mildconcern.com

It seems like there is a subtle abundance (ignore the oxymoron) of Sherlock Holmes right now: Guy Ritchie’s abomination looks like it’s going to live in Sequel Town for a while longer; there was the terrible idea of a Sacha Baron Cohen film franchise not long ago (that was thankfully dropped); the young adult novels of Young Sherlock Holmes by Andy Lane also show no signs of slowing, and finally, let us not forget the 2010 direct-to-DVD Sherlock Holmes (WHICH HAS A GIGANTIC OCTOPUS AND A T-REX IN IT). It almost feels a shame that the only Sherlock Holmes revival worth any interest to the many is The Beeb’s Sherlock.

Now mid-way through its second series (episode two of three); unlike its other reincarnations I don’t want it to stop. Incidentally, I recently spoke to an American reviewer who was gobsmacked at the idea of Sherlock having ‘only’ three episodes [per “season”]. There lies one of the reasons that the quality of our British television is often far superior to the Yanks’: we Brits don’t like to beat a dead horse. Instead we give you three, focused feature-length episodes of pure modernised brilliance and leave it at that for another year.

Helmed almost entirely by the men that injected Doctor Who into the hearts and minds of today’s generation and starring some fine British talent, it’s hard to argue against the quality of Sherlock. Another attribute to the show’s success is its contemporary modernisation of the beloved classic tales. Renovating the old novels to the level that showrunners Mark Gatiss and Stephen Moffat do, Doyle’s most renowned work becomes relevant to another century; extremely kinetic and an absolute pleasure to watch.

And lest we not forget just how great Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are in their oh-so-suited roles. Before Sherlock they were minor blips on the mainstream consciousness – though both had arguably already enjoyed successful careers, and now they have also attained Hollywood success (amongst other films, both appearing in the upcoming The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as Smaug and Bilbo Baggins respectively).

So what has Sherlock’s second season series brought us then? Well, Mr Holmes was photographed in that famous hat he (allegedly) loves to wear in the books (which he absolutely despises in the show) adding physically to the characters evolution this year; his sexuality is constantly being referenced (as well as numerous droll Holmes/Watson homosexual jokes) and he’s definitely got some of those mad fighting skills that Guy Ritchie loves to show off in slow motion. Amongst other stories, the most recent episode also saw the re-imagining of ‘The Hounds Of Baskerville’, which is arguably one of the most popular of the Sherlock tales. This year, the show has also diverted its plots from aggravating coppers to a more fluid mystery-solving-for-hire show as Watson has begun to blog and Twitter about their cases, bringing in more ‘custom’ to satisfy Holmes’ needs.

The show doesn’t quite get away with zero qualms, however. For example The Daily Mail refused to give the show any slack over making this series more sexy as they evidenced in their article over Lara Pulver appearing naked “a full 25 minutes before 9pm”(!!!), as well as Moriarty’s likeness to Skins’ series one baddie, Mad Twatter PHD becoming a little too scarily WTF-like.

Some will complain, some will see it as genius television-making (and we need something to lift us up after the recent brutalities done to the British film industry) and I for one will be very sad when the doors to 221b Baker Street close for another year after this Sunday’s finale.

You can watch the series two finale this Sunday (Jan 15th) on BBC1 at 9pm and catch up with this series on iPlayer here. Series two will be released on DVD on the 23^rd January.

Related posts:

Consider this a sequel to when I called James Cameron a prick, these Camerons rile me right up. A report is to be released on Monday by Lord Smith reviewing the government’s film policy and David Cameron has spoken out ahead of its release and said the following:

“Our role, and that of the BFI, should be to support the sector in becoming even more dynamic and entrepreneurial, helping UK producers to make commercially successful pictures that rival the quality and impact of the best international productions.”

It is only appropriate to behave like the rest of the internet and focus on one part of what he said and extrapolate this beyond all recognition, making sure to ignore the fact that he was probably only saying what he had been advised to say and that he probably cares very little about what films we make. Cameron has annoyed me in the past so I’m happy to get subjective about this.

Let’s focus on that key phrase “commercially successful pictures” and bring in the fact that the BBC suggest that “Lord Smith is also expected to recommend developing an export strategy to increase the profits of British films”. To rile me up fully let’s hear from Julian Fellowes, screenwriter and contributor to Lord Smith’s report, who says:

“There has been the thinking in the past that public money should only go into films that can’t get any investment anywhere else. When you actually analyse that it means it should only go into films that nobody could conceivably want to see and there’s no logic in that – you want to make a film-friendly, audience-friendly industry.”

