The Sign of Four: Sherlock Holmes' Greatest Case

This Sherlock entry is more a colorful character crime drama than a Holmes whodunit. Wortner's okay as the cerebral detective, less forceful and more recessive than Rathbone's iconic role. Still, he makes you believe. On the other hand, Ian Hunter's Watson carries much of the action load. He's both sleeker and less bumbling than Nigel Bruce's comedic version. Here Holmes is trying to retrieve a stolen necklace and protect its rightful owner, Bevan, from the fearsome one-legged Soutten. In fact, Bevan's disability is real and not faked. At the same time, he shows a new and non-medical use for a wooden stump. It's a bang-up finale, made more so by director Cutts's imaginative camera angles. I suppose the generally poor sound and picture quality of my DVD is due to the age of the original. However that may be, the programmer amounts to a generally entertaining and sometimes interesting 75-minutes from a rather unknown production company.

Regarded by many critics as the best cinematic Holmes, Arthur Wontner made his debut as the great detective in "The Sleeping Cardinal" (1931). Although prints are available, this one has not yet been released on DVD. Wontner's second impersonation, "The Missing Rembrandt" (1932) is indeed missing, so we are forced to pick up his career with "The Sign of Four" (1932, which is available on a DVD of reasonable quality from St Clair. "Four" used no less than three directors. Graham Cutts directed most of the film, including all the chilling material with Graham Soutten (surely one of the most frightening heavies ever presented in a movie), plus the lively scenes at the fun fair, while Rowland V. Lee handled the great action climax. Some of the dull dialogue scenes, such as all those with the Sholto brothers, were directed by Basil Dean. Compared to other screen characterizations, Wontner generally comes across as more cerebral and subdued. On the other hand, he reverses the process when he dons a disguise. Some of the other screen Sherlocks seem positively anxious not to call attention to themselves when in disguise, whereas Wontner stridently plays these scenes at full volume. In this one, his Dr Watson is none other than the ubiquitous Ian Hunter (that guy will take any role!) who is at least certainly presentable enough to date the lovely Isla Bevan. (A few half-witted contemporary critics, would you believe, criticized screenwriter W.P. Lipscomb for adding a romance to the story, not realizing that this aspect is a feature of Conan Doyle's original novel).

The form — at least as established in the Holmes stories and subsequent early detective fiction, has the reader experience things in the order the detective does. In the best, there is some tension as we know the detective is ahead of us in deducing the truth from the same information we have. If you deviate from this, there should be some value because the cost is relatively high.

Now here we have one of the earliest experiments with detective talkies and they went directly to Holmes. What they did here was break the rule in an odd and experimental way. All the history that we are supposed to discover is presented before we even meet Holmes. That is, the story is presented in the historical order of events instead of the order of discovery.

I cannot know the effect this had on the audience when it was new. This film is far closer to when the Holmes stories appeared than it is to me here now. But my guess is that it failed.

There is another experiment, and pretty interesting. Two scenes are shot from high. One of these has an established human perspective: Holmes climbs up a ladder and when he comes down, the camera stays there looking down. Later, when the big chase/fight climax is going on, we again have the camera at this angle — a little further away. The effect must have been striking to the contemporary audience.

These two decisions are at least consistent: we don't *see* things the way our detective does.

This Arthur Wontner version of the Sherlock Holmes story "The Sign of Four" is pretty good for the early sound era, and it makes good use of its limited resources. The production doesn't look very impressive, but Wontner is believable as Holmes, the story is entertaining, and some of the sets, though low budget, work well in establishing the atmosphere.

Wontner's Holmes is less willful and forceful, while more witty and upbeat, than the more familiar portrayals by Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett. And while the fine Brett version of "The Sign of Four" is probably now the definitive screen version of the story, in its time this one would probably have been highly satisfactory to its audiences.

The script adapts the original story somewhat, yet it works pretty well. The order of the narrative is simplified, and some extra settings and events are included. One of them, a sequence at a fair, is interesting, and though it changes the tone of the story somewhat, it works in its own right. The character of Jonathan Small is also fleshed out, with less about his past and more of an emphasis on what he is like at the present. As Athelney Jones, Gilbert Davis gets a few good moments of give-and-take with Holmes.

Like Wontner's other Holmes features, this one has an obvious low-budget, early 1930s feel to it. But the series is worth seeing for anyone who enjoys the Holmes stories and who doesn't mind seeing the characters portrayed in a somewhat different light.

Graham Cutts' 'The Sign of Four' is one of five Sherlock Holmes films starring Arthur Wontner in the main role. Of Wontner's portrayal, Vincent Starrett (author of 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes') declared, "No better Sherlock Holmes than Arthur Wontner is likely to be seen and heard in pictures, in our time... The keen worn, kindly face and quiet prescient smile are out of the very pages of the book". Indeed, Wontner beautifully captures the essence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famed character, enjoyably depicting his quirky brilliance and almost omniscient deciphering of crime scene puzzles, frequently waving off Dr. Watson's (Ian Hunter) stunned admiration with a dismissive, "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary."

After an amputee prisoner serving a life sentence, Jonathon Small (Graham Soutten), reveals the whereabouts of his stolen treasure to two prison warders in exchange for his freedom, he is furious when they betray him. Driven mad by the sight of so many riches, one man, Major John Sholto (Herbert Lomas), murders his acquaintance, and flees with the wealth. Many years later, Small escapes from prison, seeking his revenge and his treasure. Shortly before his death, Sholto bequeaths the valuable pearl necklace from the treasure hoard to Mary Morstan (Isla Bevla), the daughter of the man he murdered. However, when Small comes after Morstan as well, she quite intelligently seeks the aid of the great Sherlock Holmes.

'The Sign of Four' is a surprisingly engrossing mystery. Whilst there isn't really much of a classic whodunit, I was most certainly interested in how the story played out. Throughout the film's prologue, the clunking of Small's wooden leg against the floor was used quite effectively to develop suspense, and the ambitious high-speed boat race and dock brawl at the end of the film was suitably climactic. The professional police detective, Det. Insp. Atherly Jones (Gilbert Davis), was characteristically smug and incompetent, often referring to Holmes as an "amateur," whilst himself reaching completely the wrong conclusion about a mystery.

Though the production values are undoubtedly low-budget, 'The Sign of Four' is a solid Sherlock Holmes film with some good performances and an engaging mystery. Worth a look.