, he couldn't make the movies. (Yep. Here: http://www.sherlockholmeswiki.com/page/Will+Sherlock+Holmes+be+Gay%3F) And, well, with the time period it's set in, it would be kind of difficult to have an explicit romance without the entire plot revolving around it more so than it does now, and Sherlock Holmes is supposed to be about mystery-solving.

If you read between the lines, though, both movies really come off as either the aftermath of really bad breakup (wherein Watson either got tired of Holmes's shit and broke things off and found a wife, or panicked about being with a man and broke things off and found a wife, and Holmes still won't let it go) or two friends who are so close to being more than that, if Watson would take the risk and admit to his own feelings and if Holmes could just be a little more... tolerable.