Sherlock Holmes (1916) User Reviews (14)

The Lost Treasure Rediscovered

[MDzyban · 7/10 · 4 June 2015]

In 2014 it was announced that a negative of this film had been discovered in France and would be restored for the world to see. After being considered lost for nearly 100 years it is miraculous for this to have happened. Once the restoration was complete there were only two planned theatrical screenings; one at the Cinémathèque Française film festival in France in January 2015 and another at the Silent Film Festival in San Francisco in the United States in May of 2015.

I had the good fortune to be able to attend the San Francisco screening at the beautiful and historic Castro Theater. Live music accompanied the screening, performed wonderfully by the Donald Sosin Ensemble. The theater itself was filled to capacity for the single screening and a line trailed down the sidewalk outside the building.

The film itself, post restoration, looked great. The image quality throughout was very strong and consistent with rich detail. One of the most striking features of the film itself is it's camera work and cinematography. Unusual for the time period there is a lot of camera movement and stylized editing. The visual style employed by the film is both very effective and engaging and may well have been a significant influence on other filmmakers of the time. (This viewer has seen nothing similar to it for that era.) As per the original theatrical release the film is color-tinted an orange-sepia for the interior/daylight sequences and a dark blue for the night/exterior sequences. This also is a very effective device that adds impact to the film, and successfully heightens the experience. (Especially compared to if the entire film were in standard black and white.) There is a significant amount of exposition present in the inter-title cards (which had to be translated from French back into English). This may be because much of Gillette's play had to be scaled back for the film adaptation.

What of Gillette? His was the first performance that anyone ever saw of Sherlock Holmes. In general appearance he does seem to be cut almost directly out Sidney Pagent's original drawings for Holmes. At the time of filming he had been playing Holmes for decades and he does portray a rich and nuanced Holmes on screen. His characterization is both powerful and playful at times, displaying a wry sense of humor. While comparisons will be made to every other actor who has been Holmes on screen (particularly Basil Rathbone, his closest contemporary) his physical movement did remind this viewer a great deal of Jeremy Brett. His was a strong and sturdy Holmes and not a thin rail of a man.

Other classic characters are, of course, present. Watson is used minimally, and not surprisingly, often for comic effect. However, it is done with care and he is an intelligent and believable character in the story. In general, the other performances (done by several of Gillette's stage company) are above par for films of the period, but do occasionally dip into Victorian clichés (as does the story now and then).

The script was a pastiche of several Holmes stories and Gillette had Doyle's full permission to take liberties with the cannon, and he does. Audiences should keep this in mind, and note that during filming Sherlock Holmes was not the century-old icon that he is today. Overall, the film is still enjoyable and engaging even for contemporary audiences. Gillette's Sherlock Holmes has aged well, and happily can be enjoyed again by new generations of fans.

The Original Sherlock Holmes

[robertguttman · 7/10 · 18 October 2015]

This film, up until recently thought to have been lost, is of interest chiefly as a record of the earliest, and among the most famous, portrayals of the immortal Sherlock Holmes. William Gillette, who portrays Holmes in this movie, first played Holmes on stage in 1899, and continued to do so for over 1,300 performances during the next 35 years. To audiences before 1939, when Basil Rathbone made the role his own, William Gillette WAS Sherlock Holmes.

This is a somewhat stagy version. That is partly due to having been made in 1919. However, it is also due in large measure to the fact that the movie actually is, for all intents and purposes, a filmed version of the stage play, which Gillette not only starred in, but also wrote. Nevertheless, this is a fascinating film to view, as well as a valuable record of one of the most famous portrayals of one of the most famous characters in literature.

Somewhat Disappointing Story

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 20 October 2015]

There are two things to recommend this film. First of all, it is in marvelous condition for something made in 1916. Secondly, we get to see the famous William Gilette, who played the great detective over 1000 times on the stage. This version is the stage version, sans most of the dialogue. The story is a bit confusing at first, but it involves a young woman whose sister had an affair with royalty. She has letters that would prove embarrassing to a prince. Holmes has been hired to get those letters (like in "A Scandal in Bohemia"). There are a man and his wife, the Larabees, who also want to get their hands on those letters in order to turn a profit. Enter Moriarity, Holmes' arch rival. There are a series of ridiculous plots that don't work because people are stupid. The young woman is clueless. She also becomes a love interest for Holmes. This is out of bounds in the canon. One thing lacking is that Holmes is uninteresting and dull. He is coy and sad. His overconfidence is his greatest trait and he has none of that here. Still, as a period piece, it is fun.

A lost treasure one hopes will be one day be found.

[jwpeel-1 · 4 June 2010]

This is the one and only film ever done by actor William Gillette and he was 60 years old at the time, a fact which shows particularly in photos of the photoplay. Also strange is the fact that those who conduct tours at the Gillette Castle in East Haddam, Connecticut don't even seem to know the film was ever made even though they display photos on the walls taken directly from the film.

