The Adventure of Transmedia Sherlock-Part Three

The narration in BBC Sherlock approximates Sherlock Holmes’ mind, unlike the multiple re-incarnations of the character-through adaptation and re-adaptation, over the century. The new generation of spectators draw their pleasure from identifying with Sherlock Holmes directly. As Henry Jenkins predicts,

Audiences, empowered by these new technologies, occupying a space at the intersection between old and new media, are demanding the right to participate within the culture. (Jenkins 2006)

In this series Sherlock Holmes gains an agency over his articulation. He does not have to capitulate to the hero-like status that Watson weaves around him. The series even become discursive of this point which it articulates through Holmes dialogue in the episode The Great Game. When John wonders what the serial bomber is up to, Holmes suggests that he is looking for a distraction. Watson snaps at Holmes for his indifferent attitude, but Holmes insists that caring won’t help solve the case, so he doesn’t waste time on it. He warns Watson not to make him into a hero. Holmes thus being directly communicative remains open to fannish interpretation.

This also distances Watson from the audience. Holmes mental process and deductions are made available to the audience even when it remains unavailable to Watson. Thus information flows directly, without being filtered by narrativistic tendencies of Watson. Instead of awe inspired appreciative understanding, this series address the shift is viewer’s position in the digital era. The new media consumers at the alter of convergence culture is not satisfied with simple passive reception only. As Henry Jenkins puts it,

Transmedia storytelling is the art of world making. To fully experience any fictional world, consumers must assume the role of hunters and gatherers, chasing down bits of the story across media channels, comparing notes with each other via online discussion groups, and collaborating to ensure that everyone who invests time and effort will come away with a richer entertainment experience. (Jenkins 2006)

The fictional world of the series spills over into the digital arena through official transmedia extensions. “Industry insiders use the term "extension" to refer to their efforts to expand the potential markets by moving content across different delivery systems” (Jenkins 2006). In Conan Doyle stories Sherlock Holmes was known to have published his scientific works as monographs which shows again that the canon stories were written in Watson’s version. But these texts did not exist publicly. This series makes those texts available to audience through digital extension. John Watson maintains a blog where he recounts his everyday experience with Sherlock Holmes which is non existent in the body of the text itself. This series therefore gives Holmes directly to the audience by removing Watson’s intervention. Thus the blog that Watson maintains corresponds to the role of Watson in the canon stories. Sherlock also maintains a website as a digital home for his consulting services and for publishing results of his knowledge and discovery. That which was only hinted at in the canon, is being made available to the public by the producers of the series. Through these extensions, particularly, the series provide yet another interface to the fictional world of Sherlock Holmes’s mind.

These additional narrative threads are not essentially non-diegetic and they enrich the story world. For example, in the episode The Great Game, Holmes complains that in John’s blog of their first adventure, A Study in Pink, Watson described him as ignorant in certain areas, and insists he does not need knowledge of astronomy to solve crimes. Again in The Hounds of Baskerville, when Sherlock complains that he is bored now, that he has no case and needs some kind of diversion, he mentions the case of missing rabbit which is posted in his website by a little girl.

The increased emphasis on character’s accessibility can also be realised in the series move of naming the character from Holmes to Sherlock. The whole series is pronounced Sherlock as a more humane presentation of the character. Thus the increased accessibility of Sherlock, along with his character’s re-imagination as contemporary digital being puts in perspective the current debates concerning participatory culture. BBC Sherlock brings together active participants of Holmesian fandom and new community fandom that emerged with the digital age. Hence this series addresses the convergence of different generations and modes of fandom activities.

BBC Sherlock is a transformative text that incorporates the fannish understanding of Sherlock Holmes canon that evolved across media, culture and diverse fan traditions. New millennium Sherlock still uses the standard processes of deduction made famous by Conan Doyle. Along with that he unravels crimes using digital tools as aid to his analysis.

 The homoerotic dimension of the archetypical relationship between Holmes and Watson is explored here. It addresses fanfic’s favourite genre, Slash, which deals with the issue of same sex pairing. Doing so, this series for the first time, comments on the ambiguous nature of Sherlock’s sexuality, which was not dealt with, in the 19th century canon. In Study in Pink, Holmes and Watson walk to a small restaurant overlooking 22 Northumberland Street where the owner, an old “friend” of Holmes, insists on serving him and his “date” a nice free dinner. Watson tries unsuccessfully to explain that he is not Holmes’ date but eats the dinner anyway while Holmes ignores the food and watches the street. Watson profits for the moment to ask some questions on Holmes’ private life. Sherlock states that girlfriends are not really his area and it is fine to be homosexual. Sherlock also mention that he is flattered by Watson’s advances but he is completely committed to his work.

