Greetings fellow filmmakers.
I haven't posted anything here in a while, but I felt compelled to share some thoughts on what appears to be a self-funded independent Sherlock Holmes film, and one which is one of the poorer productions I have yet seen: Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers. A production which was only uploaded in September of last year, has only had comments since 6 months ago, and yet has received a surprising amount of views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0oaMxvfyiI
I am currently on what can be described as a Sherlock Holmes binge. I've not only been enjoying the newer BBC series Sherlock thoroughly, but I've also been watching the 90s Granada series with great interest, and have recently purchased The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, and A Study in Terror: all of which I find to be intriguing pieces of film and greatly favorable adaptations of the Holmes character.
But of course, despite the many qualified versions, there are a few random examples of bad form. The Roger Moore version, Sherlock Holmes in New York. The Charlton Heston version, The Crucifer of Blood. And Sherlock Holmes: Case of Evil, which, to be perfectly frank, looks horrendous.
So then I came upon this adaptation, an adaptation far more removed from mainstream cinema than I thought existed. An independent production with such a lack of quality and cinematic intent, it boggles the mind as to how it arrived at this state.
I apologize for my peculiar turn of phrase. Watching a lot of Sherlock Holmes can do that to you. But the point is this, I'm curious to see what you all think of this production, simply to serve as a point of discussion on what is good and what is bad about it. Granted, I cannot be sure if any of its filmmakers or actors may be present among you here on this forum, and if so, I extend my invitation to you as well to offer your first hand accounts of the film in question. But whatever the case, here are my initial thoughts on Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers.
I am finding it increasingly apparent that anyone who has had no formal training in filmmaking or has no strong basis upon which to build their own "style" of filmmaking, tends to do very odd but ubiquitous things: many of which this film presents in droves.
A. There is a severe lack of establishing shots to show where we are and what the current surroundings look like.
B. Equally there is a severe lack of Full-shots to allow for the entirety of any character's body to be seen: which will cause any film to feel rather claustrophobic, as if the camera is unable to move back any farther, or the lens kit being used does not come with something wider than a 35mm.
C. Close-up shots are used far too often and are poorly composed. The head in frame is either too far to the right, too far to the left, or too far up or down rather than at the optimum position to compliment whatever objects may be in the background.
D. Over-the-shoulder shots are handled inappropriately by not placing the foreground character(s) in a position equally opposite the other person(s) or object(s) in frame. One shot in particular shows Sherlock in the foreground, playing furiously on his violin, with Watson just off to the right. But there's a big gap on the left side of frame which should be occupied by Sherlock, giving Watson more room. After which the camera should then pan slightly left to accommodate Watson when he goes to the door to bring in Inspector Lestrade. But panning the camera never even occurred to the filmmakers. Instead, they simply left the shot locked down, resulting in terrible framing that looks like the entire shot is just waiting to be framed up properly for what is to come at the tail end of it.
E. Digital zooms are used regularly to compensate for too many static shots, or analogue zooms which were unable to be captured while shooting the initial footage.
F. Oddly framed cut-aways are used to show what characters are looking at rather than capturing the object of interest in the same shots as the actors, which would have shown spacial relations, character reactions, and proper context for what we are all intended to be looking at. This therefore shows a lack in pre-planning of the shot-list, and/or a deeper lack of cinematic language and style.
G. The reason so many shots are locked down is likely due to a lack of a dolly of any sort, which in many cases is an invaluable piece of equipment to add a sense of pace and forward movement not only to scenes where characters are actually walking, but to show movement in the plot itself: a sort of subconscious indicator. Having "enough" tracking, panning, or trucking shots also alleviates a lot of the monotony and stillness that a film would otherwise have if it was made up entirely of static shots where the characters also refuse to move much. If the characters did move around more in much wider shots here, then the additional lack of camera movement would be much less felt.
Beyond these striking problems there is also the matter of lighting, which is some of the worst I have experienced. Not only is it unbearably dark, but it is tinged in an odd yellow color, indicative of the type of lights they must have used on set. It's hard to tell exactly how this was filmed, as the footage seems to shift frame-rates from shot to shot, and could have been captured on a relatively good camera, but was clearly then transferred to a form of analogue media, hence the poor resolution and visible tracking line at the bottom of the screen. Though whatever media they must have used, it's unlikely it would have been film, as film has a distinctive purple or blue tinge to it when it's exposed too dark, which would not have resulted in this appearance. This means that they likely used a camcorder of some kind, perhaps commencing filming around the mid-2000s from the looks of it, and as such would have had a view-finder on the camera with which to see what the footage looked like, unless it was one of the earlier black and white view-finders.
So for the life of me, I can't understand how someone setting out to make a full-length film could have been okay with footage that looked this way throughout the production, especially in scenes taking place at dusk, or in much darker spaces. They could have brought in any number of other light sources to balance out the footage, a piece of foam board perhaps for a bounce? But no, nothing was done other than turning on some sort of halogen wall lamp or some such thing, giving a good portion of the picture this grimy color. Of course what is clear from other shots in the film is that the filmmakers did get some better lights and lighting knowledge at some point, as a shot involving Doctor Watson looking at a corpse at a morgue is far better lit than any other scene surrounding it, suggesting it may have been a pick-up shot with a far better set of equipment on hand. Why they weren't able to shoot the whole film that way, I cannot say.
