Skip to main content

New Directions in Sherlock Conference

New Directions in Sherlock UCL

The "New Directions in Sherlock" conference at UCL on 11th March drew a diverse range of academics and fans to discuss the third series of the BBCs contemporary Sherlock Holmes adaptation, and other modern directions of Holmes.

The panels covered a wide range of areas topics and Holmeses (Yes it's a word, I said so) Because it seems that even if you try and discuss just one Sherlock, in this case  the BBC version, the others always creep in. Sherlock or Holmes or whatever you call him (personally I call him Sherly, but only when we're alone) doesn't come without baggage, without over 100 years of legacy. So while we debated where the BBC had taken him, and where he might go next the older Holmes from Arthur Conan Doyle's canonical texts, though Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett up to Robert Downey jnr and as far as the recent Norwegian Sherlock parody. What we saw is Sherlock cannot be boiled down easily to just the study of one tv phenomena.

Close readings of Sherlock were found in panels on Narrative adaptation and theory with analysis from Ann McKellan on Barthesian approaches to adaptation and Sherlock. other panellists looked at writing Sherlock or filmic adaptations with close readings on screenwriting from Bonnie MacBird or character analysis from Rakshita Patel. Fascinating comparisons with Medieval Quest narratives were made.by Amdrea Williams, who showed that production of Sherlock and even fan responses are much older than we may think. Canonical Holmes and his previous adaptations were also featured prominently  Tom Ue considered Holmes' journey from magazine pages, while Joanna Kurcharska looked in detail at Irene Adler's recent journey in adaptations. 

The panels were diverse covering a range of aspects of Sherlock the series and the wider Holmes canon. I got to talk about filming Sherlock and the series 3 "Setlock" movement in which fans followed filming online and I person gathering information about the series, speculating and sharing. This was followed by a paper from Chai Buchmann on tourism and Sherlock alongside Richard Burnip's analysis of Sherlock and other Holmes adaptations, in London. All three generated interesting questions about how we as fans and as human beings want to engage beyond the screen with location and our favourite literary or television characters. Why do we want to follow in the footsteps of Holmes? Why do certain landmarks take on more resonance when associated with fiction? How in the digital age is the relationship between fans filming and location canning? All interesting points to be discussed at length for many more papers.

Fans and engagement were a topic of an afternoon panel as well. With three insights chaired by Bertha Chin,  a part of the team behind the Fan Studies Network(http://fanstudies.wordpress.com/)  In this panel Chiara Codeca explored the world of Sherlock  fan fiction while Elizabeth. Minkel explored what it meant to be a fan girl. The discussions that followed showed the voice of fans at this conference, as did the response to Matt Hills' paper on 'Sherlock series three. Fan service and the subtext of Mystery' the fan voice, particularly when discussing the fan response was a fantastic addition to the conference. Hearing from voices outside academia particularly in this field is vital to keep research and thinking fresh. In hearing from fans and having the engagement of so many passionate fans in the conference was a real strength of the day. I think this and similar conferences and networks are beginning to build bridges and strengthen discussions between fans, academics and those of us who find ourselves I the curious position of being something of both.   

At lunchtimes there was a screening of "His last vow" a great way to focus the audience and remind us in the midst of all the thinking, analysis and maybe arguing, why we were all here. Having a chance to view without commentary or analysis And immerse themselves I the source material actually really enhanced the experience. In watching Sherlock over lunch I felt my kind refocus on what this was about to some extent.

