Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

Open, general discussion of silent films, personalities and history.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

IA

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostThu Jan 07, 2010 6:54 pm

Does anyone have any information about the commercial availability of Eille Norwood's Holmes films? The recently released DVD set Sherlock Holmes: The Archive Collection has Norwood's version of The Man With The Twisted Lip (1921), and Grapevine Video has available a public domain disc that has Lip and The Dying Detective(1921) and The Devil's Foot (1921). I will be ordering the latter this week.

But these are hardly all that is left--miraculously, nearly all of Norwood's films appear to have survived. Norwood played Holmes more times than anyone else onscreen, and, according to FIAF's 2003 Treasures disc, the BFI has the following titles in their vaults, all adaptations of Doyle's original stories:

His Last Bow (1923)
Silver Blaze (1923)
The Blue Carbuncle (1923)
The Cardboard Box (1923)
The Crooked Man (1923)
The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax (1923)
The Engineer's Thumb (1923)
The Final Problem (1923)
The Gloria Scott (1923)
The Missing Three Quarter (1923)
The Mystery of Thor Bridge (1923)
The Sign of Four (1923)
The Speckled Band (1923)
The Stone of Mazarin (1923)
The Three Students (1923)
Black Peter (1922)
Charles Augustus Milverton (1922)
The Abbey Grange (1922)
The Boscombe Valley Mystery (1922)
The Bruce Partington Plans (1922)
The Red Circle (1922)
The Golden Pince-Nez (1922)
The Greek Interpreter (1922)
The Musgrave Ritual (1922)
The Naval Treaty (1922)
The Norwood Builder (1922)
The Red Circle (1922)
The Reigate Squires (1922)
The Second Stain (1922)
The Six Napoleons (1922)
The Stockbroker's Clerk (1922)
A Case of Identity (1921)
A Scandal in Bohemia (1921)
The Beryl Coronet (1921)
The Copper Beeches (1921)
The Empty House (1921)
The Noble Bachelor (1921)
The Priory School (1921)
The Red-Headed League (1921)
The Resident Patient (1921)
The Solitary Cyclist (1921)
The Tiger of San Pedro (1921) (An adaptation of Doyle's "Wisteria Lodge")
The Yellow Face (1921)
The Hound of the Baskervilles (1921)

Several of these films are adaptations of stories that may have never been adapted before or since for film and TV, including "The Engineer's Thumb," "The Gloria Scott," "The Missing Three Quarter," "The Three Students," "Black Peter," "The Reigate Squires," "The Stockbroker's Clerk," "A Case of Identity," "The Beryl Coronet" and "The Yellow Face." I'm especially eager to see the last one, whose conclusion has been called one of the noblest in English literature.

I don't know how many of the Norwood films held by the BFI are complete or what condition they're in, but surely these films are worth further investigation and deserve release on DVD, all the more so since Norwood was the first great Sherlock Holmes of the screen. We do know that The Sign of Four is complete and in good shape, since it was publicly screened this year at Le Giornate del Cinema Muto. Here are the excellent program notes, written by Jay Weissberg:

Arguably the best of the surviving Sherlock Holmes silent features, The Sign of Four shows off the Stoll Film Company’s capacity for producing high-budget dramas with visual flair, in contrast to their posthumous reputation for stolidly conceived literary adaptations. The film is also an excellent example of Maurice Elvey’s skills not just as director but writer, reworking the Conan Doyle novel in a way especially sensitive to cinematic narration. Variety’s critic Gore heaped praise, enthusing, “This new Stoll picture…is one of the best screen melodramas this firm has made. Keeping well to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s story, the film runs smoothly and is full of grip and thrill. Maurice Elvey has seized every opportunity the story gives and the result is a ‘Sherlock Holmes’ story which is fine entertainment of the strong, sensational type.”

Elvey first tackled the Holmes tales with the 1921 series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and, in the same year, the feature The Hound of the Baskervilles. In line with Stoll’s shrewd policy of tie-ins, The Sign of Four was released to coincide with the final episodes of The Last Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Stoll’s follow-up series directed by George Ridgwell. While Elvey doesn’t stick quite as close to the original as Gore implies, he’s nevertheless faithful to the spirit of the book, capturing a lightness of tone often absent in earlier film adaptations. This is true not simply for Holmes himself (more on that below), but for the general tone, conveyed through often wry intertitles which occasionally spill into distinctly non-Conan Doyle territory.

