Re: Sherlock - BBC [3]

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:26 pm

Mrs Figg- I think the visual thing is a genuine leap in representing the stories in a visual medium, but they still have a place and I agree there is at least the risk that they overcome the narrative and become too relied upon.
I felt this was partly true of the second episode in this series in particular where the visual tricks at one point seemed to me to be padding for a lack of story.
But as a concept and a means of doing it I think its inspired.

"thats because the first two seasons were great and this one was a bit rubbish, at least the first two episodes were"

I agree with that last bit, I didnt think the first two episodes were up to the standards of previous series, but that was why I was surprised you and Ringo seemed to highlight the last episode for particular complaint when it seemed to me to be the only of one series 3 that was up to the previous series standard.

"deduction based on minute observation is Sherlock's bailiwick, not Mycroft's."- Halfwise

Not true- in the originals Holmes himself declares Mycrofts deduction skills to be greatly superior to his own and ths is shown t be the case on ore than one occasion- Mycrofts problem is he is incapable and unable to make the original determinations- give him all the facts, no matter how obscure they seem and he can make the correct deduction- leave him to also gather all the facts in he first place and he is useless however- this is why he sits at the centre of government (whichever party is in power), the man all the facts go to- hence Sherlock telling Watson that Mycroft 'is the British government'.

by Ringdrotten Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:29 pm

Yeah, Mycroft is all of CIA's analysts in one person. And lazy. And not pissed at his brother. Smile

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:34 pm

I dont think he is pissed at Sherlock in the new one, they just play up the already existing sibling rivalry between them which is in the originals and can be detected even in the Brett version-

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:50 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Mrs Figg- I think the visual thing is a genuine leap in representing the stories in a visual medium, but they still have a place and I agree there is at least the risk that they overcome the narrative and become too relied upon.
I felt this was partly true of the second episode in this series in particular where the visual tricks at one point seemed to me to be padding for a lack of story.
But as a concept and a means of doing it I think its inspired.

It was inspired the first time they did it, but now it just looks a bit tired, a bit like using the Weeping Angels too much, it gets cliche and boring. I quite liked it at first but now I dont for the reasons I said before.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:58 pm

I think where its used to show the deduction method rather than have Holmes stand about afterwards and explain it all to everyone its a good thing- tv is a visual medium and this makes an aspect of the book visual. So for me its not a matter of how often its used but how appropriately and on balance I think it has been well used so far.

It also appeals to me because in the original stories its hard to miss the general impression of the power of words- from Watson's writing of Holmes' cases for public consumption (and fame and celebrity) to the gleefully morbid penny newspapers that are sold on every street corner full of gory details on crime cases.

I feel bringing the net into it, Holmes fame, and the use of words on screen as part of the visual language both modernises these concepts and retains them at the heart of the stories as part of the soup the tales swim in (like London itself in fact).

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:22 pm

I really dont think they had such deep concepts in mind when they decided to use those visual markers. I think it was more a selfconscious attempt to make it look slick and technological. It works to a certain point, it depends how fast you can read it all, sometimes its impossible to catch everything and I think it detracts and distracts rather than helps the Actors act. I prefer the deeper acting skill of Brett, he didnt need technical tomfoolery to get the point across. its a visual toy nothing more.

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Jan 31, 2014 4:32 pm

But Brett did need a lot of words and a lot of exposition which is fine on the page or in a radio play but less good in a visual medium, and even less so if its set in the modern world where people use less words than they did in late 1800's.

I think they did think about the effect of print and how it permeates the stroies- like other works of the time, such as War of the Worlds, the press feature large in the stories, gossip columns even come into play, Holmes uses the press, he scours them for clues- the revolution in print was just like the current internet one, only smaller scale.
In WotW updated news is put out by the press hourly, a single sheet for a penny with the ink not yet dry.
The press where massive, there were literally hundreds of newspapers in London at the time.