The series also deals with the problem of presenting a rational modern mind in a post-rational, post-modern, post-empirical world. The question of a Victorian source in contemporary context in relation to the issues of identity and representation is also attended to here. In Study in Pink, Holmes asks Watson, if he deduced anything wrong about Watson’s relationship with his drunkard brother whose wife left him. Watson confirms the bad sibling relationship, the divorce and the drinking, but points to just one little error. Harry is short for Harriet and Watson’s brother is in fact his sister whose wife left her.

The Adventure of Transmedia Sherlock-Part Two

Talking about BBC’s Sherlock: while contemporising Sherlock Holmes in the age of informationalization, the series foregrounds the digitized new media expressions. This is infused in this series not only visually, but also into its form. Thus Sherlock Holmes’ famous “brain attic” becomes “digital cloud” memory. The internal perfection and monumental memory that was well respected and prized by 19^th century intellectuals is, in this series, replaced by the ability to navigate through the rapidity of access and networking of knowledge in 21^st century’s digitized platform.

Not only updating characters, the series adapts the digital paradigm in its televisuality as well. Contemporised Sherlock, is thus, necessarily saturated by the presence of digital display. The first encounter with Sherlock Holmes in series took place through text layered on images. These text messages, authored and signed by Sherlock Holmes, give the audience an intimation of his existence.

Not just text  messages, this series, by its technique of layering text over images makes Sherlock Holmes’ thought process perceptible to the audience. The audience can see the event and experience Sherlock’s thoughts about the event simultaneously and directly. For example, in Study in Pink while studying the woman in pink, these texts layered over images guide the audience through Holmes’ thought process even when Watson remains oblivious of it. Holmes approaches the body and notices the message “Rache” scratched by the dying woman’s fingernails. The text layer on image show him translating it first into “Revenge” in German, then completing the word into “Rachel”. He notices the coat and the text states it is wet, even the inside of the collar, but the pocket umbrella is dry. While noticing her jewellery, texts declare they are clean except for the well worn wedding ring which is polished on the inside. Holmes deduction of unhappy marriage for 10+ years and that of serial adulterer from the fact the ring was frequently removed is made known to the audience through text layering even before he explains himself. The police doctor Anderson appears and tries to show off by pointing out that the victim must be German. Holmes closes the door on his nose while browsing on his Smartphone and says that she is not German but from Cardiff and was in town for one night. This he does by a quick search through the current weather report from few kilometres around London.

Arthur Conan Doyle framed Sherlock Holmes’ voice through John Watson’s writing. A reader comes to know about the event and their meaning as they unfold to Dr. Watson’s understanding. Film and television adaptation of Conan Doyle stories provided a chance to witness Sherlock Holmes himself explaining his reasoning and deduction through his own articulation in conversation with Watson. But BBC Sherlock makes Holmes thought process visible through multilayered images and texts. Thus it can be said that for the first time the narrative in this series is structured by Sherlock’s thoughts.

HOW TO RECOGNIZE A PORN MOVIE

How to Recognize a Porn Movie

Here I want to discuss the salient features of a porn movie by which it can be recognised precisely. My theory is based on, but not derived from, an illuminating discussion on the topic by Umberto Eco in his instructive “How to” book of 1995.

 I consider Bengali Neo-Bhadralok cinema to be transgression- social, moral, aesthetic and economical. Eco said, “…for the transgression to work, it must be played out against a background of normality.” Therefore these glimpses of pretend normalcy in these films give away their true pornographic nature.

I'll start with the basics:

v If the actors are looking like Hollywood-wannabe, the film is definitely pornography.

v If the film is taking a long time to get to the point which is like on your face and wasting time with meaningless shots, then it is a pornographic waste of time.

v If the rooms are over furnished with ineffectual things, then the film has a pornographic settings

v If two or more characters in the film talking about their emotions in a dimly lit room, you know what scenes censor has deleted

v If the films talks about social issues as a know-it-all, then you can you know what they know most about

v If the film claims that artistic jabberwocky excuses everything, then it is most certainly pornography. This requires no example, go watch a recent Bengali movie, then bleach your eyes.

Well I could give more examples but that meant re-watching these nonsensical mess-terpieces. Spare me. But anyhow, now you know what is a porn and what is not.

