Originally posted to Facebook on 4/18/2017
Sherlock Holmes was our first film from 1922, and it was based on the same play as the 1916 version we'd previously seen. The earlier version was written by and starred William Gillette. This version stars the famous stage actor (and Drew Barrymore’s grandfather) John Barrymore, the first movie in which we’ve seen him. It also marks the first film appearance of Roland Young (as Watson) who later starred in the Topper films. But even more notably, this is the first film appearance of William Powell, who was in a number of excellent films throughout the thirties and forties -- which I look forward to seeing if this project makes it that far. As so often happens though, the cast in this case is better than the film. This movie differs from the earlier film mainly in that there is a long prologue explaining some backstory of the subsequent plot. This section purports to show Holmes, Watson, and Powell’s character when they were together at college. This ends up being rather distracting, however, because Barrymore was 40 at the time, and Roland Young was 35, and neither looked remotely like a college student. Even more importantly, the whole sequence is totally unnecessary; any backstory can be easily inferred, as shown by the earlier movie. At some point after that sequence the movie starts to converge on the plotline that we were more familiar with, which had some of the same holes and pacing problems as the earlier film. Some of the action was a little more dynamic though, and the title cards took an interesting stab at a slightly more naturalistic style of dialogue, with sentences trailing off, and characters interrupting themselves. In addition there was an interesting aerial shot of London, presumably taken from an airplane. The only precedent I recall which we’d seen previously was a brief shot from a plane in 1914’s Perils of Pauline, which was nowhere near as striking.
Overall, though, the two versions of Sherlock Holmes are of similar quality. I probably prefer the earlier film; it was slow and padded and not entirely logical, but it had a consistent tone, and conformed more to the idea of Sherlock Holmes as primarily a creature of the mind. I suspect the biggest drag on both movies is that the play itself doesn’t translate naturally to film -- or to a silent film in any case.
Next week we’ll see our second film from from 1922, Erich von Stroheim’s Foolish Wives. The list, as always, is here: https://bit.ly/2lZtfmT
Showing posts with label William Gillette. Show all posts
Showing posts with label William Gillette. Show all posts
Sunday, February 17, 2019
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Sherlock Holmes (1916)
Originally posted to Facebook on 6/18/2016
Sherlock Holmes was the first movie we watched from 1916. The play upon which it was based was first produced in 1899, and William Gillette, the star and author, had been a playwright and actor for decades earlier. He was born in 1853, and by the time this movie was filmed he had been playing the role on stage on-and-off for almost twenty years, and would continue reviving it for another fifteen years, into the thirties. The movie itself was lost for many years, until a copy was found in 2014, so it is a minor miracle that we are able to see it. Film-wise it seems relatively modern for its time, with camera movements, and cross-cutting, and a long complex narrative, and all of the other elements that seemed pretty standard by 1916, but were extremely uncommon just five years earlier. You can see some of its stage roots in the fact that there are a large number of verbose title cards, and numerous scenes involve people having long conversations. I don’t know what changes were made to the play, but some of the plot seemed a little disjointed and bizarre. For example, at one point Alice Faulkner, the female lead, played by Marjorie Kay, is being held prisoner in a house in or near London. Holmes visits the house, figures out what is going on, and manages to speak with her, but then leaves both Alice and the criminals still at the house with nothing more than a stern warning to the criminals. They predictably ignore him. (In Holmes’ defense, Alice probably should have left the house as well at this point.) At another point, Professor Moriarty (Ernest Maupain) gets involved, and decides to do away with Holmes. His clever plan? Get Holmes alone in his house and shoot him. This is foiled because Holmes has a gun as well. If only that were something a criminal mastermind might have foreseen! The entire last quarter of the film is a little anticlimactic. The main criminals have been disposed of, but Moriarty is still at large, and is seeking revenge on Holmes with only slightly more sophistication than his earlier “break into his house and shoot him” scheme. This section actually involves Watson (played by Edward Fielding), who has been largely absent through most of the film. Holmes is seeing clients at Watson’s office, rather than at 221B Baker Street, which, we are informed in a title card, has burned down. That seems like a pretty important event to be told about as an aside, but that’s how it’s handled. Despite all of these plot issues, Gillette makes a convincing Holmes, and it is interesting to see how much of Holmes’ iconic nature was already set by 1916. There was a 1922 movie based on the play as well, starring John Barrymore, which we may possibly see if we get that far. (I also dimly remember seeing a filmed version of the play -- actually on a stage with a seated audience -- starring Frank Langella on cable in the 1980s.)