I think therefore the emphasis still on words, only in visuals rather than spoken, and on Sherlocks celebrity and Watsons blog are quite deliberate and as much a part of their adapting to the modern world as dialogue changes such as "The Game is on!" is.

Also I dont think you are meant to catch all the clues that pop up and fly by quickly, if you could you would be as good as Sherlock, and no one should be as good at it as Sherlock is.

by halfwise Fri Jan 31, 2014 5:51 pm

Mrs Figg wrote:I really dont think they had such deep concepts in mind when they decided to use those visual markers. I think it was more a selfconscious attempt to make it look slick and technological. It works to a certain point, it depends how fast you can read it all, sometimes its impossible to catch everything and I think it detracts and distracts rather than helps the Actors act. I prefer the deeper acting skill of Brett, he didnt need technical tomfoolery to get the point across. its a visual toy nothing more.

Actually from what I gather from interviews they were simply trying to solve the problem of showing how Sherlock's mind worked without taking the time for Sherlock to go back and explain it all. If they thought of it as a modern gimmick it was only after they saw how well it worked, and the slickness came from the art department. Now they see it as a hallmark of the show, so it's being brought forward rather than fading into the storytelling. I'm okay with it, I can see it being annoying.

by Mrs Figg Fri Jan 31, 2014 7:55 pm

It doesnt annoy me, and I do quite like it, I just dont agree that it can take the place of an actor like Brett 'needing a lot of words and a lot of exposition' as Petty said. Bretts exposition is never laboured or prosy its just acting from an age where people had more patience to sit and listen, rather than the fast edited sound bite type of tv making today. I like and appreciate both styles, but I really dont think a few squiggles on the screen can take the place of good acting. Like I said, I like the modern Sherlock but a lot of it is style, which is fine. I do think the show is all about Cumberbutch and Freemans personal charisma over actual detective work. I mean sometimes it borders on wack O, when Sherlock is just standing there with a gormless expression, with a technical anthill Mind Palace jiggling about willy nilly over the screen, its daft. (in a good way)

by Bluebottle Fri Jan 31, 2014 9:24 pm

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I felt this was partly true of the second episode in this series in particular where the visual tricks at one point seemed to me to be padding for a lack of story.

I felt a bit like that when I watched it at first, but thinking back at it that is the one episode this season that gave us a proper murder mystery. And I don't think the wedding stuff deviated from that any more than Sherlocks return in the first episode deviated from the bomb plot. Shrugging

Sherlock was written more out of character, sure. Maybe that's partly what people are reacting to?

by Norc Sat Feb 01, 2014 6:20 pm

http://collider.com/sherlock-season-4-5steven-moffat-sue-vertue-interview/

READ IT!!

by Bluebottle Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:20 am

I can spot sarcasm when I see it. Nod

I'll follow your advice and stay far away from that.

by Bluebottle Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:20 am

(You can take that to mean I'm reading it now. Wink

)

by Bluebottle Mon Feb 03, 2014 10:28 am

So next Christmas looking a bit unlikely sadly. Though it's still possible, I guess.

Quite liked this bit:

They want to do more. It’s just trying to get everyone free, at the same time. That’s just what I’m doing now. Benedict said, “I’m free in February,” and I said, “But, we haven’t got a script!” I’m working on it.

by Bluebottle Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:59 pm

So, have you come across this at all?

http://www.benedictcumberbatch.co.uk/2013/02/02/cumberbatchweb-review-of-good-evening-a-tribute-to-beyond-the-fringe/

It's a bit strange as we were talking about Benedict and Peter Cook, and Beyond the Fringe was Peter Cooks big breakthrough thing. Though Benedict actually played Dudley Moore in this. You can see the whole Beyond the Fringe team on Parkinson here:

Tried to find the whole thing online, but couldn't find it.

by Bluebottle Tue Feb 04, 2014 2:27 pm

And Jonathan Miller is played by Jonathan Aris who plays Anderson in Sherlock. Shocked

