THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1939)
The Influences Of Sherlock Holmes (6 of 10)
Lots of people over the decades have complained that Fox’s 1939 “ADVENTURES” has very little to do with William Gillette’s 1899 stage play. Fair enough. But no one—not even Scarlet Street magazine’s late editor Richard Valley, a Holmes movie expert if ever I saw one, seemed aware of what it actually was! Growing up, the Rathbone films were the earliest HOLMES stories I ever saw. But now, collecting DVDs, a whole new world has been opening up to me. In the last year, I not only saw the 1916 William Gillette film adaptation of his own play, but also the greatly-expanded 1922 remake of it with John Barrymore.
But I've also seen the 1932 Clive Brook film "SHERLOCK HOLMES", which, it turns out, is a direct SEQUEL to the story in the stage play. And, whatta ya know? It suddenly became obvious to me that, if anything, the 1939 "ADVENTURES" film is actually a very loose REMAKE of that!
Both films were made by Fox. Both open with Moriarty in the dock for previous crimes. But while he’s acquitted at the last minute in the ’39 film, the ’32 film has him sent to prison, after he threatens to murder the 3 people responsible for putting him there. Soon he breaks jail, murders the judge, and then hatches a scheme to frame Holmes for murdering the Scotland Yard inspector he was a rival of. Once Holmes has been arrested, he invites a whole gang of foreign criminals to run riot looting London, some of them "Chicago gangland" style-- as a DIVERSION for the REAL crime, robbing The Bank Of England.
I knew decades ago from a Scarlet Street article that there was a lot missing from the finished film. For decades, my impression was that Moriarty somehow learned of the murder of Ann Brandon’s father ten years earlier, and recreated the circumstances purely as a diversion. But according to Richard Valley’s audio commentary, Mateo, the guy with the bolas who killed Ann’s brother and tried to kill her, wasn’t hired by Moriarty, he actually was her father's killer, who had sought out Moriarty’s help in finding them. This was very similar to how in the 1935 Arthur Wontner film, “THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES” (an adaptation of “The Valley Of Fear”), Moriarty is consulted to help a vengeful member of the Scowrers mob get revenge on Pinkerton man Birdie Edwards. In that light, it seems more likely Mateo came to Moriarty seeking help, and Moriarty decided to take advantage of it as a diversion. What a HELL of a thing for Fox to leave out of the finished film! It's akin to the vandalism MGM performed against Dan Curtis' “NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS”.
The climax, Holmes chasing Moriarty around a tower before the latter falls to his death, is also swiped from Wontner's "TRIUMPH", while Watson getting the final line, "Elementary, my dear Holmes!" comes from Wontner's "THE SIGN OF FOUR" in 1932.
Oddly enough, a key moment from “The Hound of the Baskervilles”, where Holmes tells Sir Henry he must do what Holmes says, no matter how risky, or he’ll end up living the rest of his life in the shadow of death, was missing, like so many other elements were, from Fox’s “HOUND”, yet turned up almost verbatim in “ADVENTURES” with his instructions to Ann. It’s like this movie’s story wasn’t written, it was constructed.
I can’t end without mentioning Ida Lupino. I’ve admired her work for decades, but I really fell for her watching 1939’s “THE LONE WOLF SPY HUNT”. That film, made just before this one, was apparently the last time she played a light-hearted role, and “ADVENTURES” was her transition into more serious parts. I need to see more of her early films. I liked seeing her smiling.
So, if anyone’s ever watched “ADVENTURES” and felt like they were missing a key plot point or two… you were!
Addendum: 4-6-2024
The MPI SHERLOCK HOLMES box with all 14 Rathbone-Bruce films has all 12 Universals stunningly restored so they look better than they have in my lifetime. But the 2 Fox films have not been, presumably, as someone felt they didn't need to be. But in my opinion, "ADVENTURES" seriously needs restoration. Most of it looks stunning. However, the last reel or so-- from the moment the soldiers arrive with the Star of Delhi at The Tower, the entire rest of the film is SO DARK you can barely see what you're looking at. I discovered this week that if I crank my TV's contrast all the way up to "100" and also increase the brightness 3 points, the last section of the film is MUCH clearer. But I shouldn't have to do that in the middle of watching a film. Tonight, I dug out my VHS copy of a rental from the 90s, and confirmed that while the entire film is somewhat faded & fuzzy, that entire last section is MUCH brighter, and you can see every detail almost blotted out on the MPI DVD. (There's also the IDENTICAL bit of damage-- a pair of wide vertical lines on the right side-- early in the "Tower" sequence, which means the old rental and the source of the MPI disc were in fact the SAME print!) I wish MPI would go back and fix this one film, then offer it free to existing customers (perhaps in a trade-- it's been done with one book I know that was printed badly).
Also, in the realm of pure trivia: I finally noticed that BOTH William Austin AND Eric Wilton have cameos in this film-- that's BOTH "Alfred Beagle"s from the 1943 and 1949 BATMAN films. (Austin plays a confused passery-by, Wilton plays Lady Cunningham's butler!)
(1-27-2022 / 4-6-2024)
