The Sign of Four

Never released in US, The Sign of Four received a belated premiere at the San Francisco Silent Film Festival, giving American Sherlockians an introduction to Eille Norwood, whose portrayal of Sherlock Holmes earned raves from no less than Conan Doyle. Based on the evidence of this feature, Norwood definitely belongs in the company of Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing, Jeremy Brett, and Benedict Cumberbatch.

No one has bettered Conan Doyle's explanation of Norwood's appeal: "He has that rare quality which can only be described as glamour, which compels you to watch an actor eagerly even when he is doing nothing. He has the brooding eye which excites expectation and he has also a quite unrivalled power of disguise." Norwood is indeed a master of stillness and quiet intensity. Though old for the part, his haggard face and severe eyes command attention (along with his moments of wry humor). The film opens and closes on Norwood's face, masking the frame to reveal Holmes staring down the audience.

Norwood's Holmes is straight from the books, but purists should be warned that this film takes many liberties with Conan Doyle's novella. And that's perfectly understandable--silent film is not the most suitable medium for the Holmes stories, which heavily rely on dialogue and exposition. A faithful silent adaptation of "The Sign of Four" would have drowned in a sea of inter-titles. Maurice Elvey, who adapted and directed the film, instead chose to turn Doyle's whodunit into a thriller. Holmes does less detective work, and much of it is off-screen. The long flashback in the novel is drastically reduced and dealt with early on, along with the solution of the mystery and the culprits.

Major Sholto appears instead of his sons, Jonathan Small and Tonga have much reduced roles, and the film introduces a new villain, Prince Abdullah Khan. He's unsubtly played in brownface and identified as a "Hindoo" by Holmes (who is mistaken--"Abdullah" is an Islamic name, meaning "slave of Allah" in Arabic). Additionally, the Four signers of the title are different characters and lack the camaraderie Doyle gave them. That, along with the extensive use of hamming in brownface (and details like cutting between a monkey and "pygmy" as they doff hats), results in a film that's arguably more racist than its source material from 30 years earlier. An additional defect is under-use of Watson (a common problem in silent Holmes films), played by the stolid and mustache-less Arthur Cullin, though he has a fun scene of wondering "What would Holmes do?"

Once expectations of textual fidelity are put aside, "Sign" can be enjoyed as a nifty thriller, thanks to its brisk pacing and flair. Maurice Elvey's direction is stylish and inventive. Wipes are used to transition to and from flashbacks, and a flash-cut reveals the source of one of Holmes's deductions. When Holmes divulges his conclusions, flashbacks show him superimposed, lending a ghostly effect to the narration of previously unseen events. The film is strong in mood, opening with a shot of a "pearl grey afternoon in Baker Street" (though Watson later enters 114 instead of 221B!), and the use of shadows is splendidly inventive. Elvey also throws in scene of seamy working-class London in a Limehouse bar.

The climax expands Doyle's original chase, adding a damsel in distress and a car-versus-boat race across London and the Thames. It's practically a tour of the city, with landmarks announced through inter-titles ("Putney Bridge," "Hyde Park Corner" etc). The concluding speedboat chase still impresses, with the camera perched close to waterline or on top of the boats as they plow through the waves. You can see why Holmes faces the camera upon hearing the case and says "This is going to be exciting." It still is.

"The Sign of Four" is my favorite Holmes story, and the Jeremy Brett rendition the best I've seen. This silent version is slow moving an meandering, but at least it has some of the elements, particularly the plot made by the prisoners. That said, we have pointless use of film, with little editing. At one point, three minutes are used up as people get out of vehicles and into a building. The chase scenes could have been trimmed as well as Holmes mugging for the camera. But it turns into a decent adventure story and I'm sure was exciting for the viewers of the time. I wasn't familiar with the guy playing Holmes but he does overdo the silent stuff a bit.

It's the Sherlock Holmes novel transferred to the screen, directed by Maurice Elvey and starring Eile Norwood. The pair had been doing Holmes movies since 1921: 44 shorts and four features, including this, the last. I've seen a few of the shorts, and frankly they don't appeal to me. In the short stories, Holmes is a cerebral character, and the movies based on them have too many titles to be good movies.

The movies based on the novels are another matter entirely. There are plenty of melodramatic incidents, whether it be malevolent, demonic hounds or, as here, deadly dwarfs, escapes from prisons, and a high-speed chase on the River Thames. These make good grist for Elvey's cinematic mill, and he takes good advantage of his opportunities.

This may not please the purist, but there are plenty of exciting incidents not in the original novel. Nonetheless, as the movie advances and Holmes becomes less a deductive machine and more a man of action, it becomes a more interesting and exciting movie. Norwood will never be my idea of Holmes -- like first loves, we never forget our first Holmes, and Basil Rathbone was a darned good one -- but it's a pretty good movie.

This film marks the last one Eille Norwood did as Sherlock Holmes; and apparently as anything else. He died twenty-five years later, but did no more film work. There were two feature films in this series, and about two dozen shorts, done in a two-year period, and the vast majority are lost. What we have, though, reveals a great Sherlock lauded by Conan Doyle himself.

This film is expansive, has a welcome action flow, pretty good settings, appropriate humor, and an unrecognizable plot. Its story line is vastly removed from the book and has some puzzling variations, keeping the viewer guessing at what was happening. Historical value.