The keynote speech from Ben Poore drew the day to a close in great style. In a lecture entitled "Fighting Paper Dragons? The emergence of Political Ideology in Sherlock series 3" Ben Poore explored the use of Charles Maugnussen I series three as a purveyor or newspapers and evil simultaneously. Asking what the inclusion of a newspaper mogul does the political bias of Sherlock via its use of newspaper headlines, Poore then moved on to some real life headlines and press engagement with Sherlock and its creators. Asking questions about where as a whole, but I particular in political terms Sherlock or its creators were headed which nodded to previous incarnations of Holmes and their political bias as erased do at the time and retrospectively. Drawing, by way of Malcolm Tucker, questions of where things may go next. In a lively Q&A discussion covered everything from politics to Sherlock's character development, morality and the reception of the series in America versus Britain. The keynote by Ben Poore was not only hugely enlightening and interesting but also entertaining and accessible. In short it was the kind of keynote every young academic aspires to someday (I must point out here I'm not implying Ben is an old academic, I do value my life. He is however a talented one and incredibly an engaging speaker as the keynote attested). Poore's interesting subject matter, enthusiastic delivery and engagement with discussion were perfect in tone and topic to close the day.

As discussions carried on over dinner for many of us (and even online once safely back at my hotel) showed that Sherlock and whatever new directions he is heading in leaves us a lot to discuss.  This conference was the tip of the iceberg in terms of analysing Sherlock and his predecessors (and successors?) the balance of fans and academics (and those in between) and the passion with which Holmes is held gives these discussions a life all of their own. Much like Holmes, Sherlock and all his incarnations.

With thanks to Tom Ue for his organisation, Ben Poore for his keynote (and overall support) and the staff at UCL. 

Those interested in the Fan Studies side of this conference may also be interested in the Fan Studies Network conference and call for papers here:




As a little treat, as its Sunday and Im in post-conference hangover mode, heres the Norwegian Sherlock parody mentioned above, to prove we dont take ourselves too seriously. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Theatre Fangirls (here we go again)

There's some arguments that come around and you think 'really? we're still talking about this?' but also you're not really surprised.

So when it was annoucned Tom Hiddleston was teaming up with Kenneth Brannagh for a production of Hamlet, it was inevitable that the cries of  'Silly fangirls' began. Once again we're confronted with comments that girls 'Only want to see it because he's in it' and 'Aren't interested in the play'.

And because I am a woman, therefore incapable of thinking of him other than in terms of his looks....here he above with a cat looking cute.

But just like Mr H there is both petting a cat, reading a newspaper and looking brooding, I'd like to point out that it's entierly possible to be interested in more than one aspect of a thing at the same time. And secondly I say so what the audience is just there to look at his cheekbones?

I don't have a horse in this race. I think Hiddles is a damn good ac…

Why Elliott & Harper is the company I've been waiting for

I can never resist a good (bad) pun in a title. As the first production from Elliott & Harper opens its doors for previews tonight, it’s worth pausing to think what this new production company means and why indeed we need more like it. Something of a ‘power house’ company formed of Marianne Elliott and Chris Harper. Both coming from the National Theatre- as Director and Producer respectively- there’s a real understanding of both the craft of theatre and the audiences that do- and don’t- come to it there. And theatre made by and produced by theatre people, in the commercial realm. That’s potentially very exciting.








Firstly, the act of two theatre people who really love theatre, really understand theatre both from an audience point of view and an artistic point of view. Secondly, one of the UK’s best directors striking out on her own to make theatre on her own terms. Thirdly, and you bet it’s an important factor, a woman artistic director. It’s all exciting, and has the potential, …

Angels at the National (a reflection before the review)

I had to do a Kushner and give this post a long subtitle.

When I called my PhD thesis "Angels at the National" (I write terrible titles I know) I never thought I'd be able to say it again. Of course, the Gods like to have a laugh at my expense so mere months after I bound the copy, Rufus Norris and Marianne Elliot got together and decided that I clearly hadn't had enough to write about. 


But how does it feel to have the thing that has lived in your head for so long, back, brought to life in front of you? As much as I love the plays, I'm also conditioned to be hyper critical. I know every line (I amazed/freaked out Elliot herself with my ability to know exact quotations on demand). And of course, I have my own expectations about how it should be. How then would it feel to go back? 



At the end of Part 1 I found myself leaning on the railings by the Thames, trying to compose myself and my thoughts enough to move. At the end of Part 2, I'm sure I had forgotten how …