Showing posts with label Arthur Wontner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arthur Wontner. Show all posts

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Sherlock Sunday: Wontner in 'The Sign of Four'

The Sign of Four: Sherlock Holmes' Greatest Case (1932)
Starring: Arthur Wontner, Ian Hunter, Isla Bevan, and Graham Soutten
Director: Graham Cutts
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

After Mary Morstan (Bevan) receives a mysterious string of pearls and a mysterious letter requesting a meeting, and is then menaced by a mysterious thug (Soutten), she retains the services of private investigators Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Wontner and Hunter) for protection and to get some answers. What is brought to light is a tale of greed, decades-old treachery and murder, and a madman seeking revenge.


"The Sign of Four" is one of the most often adapted Holmes tales, with this 1932 film being the third version and the first talkie. It's a fast-moving and at times very chilling mystery film, with a cinematic style that often anticipates techniques that wouldn't come into wide use until the rise of film noir in the late 1940s and the 1950s. These stylstic flourishes help to offset some of the film's acting styles, which are still heavily influenced by what was then the fast-fading silent movies period, giving the film a more modern feel that many of the early talkies lack.

Another strong point of the film is the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Not only does Arthur Wotner's Holmes seem as though he was brought to life straight from the pen-and-ink illustrations in "The Strand Magazine," but Holmes here seems more at ease with himself and those around him than the one we most often find in the films. He comes across as a unmatched genius, but he also has a good sense of humor and a compassionate nature and friendly demeanor that makes it easy to understand why Watson admires him. Another aspect I like about this adaptation is the Holmes is shown to be as excellent at physical confrontations as he is with the matching of wits. During the film's climax, Holmes kicks much butt, just like the character that Doyle described in his fiction.

Similarly, Watson is portrayed as an intelligent and useful assistant to Holmes, so there is no difficulty in understanding why the Great Detective keeps him around and relies on him for important tasks. This cannot be said of Watson in several other Holmes adaptatations.

While I generally liked how Watson was handled in the film, one aspect of Ian Hunter's portrayal of Watson I didn't care for was the way he came across like a lecherous pervert whenever he was around Mary Morstan. He is ogling her, pawing her... obviously barely able to keep himself from jumping her right then and there. While I understand that the intent was to portray "love at first sight" between Watson and Mary--who becomes his wife in the Doyle tales--the combination of clunky writing and silent movie-type acting makes one wonder why Mary wasn't beating this disgusting lech (who is also at least twice her age) with his cane and then running screaming from the room.

While the film keeps most of the generalities of the original Doyle tale, there are a number of changes that lend the film to be internally inconsistent and even nonsensical at times. The villain is so over the top and reprehensible that one wonders why his henchmen stick around, or even helped him in the first place; while the fact that the entire stolen treasure seems to be intact when Mary is sent the pearls instead of partially spent as in the original story; and a bizarre bit of comedy involving the neigh-obligatory "Holmes-in-disguise" scene. Some viewers might also be annoyed by the fact the story has been transported from the 1800s to the modern-day period of the 1930s, but it really makes no difference to the overall thrust of the tale.

On balance, though, it's a strong adaptation that is made even stronger by Wontner's excellent portrayal of Holmes. It's well worth checking out.



Sunday, February 28, 2010

Sherlock Sunday:
A horse brings murder to Baskerville Hall

Murder at the Baskervilles (aka "Silver Blaze") (1937)
Starring: Arthur Wontner, Ian Fleming, Lyn Harding, John Turnbull Lawrence Grossmith and Arthur Goullett
Director: Thomas Bentley
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Wontner and Fleming) are spending some quiet time in the country at the home of their old friend Sir Henry Baskerville (Grossmith) when an attempt to fix a race involving Sir Henry's prize horse Silver Blaze leads to a double murder.


Although this was Arthur Wontner's final outing as Sherlock Holmes--after a string of five films that caused critics of the day to describe him as the perfect screen Sherlock Holmes--I am choosing to make it the first of his films that I include in the Sherlock Sunday line-up, because of my love of continuity. Story-wise, it seems like it is best placed before the other Wontner Holmes films currently easily available, because it has him still actively employed as a detective and it describes his first direct clash with Professor Moriarty.

I can see Wontner's Holmes appeals to both fans and critics alike. He, moreso than any other actor in the role I've considered in a critical mindset, resembles the illustrations from the original printings in "Strand Magazine" and his Holmes is lively without being too aggressive and often sardonic without being excessively cruel to those he puts down. Best of all, from my perspective, although he is not shy about showing Watson how much smarter he is, he still treats him with the consideration due a friend and one never wonders why Watson bothers spending time with him. Wontner presents a charming Holmes that is somewhat low key when compared to the actors who followed him, but still entertaining. (And watching this Wontner film again makes me think that there must be another reason for why I didn't find Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes particularly engaging as the two portrayals are very similar.)

As for Watson, Ian Fleming provides a decent if unremarkable portrayal of Holmes' friend and biography. Both from the way the role is written and the way Fleming portrays Watson, it easy to understand why Holmes associates with him, which is a flaw in many on-screen interperations of the character. Watson even gets a moment in the sun when he is captured by Moriarty's men and remains brave in the face of certain death.

Speaking of Moriarty, who, like Sir Henry Baskerville has been added to the mix by the writers of this adaptation, I very much like the approach taken to him in his film. He and his main henchman, Colonel Moran, are set up like dark reflections of Holmes and Watson. Moriarty is to the underworld what Holmes is to the law-abiding citizen, a genius to whom they can appeal for help when all other avenues have been exhausted. It adds a great deal to the flavor of Moriarty and it makes it even clearer why the two men admired and hated each other so much and why it was so hard for one to defeat the other. (At least in concept. For a criminal mastermind, Moriarty is somewhat hamfisted and clumsy in this particular caper, although that can be excused by his own admission that fixing horse races is not his usual area of activity.)

All-in-all, this is a pleasant Holmes film. It's a little on the bland side, but I think fans of Holmes and 1930s mystery pictures will enjoy it. It's a shame that there does not appear to be a decent copy available on the DVD market. (I've come across three different versions, all equally faded and ragged... perhaps even taken from the same print?)





(I mentioned Matt Frewer's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes above. I invite you to check out my review of "A Royal Scandal" by clicking here and perhaps even leave a comment about why I might be wrong about Frewer as Sherlock Holmes.)