The film is well-paced and beautifully edited, not merely in the famous chase sequence on the Thames. While Conan Doyle wraps up his narration with an extended flashback that puts all the characters in place, Elvey minimizes the traditional flashback structure (there are a few scattered about), integrating the strands and choosing a superimposition device that keeps the action moving forward while explaining Holmes’ logic. Gore was so taken by this method that he singles it out for praise: “Another effective innovation is when the detective is explaining things to his friend Watson, the explanation aided by ‘ghost’ effects instead of the usual irritating ‘flash backs’. Some new camera effects are also used for the first time, including a great improvement on the usual ‘fade out.’”

One of the key results of the superimposition device is that it enables the audience to clearly follow Holmes’ line of reasoning while keeping the focus on the great man himself, furthering the identification with the character that’s such a vital element of the stories. The reader/viewer is encouraged to think they too can be master sleuths, provided they cultivate the necessary qualities as spelled out in the novel of The Sign of Four: observation, deduction, and knowledge. Watson makes this link explicit by asking himself “What would Holmes do?”, prompting the viewer to mentally answer back in the style of their idol, while Elvey furthers the pact between Holmes and his audience of would-be detectives by having Holmes turn to the camera and exclaim, via an underlined intertitle, “This is going to be exciting.”

And exciting it is, culminating in a thrilling pursuit on the Thames. Elvey slightly changes the original by adding a car chase (Conan Doyle complained in his memoirs about such updates), though the extratextual modification is organically integrated and allows the director to indulge in even more London sightseeing than would strictly be possible via the river. It’s worth quoting Elvey’s description of the shoot:

“Twenty-nine separate days, spread over a period of some weeks, were occupied in obtaining ideal effects… The screen does not reveal the difficulties under which we worked, nor does it indicate the material used in obtaining what I required. Though only one yacht and four launches appear in the picture, seven yachts were requisitioned. The Thames is a tidal river, and the varying times of the tides and the varying speed and roughness of the water rendered taking difficult. Particularly did we discover the latter fact when using the light motor racing boats, brought in from Monte Carlo for the purpose. Heavy seas were often running in the lower reaches, but patience was eventually rewarded.”

In her work on Stoll, Nathalie Morris discusses Elvey’s emulation of American methods, partly necessitated by the company’s desire to stoke an ever-increasing U.S. demand for Sherlock Holmes product in a style considered most sellable in the States. There’s something of an irony here, considering Stoll’s foundation in 1918 as a company created to present “British films by British producers, breathing the British spirit”, but as Morris states, Stoll’s methods were to promote Britishness via American models, initially through marketing strategies and production methods but occasionally, as with The Sign of Four, even emulating a certain perceived U.S. studio style. Elvey himself temporarily moved to America, and Fox, one year later.

With 45 series episodes and two features (plus stage adaptations), the star Eille Norwood became as identified with Holmes as William Gillette, and though it’s now impossible to make comparisons, Norwood certainly feels right. Conan Doyle himself was delighted with the actor, stating in his memoirs: “He has that rare quality that 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 has also a quite unrivalled power of disguise.” Here in The Sign of Four he also enjoys Holmes’ dry wit, revealing an almost pixieish humor that makes the outwardly strict man of science so appealing. One major change in casting from the previous Stoll incarnations was Arthur Cullin as Watson, considered a more plausible romantic partner(!!) for the comely Isobel Elsom (then married to Elvey) than their regular Watson, Hubert Willis. Cullin was no stranger to the role, essaying Holmes’ right-hand man in Samuelson’s 1916 The Valley of Fear, opposite H.A. Saintsbury.



