For the Love of Film: The Film Preservation Blogathon - Sherlock Holmes (1922)

by Tony Dayoub

This is a contribution to For the Love of Film: The Film Preservation Blogathon being led by Marilyn Ferdinand of Ferdy on Films and Farran Smith Nehme, aka The Siren, at The Self-Styled Siren.

With all the hype surrounding the release of yet another iteration of Sherlock Holmes this past Christmas, many might have overlooked a rare cinephilic treat related to its attendant publicity. Turner Classic Movies celebrated the character—one of (if not) the most often depicted in cinema—with a day-long marathon of his films. From Basil Rathbone to Peter Cushing, most of the actors that have played the eccentric detective were represented. The most interesting film was reserved for TCM's regular Silent Sunday showcase, the 1922 Sherlock Holmes starring the renowned John Barrymore as the eponymous sleuth. This was the television debut of the previously lost silent, restored by the George Eastman House with the help of the National Film Preservation Foundation in 2001.

Sherlock Holmes is representative of why the NFPF's work (as well as that of countless other cinematic archives too numerous to mention) is so important in preserving our cinematic heritage. According to their website, "fewer than 20% of U.S. feature films from the 1920s survive in complete form in American archives; of the American features produced before 1950, only half still exist." As it stands, this 85-minute cut of Holmes, the most complete version yet, still has sections that are pretty clearly missing (sometimes even in the middle of a scene) and perhaps lost forever. The George Eastman House's work on this film give movie enthusiasts of all stripes another portal into the past, and it was made possible with a grant from the NFPF.

If you are a fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's literary creation, you will learn that this silent is one of the least faithful interpretations of the character. The film begins with Holmes as a young college student, making the acquaintance of a classmate by the name of Watson. He still hasn't found a line of work suitable for his unique deductive talents. But a mystery crops up, one which he won't be able to solve for years despite knowing that a Professor Moriarty (played by a frightening Gustav von Seyffertitz) is somehow behind it. And in working the case he'll meet the love of his life, Alice Faulkner (Carol Dempster). Yes, you heard right. Holmes falls in love. Who knew that a film made while Holmes' author Doyle was still alive could somehow depict the character less accurately than Guy Ritchie does with Robert Downey, Jr. in the role?

Well, disappointed Holmes aficionados aside, movie buffs can find plenty to appreciate in the film. The American movie is one of the few silents to have done extensive location work in London. And though the setting isn't period accurate to Doyle's stories, it is historically fascinating to see early automobiles and telephones in use by the characters and in the background. Also of note is Barrymore's performance. The contemplative, stoic detective elicits a subdued portrayal from the usually theatrical Barrymore (Grand Hotel), one more palatable to today's audiences than the ones typically found in his other films. 1922 was the year that Barrymore would give his best regarded stage performance as Hamlet. The female lead, Dempster, makes a rare appearance in a film outside of her collaborations with mentor and lover, D.W. Griffith (Intolerance). Future Hollywood gossip columnist Hedda Hopper has a small but pivotal appearance in the film as a woman working for Moriarty. But most interesting is the fact that Sherlock Holmes features the debuts of two actors who would go on to greater acclaim in the future.

Roland Young, who plays Dr. Watson, would go on to some measure of fame for his Oscar-nominated role as the titular Topper(1937). And in the part of the confidential informant, Foreman Wells, is an actor who went on to portray a famous detective in his own right, William Powell.

The greatest crime is to ignore the fact that even flawed films such as Sherlock Holmes provide immeasurable value in the amount of opportunities one is offered to learn about the cultural, social, and historical details so unique to our continuing cinematic legacy.

Please donate any amount you can to support the efforts of the National Film Preservation Foundation.

The National Film Preservation Foundation is the independent, nonprofit organization created by the U.S. Congress to help save America’s film heritage. They work directly with archives to rescue endangered films that will not survive without public support.

The NFPF will give away 4 DVD sets as thank-you gifts to blogathon donors chosen in a random drawing: Treasures III: Social Issues in American Film, 1900-1934 and Treasures IV: American Avant Garde Film, 1947-1986.

Movie Review: The Wolfman (2010)

by Tony Dayoub

Oh, how I wanted to like The Wolfman. I was so excited when I saw the trailer, I even ran a post suggesting it looked more exciting than Avatar (I totally deserve to get the boot for that one). Not only does it star one of my favorite actors, Benicio Del Toro. Not only does its imagery evoke the expressionistic chiaroscuro scenes of the old Universal horror flicks AND the repressed (at least some of the time) eroticism of the Hammer horror movies. It is also the return of one of my favorite cinematic monsters, the werewolf.

There is something tragic about the werewolf, a man (or even woman as in 2000's great Ginger Snaps) whose monstrous nature is a curse inflicted rather than a an inborn evil. Generally, this puts the viewer in the position of rooting for his human persona while recognizing the danger of his animalistic one. Rarely though, does it force one to actively root against the wolf monster he becomes the way one would against Jigsaw or any other inherently evil killer. Who can really hate an animal for simply acting true to their bestial nature? Some actors can deliver the conflicted nature of such a creature, from narrowly talented ones like Lon Chaney, Jr. in the legendary original 1941 iteration of this film to the far more dynamic Oliver Reed in my personal favorite, The Curse of the Werewolf (1961).