As a few commentors on the Youtube upload have pointed out, the two points upon which I can make a positive comment are the costumes and the set-dressings for Baker Street in particular. They are passable at worst, and better than expected for a local theatrical production at best. The hair and makeup could do with some historical reference, however. And the location choices were not the most appropriate either. Even if they couldn't get time-period accurate locales, they could at least have tried for something a bit more peculiar or eclectic to match the grandeur of a Victorian English setting. But I wouldn't be very fair if I didn't add that I can fully understand not being able to find such locations just any old place. And traveling too long a distance to shoot may have been out of the question for this crew.
I don't wish to go into the acting in great detail, as that is not primarily my focus here, but it isn't the best either, which should be obvious.
There's a very particular way of acting that has to go along with a Sherlock portrayal. A way of walking, a way of carrying one's self, a certain way of speaking with all-knowing authority that not only shows contempt for the stupid or ignorant as well as a deeply rooted and powerful ego, but authority which also forces others to instantly respect and admire Holmes who otherwise would not do so easily were he another man. It's a unique balance to reach. It's a performance that typically commands a militaristic mindset and can present an intimidating presence depending on the actor's face and the actor's manner. But it's also a performance which, like Doctor Who, can be played many different ways with varying degrees of well-groomed class, camp, or manic nature. In this way I personally think that both Benedict Cumberbatch and Jeremy Brett take the cake for best Sherlocks, but Peter Cushing and Robert Stevens both follow in 2nd place as charming alternatives. This Sherlock, however, does not exhibit the traits of either of these other men, and thus falls rather flat on making me believe in what he is or what he says. And the other actors equally fail in this regard for their own characters' legacies and predecessors.
Ultimately, the chief point I wish to make is that while I don't begrudge people for pursuing feature-length projects such as this, I wish far more indie filmmakers at this level showed more interest and zeal in wanting to achieve a "good-looking" film perhaps more-so than a well-written or well-acted one. Far too many self-published feature-films end up this way, including some of the works I've seen on this forum; and it's hard for me to say whether this is for a lack of awareness of one's own short-comings, or simply a lack of referential material from which to draw inspiration, while also having an over-abundance of impatience and drive to make a film now rather than after some personal study and experimentation. Plenty of first-time filmmakers are capable of making beautiful stuff. It's simply a mystery to me what exactly allows some to shoot great footage from the start, while others get this result.
Any thoughts?
I haven't posted anything here in a while, but I felt compelled to share some thoughts on what appears to be a self-funded independent Sherlock Holmes film, and one which is one of the poorer productions I have yet seen: Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers. A production which was only uploaded in September of last year, has only had comments since 6 months ago, and yet has received a surprising amount of views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0oaMxvfyiI
I am currently on what can be described as a Sherlock Holmes binge. I've not only been enjoying the newer BBC series Sherlock thoroughly, but I've also been watching the 90s Granada series with great interest, and have recently purchased The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, and A Study in Terror: all of which I find to be intriguing pieces of film and greatly favorable adaptations of the Holmes character.
But of course, despite the many qualified versions, there are a few random examples of bad form. The Roger Moore version, Sherlock Holmes in New York. The Charlton Heston version, The Crucifer of Blood. And Sherlock Holmes: Case of Evil, which, to be perfectly frank, looks horrendous.
So then I came upon this adaptation, an adaptation far more removed from mainstream cinema than I thought existed. An independent production with such a lack of quality and cinematic intent, it boggles the mind as to how it arrived at this state.
I apologize for my peculiar turn of phrase. Watching a lot of Sherlock Holmes can do that to you. But the point is this, I'm curious to see what you all think of this production, simply to serve as a point of discussion on what is good and what is bad about it. Granted, I cannot be sure if any of its filmmakers or actors may be present among you here on this forum, and if so, I extend my invitation to you as well to offer your first hand accounts of the film in question. But whatever the case, here are my initial thoughts on Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers.
I am finding it increasingly apparent that anyone who has had no formal training in filmmaking or has no strong basis upon which to build their own "style" of filmmaking, tends to do very odd but ubiquitous things: many of which this film presents in droves.
A. There is a severe lack of establishing shots to show where we are and what the current surroundings look like.
B. Equally there is a severe lack of Full-shots to allow for the entirety of any character's body to be seen: which will cause any film to feel rather claustrophobic, as if the camera is unable to move back any farther, or the lens kit being used does not come with something wider than a 35mm.
C. Close-up shots are used far too often and are poorly composed. The head in frame is either too far to the right, too far to the left, or too far up or down rather than at the optimum position to compliment whatever objects may be in the background.
D. Over-the-shoulder shots are handled inappropriately by not placing the foreground character(s) in a position equally opposite the other person(s) or object(s) in frame. One shot in particular shows Sherlock in the foreground, playing furiously on his violin, with Watson just off to the right. But there's a big gap on the left side of frame which should be occupied by Sherlock, giving Watson more room. After which the camera should then pan slightly left to accommodate Watson when he goes to the door to bring in Inspector Lestrade. But panning the camera never even occurred to the filmmakers. Instead, they simply left the shot locked down, resulting in terrible framing that looks like the entire shot is just waiting to be framed up properly for what is to come at the tail end of it.