Completely missed that..

by Norc Tue Feb 04, 2014 3:14 pm

by Tinuviel Tue Feb 04, 2014 8:53 pm

MURRY-arty!!!!

by Norc Tue Feb 04, 2014 9:58 pm

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2014-02-04/sherlock-cast-we-played-give-us-a-clue-with-una-stubbs-during-filming

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:23 am

I used to watch Give us a Clue as a kid Nod

Sorry about quality- was surprisingly hard to find Una Stubbs in Give us a Clue on youtube despite being a team captain for years-

I also remember watching her in the brilliant and challenging Till Death Do US Part- although I was watching repeats as its was the 60's-

by azriel Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:46 am

I kinda liked watching TDDUP, & "Love Thy Neighbour", Its SO full of racism, both of them, that, theyde never be allowed on TV again ! Smile

Can you imagine a censored version ? As I watched these it never entered my head about calling dark people names like nig nog, it was just a funny sitcom to me, but, there again Im easy going & dont want to call ANYONE names, so it didnt affect me. I think, maybe, it was a perfect platform for those people who WERE & ARE racist ? In both series, theyre bickering was what I heard as a child growing up & we didnt go around being hateful ? Its the same with toys, I had a rag doll, a gollywog, & I cuddled it, took it out with me, purely cos it was a toy I liked, I still find them cute in a way, has NO racist connotations with me. But, now, I understand better, as an adult, that you dont want to hear "Alf Garnet" going on & on about dark guys etc ! Mind you, he moaned about EVERYTHING & boy, was he ignorant ! but thats also what made it clever, he showed up peoples ignorant prejudices. As far as Im aware, hes not at all like it in real life ? It was a portrayal of British people set in a certain time. but Im gonna say what the show did was useful, it opened up peoples minds & caused debate on issues, school bullying, work place name calling etc. maybe ?

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:49 am

I think its hugely misunderstood by modern audiences- the core of it is the daughter (Una Stubbs and her marxist leaning boyfriend- representing the new youth of the 60's) challenging the racist, sexist right wing entrenched patriotic views of the father, Alf. I dont think you are meant to laugh along at Alf so much as come to laugh at him, it challenges his attitudes, it doesnt uphold them.

And all the language used was language of the day- an era when the Black and White Minstrel Show was about to hit the 70's.

by azriel Wed Feb 05, 2014 1:57 am

Gosh ! I remember watching that with my mum ! I THINK she watched it purely for the singing/dancing/entertainment of it, just as she did "Come dancing", she was never racist, I wasnt brought up to be nasty either. It was like sticking nails in yer eyes trying to reason with "Alf" ! he was convinced Jesus was White British ! Razz

and poor old "boyfriend" (I forget his name ?) & Una had a right time trying to say Jesus must have been olive skinned as look where he was born ! Alf's wife was the best in that, quiet, came in at just the right moment with a punch line or what seemed a daft question but wasnt really daft at all ! She made Alf squirm quite a few times! I liked that, watching him lost for words, pursing his lips & chewing his pipe ! You could see him struggling for something to get back at her with ! Razz

by Pettytyrant101 Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:01 am

You certainly dont get to many stcoms these days brave enough to take major social changes onboard as humour, from racism to politics to sexism- its all there dealt with head on warts and all- and yeah Alf is a buffoon not a hero in it- and superbly played by the very lovely Warren Mitchell. But like all classic comedy buffoons you both laugh at him and come to sort of enjoy his overthetop ridiculous character.

And I remember watching the Black and White Minstrel show too, it always seemed a bit freaky to me, even as a kid.

by azriel Wed Feb 05, 2014 2:13 am

Mmmm, yeah ! I used to have bad dreams bout that, I would dream that blacked up guys in those stripey outfits & straw boaters were chasing me everywhere pale

sort of "prisoner" stylee, yeek !