The Adventure of Transmedia Sherlock-Part One

The spin of the millennium saw a spur of Sherlock Holmes screen adaptations in various forms. Chronologically, the first was Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes in 2009. Next was BBC Entertainment’s series Sherlock which was telecast in 2010 and 2011. 2011 saw Guy Ritchie’s second production, Sherlock Holmes: a Game of Shadows. Next in 2012, ABC came up with Elementary, yet another series based on Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock fanart by Becky Dudek

What is both unique and common among these productions are that none of these are adaptation in the strictest sense of the term. The plots in these productions do not follow any Sherlock Holmes stories stringently. But these productions are rather in conversation with Conan Doyle’s canon of Sherlock Holmes stories.

While Guy Ritchie’s films try to remain true to the time and environment created by Conan Doyle, the television versions try to locate the canon in contemporary time. However, while being true to the canon universe, Guy Ritchie’s films remains critical about the characterisation in the canon. In this sense it is comparable to Granpa TV’s Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, where Jeremy Brett played the title role.  Jeremy Brett changed the imagination of Sherlock Holmes- from a polite, Victorian, reticent character of the Rathbone series to an energetic, neurotic genius. Guy Ritchie’s characterisation of Sherlock takes a step further in that direction. The entire range of characters has been thoroughly re-imagined. Robert Downey, Jr. as Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law as John Watson blend aptly with this new imagination.

These films try to look at the 19th Century story-world with an insufficient understanding. Thus the inadequacies found in the old style judged by 21st Century standards are compensated by incorporating modern sense of genre stylistics in these films, with the result that we perceive a melange of detective tropes, spy genre, buddy film genres in those films.

To convincingly re-establish Victorian Modernity in the story-world, these films over-assert themselves. In the first film, the supernatural, which is destined to crash and burn under the rapid aggression of modernity, is shown in excess to draw attention to infallible rationality. The second film plunges the canon detective genre into spy genre hinting towards a world war. This bring to question the motive of those films –whether it is trying to create a pastiche of the canon or attempting to render the earlier genre inadequate.

As for Elementary, the newest attempt at modernising Sherlock Holmes, places him in the contemporary New York. In this series, Sherlock Holmes is a recovering addict in care of Dr. Joan Watson. This is a truly American version of Sherlock Holmes. This series limits the homoerotic subtext between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson blatantly. Dr. Watson here is rendered a female character played by Lucy Liu.

Among these BBC Sherlock remains a exceptional take on Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes canon. Although the series contemporises Conan Doyle’s characters by placing them in present day London, it is by the similarities with the canon that marks the series unique. The re-envision of Sherlock Holmes’ character is more of an updating than modernising.  Sherlock Holmes was an exceptionally modern and rational character even for his time. He was also in touch with popular culture of date. He applied state-of-the-art scientific methods through advanced discoveries and innovations. Likewise Sherlock Holmes in this series integrates with this age, even the digital dimension of it. The series thus attempts to balance the 19th Century Victorian context with 21st Century postmodern conditions in updating its character and plot to address the demands of time.

Reha Erdem

I got introduced to Reha Erdem in 19th Kolkata International Film Festival. To tell you the truth I usually feel apprehensive about watching new films in the Film Festivals. Anything post 70s is new for me and “World Cinema” as a category is not that appealing. So I don't know what drew me to Reha Erdem’s films. May be because it was Turkey or maybe I did not have a better choice (at least I felt so at that time.)

So on 13 November 2014, a Wednesday, I went to see My Only Sunshine or Hayat Var in Nandan III hall. I did not know then how this film was going to affect me, I did not know, how this film will change my perception. But before I come to that a bit about the film has to be told.

Hayat Var is a story of survival of a teenage girl in unusual circumstance. Everything that goes on around Hayat seems to her as if it is happening to her. As a teenager, she does not always comprehend the full extent of the things that she is going through. But as a girl she has the instinct to rise up like a phoenix from the most detrimental of situations. Like a teenager she feels that nobody understand her, but like a girl, she recognises her sexuality and how to weaponize it. Hayat leaves her childhood in this film to attain an independent self. She meets a stranger and they rescue each other from lifetime of concern.

How simple can a narrative be that not only describes the mental space of a teenager but also of a girl. Hayat lived in a riverside shack near the beautiful waters of the Bosphorus. The waves of her life, combined with the waves of water around her. gave a swaying rhythm to the film. Like the high and ebb tide, events in Hayat’s life flow back and forth in succession. Repeated incidents of everyday life happen regularly but never the same way twice. With every confrontation Hayat grows up a bit, each time.