All of this suggests to me that too much emphasis is going to be put on the financial viability of a film, rather than the film’s quality, when it comes to deciding whether or not it deserves public funding. Britain has a reputation across the world for making quality films of substance rather than vapid, effects-laden blockbusters and to put this second to profitability is foolish and not really something a politician should be getting involved in. We’re talking about art not policy, and the mere idea of being able to predict a film’s future success is laughable.

I would actually argue against Julian Fellowes and say that the perfect reason for a film to receive public funding is that it is a film worth making, but is at risk of not receiving funding elsewhere. A mainstream British film with broad appeal can presumably find finance elsewhere so doesn’t need the BFI to help coax it to the big screen. Looking back at my Top 20 Films of 2011, eight films on the list are British films and of those only The King’s Speech can really be said to have set the international box office on fire. Other films such as Tyrannosaur, Attack the Block, Submarine and We Need to Talk About Kevin are examples of fine British cinema which showcase our talents without ever finding huge commercial success. I realise that not all of these films received public funding, but it does go to show that our finest productions may not be those bringing in the big money.

Julian Fellowes might not find the finer British fare to be something anybody “could conceivably want to see”, but for me these are the films we should be making and public funding should support this without so much as a sideways glance towards profitability or any other words which lead creatives away from their vision. The BFI has long been celebrating and protecting the history of British cinema and now that it is in charge of its future too, the BFI should not let return on investment get in the way of funding worthwhile projects.

My final point is simply that the highest grossing film of all time is Avatar by my arch nemesis James Cameron. I could not be more proud of the fact that Avatar is not British and hope we can continue to fund films which never use the word “unobtainium”.

Related posts:

Setting aside my love for Felicity Jones and hatred for James Cameron, my life is ruled by two things. These two things are films and data. I’ve dabbled in mixing the two in the past with both accurate and subjective datasets so I couldn’t ignore the fact that Information is Beautiful released a huge dataset yesterday. The dataset covers all Hollywood films released in the past 5 years and includes Box Office, profitability and my favourite metric of all: Rotten Tomato score.

For anyone who hasn’t wandered off to read something more interesting, Information is Beautiful are offering cash prizes for the best visualisations of the data. Sorry, did I say cash prizes? I meant to say:

All details are over at Information is Beautiful so if you have a flair for data and design take a look. Any winners are then of course obliged to take me to dinner and a show.

While I won’t be entering the competition myself (my artistic talents are limited to disturbing pictures of Tom Cruise as Daniel Craig) I will certainly be poking around it and sharing the results.

That’s right, charts are returning to Mild Concern. You lucky sods.

Woody Allen is one of my favourite writers, directors and actors, and yet I have only seen a handful of his films. With every new film he releases Woody Allen is declared to have either returned to form or lost the plot, and yet with a list of 49 films he has either written or directed I can’t be sure when Allen truly peaked as an auteur, what his best work is and whether he’s ever made a film worse than Match Point/Scoop.

To combat this confusion and dire lack of Woody Allen experience I am going to blog my way through every single film Woody Allen has either written or directed in chronological order. As 49 films already sit on this list, and Allen shows no signs of stopping any time soon, this is going to be a long-term endeavour and will most likely take years to complete. With any luck this project will give me an insight into one of cinema’s icons and give me a new specialist category in Mastermind should the need ever arise.

My journey will start with 1965′s What’s New Pussycat, Woody Allen’s first screenplay, and end with whenever he steps out from behind the camera for the last time.

The full list of films, with links to reviews when completed, can be found below: Continue reading »

Related posts:

The Iron Lady
Fact or fiction, this dramatisation of the life of Margaret Thatcher will draw attention simply from the powerful performance by Meryl Streep in the lead role. Whether the director of Mamma Mia can pull off a serious film is yet to be seen. Bonus points for having Anthony Stewart Head (Giles from Buffy) in a prominent role.

Goon
For something a little more lighthearted, Seann William Scott leads the cast in a sports comedy about a bouncer who joins a semi-pro hockey team. Expect blood on the ice and jokes about penises.

Mother and Child (limited release)
Emotions all over the place as big names (Naomi Watts, Samuel L. Jackson and Annette Bening) star in a “drama centered around three women: A 50-year-old woman, the daughter she gave up for adoption 35 years ago, and an African American woman looking to adopt a child of her own.”

Despair (limited release)
Re-release of 70′s drama involving Russians, Nazis and chocolate. A Russian goes insane and plans to disappear with the help of a life insurance policy and a laborer he falsely believes to be his double.

The Artist
Leave me alone, the mere sight of an ad for this film in Euston yesterday was enough to give me a shiver. Today The Artist moves from just one cinema to many more screens across the country. The best film of 2011 will be the most fun you have on the big screen in 2012. Not to be missed, and I’m talking directly to you. Take me with you, I can’t wait to see this again.

Related posts: