Sherlock Holmes

Don't be mistaken : this is a Barrymore movie, and Sherlock Holmes just the anecdote. Based on a theatrical play, this adventure has the interest of introducing Holmes and Watson in their youth, when they are both students and collaborate in solving a college incident which will have consequences in their future. One of the best scenes is when Holmes examines his own knowledge about life, yet it does not have continuity. Holmes deductive methods and abilities are only anecdotically mentioned although they are what made the character famous, so readers will be disappointed. This is my main criticism.

Being John Barrymore the leading actor you can expect romance and adventure and a glamorous hero. Well, I would have preferred more adventure and less romance being about Sherlock Holmes. The action follows the trend of the times, approaching earlier silent serials in an uncomplicated way. Moriarty, who is played by Gustav von Seiffertitz, looks as a really mean villain but one wonders why as quite more evil would be expected from him, resembling more a Dickens headmaster than the dangerous and intelligent head of a secret criminal system. If you have this in account, the film is just a nice picture if not specially true to the Conan Doyle spirit. As always poor Watson is undervalued and does not receive much attention, yet Roland Young fits quite well and could have offered much more. We meet a young William Powell in a secondary part. Carol Dempster is all right if not impressive as the lady in distress.

The image quality is quite good (thanks to a restored copy) and one can see it was made with generous means as the production design shows (see Moriarty's underground quarters or Baker Street apartments).

Yet as this movie was belived to be lost for many years it is a real pleasure to watch it and a luck to have it with us.

For decades the 1922 version of Sherlock Holmes starring John Barrymore was thought to be lost, surviving only in the form of a few tantalizing production stills, until an incomplete print finally resurfaced in 1970. Even so, it wasn't until recently that a viewable version was painstakingly pieced together at the George Eastman House in Rochester NY, and it is this restoration which is now available for public screenings, and on DVD. Bearing all this in mind, it's dismaying to report that the film, seen at long last, is a decided disappointment. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where a rediscovered work falls short of the imagined movie we project in our minds. Film buffs and viewers with a special interest in the Barrymores will want to see it anyway, but dedicated fans of the original Holmes stories, in particular, will likely find it unsatisfying.

All the elements were in place for something special when the movie went into production. John Barrymore, in the year of his legendary stage Hamlet, was in his prime; the supporting cast was full of first-rate actors, two of whom (Roland Young and William Powell) made their film debuts here; a number of scenes were filmed on location in London -- an unusual practice at the time -- and the constructed sets were strikingly designed and well photographed. But the first and perhaps biggest problem was the screenplay, which feels off-kilter and oddly lopsided. The early scenes are focused on the activities of the arch-criminal Professor Moriarty, played by that magnificently named character actor, Gustav Von Seyffertitz. We're given a lot of information about this villain's curiously unmotivated evil, but very little information about our hero and his eccentricities. We're forced to conclude either that the screenwriters thought we already knew enough about Sherlock Holmes, or that they considered their bad guy more interesting than their hero.

Holmes and Watson are introduced in the prologue as two rather middle-aged looking Cambridge students, and the story seems to concern a scandalous situation on campus involving some of their classmates. Eventually we realize that this is a set-up for the climactic confrontation with Moriarty, years later, although the Professor's connection with the Cambridge scandal is vague and indirect. It takes too long for the viewer to identify the central plot line, too long for Holmes and Watson to set up shop on Baker Street, and too long for Holmes himself to emerge as an adult and take charge of events. Holmes' uncharacteristic romantic interludes with the vapid leading lady -- more about her in a moment -- don't help matters, either.

Another major flaw is the over-reliance on title cards. The best silent movies told their tales with minimal titling, or concentrated the bulk of the expository titles in the first reel or two, but this film tells far too much of its story in words which must be read. Reading is all well and good when we curl up at home with a book, but a movie must MOVE. The source material for this film is a stage drama of the 1890s, crafted by the stage's first and most famous Sherlock, actor/playwright William Gillette. The play was not based on any single Conan Doyle story, but borrowed plot elements from several of them -- and, incidentally, it provided a very early stage role for the preteen Charlie Chaplin, who portrayed Billy the messenger boy. Gillette's play certainly had movie potential, but the filmmakers in charge of this adaptation lacked the skill to properly translate the material from stage to screen, and failed to maintain a consistent tone. Is it meant to be serious? Is it a send-up? Hard to say.

John Barrymore certainly looks the part, but except for one brief sequence when Holmes disguises himself he doesn't appear to be having much fun. He suggests a male model glumly dressed as Sherlock Holmes in order to pose for a magazine illustrator. He is given several gauzy close-ups emphasizing that famous profile, but seems to be merely posing for stills. Perhaps he wasn't having much fun off camera, either, for according to a recent biography Barrymore loathed his co-star, Carol Dempster. Miss Dempster, not unfairly, is best remembered as the modestly talented girlfriend of director D. W. Griffith, who mysteriously featured her in movie after movie in the 1920s. Not so mysteriously, these movies flopped at the box office and accelerated Griffith's career decline. Sherlock Holmes marked the only occasion Dempster appeared as a leading lady in a non-Griffith production, but why this occurred is anyone's guess. Her role isn't large, and she doesn't have much impact one way or the other, but let's just say she doesn't bring much to the picnic.