As far as I can tell neither Gillette nor Marjorie Kay ever appeared in another film. Ernest Maupain popped up in a few films up through the end of the silent era, while Edward Fielding, on the other hand, was in a handful of movies until 1940, and then somehow got on someone's list, and started playing small parts in a dozen films every year up until his death in 1945.
Next week we begin our second film from 1916, the twelve-part serial Judex. It is directed by Louis Feuillade, who also directed 1913's Fantomas, which we saw a few months ago. Like that film, this one is long enough at 300 minutes that we are going to watch it over two successive weekends. Our list of films, as always, is here: https://bit.ly/2lZtfmT
Sherlock Holmes was the first movie we watched from 1916. The play upon which it was based was first produced in 1899, and William Gillette, the star and author, had been a playwright and actor for decades earlier. He was born in 1853, and by the time this movie was filmed he had been playing the role on stage on-and-off for almost twenty years, and would continue reviving it for another fifteen years, into the thirties. The movie itself was lost for many years, until a copy was found in 2014, so it is a minor miracle that we are able to see it. Film-wise it seems relatively modern for its time, with camera movements, and cross-cutting, and a long complex narrative, and all of the other elements that seemed pretty standard by 1916, but were extremely uncommon just five years earlier. You can see some of its stage roots in the fact that there are a large number of verbose title cards, and numerous scenes involve people having long conversations. I don’t know what changes were made to the play, but some of the plot seemed a little disjointed and bizarre. For example, at one point Alice Faulkner, the female lead, played by Marjorie Kay, is being held prisoner in a house in or near London. Holmes visits the house, figures out what is going on, and manages to speak with her, but then leaves both Alice and the criminals still at the house with nothing more than a stern warning to the criminals. They predictably ignore him. (In Holmes’ defense, Alice probably should have left the house as well at this point.) At another point, Professor Moriarty (Ernest Maupain) gets involved, and decides to do away with Holmes. His clever plan? Get Holmes alone in his house and shoot him. This is foiled because Holmes has a gun as well. If only that were something a criminal mastermind might have foreseen! The entire last quarter of the film is a little anticlimactic. The main criminals have been disposed of, but Moriarty is still at large, and is seeking revenge on Holmes with only slightly more sophistication than his earlier “break into his house and shoot him” scheme. This section actually involves Watson (played by Edward Fielding), who has been largely absent through most of the film. Holmes is seeing clients at Watson’s office, rather than at 221B Baker Street, which, we are informed in a title card, has burned down. That seems like a pretty important event to be told about as an aside, but that’s how it’s handled. Despite all of these plot issues, Gillette makes a convincing Holmes, and it is interesting to see how much of Holmes’ iconic nature was already set by 1916. There was a 1922 movie based on the play as well, starring John Barrymore, which we may possibly see if we get that far. (I also dimly remember seeing a filmed version of the play -- actually on a stage with a seated audience -- starring Frank Langella on cable in the 1980s.)
As far as I can tell neither Gillette nor Marjorie Kay ever appeared in another film. Ernest Maupain popped up in a few films up through the end of the silent era, while Edward Fielding, on the other hand, was in a handful of movies until 1940, and then somehow got on someone's list, and started playing small parts in a dozen films every year up until his death in 1945.
Next week we begin our second film from 1916, the twelve-part serial Judex. It is directed by Louis Feuillade, who also directed 1913's Fantomas, which we saw a few months ago. Like that film, this one is long enough at 300 minutes that we are going to watch it over two successive weekends. Our list of films, as always, is here: https://bit.ly/2lZtfmT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)