So imagine my surprise when the usually dependable Del Toro fails to pull this off. His Lawrence Talbot, haunted as he says he is, sleepwalks through the otherwise operatic Wolfman, lost in Method-inspired underplaying while his stage-inspired British supporting players steal the film out from under him. Anthony Hopkins isn't even working hard at it. His performance as Talbot's father, Sir John, is subdued enough to be nearly as somnambulistic as Del Toro's. But Hopkins can do more with an unexpected voice modulation than other actors can, even Del Toro, whose portrayal of the monster demonstrates he can release his inner beast with gusto when necessary, Rick Baker's fantastic makeup be damned. A wild romp through a Victorian London right out of the recent Sherlock Holmes allows Del Toro to chew more than the scenery.

Sherlock Holmes also serves as a key to decipher what went wrong with The Wolfman. Editor extraordinaire Walter Murch seems to have been brought on to save this movie. He seems to have been inspired by Guy Ritchie's stop-start, slow-mo-then-overcranked editing style since it enlivens the contemporaneous setting of the Holmes film. But Murch's hyper-stylized editing does nothing to erase the picture's flaws. This movie has been delayed for a year, and quite honestly it shows. Director Joe Johnston (October Sky) may be more to blame for Del Toro's failings than the actor himself. The performance of his leading actor seen in relief to that of the rest of the cast indicates Johnston leaving Del Toro to his own devices. The film is overscored by Danny Elfman (after almost being fired and having his compositions deleted in favor of someone else's), his orchestration a virtual rip-off of Wojciech Kilar's seminal music for Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992). Despite being lit quite beautifully by Shelly Johnson, the movie's tendency to fall back on medium close-ups betrays his roots in the televison world, minimizing any dynamism from the disjointed shot selections. The problem is Holmes' editing style doesn't work in this Gothic horror film, where shots need to linger long enough to establish a sense of atmosphere and heighten the tension. Strangely enough, The Wolfman simply moves too fast, sacrificing mystery to make sure all of the money spent on gore, CGI, and art direction is seen on the screen.

Sadly, I'll have to wait a bit longer to get an effective movie worthy of this classic monster. The Wolfman's growl is indifferent to its bite.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes (2009)

by Tony Dayoub

Interestingly, last night (24 hours after seeing Avatar) I had a great time watching Guy Ritchie (Snatch) work Sherlock Holmes over with his particular brand of Britstosterone-fueled filmmaking. In what seems to be the emerging pattern among reboots these days, Ritchie drops in on Holmes (Robert Downey) somewhat early in his career, before he has met the shadowy figure in the fringes of the movie who will ultimately become his archenemy. And rather than modify Holmes and sidekick Watson (Jude Law) to fit into his style of protagonists, Ritchie is able to stay somewhat faithful to Arthur Conan Doyle's mythos, peppering the film with details from his novels while melding his sensibility into a London that is possibly one of the most historically accurate to ever serve as a backdrop for a cinematic Holmes adventure.

Yes, it's a grungier Holmes than we're used to seeing, one that could easily fit into the lineup with any of the other underworld characters from Ritchie's filmography yet still true to Doyle's depiction of the character. Downey has just the right flair for theatricality to embody the Holmes we're familiar with. The deductive reasoning, the dry wit, the lightning fast reflexes both mental and otherwise, are faithfully preserved. The one thing Downey brings to the mix which may shock some who only know the character from the movies is a physicality that has often been referred to in the novels. Holmes could have been a prize-fighter according to Doyle's novels, and Downey, looking leaner and sleeker than he ever has before (an allusion to Holmes' unspoken—at least in this movie—drug addiction?) brings the attitude of a bare-knuckle brawler and the grace and agility of a martial artist into the film's multitude of action scenes. This, in fact, is an action movie, but it will probably be one of the smartest and most historically accurate ones you'll see for a long time.

If there are any drawbacks they lie in the predictability of what is basically a traditional detective story/action-adventure tale. There's seldom any question that Holmes will save the day, that our heroes' lives are in danger, or that we won't figure out the villain, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), and his agenda. And Rachel McAdams is sorely miscast as the one woman Holmes has ever found formidable. She seems like a young schoolgirl next to these men. But Ritchie makes up for this by pumping some adrenaline into the story—the film moves like a juggernaut, quick, muscular and unstoppable—and giving the movie a real sense of place and time that make every scene worth exploring if only for the simple pleasure of soaking in the ambience. Ritchie also gets points for avoiding the expository origin story that often plagues reboots of this nature. Instead he introduces us to Holmes and Watson—virtual equals in the way their strengths complement each other—in what seems like mid-career.

The most interesting performance is Law's as Holmes' faithful aide, Dr. Watson. Often presented as somewhat of a bumbler in other movies (particularly when played by Nigel Bruce in the forties), Law imbues Watson with dignity and self-respect, reminding you always that this man's intellectual stature must be of some note in order to even keep up with the arrogant genius that is Holmes. Details about Watson usually reserved solely for Doyle's stories come to the forefront in Ritchie's film: his distinguished military service in Afghanistan; his medical acumen; and his self-deprecating habit of acknowledging his limitations in the presence of his intellectually superior friend. There's even a subplot that touches on the closeness of the two men, with Holmes experiencing a bit of jealousy at the thought of Watson's impending marriage to a governess (a wonderful excuse to pass some time with the underrated Kelly Reilly).

Sherlock Holmes is hardly as ambitious as Cameron's Avatar,a film that may overshadow its opening at the box office this weekend. But Holmes succeeds on its own merits in some ways Avatar fails to. It gives us a fresh take on a favorite literary character, which in years to come, may give this film some stronger footing than its box office rival.

Sherlock Holmes opens in theaters on Christmas Day.