Sherlock Holmes

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 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.

There have been over 50 movies and TV series of the famous British detective Sherlock Holmes since novelist Arthur Conan Doyle introduced him to print in 1887. Of all the Holmes films produced, the one that was maddeningly lost and most prized was Essanay Studio's 1916 production with actor William Gillette, who made the detective famous on the stage. He was the Sherlock Holmes everyone is familiar with, molding the detective with the appearance and personality during the 1,300 performances he gave on the American and English stages before mesmerizing audiences. All film depictions of Holmes are based on the Gillette persona he lent to his detective, a portrayal heartedly approved by Doyle.

So when the movie was discovered in Paris' Cinematheque Francaise archives in 2014 after a film canister had been mislabeled for decades, the cinematic community went bananas. At the May 2015 San Francisco Silent Film Festival, after the 1916 print was meticulously restored, lines formed outside the theater patiently waiting to see the United States premier of the newly-discovered movie. Movie aficionados knew this was Gillette's only appearance on film; this was his only acting of the detective preserved which greatly influenced future acting generations on the mien and presence of Sherlock its originator Doyle endorsed.

"Sherlock Holmes," originally released in May 1916, is a combination of four Doyle stories, which the 1899 stage play was based. Seen on the screen for the first time was Sherlock wearing his famous deerstalker hat, introduced by Gillette when he played him on the stage. Also seen was the curved-stem calabash pipe clinched between the detective's lips, a choice Gillette made when he noticed the straight-stem pipe impeded his voice projection and pronunciations. Gillette is also credited in giving Holmes the line directed at Dr. Watson, "Oh, this is elementary, my dear fellow."

Before the movie production, Doyle gave Gillette permission to do anything he wanted with the Sherlock Holmes' franchise, so trusting was the author to the actor's knowledge and temperment of the detective. Gillette went ahead and introduced to the screen the role of the Dr. Watson character, played by Edward Fielding. In addition, Holmes' arch-villain, Professor Moriarty, is given more stage presence in the film than Doyle wrote about him in his novels.

Gillette continued to have a lucrative acting career after the film release of "Sherlock Holmes,' but alas, not in cinema. He was one of those rare actors in his day who made a fortune in his profession, affording him the luxury of building his dream home, the Gillette Castle in East Haddam, Connecticut. He was especially passionate about his three-mile miniature railroad surrounding his estate. The state of Connecticut bought his property six years after his death and created the Gillette Castle State Park. A four-year $11 million renovation of the castle, museum and performance stage, completed in 2002, is one the top three state tourist attractions.

Gillette, who died at age 83, is buried with his family in Farmington, CT's Riverside Cemetery.

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.

The great news was told to us recently on TCM, accompanied by a premiere showing; a copy of "Sherlock Holmes" was found and restored earlier this year year in France. It was originally released as a 4-part feature in 1916 but was released in France as a 7-part serial in 1920. It has been restored to its original 4 parts and that is what we saw here on TV. It is great news since it is the only existing film of Sherlock Holmes' most famous impersonator, William Gillette.

As impressive as the restoration was, with its alternate scenes tinted blue and orange (the orange seemed gold, but no matter), the story itself was simplistic in nature and lacked the resourceful cleverness of Doyle's stories. Maybe it was the only way to tell a story on film without the benefit of dialogue, but this one was straightforward and without guile. A young woman is held against her will so her kidnappers could make her tell the location of some letters of hers, which could be used for ransom. Holmes wants to help her, and so he does. The bad guys get their comeuppance and all is right again.

Gillette was 60 at the time and was probably heavily made up. Otherwise it would have been a stretch to have him win the heart of the damsel in distress. In no other Holmes story did he 'get the girl'. Nevertheless, it was rewarding to finally view this lost treasure and to realize another lost film could be preserved for posterity.