SHERLOCK HOLMES (1922)
Inferior & Incomplete Remake (5 of 10)
Some weeks back, I re-watched SHERLOCK HOLMES (1916), the adaptation of the 1899 William Gillette stage play, which featured Gillette and almost the entire cast from the play. It was considered a "lost" film for generations, and the print that was found-- and then gloriously restored in 2015-- was from France, where it had been shown over 4 weeks as a 4-part serial.
I just re-watched SHERLOCK HOLMES (1922) with John Barrymore. This is the same story, with slightly-more spectacular exteriors, and a new 30-MINUTE prologue that shows Holmes & Watson in college. The plot about the Prince accused of stealing money, which was actually stolen by a guy named "Forman Wells"-- a dupe of Moriarty who wanted to get out from under his influence-- was added new. At the end of this "prologue", we see the Prince getting the news that his brother was killed in a road accident, and now HE will be crowned king, which suddenly makes it impossible for him to marry his girlfriend Rose Faulkner. As a result, she commits suicide!
Holmes helps Wells out, then, out of curiosity, goes to visit Moriarty, who warns him to stay out of his business. Instead, Holmes decides he's finally found his calling in life! This 30-minute sequence could be considered an "origin" story for Holmes, in the way Hollywood in recent decades has felt the "need" to create UNCALLED-FOR back-stories for classic characters that their actual creators did not feel compelled to tell. (I think of such films as CONAN THE BARBARIAN, THE SHADOW, and even THE SAINT-- the last being particularly egregious, as that film had nothing to do with Simon Templar, but was instead, IN FACT, an unauthorized adaptation of the 1st book about Michael Lanyard, THE LONE WOLF. There should have been a lawsuit over that.)
After this prologue, the film proceeds mostly like the 1899 play and 1916 film adaptation of it. HOWEVER... The closer it gets to the end, the more it deviates. Also, it seems to me, the more is STILL MISSING from the current 2008 restoration. When Moriarty goes to Holmes' apartment, there's a sudden JUMP to where he asays, "You've turned down my proposition." But we never SEE him make one. Also, Holmes is holding Moriarty's gun, and we didn't get to see him grab it. Also, Billy (who is never once named on this print) walks in, his shirt torn to shreads. In the 1916 film, we saw him fighting one of Moriarty's goons in the lobby downstairs. The scene ends with Moriarty walking across the apartment, but we don't actually see him leave, and it CUTS to Bassick calling Larrabee on the phone about the gas chamber, and telling him to "bring the girl". Alice followed Holmes in the 1916 film, she wasn't brought there against her will and then tied up. So in the play & 1916 film, Alice was portrayed as a much-braver and more heroic character, while here, she's more of a victim. In addition, at the end of the phone call, there are 2 SHORT CLIPS of Billy staggering around with his shirt torn, and Holmes yanking aside the curtain he was hiding behind. MY GOD-- they spliced these 2 clips in, IN THE WRONG PLACE! Geez.
The entire gas chamber scene, which in the 1916 built slowly with Bassick talking with Holmes, flies by much quicker and awkwardly. I sense more missing. Then, the finale at Watson's house, when Moriarty is caught & arrested, they immediately have Holmes telling Watson he and Alice will be going on their honeymoon the next day. And the film ends. WHAT??? There's like at least 10 MINUTES after that in the 1916 film, where the Prince arrives, Holmes hands him fake letters, he's called out on having failed, Alice THEN steps forward and hands over the REAL letters, the Prince leaves, and Holmes and Alice both feel they need to talk.
This entire major plot of the story is COMPLETELY unresolved in the 1922 film-- at least, it is in the 2008 restoration. Was this filmed and lost, and still missing? I'd like to hope so. Otherwise, the whole 1922 film just seems an uncalled-for, inferior remake of a film that its studio LET VANISH unnecessarily, because back then, movies were considered throwaway entertainment whose use ended when their theatrical runs were over.
The most interesting thing about this particular film, is how several actors in it were involved in later films. Forman Wells is played by William Powell, who 7 years later, first played PHILO VANCE. The Prince is played by Reginald Denny, who later played "Algy" in several BULLDOG DRUMMOND films, and was also Maxim's best friend in REBECCA. And Watson is played by Roland Young, who 7 years later turned up in THE BISHOP MURDER CASE opposite Basil Rathbone, was in TOPPER in 1937, and perhaps most famously, was in AND THEN THERE WERE NONE in 1945.
Perhaps the most infuriating thing about this picture, is the way I've read that Goldwyn Pictures Corporation managed to BLOCK distribution of the English Stoll Pictures Productions series of SHERLOCK HOLMES short story adaptations that starred Eille Norwood in America. That Samuel Goldwyn was one real SONOFAB****. I really hate people who are against any form of "competition". Instead of making a superior product, they want to get ahead by putting other people out of business. Knowing this just puts ANOTHER black mark against this picture. (Knowing that John Barrymore destroyed himself and his career with alcohol is another.)
