Well, the first question must be what inspired you to create 'Watson'?
Well since 2009, Sherlock Holmes appears to have had a resurection in film and television. It all began with Guy Richie's adaption at the end of 2009 and considering what he says on the DVD extras, it is said his production is the most true to the original Arthur Conen Doyle stories. When I did look closer at the original books, it would appear that Richie does get it closer than any other adaption. Looking further, the first book, 'A Study In Scarlet', is certainly a frame narrative, written from Dr. John Watson's view. As a group, we felt that Watson was more important to Holmes adventures than most realised. It was this point that we saw the niche, a story structured around a 'situation' that Watson had no option but to address was what we all wanted to do. Rather than having Holmes cast as the main character, Watson would take that role, hence the birth of 'Watson'.
Use of original text would surely mean a period piece but in the trailer we see a much different form of film don't we?
This is the point raised most, and yes we realise it would of been ideal to do a period piece, as was the original plan. The initial plan was for a traditional Watson with accuratly researched costumes, settings and other elements of mise-en-scene, so common in the industry. As a test, this was actually recorded at a friend's house, yet watching the clips back we came across some problems. It quickly occured to us that use of costume was going to be very expensive and the construction and sourcing of sets incredibly time consuming. We were all sourly disappointed when advised against a period piece, however it was seen as very ambitious at an early stage and I am pleased we made the decision early in the process. However, this did not dampen spirits, greater exploration of the 2009 adaption led us to follow a more contemporary routing. Richie has successfully bought Holmes into the 21st Century and we identified that all that was need was a change of time frame. As a homage to the original plan we have inplanted some original shots that do not detract from the final piece and actually add to the narrative construct in the trailer.
Do you feel you were still too ambitious in attempting a contemporary 'Watson' so early on in your career?
First off, for any budding filmmakers out there, you must realise ambition can lead to great things, but it is very important that your ambition does not detract from what you really want and more importantly what the audience want. Unfortunately, whilst you can measure some of the response during the process, you can only fully gauge the response at the end of the journey. What is also slightly disappointing is that any piece involving Watson and Holmes will always be undoubtedly compared to previous incarnations and as a newcomer to the industry, our piece is admittedly not going to reach standards expected by the mainstream audience and traditional Sherlock Holmes fans. Overall I feel our technical ability was of a significant level and it is only some difficulty with the narrative that has restricted the level successful responses we had hoped for.
How do you feel about the uncertainty of genre classification?
With this piece we felt that the murder/mystery genre should play a role but we also wanted to place a alternate spin on some of the generic conventions of Sherlock Holmes. It is clear that iconography is the dominant narrative function for all adaptions and perhaps we have not fully exploited/identified all of the specific items we should of included. What is clear is the Watson trailer lacks a clear villain, looking back at the 2009 Holmes, the trailer clearly identified the antagonist and we underestimated the importance of this for the audience to identify with. With regards to the genre, there has been some criticism of the inclusion of romance and the 'love triangle' in the production. Whilst Watson does have a fiance in original pieces, it was felt that there was too much of an imputes on romance and not enough on the rough and tumble adventure that Holmes and Watson are known for.
As we see in the trailer, there are many actors/actresses. How and why did you select the people you did?
The script was written with certain actors already in place, particulary Watson and Holmes. Myself and Ross Manson play these roles and the group felt we were perfect for the piece with the main reason being that we have known each other for 8 years, so we are very good friends. Amy Jacob was also cast as Watson's girlfriend/fiance and as revealed in the trailer there is a love triangle element. Here Sherlock Holmes texts' further inform our film and we also portray our own narrative in a complex way. It has always been believed there is a homosexual element between Holmes and Watson. With Watson 'abandoning' his finace for Holmes we were able to portray this in a respectable and mature way whilst also remaining clear to the audience. Also to note is the fact myself and Amy support opposing football teams which is why anger was very easy to portray. It was very difficult to film the 'love scene' though. (laughs)
A question from one of our readers now... With you playing many roles, what did you prefer, director or actor? (smagill221100)
Well that is a tough one but I would have to say the director role was my most enjoyable. I felt I played a key role in producing the script and also finding locations for our many shoots. The best role I had though, was in the editing suite. Here I was able to express exactly what I thought of how Watson should be viewed whilst also recieving excellent input from the rest of the group. The facilities we had access to allowed us to really utilise FX with the software we had and we are all very pleased with the outcome of Watson.
Thank you for your time Jamie, we wish you the best of luck with 'Watson' and we shall all continue to vote on the release date.
No thank you. I hope you enjoy Watson when as you say, our audience have picked their perferred release date. Thank you.
