DAY 8: SHERLOCK HOLMES, 1922 VERSION
For anyone who has ever read the classic books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, your ears should perk at the mention of Professor Moriarty, an underground crime lord who seems to be the Godfather on figurative steroids (he’s old, frail and completely unappealing) in his ability to arrange someone’s death with a wave of his chicken-boned hand. It is indicated that his eye is partially focused on the happening at Cambridge, where Prince Alexis (Reginald Denny) asks for the help of his friend Waston (the future Doctor himself, played by Roland Young) when he is accused of stealing money from the university. Watson points in the direction of a young inquisitor named Sherlock Holmes (John Barrymore), who we first see under a tree, observing a bird feeding its babies. Seeing the two at this stage of youth is incredibly fascinating, largely because it gives the audience a chance to see the duo’s initial friendship and radiant curiosity that sparked their later work together, in its rawest form. You could imagine it as that decade’s version of the Star Trek remake, with director Albert Parker assuming the role of J.J. Abrams quite effectively.
Anyway, it is no shock that Holmes quickly determines the real thief, and Moriarty’s role in it (if this is a shock, please go read the books and see what the character was capable of). But unfortunate events hinder his ability to pursue the matter further, and he continues to view the capture of Moriarty as his greatest destiny – even as his reputation for solving crimes eclipses Scotland Yard. Years later, when Moriarty’s agents try to blackmail Prince Alexis, using critical events from those Cambridge days, Holmes finds himself professionally (and emotionally) pulled into the case. What eventually emerges, and how Holmes ends up handling the complex case, is not for me to say. I have had enough Encyclopedia Brown mysteries spoiled by nosy friends to know how low giving such a spoiler would be. All I will say is that Holmes emerges as quite the romantic, and use of light and fire is involved.
OK, this is almost the opposite of my review of Crash, in that the concept is flawed but the delivery is excellent. Let me start with the good news. You can tell how truly disciplined actors were in the silent film era; for every single movement, facial expression, and use of body language is utilized as a way of communicating the dialogue that cannot be typed on the screen (some lines are not told to audiences, for it would make a 90-minute film Avatar-length in run time). The vast majority of the time, even though you don’t hear the characters, you know exactly what they are saying – a huge compliment to the director (as well as writers Marion Fairfax and Earle Browne). In particular, this makes the three central characters shine in a new way. Rather than played him as the usual isolated, embittered crank, Holmes is re-imagined as a wide-eyed, outgoing hero as well as a sleuthing genius – requiring a certain level of confidence and approachability that John Barrymore pulls off easily, with the charisma his acting family is legendary for. In his onscreen debut, level-minded Roland Young also succeeds in bringing out the best in Dr. Watson, making him look like an effectively practical thinker to compliment Holmes deeper questionings (rather than the dullard who merely asks Holmes “How did you solve it?”). And Moriarty…man, if “maniacal” and “brooding” was in the Old Oxford Dictionary, Gustav von Seyffertitz’s performance would be put down as the first synonym.
For its time, the way the scenes were shot don’t impeded the film’s progression, although it feels a bit primitive by today’s standards; and considering the dated nature of the film reel (it was feared lost for decades), it is not that hard to observe and take in everything being seen. However, what I did notice was a conceptual error in how Holmes’ sleuthing was presented in this retelling. Maybe a part of this was due to the film adapting the famous play starring William Gillette in the titular role, rather than the original novels. But most of the time, Holmes’ stories went like this:
______
Act 1: A mystery is presented to Holmes, often a murder or anticipation of a crime against the city.
Act 2: Without knowing who is responsible, we follow Holmes (Watson tagging along) as he does unusual things at a particular scene in his attempts to observe what has occurred…much to the surprise of those who call in his help.
Act 3: Holmes reveals the true villains and how they acted, with every action he did pointing out an additional clue to help solve the case. Everyone is impressed, the pair return to 22 Baker Street for pipes and tea.
______
In my mind, the thing that made Sherlock Holmes influential is that you never quite knew what was happening or going on, but had to trust in Holmes’ judgment in the story to clear things up. In this film, Moriarty is immediately revealed as the main culprit, and the storyline eventually boils down to a game of cat-and-mouse. With some of the action scenes involved by the end, and the mystery most often involving the trapping of the villain instead of who the villain actually is, this film’s tone often screams more Italian Job than Doyle’s literary creation. Which is not to say it is done poorly, just a different beast in nature from what you might expect.
But that basic issue set aside, it really is a wonderful addition to the Sherlock Holmes analogy and one that I think any fan of the series should see. Great in acting (on a whole other level), unique in its depiction of Holmes, and comparatively short in its length, it is a shame so few people have seen the quite-forgotten film (I will post the link below.) This is probably a film worthy of an 8 for fans of silent films or the cloaked sleuth, and more a 6 for everybody else. As for me, my deduction convinces me to post a rating right in between.
Score:
Link to Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smm5s-yziPQ
TOMORROW (DAY 9): GLADIATOR
No comments:
Post a Comment