So while changes were made and extra action was added to the original, they were mostly at the service of streamlining and enhancing Doyle's story and remain true to its spirit. Especially revealing are Doyle's praise of Norwood and his only complaint, about the 1920s anachronisms. This negates the idea bandied about by those who think Doyle didn't care about how his character was handled--when Doyle saw that faithful adaptations of his stories were possible he became concerned with their veracity. Anyway, I'll move on and conclude by noting that Norwood's version of "The Final Problem" is also complete and in good shape, since it was also screened this year in Italy. Here are excerpts from Mr. Weissberg's notes:


The tone of The Final Problem sets it apart from all other episodes in Stoll’s three Sherlock Holmes series. From the very opening there’s an urgency, a desperation in Eille Norwood’s Holmes that comes as something of a shock after his usual masterful calm, or playful excitement. Unusually for Norwood, known for being a stickler for the original text, he increases the character’s exterior tension, conveying a sense of dread from the very start of the tale even though the finale is already well known. Before now no one had dared film the emotional story climaxing with the death of the world’s most popular detective, and not until Granada Television’s 1985 episode in their series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes did anyone take up the challenge again...

...Audiences in 1923 naturally knew their beloved hero wasn’t really dead, but even so his fall at the end of The Final Problem generates a powerful emotional tug. It’s a tribute to Conan Doyle’s economy of style that it takes a shorter time to read the story than watch the film, though the latter certainly doesn’t drag. The scriptwriters made a number of changes from the original, turning Watson into an eyewitness to all events and including a scene of the police rounding up Professor Moriarty’s gang, but most noticeable is a change of setting: Stoll couldn’t very well send a film crew to Reichenbach Falls, so they moved Holmes’ demise to the cliffs at Cheddar Gorge, which George Ridgwell makes suitably dramatic. The Final Problem marked not only the master detective’s demise, but the end of the three series by Stoll. As saddened as audiences must have been, there was a nice consolation: The Sign of Four would be released just a few months later.
Offline

DShepFilm

  • Posts: 445
  • Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 2:40 am

PostThu Jan 07, 2010 8:01 pm

The rights and materials for the Elie Norwood Sherlock Holmes films are owned by Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Company. He is a great enthusiast of the films and bought the entire Stoll library to get them.

David Shepard
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 2778
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

PostThu Jan 07, 2010 8:09 pm

Holmes turning to the viewer and saying "This is going to be exciting" sounds absolutely blasphemous to me, assuming that this was intended seriously. If that remark was to pass Holmes' lips it would be certain to drip with deadly irony.
Eric Stott
Offline

IA

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:09 pm

PostThu Jan 07, 2010 8:16 pm

DShepFilm wrote:The rights and materials for the Elie Norwood Sherlock Holmes films are owned by Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber's Really Useful Company. He is a great enthusiast of the films and bought the entire Stoll library to get them.


Thanks very much for that information. I hope Webber will consider spearheading a box set of the films, so that other enthusiasts will be able to enjoy them. It seems a shame for so few of the films to be available, especially when there's an in-built audience of Holmes fanatics out there. And thanks to that dubious-looking Guy Ritchie film, sales of the Rathbone and Brett DVDs have actually gone up, a good omen for further Sherlockian releases.
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 2778
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

PostThu Jan 07, 2010 8:25 pm

I'd like to see one of the Clive Brook films, though the 1929 version sounds absolutely dreadful and the 1932 not much better. I have a still of Brook in costume and he at least looks the part.
Eric Stott
Offline
User avatar

greta de groat

  • Posts: 1506
  • Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:06 am
  • Location: California

PostThu Jan 07, 2010 11:19 pm

FrankFay wrote:I'd like to see one of the Clive Brook films, though the 1929 version sounds absolutely dreadful and the 1932 not much better. I have a still of Brook in costume and he at least looks the part.


Ah, but the 1932 version (available from Sinister Cinema) has the marvelous Moriarity of Ernest Torrence! But i have to admit the rest is pretty shockingly un-Sherlockian.

greta
Greta de Groat
Unsung Divas of the Silent Screen
http://www.stanford.edu/~gdegroat
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 2778
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

PostFri Jan 08, 2010 5:14 am

I must see that, if only for Torrence. His comparatively early death was a tragedy- he was at the beginning of a superb sound career.
Eric Stott
Offline

R Michael Pyle

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

PostFri Jan 08, 2010 12:15 pm

The 1932 Clive Brook version is dreadfully dull, unfortunately. He does look the part, but he plays it as though he were dead. Too bad, too. Of course, this is only my opinion. I've not seen the 1929 version.

