"Sherlock Holmes" *** (out of ****)In my review for "The Sheik" (1921) with Rudolph Valentino, I mention how Valentino was actually not my favorite of the male silent screen stars. I thought there were far better actors around, I said John Barrymore was probably the greatest of the silent era. Because of that I decided to review this version of "Sherlock Holmes" (1922).
True classic movie fans should be rejoicing. "Sherlock Holmes" was at one time thought to be lost. I believe some public domain print floated around for some time, but a large population of movie fans have never seen the film. Thanks to Kino, last month, for the first time, "Sherlock Holmes" has been put on DVD, fully remastered from the George Eastman collection. It was part of a four DVD set called "The John Barrymore Collection", which focused on Barrymore's silent film performances.
The other films in the collection were available on DVD previously, if not by Kino than other labels. That is why I was eager to review "Sherlock Holmes" first over the other titles, despite the fact that this film is not particularly good.
Most, if not all, movie buffs, probably know Basil Rathbone for playing Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle's famed sleuth. Rathbone first played the character in "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1939) and played the character 12 more times. The final film in the series was "Dressed to Kill" (1946).
Viewers only familiar with those films may not be pleased with this adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. This film follows the stage play by William Gillette which was based on the novel. Here Holmes (played by Barrymore) is not the sleuth we have come to know. He is only beginning. When we first meet him he is a recent college graduate who hasn't decided what he wants to do with his life. He says he is interested in the "complexities of life". Solving crime seems to be furthest from his mind. What is love seems to be his most probing question.
The set-up for the film is somehow both dull and complex. Don't ask me how this happened. A young Prince, Alexis (Reginald Denny) is third in line for the throne. He plays to marry a commoner, Rose Faulkner (Peggy Bayfield). But he is later accused of stealing money, I believe from the evil Prof. Moriarity (Gustav von Seyffertitz). This will cause a huge international scandal. The prince claims to be innocent, so his roommate at Cambridge University, a young Dr. Watson (Roland Young, making his film debut) suggest that a classmate of his help out, Sherlock Holmes.
Holmes immediately figures out who planted the money on the prince. A man who works for Moriarity, but wanted out of his gang of criminals, Foreman Wells (William Powell, also his film debut). Wells figured he could plant the evidence on the prince, and because of his influence the situation would be swept away. But that is not the case.
Eventually Prince Alexis discovers that his two brothers have died in a car accident, now he must return home to inherit the throne. As a result his marriage to Rose Faulkner can never be. This drives Rose to kill herself, or was she murdered by Moriarity's gang? See, Moriarity wants to get his hand on some love letters the two wrote to each other and use it to black mail the prince.
This immediately sets up one of the problems with the film. What I have just described has taken place over the course of years. But "Sherlock Holmes" doesn't make that clear. This may be due to the fact that footage is still missing. The structure of the story seems too jumbled.
By this time Holmes has devoted his life to capturing Moriarity. Believing that these letters will finally lead him to connecting Moriarity not only to this crime but others he agrees to the case. This will also give him the opportunity to meet with Rose's sister, Alice (Carol Dempster), whom Holmes meet before and fell in love with at first sight.
"Sherlock Holmes" doesn't do a very good job of creating tension and suspense. The film was directed by Albert Parker, not a filmmaker I am terrible familiar with. He did direct another legend of the silent screen, Douglas Fairbanks in "The Black Pirate" (1926), considered one of Fairbanks best pictures. But here Parker is unable to give the film a proper tone. Events drag along. The viewer doesn't really feel they are part of a great mystery.
Sadly the performances aren't much better either. This is the first time I'm discussing John Barrymore, though I did review "Grand Hotel" (1932), the Oscar winning ensemble drama. This is the first time I'm reviewing an actually John Barrymore vehicle. So I wish it was a better movie and I could tell you, when you watch this you'll see Barrymore at the top of his game. Not so. We see glimpses of his brilliance. Supposedly, and this may all just be Hollywood gossip, Barrymore was drunk during shooting. It is no surprise that he was a heavy drinker, W.C. Fields was one of his drinking buddies. So, if that story is true, it would explain a lot. There are moments when you sense Barrymore is walking through the picture.
The female lead, Carol Dempster, whom I reviewed recently in the D.W. Griffith comedy "Sally of the Sawdust" (1925) with W.C. Fields, isn't much of an actress. In "Sally" I said she was trying too hard to be funny, making silly faces and such. Here she doesn't do enough to be dramatic. The poor girl could never find the right balance for a performance. It was either too little or too much. She never did become a major star. Did you ever hear of her? I rest my case.
It is however fun to see Roland Young and William Powell in their first performances. And famed gossip columnist Hedda Hopper has a role in the film. She started out as an actress.
Young was a decent choice for Dr. Watson. Though it is difficult for me to see anyone else besides Nigel Bruce play the role. I wonder how Young would have been in sound version of the film. He had such a terrific acting voice. Here though he isn't the lovable timid character actor we know him as in "Topper" (1937) or Ernst Lubitsch's "One Hour With You" (1932). He is rather stiff here. Probably because this was his first performance.
William Powell would of course have a long career in the detective genre. First playing Philo Vance and then greater fame as Nick Charles in "The Thin Man" (1934) and all its sequels. Here he is Holmes true partner. Wearing various disguises to find the whereabouts of Alice and the letters. At one point he even plays a butler. Of course he played another butler in the classic screwball comedy "My Man Godfrey" (1936). I thought he was more at ease in front of the camera. Too bad the part wasn't bigger.
If this is the first John Barrymore film you see, don't judge the man on this one performance. He was widely considered the finest Shakespearean actor of his generation. He was an acting powerhouse from a family of acting powerhouses. His brother was Lionel Barrymore and his sister Ethel. Each of them won Oscars; Lionel for "A Free Soul" (1931), a film I don't like as much as others. And Ethel for "None But the Lonely" (1944). Amazingly it was John who never won an Oscar. In fact, he wasn't even nominated for one. And to this day I believe was never given an honorary one either. And people wonder why I feel the Academy has no class!
Barrymore actually first started out in comedies. A friend suggested that he try drama. One of his first major roles was in "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" (1920), considered one of the first American horror films, though D.W. Griffith beat them by a few years with his adaptation of an Edgar Allan Poe story. Though he did go back to comedy later in the sound era. See him in the wonderful Howard Hawks comedy "20th Century" (1934).
A bio-pic was made about his life, when he was still alive, he even acted in the film (!), "The Great Profile" (1940), which was his nickname. He usually wanted to be shot from a certain side of his face.
While I admit there is more wrong with "Sherlock Holmes" than there should be, I'm still recommending the film. It should be seen by movie lovers. And does make a good curiosity piece for Barrymore fans and it is fun to see Young and Powell in their first roles. This is not great cinema but it has moments which are pleasurable and we can see some craft.
Parker was not a great director. He doesn't move his camera at all, doesn't get close-ups for dramatic effect. He does nothing innovative with this film. I would imagine watching this would make you appreciate what men like Griffith were doing. And how advance his films were over the others.
But I'm glad "Sherlock Holmes" is on DVD and can be viewed by a larger audience. I don't know how many of us silent film fans are around anymore or John Barrymore fans either. But they will want to see this.
I'd also like to make a quick comment about the musical score. It was done by Ben Model, who plays solo organ. The score is terrible. This film deserved a full orchestra score. It may have helped create a better mood. In silent films I find the music is very important. Sometimes it can make the difference between whether or not I ultimately like a movie.
Posts