The film ended with no definite solution or hope fulfilment but with the sense that Hayat’s story continues as the waters of the Bosphorus keeps flowing.

I did not know anything about Reha Erdem as I went to see his film. But by the end of the film, I was sure that Reha Erdem must be a woman. How can she not be? I was thoroughly surprised to know that he was a man. Then I learnt Reha Erdem has graduated from Cinema Department of Paris 8 University. He obtained his M.A. in Plastic Arts at the same university. So I said to myself, “Thank God the French exists.” 

"A film by Quentin Tarantino"

Five words that gets me, everytime.

61st National Film Awards: Why not Miss Lovely?

Today this question is asked quite a number of times. They have come up with a lot of possible solutions corruption among jury member, insider lobby, a better competition. (May be not the last one.) 
But what I want to know is Why should Miss Lovely win the best film anyway? I'm not saying that Jury members are the most honest ever or that the insider lobby does not matter... But why should Miss Lovely succeed anyway? on what merit?
Camerawork is irrelevant to the linear timeline that is followed in the film or the blatant collapse of the sound-image equilibrium or the failing to evoke Bombay's 1980. But as I said before, I'll not elaborate on technicalities. For that you have to follow my blog on academia.edu as Cinema is also andragogy. Here I will talk about my opinion.

So why Miss Lovely?
this question gives rise to a lot of other questions like:

• Why is Vicky a bad guy?
• Why should we identify with Sonu?
• Why should we sympathise with Pinky?
• Why should Vicky be killed?

Answer to all these questions are wrapped up in the unspoken ideology of the film which says: making a lovestory is better than making a porn movie. (Didn't you see that coming?)

Vicky is a bad guy not because of the way he treats women, the way he handles money and success, how he gets money for his endeavours. He is a bad guy cause he makes, loves making and standing by his choice of making pornography.
In contrast Sonu is a better guy just by the virtue of his aspirations to make love story as differentiated from pornography. He is a constant companion to his brother Vicky's every misdeed. But he remains protected in the film as spectators sweetheart as he aims to be free from this amoral activities. His sins remains a means to an end, while Vicky remains unpardonable.
Pinky, a former porn star, present prostitute and aspiring heroine in Sonu's love-story film is apparently not out of director's favours. She remains surrounded by this mystical cloud of self-righteousness (even camera looks at her differently than the rest of the lesser mortals) Pinky may have been a pornstar but she has left it. Pinky may be a prostitute but that is just to sustain herself. Pinky is not defined by that. She is defined by the fact that she wanted to be a heroine in a love story and not a porn star.

The director himself does not sympathise with the seedy world of the 1980s Bombay porn industry. So his film makes the spectator hate it. He highlights this low-life underbellies of the society just to minimize their quiddity. He exposes them only to humiliate them. He makes you take the holier-than-thou stand point in the whole narrative.

Therefore next time I'm asked the question,

Why not Miss Lovely? 

I'm going to answer with- 

Why Miss Lovely?

#TakeOne q.AM: It is real.

Yesterday as people were criticizing my criticism of Mainak's Take One, among other contest raised, was one about confusing real with representation. Well I was not confused but today's newspaper article shows that the director, rather the whole unit is. Excerpts from the interview published today.

• Anwesha: Mom is anyway like Doel! It didn’t really make a difference seeing her howling and crying. I see her every day like that. Mom came back home one day and went inside the bathroom and was there for endless hours. I knocked on the door and asked ‘Mom, what are you doing’ and she said ‘I'm coming out’, in a very dull voice. So while shooting for the movie I was like, ‘this is her’.
• Swastika: And also about the men in Doel’s and my life who have always three-timed, not even two-timed!
• Swastika: ...Mainak knows me personally, he knows me totally. So I think he could connect me with Doel Mitra. He was sure that I would add a lot of things.
• Mainak: She is being diplomatic, I stole! I stole from her life. I have a habit of stealing from people’s lives, here I stole way too much. I could have picked a Tamil film like a lot of other people do, I chose to pick her life. And I even stole her daughter!

Justing their lifestyle- Isn't the film Take One is all about?

Here is the full interview.

Mainak Bhaumik's "Take One" :Beware, dissatisfaction guaranteed !!!

If you give an image search of "Take One Bengali movie" on google these are the first two images that appear.

What do we see in these pictures? Blurry make out scene? So does the film "Take One" belong to the "Ragini SMS" genre? the answer is no. It has something to do with women's liberation, society's narrow perception of women's position in the society and Blah blah boo hoo...the whole works. 