Like others here, I'd love to see the silents. Go, ALW!! I'll even buy one of your CDs!! I promise!!
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 2778
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

PostFri Jan 08, 2010 1:57 pm

From what I've seen and heard Clive Brook's early talkies are quite horrible, but he certainly rebounded by the mid 30's. Great career, even into the 1960's.
Eric Stott
Offline

R Michael Pyle

  • Posts: 706
  • Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 1:10 pm

PostFri Jan 08, 2010 2:35 pm

FrankFay wrote:From what I've seen and heard Clive Brook's early talkies are quite horrible, but he certainly rebounded by the mid 30's. Great career, even into the 1960's.


Sorry to take this slightly off topic, but...

I totally disagree with your assessment. Leaving out "Sherlock Holmes" and "Husband's Holiday" which are indeed dreadful, "Charming Sinners", "Slightly Scarlett", "Scandal Sheet", "East Lynne" (what's left of it), "The Lawyer's Secret", "24 Hours", and "Shanghai Express" are marvelous. He's not as bad as everyone makes him out to be. I just watched "Slightly Scarlett" last week and found it charming actually.
Offline

rollot24

  • Posts: 806
  • Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:16 pm
  • Location: Bellevue WA

PostFri Jan 08, 2010 2:42 pm

R Michael Pyle wrote: Go, ALW!! I'll even buy one of your CDs!! I promise!!


Now, now let's not get carried away. :P
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 2778
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

PostFri Jan 08, 2010 3:34 pm

R Michael Pyle wrote:
FrankFay wrote:From what I've seen and heard Clive Brook's early talkies are quite horrible, but he certainly rebounded by the mid 30's. Great career, even into the 1960's.


Sorry to take this slightly off topic, but...

I totally disagree with your assessment. Leaving out "Sherlock Holmes" and "Husband's Holiday" which are indeed dreadful, "Charming Sinners", "Slightly Scarlett", "Scandal Sheet", "East Lynne" (what's left of it), "The Lawyer's Secret", "24 Hours", and "Shanghai Express" are marvelous. He's not as bad as everyone makes him out to be. I just watched "Slightly Scarlett" last week and found it charming actually.


And that's pretty much what I meant to say, maybe my statement on mid 30's was a bit off though. He certainly adapted quite well, much better than some similar square jawed matinee idols like Conway Tearle.
Eric Stott
Offline
User avatar

Penfold

  • Posts: 1283
  • Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 2:03 pm
  • Location: Bwistol, England.

PostFri Jan 08, 2010 5:18 pm

I'm in the fortunate position to have seen quite a few of the Norwood Holmes films, mostly at the BSFF over the years.....and by and large, they're very good indeed. Some are a bit quiet, but then they aren't the easiest stories to adapt; some consist of one man telling an anecdote to another, after all.
I agree with you about a release; if the rights owner is amenable, and the material is there, then you would think that there would be enough of a marketing crossover to get a few units shifted.....and a few more people discovering the joys of Silent Film as a result.
I could use some digital restoration myself...
Offline

roquen

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 11:30 am

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostFri Jul 27, 2012 11:33 am

Dear Forum-users,


now two years later, are there maybe any news as to the whereabouts of "The Greek Interpreter" from 1922, that seems to belong to Andrew Lloyd Webber? I would urgently need it for my MA-Thesis, and I cannot even access Mr.Webbers homepage. I would be very thankful for any help you could offer,

thanks a lot!

roquen
Offline
User avatar

telical

  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostFri Jul 27, 2012 12:14 pm

roquen wrote:Dear Forum-users,


now two years later, are there maybe any news as to the whereabouts of "The Greek Interpreter" from 1922, that seems to belong to Andrew Lloyd Webber? I would urgently need it for my MA-Thesis, and I cannot even access Mr.Webbers homepage. I would be very thankful for any help you could offer,

thanks a lot!

roquen



Find out how to send him a "fan letter" and write about your situation with the film in that.
If I was doing it, I would talk about the Holmes collection he owns being of interest and
importance.
Offline

IA

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Re:

PostWed Jun 04, 2014 12:15 pm

The Sign of Four recently played at the San Francisco Silent Film Festival--quite possibly its North American premiere, since it was never screened in this country, due to a spat with Samuel Goldwyn and his Sherlock Holmes film starring John Barrymore.

Eille Norwood definitely belongs in the company of Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing, Jeremy Brett, and Benedict Cumberbatch. He's a master of stillness and quiet intensity. Though old for the part, his haggard face and severe eyes command attention (along with his occasional moments of wry humor). The film opens and closes on Norwood’s face, masking the frame to show Holmes staring down the audience.

Norwood’s Holmes is straight from the books, but purists should be warned that the 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 greatly rely on dialogue and spoken exposition. A faithful silent adaptation of The Sign of Four would have drowned in a sea of intertitles. 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 offscreen. The long flashback in the novel is drastically reduced and dealt with early on, as is the solution of the mystery and revelation of the culprits.

Other changes: 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” (though “Abdullah” is actually an Islamic name--Arabic for “slave of Allah”). Additionally, the Four of the title are different characters and lack the camaraderie of Doyle’s original. That, along with the extensive use of hammy 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 written 30 years earlier. An additional defect is underuse of Watson (a common problem in silent Holmes films), played by the stolid and mustache-less Arthur Cullin--though there is a fun bit where he wonders “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 visual 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 is later shown entering 114 Baker Street!), and the use of shadow is splendidly melodramatic (there’s even shadow molestation!). 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 London, with landmarks announced through intertitles (“Putney Bridge,” “Hyde Park Corner” etc.). The concluding speedboat chase remains impressive, with the camera perched close to waterline or on top of the boats, as they plow through the waves.

FrankFay wrote:Holmes turning to the viewer and saying "This is going to be exciting" sounds absolutely blasphemous to me, assuming that this was intended seriously. If that remark was to pass Holmes' lips it would be certain to drip with deadly irony.


Norwood says the line facing the camera head-on and employing his intense stare, but he definitely takes relish in it, since the news of crime and murder alleviates his boredom (he'd been sawing away on the violin earlier, much to Watson's annoyance). The lines are also underlined, adding to the lightness of the proceedings. Onscreen it works very well.

Seeing The Sign of Four made me eager to see more of Norwood's Holmes--I hope Lord Webber will get off his duff and give the films a proper DVD release.
Offline
User avatar

Brooksie

  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 6:41 pm
  • Location: Portland, Oregon via Sydney, Australia

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostWed Jun 04, 2014 1:24 pm

Thanks for the review - I agree, it's a solid adaptation (the pantomime villain notwithstanding), and Elvey's treatment brings a cinematic quality to something that could have been rather static in other hands. Holmes' re-telling of his investigations using the 'ghosting' that has already been discussed was particularly clever. It definitely whetted my appetite for more of the Stoll/Eille Norwood productions - you would think that with the current interest in the Benedict Cumberbatch series, there could be no better time for a DVD boxed set.

The 1929 Clive Brook film played at Cinecon last year. It was no masterpiece, though Brooks' Holmes was better than I had been led to expect (I have not seen the 1932 film). It was Moriarty who was the real head-scratcher - a truly bizarre and over-the-top performance by Harry T. Morey.
Offline

IA

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostWed Jun 04, 2014 1:33 pm

I'd definitely like to see Brook's Holmes--I'm rather fond of the actor, if only for the masterpiece On Approval, and at this year's SFSFF he helped make Midnight Madness bearable by underplaying with feeling.
Offline
User avatar

rudyfan

  • Posts: 1572
  • Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 11:48 am
  • Location: San Fwancisco

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostWed Jun 04, 2014 1:44 pm

IA wrote:I'd definitely like to see Brook's Holmes--I'm rather fond of the actor, if only for the masterpiece On Approval, and at this year's SFSFF he helped make Midnight Madness bearable by underplaying with feeling.


Well, Brook did as best he could with really inferior material. Midnight Madness would have been passed over by Monogram Pictures if they'd had the chance! ;-) It was, IMO, a real dog of a picture.

