Sherlock Holmes

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.

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.

"When a young prince is accused of a crime that could embroil him in international scandal, debonair supersleuth Sherlock Holmes comes to his aid, and quickly discovers that behind the incident lurks a criminal mastermind eager to reduce Western civilization to anarchy. Adapted from the hugely popular stage version of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories (by William Gillette), 'Sherlock Holmes' not only provided Barrymore with one of his most prestigious early roles, but also presented the screen debuts of two notable actors: William Powell and Roland Young," according to the good folks at Kino International.

The star and property once made this one of the more missed "lost" films from the silent era. Then, in the 1970s, the 1922 version of "Sherlock Holmes" was found. However, this was no ordinary find. What they found was a cache of film canisters containing a jumble of the original film. There were multiple pieces of scenes, in no particular order, and with out the benefit of intertitle continuity (itself a curious and intriguing state). Kevin Brownlow and The George Eastman House set about restoring the film. That the restoration was ready in the 2000s indicated the level of work and dedication involved.

Now, we see the 1922 "Sherlock Holmes" is no classic. Even upon original release, there were complaints about the high level of reading (title cards and letters) as Mr. Barrymore and the cast conversed about plot elements. And, to miss reading a single intertitle will leave you confused. Also receiving understandable heckles in some quarters was the assertion that the famously asexual detective had a desire for Carol Dempster (as Alice Faulkner). This "romance" was carried over from Mr. Gillette's very successful version; at the time, leaving it out might have been more unwise. Audiences expected "Alice".

Goldwyn Pictures and director Albert Parker "embellished" the Gillette version by having the characters meet in college, during a long prologue. So, this is where Barrymore's Holmes falls in "love at first sight" with Ms. Dempster and meets malevolent professor Gustav von Seyffertitz (as Moriarty). Holmes is also introduced to the "prince and letters" plot by pre-shaved college pal Roland Young (as John Watson). This, and the London location footage, was meant to ward off the staginess of the source material. But, the film remains in the box. The last act excites, if you picture it occurring on stage.

***** Sherlock Holmes (3/7/22) Albert Parker ~ John Barrymore, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Carol Dempster, Roland Young

The film starts out in Sherlock Holmes' (John Barrymore's) college days at Cambridge. Watson (Roland Young) is rooming with Prince Alexis (Reginald Denny) who has been falsely accused of stealing the university athletic fund. Holmes, even as a student, quickly gets to the bottom of things - an apprentice to Moriarty, Forman Wells (William Powell), stole the money to escape Moriarty. Holmes is fascinated by Moriarty and decides his life work will be to bring him to justice.

Meanwhile, the prince's uncle decides, to stop any scandal, he will pay back the athletic fund to the college. At the same time the prince learns that his two older brothers have died in an accident and now he is heir to the throne. He returns to his home country after penning a letter to his fiancee that he must break their engagement because of his new position. The woman kills herself. Coincidentally, this woman is the sister of a woman that Holmes falls in love with at first sight. She disappears from Holmes' life after her sister's suicide.

The years pass, and Watson is a doctor and Holmes is persistent in his battle against Moriarty. Prince Alexis has announced his marriage to a woman of royal blood. But his dead fiancee's sister is threatening to expose the prince with his love letters to her sister, with Moriarty also wanting those letters so he can blackmail the prince. Moriarty has his subordinates keeping her at a rented castle trying to get those letters away from her. At this point Holmes gets involved mainly to save the girl - from enacting bitter revenge and from Moriarty - more than to help the prince.

This film is far from perfect - it has great big plot holes in it. For example, why does the prince's fiancee kill herself? Was she pregnant? Just heartbroken? It is never said. Yet everybody blames the prince for what seems to be an outsized reaction on the girl's part. It's also hard to follow at points. Apparently Holmes' house has burned, but exactly how and when this happened is not said. What is especially good is Barrymore's performance as this particular rendition of Holmes, even though Sherlock Holmes in literature was never particularly interested in women and this Holmes is a hopeless romantic. On the technical end, the picture is so dark at points that it is impossible to see what is going on, and there are not that many intertitles, but the ones that exist are very verbose.

What's really interesting is just how many future stars and just plain famous people are in this production. I've already mentioned William Powell in his first film appearance, Roland Young, and Reginald Denny, but there is also Hedda Hopper as a henchwoman of Moriarty's, Louis Wolheim as Moriarty's muscle, and David Torrance as a count. All of these people had careers that reached well into the sound era.

Here's another old movie where the distance from the "original" events (here the writing of the stories) is closer to the movie than the movie is from us. It makes it even odder that the era of the story is shifted to the era of the movie, with cars and phones.

I'll watch any old detective story. Anything along these lines until 1940 or so was important to the development of narrative, no matter how bad. This one is no masterpiece; the plot is muddled, but the fact that the ending is missing is almost better because you can imagine something better than what the filmmaker can. We might even have done away with the latter half of the thing.

But there is one interesting thing: the legacy of the actors. The Barrymore gestures of Holmes are the basis for the silent-filmlike excess of Jeremy Brett. You can see William Powell, the famous star of the Thin Man series, which reinvented the detective film genre. And you can watch Watson played by the man who would presage noir with "Topper." Both in their first film.

And I suppose there's some mild pleasure in seeing obsolete visions of female beauty.

The Holmes here does no detecting except for deducing that Watson has moved his dressingtable.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.