Do you think these images convey that message? Or they convey a completely different message, a message that went viral over the internet having versions of the title, "Swastika Mukherjee shoots nude scenes for Bengali film Take One".

The snaps and the line of promotion does plead that come to watch our film because we have your hot heroine in nude. It does not showcase the 'message' of women's liberation on the face of it.(not that I support turning a film into a message board) Does it? 

Let's plead innocence of the direction. May be he did not try to spread sensation or may be he did not know what kind of vibes these shooting stills are gonna send out. That does not say much about the director's ability to understand his time but nonetheless lets just consider this.

So judging by the released shooting stills and the newly released posters, the philosophy behind the film cinema can be deduced. 

Woman trounced is woman nude in ropes.

Woman liberated is woman nude and making out.

Simple enough. The key word here is nude. Women's story can not be told without stripping her.

But sadly its not the director's philosophy. He is intentionally taking this line of promotion. By  exposing  and objectifying woman's body (which the film blames the society of doing) director simply wants to sell his film. 

This film is more dangerous because the film gives you the mask of Cinema-intellectual to hide behind while you are actually going in for just enjoying a hot makeout scene.

Sorry to say, even that would not satisfy you. Believe me when I say, there are no hot make out scene in this film 'Take one'. What you will see is a very sloppy attempt at a sexual scene which is neither sensual or erotic, not by the virtue of demystification but just simply due to bad filmmaking.

So it will again be one of those impotent attempts of incapable Mainak Bhaumik.

For almost all Johnny Depp avatar the is an equal and opposite Helena Bonham Carter avatar. Its science.

Transformation from an amazing actor to an immemorable character.

Today I had the misfortune of watching Goynar Baksho.

If  any of you are interested to know how to make a progressive literary text into a regressive conformist film, try watching Goynar Baksho. Aparna Sen has done her magic again. She has taken an extraordinary story and turned it into a trash can for all she has learnt that year. Watching the film is like talking to a typical 'dumb  blonde' who has just memorised one volume of encyclopedia. If that is an example of socially aware art film, then give me commercial trash anyday.

Well I am more perturbed because Goynar Baksho is one of my favourite Bengali novels of all time. I have several choicest words to describe Sen's endeavours but those are rude. So I'm just gonna point out some points that drives me bonkers:

• Why Moushumi Chatterjee? Did Sen thing MC would be a comic relief. Was the the role of pishima supposed to be comical. Was she thinking that she is adopting an Enid Blyton story?
  
  
• Why did she get whole aspect of "Muktijuddho" into is? In this film, she was neither able to show any liberated woman character nor any liberated Bangladeshi Character.
  
  
• A daughter from a Zamindar family hopes to marry a servant's son- does this plot sound new, liberating or promising in anyway? If not, do not watch the film.
  
  
• Let's not talk about Kankana's casting. Each one of have our crosses to bear, she has a mother in form of a mediocre  actress and worse filmmaker.
  
  

I can go on but the only thing I'm ending up doing is irritating myself more. At the end of the day,

People talking without speaking,

People hearing without listening.

Glimpses of Kill Bill : Behind the scene

Leonardo di Caprio: Growing up.

Most of you know Hitchcock. Many of you watch his films on a regular basis. Some of you love the film this clip is made of. But can any of you tell me how many cuts are there in this sequence?

Guilty Pleasure

You know when you are watching a film but actually genuinely watching one particular actor. Moreover, you are not watching him or her as the supposed role in the film but as a star persona he or she is to you. Well, I admit I'm guilty of that.
Even knowing about the camera tricks, the stunt double, the green screen...nothing seems to matter when you see your favourite actor doing amazing things on the screen. Thats suspension of disbelieve for you.
This happens to me a lot of times. I'll catalogue them from time to time. One that comes to my mind, off hand (not so) is Orlando Bloom is LOTR.

Dressed up in elves costume, he does not only look handsome and sexy but also vulnerable and sensitive. A warrior with a golden heart. Prancing about with choreographed movements, flipping his platinum blonde hair ... Oh! that just gets me going. His arrows never miss, he never fails to be non empathetic. And all these for me does not stand for Legolas, but all these come from the star persona of Orlando Bloom, that I've created in my mind palace.

  

The Fav Fives...

These are like earth, water, fire, air and heart for me. All my desires, dreams and aspirations somehow have like to to these five. Together they make my believable fantastic bubble that protect me from reality. I am immensely grateful. I shall never forget.