one of my favorite things about Elementary is that it’s a complicated show-not just plotwise but i mean specifically the fact that they’re usually telling 2 to 3 stories at the same time.
that’s why (for example) i know it’s canon that 1. joan watson cannot cook and 2. sherlock holmes can cook (he’s rather good at it), but if he’s also eating it, be very dubious because there’s something weird in it.
any holmes adaptation is gonna be extrapolation- and dialogue-heavy by nature, so you’ll have them talking about/explaining the case then going into their emotional reactions/friends’ reaction to the case as main and secondary narratives. BUT! then as a tertiary narrative you have what they’re doing visually. the reason that last one is my favorite is because that’s where “holmes & watson’s relationship” happens.
in this scene, they’re having a really intense discussion about the case and what other people think about the case and yada yada, but what they’re DOING is apparently joan decides for some ungodly reason she’s gonna make their meal today and this is what happens
this. is. hilarious.
it also says so much about both of their characters-and just to reiterate, there is no verbal acknowledgement that any of this is happening-they talk only about the case, and things going on elsewhere. period.
but like, why would joan give a fuck about cooking? she went to med school, she was a surgeon, she was a sober companion, then a detective. she can cut up a vegetable and shove it in the mouth hole, order takeout, and that’s it.
sherlock, having been confronted with some kind of inexplicable bread lettuce thing, does what he always does when a food is not acceptable (something that happens constantly, much to my delight), which is look in the fridge like he’s accusing it of a crime and then gives up and eats nothing.
i don’t know if i need to explain why i am unshakably loyal to a show that’s about two roommates in their forties who do this amazing work no one else can do, and also essentially can’t fucking feed themselves. but this is what happens when you have two ridiculously talented actors playing leads who have to find something to do while they’re spouting off novels’ worth of memorized dialogue during ten-hour days, filming 10 months out of the year, holy shit.
it’s hilarious to me when people call historical fashions that men hated oppressive
like in BuzzFeed’s Women Wear Hoop Skirts For A Day While Being Exaggeratedly Bad At Doing Everything In Them video, one woman comments that she’s being “oppressed by the patriarchy.” if you’ve read anything Victorian man ever said about hoop skirts, you know that’s pretty much the exact opposite of the truth
thing is, hoop skirts evolved as liberating garment for women. before them, to achieve roughly conical skirt fullness, they had to wear many layers of petticoats (some stiffened with horsehair braid or other kinds of cord). the cage crinoline made their outfits instantly lighter and easier to move in
it also enabled skirts to get waaaaay bigger. and, as you see in the late 1860s, 1870s, and mid-late 1880s, to take on even less natural shapes. we jokingly call bustles fake butts, but trust me- nobody saw them that way. it was just skirts doing weird, exciting Skirt Things that women had tons of fun with
men, obviously, loathed the whole affair
(1864)
(1850s. gods, if only crinolines were huge enough to keep men from getting too close)
(no date given, but also, this is 100% impossible)
(also undated, but the ruffles make me think 1850s)
it was also something that women of all social classes- maids and society ladies, enslaved women and free women of color -all wore at one point or another. interesting bit of unexpected equalization there
and when bustles came in, guess what? men hated those, too
(1880s)
(probably also 1880s? the ladies are being compared to beetles and snails. in case that was unclear)
(1870s, I think? the bustle itself looks early 1870s but the tight fit of the actual gown looks later)
hoops and bustles weren’t tools of the patriarchy. they were items 1 and 2 on the 19th century’s “Fashion Trends Women Love That Men Hate” lists, with bonus built-in personal space enforcement
Gonna add something as someone who’s worn a lot of period stuff for theatre:
The reason you suck at doing things in a hoop skirt is because you’re not used to doing things in a hoop skirt.
The first time I got in a Colonial-aristocracy dress I felt like I couldn’t breathe. The construction didn’t actually allow me to raise my arms all the way over my head (yes, that’s period-accurate). We had one dresser to every two women, because the only things we could put on ourselves were our tights, shifts, and first crinoline. Someone else had to lace our corsets, slip on our extra crinolines, hold our arms to balance us while a second person actually put the dresses on us like we were dolls, and do up our shoes–which we could not put on ourselves because we needed to be able to balance when the dress went on. My entire costume was almost 40 pounds (I should mention here that many of the dresses were made entirely of upholstery fabric), and I actually did not have the biggest dress in the show.
We wore our costumes for two weeks of rehearsal, which is quite a lot in university theatre. The first night we were all in dress, most of the ladies went propless because we were holding up our skirts to try and get a feel for both balance and where our feet were in comparison to where it looked like they should be. I actually fell off the stage.
By opening night? We were square-dancing in the damn things. We had one scene where our leading man needed to whistle, but he didn’t know how and I was the only one in the cast loud enough to be heard whistling from under the stage, so I was also commando-crawling underneath him at full speed trying to match his stage position–while still in the dress. And petticoats. And corset. Someone took my shoes off for that scene so I could use my toes to propel myself and I laid on a sheet so I wouldn’t get the dress dirty, but that was it–I was going full Solid Snake in a space about 18″ high, wearing a dress that covered me from collarbones to floor and weighed as much as a five-year-old child. And it worked beautifully.
These women knew how to wear these clothes. It’s a lot less “restrictive” when it’s old hat.
I have worn hoop skirts a lot, especially in summer. I still wear hoop skirts if I’m going to be at an event where I will probably be under stage lights. (For example, Vampire Ball.)
