Sherlock Holmes

OMG, do I love this classic movie.

At long last, the great William Gillette is more than a footnote and a photo, but the man who MADE Sherlock Holmes alive for so many before us! The curved Meerschaum pipe is at last remembered for what it was... A stage relived item so as not to maim the voice of the REAL Sherlock Holmes. And the famous Sherlock robe we have seen in Sidney Paget illustrations in the Canon that was created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his 56 treasures.

For over 1400 performances on stage, this Connecticut Yankee brought the British detective as actor William Gillette... not to mention, the radio play he once did, and many actors had wonderful careers bringing Sherlock onto the stage for at least 100 years.

It's hard to conceive after watching this recording of historic magnitude, that Gillette got boos from London audiences but Gillette stood through this before speaking to them. This amazing moment was brought to the British public by an English reviewer who said that this same British public owed Gillette an apology, and he said it all n his review. Imagine! A Brit praised this Connecticut Yankee this way. Good for him.

The DVD brings to marvelous excellence William Gillette's astounding performance. I had expected the usual almost cartoonish physicality, but I was so wrong. Gillette makes me understand why he was as revered actor and performer. One reviewer brought up that he was almost doing the later performance of Jeremy Brett, and having seen it now, I cannot disagree.

The astonishing work of this movie has marveled me into a luxurious gift into the long past that never ages. I feel blessed to having seen this incredible actor's most celebrated performance to know that the true Sherlock Holmes is alive forever!

To the guide of Gillette Castle in Connecticut gave me terribly wrong information that THE William Gillette never performed this movie even with an enlarged photo of the man in this performance I now own with all of my Sherlock performances on video, and for that I feel I am blessed forever.

Please watch this fabulous film and see for yourselves all that I have said is true. Basil, Arthur Wontner, Eille Norwood and Jeremy Brett owe everything to William Gillette as well as they and the Conan Doyle Canon.

It's all here on this gift to all of you Sherlock Holmes fans.

This film, up until recently thought to have been lost, is of interest chiefly as a record of the earliest, and among the most famous, portrayals of the immortal Sherlock Holmes. William Gillette, who portrays Holmes in this movie, first played Holmes on stage in 1899, and continued to do so for over 1,300 performances during the next 35 years. To audiences before 1939, when Basil Rathbone made the role his own, William Gillette WAS Sherlock Holmes.

This is a somewhat stagy version. That is partly due to having been made in 1919. However, it is also due in large measure to the fact that the movie actually is, for all intents and purposes, a filmed version of the stage play, which Gillette not only starred in, but also wrote. Nevertheless, this is a fascinating film to view, as well as a valuable record of one of the most famous portrayals of one of the most famous characters in literature.

Sherlock Holmes (1916)

*** (out of 4)

A member of the Royal family writes some letters to a woman who suffers from a broken heart and dies. Her sister Alice (Marjorie Kay) gains possession of the letters and the Royal family wants them back. A couple blackmailers learn of the letters so they kidnap Alice and plan on using the letters for money but Sherlock Holmes (William Gillette) also has an interest in them.

SHERLOCK HOLMES was a lost film for decades but thankfully a print from France showed up. I'm not going to lie. I love silent movies and each year it seems more and more films are being discovered, which is great but I've noticed that a lot of the films aren't all that good. Even if they aren't that good it's always great when one is discovered. SHERLOCK HOLMES, on the other hand, is actually a very good movie and it turns out to be a real discovery.

Gillette was one of the most famous actors of his time and he did a tremendous tour playing Holmes, which took him around the world. Whenever someone thought of Holmes it was Gillette that they thought of and you can see certain things that would be borrowed by future actors. It's almost hard to believe but this here was Gillette's only film and it was produced by the Essanay Company after they lost Charlie Chaplin.

The film is pretty much what you would have seen on the stage at the time so it's fascinating getting to see the film. Gillette certainly makes for a very good Holmes as he certainly has command of the character and a certain grace that really jumps off the screen. It's rather shocking that this was Gillette's only time in front of the camera because he really comes off as a natural. Kay is also very good in her role as is Ernest Maupain as Professor Moriarty and Edward Fielding as Dr. Watson.

SHERLOCK HOLMES features a story written by Gillette and it too is very good and manages to hold you attention for a few minutes shy of two hours. The movie has a terrific pace to it and it's well-shot. This film is so much better than the 1922 version with John Barrymore so film buffs have a lot to celebrate with this one turning up.

This is a recovered treasure for all those who love the theatre and who want to learn about its main representatives in an era before motion pictures existed and filming performances became possible. Of Henry Irving, Sarah Bernhardt and their contemporaries we have only blurred voice recordings and some silents if we are lucky. Most of these silents are from a very early stage when cinematic art was still developing, and often try to copy the play as it was, instead of adapting it to a different media. And this can be sensed both in the sets and in image quality. Most of these actors had a melodramatic style of delivery, with ample and dramatic gestures. A style that now seems outdated. Later films like The Perils of Pauline (1947) would take excellent profit of it.

Not such a case with William Gillette. He practiced self-containment and rejected superficial melodramatic gestures, yet his plays are full of drama and also sense of humor. That Sherlock Holmes became maybe his most famous role, backed up by Conan Doyle´s complete approval, does not detract from the fact that he was also an author, and when he staged Sherlock Holmes he adapted the character to his own liking.

This means we have a personal Holmes, who, if having some resemblance to the character, is not the least the most truthful to the novels. Not at all. If you expect that, you´ll be disappointed. This is Gillette´s personal Holmes, same as John Barrymore´s Holmes (1922) was more Barrymore than Holmes. Also the picture was conceived as a chapter serial, and this must be kept in mind, the story slowly progressing and offering few surprises.

The film has some weak points : relegating Dr. Watson (who plays quite a decorative role), practically ignoring Holmes´deducting skills, presenting very bland villains and an even weaker Moriarty who does little evil at all, an equally inconsistant heroine (who does nothing but suffer, and is presented as held a prisoner then manages quite easily to go out at her will), a much too long story for telling little at all, and (oh my God) Gillette even takes the liberty of making Holmes fall in love! (He nicely asked permission to do so, and Conan Doyle gave him absolute freedom).

Then we have the strong points : watching Gillette himself is a privilege. Since we cannot sense the power of his stage presence, we can have a look at what he should be like. And the result is, one wishes to enjoy more of it. Also, the sets are designed with careful detail and performances as a whole are good.

The Cinématheque workers who mislabelled the can and allowed such a treasure, believed lost for 80 years, to survive and reach us all, should be given as much credit as those who finally discovered what it really contained and brought it to light, and also those others who have devotedly restored William Gillette Sherlock Holmes.

There are two things to recommend this film. First of all, it is in marvelous condition for something made in 1916. Secondly, we get to see the famous William Gilette, who played the great detective over 1000 times on the stage. This version is the stage version, sans most of the dialogue. The story is a bit confusing at first, but it involves a young woman whose sister had an affair with royalty. She has letters that would prove embarrassing to a prince. Holmes has been hired to get those letters (like in "A Scandal in Bohemia"). There are a man and his wife, the Larabees, who also want to get their hands on those letters in order to turn a profit. Enter Moriarity, Holmes' arch rival. There are a series of ridiculous plots that don't work because people are stupid. The young woman is clueless. She also becomes a love interest for Holmes. This is out of bounds in the canon. One thing lacking is that Holmes is uninteresting and dull. He is coy and sad. His overconfidence is his greatest trait and he has none of that here. Still, as a period piece, it is fun.