It's interesting to see William Powell, long before the Thin Man series, looking so young and gawky; unlike his co-stars, he could pass for an undergrad in the opening sequence. But unfortunately, Powell's later scenes are difficult to assess, for despite the best efforts of the Eastman film preservationists the latter portions of the movie are badly tattered, with crucial chunks obviously missing, and this has a serious impact on climactic scenes involving Powell. The climax is difficult to follow because of the poor condition of the surviving print, and although this can't be blamed on the filmmakers it only deepens our sense of disappointment. Still, even in the unlikely event that a better print is discovered, it appears that the people who made this movie just didn't have an affinity for the material. Too bad John Barrymore didn't take another crack at the role in the early '30s, with sound and a better script. But in any case, fans of the Jeremy Brett TV series (and I count myself among them) have a definitive Sherlock to enjoy, thanks to a star and a creative team who knew precisely what they were doing.

In the wake of the new Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. (which I have yet to see), Turner Classic Movies has been gracious enough to give us screenings of earlier film tales of the iconic detective whom originated from the creative mind of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Now we all think of Basil Rathbone when we think of Sherlock Holmes, but unbeknownst to many, there was an earlier adaptation of the story (actually, I think a few) starring John Barrymore as Holmes and Gustav von Seyffertitz as Professor Moriarty. The film was titled simply "Sherlock Holmes" and was thought to have become one of many silent films now lost to us forever. Thankfully, the movie was found and restored with assistance from director Albert Parker and is now available for public viewing again.

This "Sherlock Holmes" is not a classic; it's not one of the pictures that people will talk about or remember five years after they've seen it for the first time. I neither will have it lingering in my memory for terribly long, but I am very glad I saw the picture. Because although its story structure is a little flimsy, and although it feels as though some parts of the story are still missing, and although the ending was below my expectations, I did enjoy the show. John Barrymore makes a very good Sherlock Holmes and Gustav von Seyffertitz is wonderful as Moriarty and these two appropriately have the most impact during their scenes especially with some surprisingly clever intertitle dialogue. However, I'm afraid, Dr. Watson (Roland Young) and Holmes' love interest (Carol Dempster) are very flat and two-dimensional in this story and neither of them seem to have any real connection to Holmes or to Moriarty.

I think if the filmmakers had strengthened the connection between the two lead characters and the supporting roles and patched up that ending, we would have had a better film. This "Sherlock Holmes" is not a classic nor memorable, but I did enjoy it and I make no regrets in the fact that I took the time to see it.

First off I'm not a Sherlock Holmes expert so I'll leave it at that and just comment on the film for what it is, not what it isn't. I have however watched episodes of the Jeremy Brett series on A&E and they're wonderful. For those who always say John Barrymore is a ham, this film counters that argument somewhat as he displays a terrific gamut of underplaying. Not boring but decidedly underplaying. Director Al Parker had to talk Barrymore into doing the picture so the film is more of Parker's labor-of-love than Barrymore's. No 1922 print of the movie survived through the decades as a release print would give evidence of a working continuity and of how this film unraveled to 1922 audiences. Only the actual camera negative survived of this film in a dismantled state. Kudos to Kevin Brownlow for doing a masterful job of re-assembling the negative to where it could be printed for viewing. What Brownlow has edited is 'probably' not too far off from the original release prints. The source for this film is similar, in procurring, the source for Barrymore's 1920 Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde in that the story comes from a great author, adapted to a stage play, then the play is used as a source for the film. Having seen three of Al Parker's films 'Eyes of Youth'(1919), 'Sherlock Holmes'(1922) & 'The Black Pirate'(1926), I can say that his directing style stays the same in all three pictures. Parker is only going to give the audience: closeup, medium shot & long shot. Sometimes faint moving camera ie the mock street fight, car leaving down the street. Parker is not going to do as King Vidor or Alan Crosland would do that is experiment in panning camera or tracking shot or zoom. That would've livened up this movie some what. This movie however follows the Griffith school of directing that is lots of stationery camera action in frame and title cards, much like other movies of 1922. J. Roy Hunt's photography is quite low like that of Milton Moore's in 'He Who Gets Slapped'(1924). Perhaps this was to signify the gloomy nature of the story. Original prints were probably tinted like many Goldwyn features of this period. This story should've been left in the 1890s and the movie a period piece rather than update the story to 1922. Both Carol Dempster & Hedda Hopper's characters wear contemporary clothing, Dempster the traditional patterned dresses that are in one quick sequence quite diaphanous. Hopper gets to dress fashionably, hats & all, 1922 style as one of her dresses is loose fitting & comfortable and looks like it was designed by Coco Chanel(parts of this film WERE made in Europe ie: Switzerland & England). William Powell & Roland Young(as Dr Watson) make their film debuts here. Powell later recalled that in 1936 when Barrymore was having trouble auditioning for MGM's 'Romeo & Juliet' and couldn't remember his lines, MGM tapped Powell to replace him. Powell countered that he did not have the heart to replace Barrymore as it was Barrymore who had given him his start in movies in 'Sherlock Holmes'. Louis Wolheim, Reginald Denny and David Torrence round out supporting roles.

I get that this is not one of the all time best silent movies however this is a very good representation of the burgeoning art of filmmaking. The director is trying to make a large film using pieces of the entire Holmes catalog. Does he make an Oscar winner? Well, since the Oscars weren't created when this movie was made I guess we will never know.

Still, this is an amazing piece of history that you should watch for what it is, a restoration. To even discuss the technical aspects of lighting etc, is just pure silliness, it's 1922 for goodness sake! I love Holmes, I love Barrymore, I love this movie. It's history. It's where we came from, watch it in that light and you will enjoy it so much more.