Back on topic, I really enjoyed The Sign of Four. I liked Norwood an awful lot as Holmes and it whetted my appetite for more. I agree, with the resurgance of interest in all things Holmes, a boxed set would be ideal.
Offline
User avatar

greta de groat

  • Posts: 1506
  • Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:06 am
  • Location: California

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostWed Jun 04, 2014 3:04 pm

I've seen the three Stoll films that are in common circulation, The Dying Detective, The Devil's Foot, and The Man with the Twisted Lip (all 1921). Grapevine has them. They are kind of underwhelming, and even with repeated viewings it's hard to remember much about them. The prints are dark and heavy on intertitles. Norwood is good and seems to take a particular relish in disguise, the guy playing Watson is weak. For Holmes fans, though, they are worth seeing. Sign of Four was definitely better, though there were some title-heavy parts. Seeing Watson tied up, though, was the biggest laugh of the picture.

greta
Greta de Groat
Unsung Divas of the Silent Screen
http://www.stanford.edu/~gdegroat
Offline
User avatar

FrankFay

  • Posts: 2778
  • Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:48 am
  • Location: Albany NY

Re:

PostThu Jun 05, 2014 9:43 am

R Michael Pyle wrote:
FrankFay wrote:From what I've seen and heard Clive Brook's early talkies are quite horrible, but he certainly rebounded by the mid 30's. Great career, even into the 1960's.


Sorry to take this slightly off topic, but...

I totally disagree with your assessment. Leaving out "Sherlock Holmes" and "Husband's Holiday" which are indeed dreadful, "Charming Sinners", "Slightly Scarlett", "Scandal Sheet", "East Lynne" (what's left of it), "The Lawyer's Secret", "24 Hours", and "Shanghai Express" are marvelous. He's not as bad as everyone makes him out to be. I just watched "Slightly Scarlett" last week and found it charming actually.


Yes, but when you get to Shanghai Express you're way past what I'd term "Early Talkies"
Eric Stott
Offline

filmnotdigital

  • Posts: 225
  • Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 9:40 pm

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostThu Jun 05, 2014 10:39 am

I was also taken by the "ghost" effect referred to, in one flashback scene in The Sign Of Four. Since it is showing us what Holmes speculates might have happened, in terms of film grammar it's as if Elvey and company had come up with a cinematic equivalent of that old school bugaboo, the subjunctive. I can't think of an instance of this in another film off the top of my head.
The film didn't exactly minimize flashbacks, though. At one point, I recall there was even a flashback within a flashback- which puts The Sign Of Four in the company of such complex 1940s Hollywood flashback structures as Passage To Marseilles and The Locket.
Offline

IA

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:09 pm

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostThu Jun 05, 2014 11:13 am

filmnotdigital wrote:it's as if Elvey and company had come up with a cinematic equivalent of that old school bugaboo, the subjunctive. I can't think of an instance of this in another film off the top of my head.


That's an excellent way of putting it, and I can't think of any other films that have tried that either. Elvey was more imaginative in respect than practically everyone who's filmed Holmes afterward.

The film didn't exactly minimize flashbacks, though. At one point, I recall there was even a flashback within a flashback- which puts The Sign Of Four in the company of such complex 1940s Hollywood flashback structures as Passage To Marseilles and The Locket.


I hadn't noticed the flashback within flashback. I was thinking of the novel with regard to minimized flashbacks--Doyle uses a lengthy flashback to India, told by Jonathan Small, toward the end of the book, whereas the film breaks that in two and shortens each part, not surprisingly, since Small has a much smaller role in this version.

Seeing Four makes me wonder if Elvey's direction was similarly inventive in his other Holmes feature, The Hound of the Baskervilles. The latter is deemed inferior to Four in the SFSFF program notes, and the two imdb reviews are mixed (however, one is by the late F. Gwynplaine MacIntyre, who was notorious for making up reviews of films he hadn't seen), though the more credible one praises the hound and Elvey's "creative touches."
Offline

earlytalkiebuffRob

  • Posts: 643
  • Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:53 am

Re: Eille Norwood's Sherlock Holmes

PostThu Jun 05, 2014 12:48 pm

I saw the three Sherlock Holmes films at London's NFT about 35 years ago, together with, I think, A CASE OF IDENTITY. Though not the best prints, they were pretty good and thousands of times better than the horrible ones available on YouTube which I declined to download. Reports I'd read seemed to suggest that not all of them were known to survive in decent condition, but it would be nice to find them proved wrong.

And I, too, would like to see the Clive Brook RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, though I found the 1932 film disappointing when I saw it years back...

And Sherlockians may like to know about THE LIMEJUICE MYSTERY: OR WHO SPAT IN GRANDFATHER'S PORRIDGE?, a 1930 puppet parody which has to be seen to be believed! On YouTube the last time I looked...

Return to Talking About Silents

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests