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 A style that now seems outdated.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.
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.