I can ride public transportation while wearing them. I can take a taxi while wearing them. I can go on rides at Disneyland while wearing them. Because I’ve practiced wearing them and twisting the rigid-but-flexible skirt bones so I can sit on them and not buffet other people with my skirts.
Hoop skirts are awesome.
Hoop skirts are also air conditioning. If you ever go to reenactments in the South, particularly in summer, you’ll notice a lot of ladies gently swaying in their big 1860s skirts – because it fans all the sweaty bits. You’ll be much cooler in a polished cotton gown with full sleeves, ruffles, and hoopskirt than in a riding jacket and trousers, let me promise you! (This is part of the reason many enslaved women also enthusiastically preferred larger skirts – they had more to do than sit in the shade, but they’d get a bit of a breeze from the hoops’ movement as they were walking.)
They’re also – and I can’t emphasize enough how important this is – really easy to pee in. If you’re in split-crotch drawers (which, until at least the 1890s, you were), you can take an easy promenade a few feet away from the gents and then squat down and pee in pretty much total privacy. It gives so much freedom in travel when it’s not a problem to pee most anywhere.
People also don’t realize that corsets themselves were a HUGE HUGE IMPROVEMENT over previous support-garment styles – and if you have large breasts that don’t naturally float freely above your ribcage (which some people’s do! but it’s not that common), corsets are often an improvement over modern bras.
They hold up the breasts from underneath, taking the weight of them off your back. Most historical corset styles don’t have shoulder straps, so you’re not bearing the weight of your breast there, either, and you can raise your arms as far as your dress’s shoulder line allows (which is the actually restrictive bit – in my 1830s dress, literally all I can do is work in my lap, but in my 1890s dress I can paddle a kayak or draw a longbow with no trouble. Both in a full corset). They support your back and reduce the physical effort it takes to not slouch, helping avoid back pain. They’re rigid enough that you don’t usually have to adjust your clothing to keep it where it belongs. They’re flexible – if you’re having a bloaty PMS day you just … don’t lace it as tightly, and if your back muscles are sore you can lace it a little tighter. And you can undo a cup (or, y’know, not have breast cups) to nurse a baby without losing any of the structural integrity of the garment.
I do educational/historical dressing and people are really insistent, like, “The corset was invented by a man, wasn’t it?” “Actually, women were at the forefront of changing undergarment styles throughout the 19th century!” “But it’s true that it was invented by a man.”
Uh, well, it’s hard to say who “invented” the style but it’s very likely that women’s dressmakers mostly innovated women’s corsets and men’s tailors mostly innovated men’s corsets, honey. Because those exist too.
Also? These fashions are about taking up space. They’re about being loud and visible and saying HERE I AM. About saying “I’m so rich, I need someone to help me dress every morning.” And about saying, “I am not solely here for male consumption”–there’s a reason so many cartoons lampooning women’s fashion are about how hard those ladies are to kiss, and how impossible it’d be to have a quick fuck in them. (Which it actually isn’t, but that’s beside the point)
Historical women’s fashions aren’t 100% unproblematic and absolutely wonderful. They make stark class distinctions incredibly visible, because you simply cannot wear some of these dresses and keep them maintained without a private staff to do a ton of work for you. They upheld a standard of femininity a lot of women were excluded from. They limited women’s and girls’ participation in sports and athletics.
Stanford “It’s Okay To Give Children Weapons Right?” Pines is totally the type of guy who forgets not to swear in front of kids tbh
I wonder how many days it took him to slip up and say Fuck in front of the twins. Also how many seconds he had to live afterwards, before Grunkle Stan swooped in with an unholy vengeance to ream him out.
Ford: *cuts his finger on an invention* OW! Fuck–
Dipper, Mabel: *gasps*
Stan: *materializing into the room* I WAS SUMMONED BY THE SOUND OF PROFANITY. WHERE IS HE. SHOW ME MY SOON TO BE DEAD BROTHER WHO THINKS HE’S EXEMPT FROM SELF CENSORING!
and like, not that I don’t love Boromir & love his love for his hobbit friends, consider: Treebeard, who knew Merry and Pippin for like 2 days, thought of him as his children, and wrote a sweet & touching poem about them, DEEPLY relatable
also consider, Denethor, who took Pippin into his service in large part bcos he found him Very Funny
also consider, GIMLI
‘Well, farewell, my hobbits! You should come safe to your own homes now, and I shall not be kept awake for fear of your peril.’
this is Theoden-and-Merry-bonding-over-herb-lore erasure and it’s Not Okay
I never claimed it was an exhaustive list but yes, also: Theoden knowing Merry for like a minute and being like ‘I love my tiny son’
It’s only just now struck me that Merry caught Theoden on Son Rebound
“Son rebound”
THANKS I HATE IT 😭
Eowyn and the entire freaking Rohirrim adopt Merry by the Battle of Pelennor. Faramir gets emotionally attached to Frodo, Sam, AND Pippin. Aragorn and the Dúnedain (Rangers) spent a large chunk of their time and manpower protecting the Shire more or less for the same reasons one would shelter a happy child from the harsh reality of the world. And that’s not even remotely mentioning how literally everyone Bilbo ever met on his journey “there and back again” treats him like a kindly adorable old friend throughout the main series.
Conclusion: Everyone loves Hobbits what the heck
it’s like I’ve been saying, hobbits just activate people’s ‘baby, must protect’ instinct
I like how the only reason Harry is able to fight the imperious curse so easily is because it hits him and he’s like “Ah I feel calm and relaxed and happy…this is wrong.”