E. Digital zooms are used regularly to compensate for too many static shots, or analogue zooms which were unable to be captured while shooting the initial footage.
F. Oddly framed cut-aways are used to show what characters are looking at rather than capturing the object of interest in the same shots as the actors, which would have shown spacial relations, character reactions, and proper context for what we are all intended to be looking at. This therefore shows a lack in pre-planning of the shot-list, and/or a deeper lack of cinematic language and style.
G. The reason so many shots are locked down is likely due to a lack of a dolly of any sort, which in many cases is an invaluable piece of equipment to add a sense of pace and forward movement not only to scenes where characters are actually walking, but to show movement in the plot itself: a sort of subconscious indicator. Having "enough" tracking, panning, or trucking shots also alleviates a lot of the monotony and stillness that a film would otherwise have if it was made up entirely of static shots where the characters also refuse to move much. If the characters did move around more in much wider shots here, then the additional lack of camera movement would be much less felt.
Beyond these striking problems there is also the matter of lighting, which is some of the worst I have experienced. Not only is it unbearably dark, but it is tinged in an odd yellow color, indicative of the type of lights they must have used on set. It's hard to tell exactly how this was filmed, as the footage seems to shift frame-rates from shot to shot, and could have been captured on a relatively good camera, but was clearly then transferred to a form of analogue media, hence the poor resolution and visible tracking line at the bottom of the screen. Though whatever media they must have used, it's unlikely it would have been film, as film has a distinctive purple or blue tinge to it when it's exposed too dark, which would not have resulted in this appearance. This means that they likely used a camcorder of some kind, perhaps commencing filming around the mid-2000s from the looks of it, and as such would have had a view-finder on the camera with which to see what the footage looked like, unless it was one of the earlier black and white view-finders.
So for the life of me, I can't understand how someone setting out to make a full-length film could have been okay with footage that looked this way throughout the production, especially in scenes taking place at dusk, or in much darker spaces. They could have brought in any number of other light sources to balance out the footage, a piece of foam board perhaps for a bounce? But no, nothing was done other than turning on some sort of halogen wall lamp or some such thing, giving a good portion of the picture this grimy color. Of course what is clear from other shots in the film is that the filmmakers did get some better lights and lighting knowledge at some point, as a shot involving Doctor Watson looking at a corpse at a morgue is far better lit than any other scene surrounding it, suggesting it may have been a pick-up shot with a far better set of equipment on hand. Why they weren't able to shoot the whole film that way, I cannot say.
As a few commentors on the Youtube upload have pointed out, the two points upon which I can make a positive comment are the costumes and the set-dressings for Baker Street in particular. They are passable at worst, and better than expected for a local theatrical production at best. The hair and makeup could do with some historical reference, however. And the location choices were not the most appropriate either. Even if they couldn't get time-period accurate locales, they could at least have tried for something a bit more peculiar or eclectic to match the grandeur of a Victorian English setting. But I wouldn't be very fair if I didn't add that I can fully understand not being able to find such locations just any old place. And traveling too long a distance to shoot may have been out of the question for this crew.
I don't wish to go into the acting in great detail, as that is not primarily my focus here, but it isn't the best either, which should be obvious.
There's a very particular way of acting that has to go along with a Sherlock portrayal. A way of walking, a way of carrying one's self, a certain way of speaking with all-knowing authority that not only shows contempt for the stupid or ignorant as well as a deeply rooted and powerful ego, but authority which also forces others to instantly respect and admire Holmes who otherwise would not do so easily were he another man. It's a unique balance to reach. It's a performance that typically commands a militaristic mindset and can present an intimidating presence depending on the actor's face and the actor's manner. But it's also a performance which, like Doctor Who, can be played many different ways with varying degrees of well-groomed class, camp, or manic nature. In this way I personally think that both Benedict Cumberbatch and Jeremy Brett take the cake for best Sherlocks, but Peter Cushing and Robert Stevens both follow in 2nd place as charming alternatives. This Sherlock, however, does not exhibit the traits of either of these other men, and thus falls rather flat on making me believe in what he is or what he says. And the other actors equally fail in this regard for their own characters' legacies and predecessors.
Ultimately, the chief point I wish to make is that while I don't begrudge people for pursuing feature-length projects such as this, I wish far more indie filmmakers at this level showed more interest and zeal in wanting to achieve a "good-looking" film perhaps more-so than a well-written or well-acted one. Far too many self-published feature-films end up this way, including some of the works I've seen on this forum; and it's hard for me to say whether this is for a lack of awareness of one's own short-comings, or simply a lack of referential material from which to draw inspiration, while also having an over-abundance of impatience and drive to make a film now rather than after some personal study and experimentation. Plenty of first-time filmmakers are capable of making beautiful stuff. It's simply a mystery to me what exactly allows some to shoot great footage from the start, while others get this result.
Any thoughts?
Last edited: