Sherlock Holmes

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 A style that now seems outdated.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.

8.5 out of 10 I had the privilege of seeing this at the Castro Theater in 2015 for the public world re-release at the Silent Film Festival there. I had no idea what to expect since the film had been lost for nearly 100 years, and I have never been a huge Holmes fan (but I don't dislike the character at all). As we know, silent films can sometimes move at a snoring pace, so I kept my expectations low.

This film really surprised me with its Mystery Comics/early Noir kind of feel- splitting the film into "to be Continued...!" type of segments, since it was originally a serial. I imagine it can be enjoyed watched in 3 separate parts as well (it wasn't meant to be a 2-hour sit-down affair).

The pace is great overall, only a little sluggish at first with the introductory part of the plot (a letter scandal or sorts?) being very outdated. After the first part of that serial you will feel right at home (or Holmes!) with all the booby traps and laughs. William Gillette absolutely steals the show every time he's on screen and it is no wonder that he was adored for his portrayal of the character at the time of release.

I won't give away any of the gags or trickery, but they are top-notch and this film has Chaplin-inspired hoodwinking all over the place. If you enjoyed Chaplin's Essanay work like "Police" or his work on "The Adventurer" then this will be right up your alley.

Going deeper, this film also provides a fascinating insight into the development of the modern "Super Hero." Sherlock Holmes was in many ways the world first superhero, his intellect being the primary superpower. It's kinda neat to think of how this protagonist archetype has developed over the last 100 years! A fine gem to be preserved for future generations :)

As a theater major in college, I had heard of William Gillette (1853-1937) and his stage performances of Sherlock Holmes. Between 1899 when the play, adapted from a few of the stories by Gillette himself, first opened and the making of this film in 1916, Gillette had portrayed Holmes over 1300 times! Arthur Conan Doyle had given him his blessing seeing him as physically right for the part. At the time Doyle thought he was done with the character (Doyle didn't reintroduce Holmes until 1903) and cared little for whatever changes Gillette might make. Gillette was remarkably faithful to the stories and to the Holmes persona except for the business of having him fall in love at the end. In fact it was Gillette who popularized the Meerschaum pipe and the Deerstalker hat now forever associated with the character.

The film was shot in Chicago for the Essanay company, famous for silent film stars Broncho Billy Anderson and Charlie Chaplin, and was one of their few feature length films. Shortly after 1916 the company folded and the movie was sold in 1919 to a French studio who turned it into a 4 part serial without having to cut any footage. Crime serials like Louis Feuillade's FANTOMAS and LES VAMPIRES were popular in France and the fact that this was a play divided into acts and scenes, made it easy to adapt. It's a good thing too for without the French, we wouldn't have SHERLOCK HOLMES today. Its rediscovery and current restoration techniques have given us back not only a classic of early cinema but a rare opportunity to see a 19th century actor at work.

The bulk of the play comes from A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA with excerpts of THE FINAL PROBLEM and a little of A STUDY IN SCARLET thrown in at the end. In fact after watching about 10 minutes of this, I realized that the plot was the same as the 1922 John Barrymore version which uses Gillette's play. Surprisingly, this version is nearly as accomplished as the later one in its staging and camerawork although the Barrymore version boasts some location shooting and a stronger all around cast. Enough cannot be said about the restoration job done by The San Francisco Silent Film Festival and La Cinematheque Francais. The movie looks astonishingly good with crisp images and subtle color tints. The music score is also noteworthy (no pun intended). I did find the Moriarty in this version to be a little buffoonish but a lot of that is the play and few people can look and be as villainous as Gustav von Seyfertitz in the Barrymore version.

This Flicker Alley package is truly an embarrassment of riches. Not only are there 2 complete versions of the film (English & French) but there is an extra disc which talks about the restoration (very informative) and there are interviews with Conan Doyle and William Gillette. There are also two very surreal shorts involving Holmes plus one with a canine sleuth as well. If you are a silent film enthusiast than this release is an absolute necessity. Sherlock Homes aficionados will also enjoy it for its historical value while students of theater history should see it and study it as the chance to view genuine 19th century performance technique first hand (rather than from a recreation of the period) is invaluable. The DVDs are stunning but they even also throw in a Blu-Ray for those of you who insist on having the latest technology.

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.

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.