William Gillette has an astounding record in terms of the role of Sherlock Holmes not only because he played the role over 1400 times in three mediums total, but also because he got permission from Conan Doyle himself to do things with the character that were never in print mainly because Doyle was so sickened of the stories that people did not seem to care about any of his other novels and publications. Gillette had no such problem since he relished playing the part particularly since it made him a rather wealthy man as well as a famous one.

Gillete also add bits of business that became so associated with the fictional detective that they exist to this day. Things such as the curved Meerchaum pipe and the dressing gown he so often wears in his digs at 221 B Baker Street. And in the last few serialized Sherlock Holmes stories in the American magazine Colliers, the illustrator intentionally made the detective hero look just like William Gillette.

Samuel French still prints the play and it was performed by no less than the Royal Shakespeare Company on Broadway as well as on the Wezt Coast. Still, when it was performed at the Williamsburg festival, there were changes made in the stage play making one wonder if there was more than one version of the play. Still these two things - the printed play and the videotaped production are all we have to go on in what this film may have been like since no print seems to exist.

Then there is the 1922 Sanuel Goldwyn film starring John Barrymore which tantalizes us further. While many here on this site have lambasted that version, it appears by all accounts to have been wildly successful.

SPOILER ALERT: Gillette in his version marries off Holmes to the character of Alice Faulkner who seems to have been based on the literary character known as "THE Woman" by Sherlock Holmes himself in a story in the Canon. Her name was Irene Adler.

Reportedly, when Gillette asked the creator Conan Doyle if he could marry him off, he was known to have said "You may damn well kill him off if you wish" As I have said in my summary title, I do hope that one day this film will resurface and be seen at all. One can only dream.

William Gillette Sherlock Holmes - Not much Holmes, but the most of Gillette

[BSKIMDB · 6/10 · 3 May 2021]

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.

The Sherlock Holmes We're Familiar With, Thanks to William Gillette

[springfieldrental · 7/10 · 1 July 2021]

There have been over 50 movies and TV series of the famous British detective Sherlock Holmes since novelist Arthur Conan Doyle introduced him to print in 1887. Of all the Holmes films produced, the one that was maddeningly lost and most prized was Essanay Studio's 1916 production with actor William Gillette, who made the detective famous on the stage. He was the Sherlock Holmes everyone is familiar with, molding the detective with the appearance and personality during the 1,300 performances he gave on the American and English stages before mesmerizing audiences. All film depictions of Holmes are based on the Gillette persona he lent to his detective, a portrayal heartedly approved by Doyle.

So when the movie was discovered in Paris' Cinematheque Francaise archives in 2014 after a film canister had been mislabeled for decades, the cinematic community went bananas. At the May 2015 San Francisco Silent Film Festival, after the 1916 print was meticulously restored, lines formed outside the theater patiently waiting to see the United States premier of the newly-discovered movie. Movie aficionados knew this was Gillette's only appearance on film; this was his only acting of the detective preserved which greatly influenced future acting generations on the mien and presence of Sherlock its originator Doyle endorsed.

"Sherlock Holmes," originally released in May 1916, is a combination of four Doyle stories, which the 1899 stage play was based. Seen on the screen for the first time was Sherlock wearing his famous deerstalker hat, introduced by Gillette when he played him on the stage. Also seen was the curved-stem calabash pipe clinched between the detective's lips, a choice Gillette made when he noticed the straight-stem pipe impeded his voice projection and pronunciations. Gillette is also credited in giving Holmes the line directed at Dr. Watson, "Oh, this is elementary, my dear fellow."

Before the movie production, Doyle gave Gillette permission to do anything he wanted with the Sherlock Holmes' franchise, so trusting was the author to the actor's knowledge and temperment of the detective. Gillette went ahead and introduced to the screen the role of the Dr. Watson character, played by Edward Fielding. In addition, Holmes' arch-villain, Professor Moriarty, is given more stage presence in the film than Doyle wrote about him in his novels.

Gillette continued to have a lucrative acting career after the film release of "Sherlock Holmes,' but alas, not in cinema. He was one of those rare actors in his day who made a fortune in his profession, affording him the luxury of building his dream home, the Gillette Castle in East Haddam, Connecticut. He was especially passionate about his three-mile miniature railroad surrounding his estate. The state of Connecticut bought his property six years after his death and created the Gillette Castle State Park. A four-year $11 million renovation of the castle, museum and performance stage, completed in 2002, is one the top three state tourist attractions.

Gillette, who died at age 83, is buried with his family in Farmington, CT's Riverside Cemetery.

Sherlock Holmes lives once more!

[johnwaynepeel · 10/10 · 13 August 2017]

OMG, do I love this classic movie.

At long last, the great William Gillette is more than a footnote and a photo, but the man who MADE Sherlock Holmes alive for so many before us! The curved Meerschaum pipe is at last remembered for what it was... A stage relived item so as not to maim the voice of the REAL Sherlock Holmes. And the famous Sherlock robe we have seen in Sidney Paget illustrations in the Canon that was created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in his 56 treasures.

For over 1400 performances on stage, this Connecticut Yankee brought the British detective as actor William Gillette... not to mention, the radio play he once did, and many actors had wonderful careers bringing Sherlock onto the stage for at least 100 years.

It's hard to conceive after watching this recording of historic magnitude, that Gillette got boos from London audiences but Gillette stood through this before speaking to them. This amazing moment was brought to the British public by an English reviewer who said that this same British public owed Gillette an apology, and he said it all n his review. Imagine! A Brit praised this Connecticut Yankee this way. Good for him.

The DVD brings to marvelous excellence William Gillette's astounding performance. I had expected the usual almost cartoonish physicality, but I was so wrong. Gillette makes me understand why he was as revered actor and performer. One reviewer brought up that he was almost doing the later performance of Jeremy Brett, and having seen it now, I cannot disagree.

The astonishing work of this movie has marveled me into a luxurious gift into the long past that never ages. I feel blessed to having seen this incredible actor's most celebrated performance to know that the true Sherlock Holmes is alive forever!

To the guide of Gillette Castle in Connecticut gave me terribly wrong information that THE William Gillette never performed this movie even with an enlarged photo of the man in this performance I now own with all of my Sherlock performances on video, and for that I feel I am blessed forever.

Please watch this fabulous film and see for yourselves all that I have said is true. Basil, Arthur Wontner, Eille Norwood and Jeremy Brett owe everything to William Gillette as well as they and the Conan Doyle Canon.

It's all here on this gift to all of you Sherlock Holmes fans.

The Scarlet Letters

[lugonian · 3/10 · 9 November 2015]

SHERLOCK HOLMES (Essanay, 1916), directed by Arthur Berthelet, is not the first nor the last motion picture produced depicting on the most recognizable and famous fictional detective of all time, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. What makes this edition so special is it's historical account and reproduction and cast reprising their original roles from the popular stage play, notably William Gillette (1855-1937), the actor long associated with the title role decades before Basil Rathbone won that honor though his 14-film theatrical series produced by Universal in the 1940s. Anyone familiar with the carnation of Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes) and Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson) would immediately realize how little the renown forties series and Gillette's screen adaptation have nothing in common, not even any by-plays and great chemistry between Holmes and Watson that made the Universal films work so well.

As with many silent films of this nature, prints to SHERLOCK HOLMES have been lost to extinction until (according to the title cards with tiny printing readable only through the use of a magnifying glass) inserted prior to the opening credits), "a print was discovered in France 2014, with French-language inter-titles translated back to English." Another interesting fact is that this 1916 production was initially released as a seven reel feature while the European release in 1920 was extended with French inter-titles formatted into a four-part chaptered serial edition: ( "The Prince's Letters," "Moriarty vs. Sherlock Holmes," "A Tragic Night," and "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes"). The restored 116 minute, color-tinted, accu-speed silent film process, completed by January 2015, would make its world television premiere October 18, 2015, on Turner Classic Movies cable channel.

Following the opening sequence capturing the legendary stage actor, William Gillette, as Sherlock Holmes, working on experiments in his laboratory, the introduction of its supporting players of the four-act story are as follows: The Larrabees, James (Mario Majeroni) and Madge (Grace Reals), unscrupulous adventurers; Alice Faulkner (Marjorie Kay), a young girl whose abused sister, now deceased, having been entrusted the indiscreet love letters written to her by the crown prince; Baron Von Stalburg (Ludwig Kreiss), the prince's assistant, and Sir Edward Leighton (Stewart Robbins), a British official, knowing the great value of those letters, attempting to retrieve them; Sid (William Postance), a resourceful cracks-man and member of the Larrabee gang; and Doctor Watson (Edward Fielding), Holmes' occasional confident. As Sherlock Holmes is hired to retrieve the stolen letters, as well as protect and later rescue the abducted Alice, the ace detective also encounters his arch enemy, Professor Moriarty (Ernest Maupain), getting into the act with the villains while at the same time avenging himself on Holmes; and Billy (Burford Hampden), a boy secretly assisting Holmes supplying him with some valuable information needed for his investigation.

Considering when SHERLOCK HOLMES was made, one can forgive primitive stand-still camera technique and limited visual close-ups on central characters most associated with movies nowadays. The acting style and method of storytelling can prove disappointing to contemporary viewers, which in fact, it is. At least it wasn't too stage bound.

As much as it's a film buffs dream having lost silent movies rediscovered and available for viewing again, especially the opportunity of seeing the actual visual image of William Gillette captured on film, rather than associating his name with his Gillette Castle home overlooking the Connecticut River. The disappointment in general lies mostly by its new scoring that accompanies this movie. Definitely not for its listening pleasure considering this being shown for the first time in nearly a century. The piano accompaniment is okay, but its overuse of violin playing simply ruins it. This film deserves better. Had SHERLOCK HOLMES been discovered in the 1960s, no doubt it would have sufficed on public television during the nostalgia boom of the 1970s with excellent William Perry piano or Gaylord Carter organ scoring from the Killiam Collection. A pity this didn't happen here.

The title SHERLOCK HOLMES would be used again in latter screen adaptations: (Goldwyn, 1922) starring John Barrymore (Holmes), Carol Dempster (Alice Faulkner) and Roland Young (Doctor Watson); and (Fox, 1932), talkie edition with the Gillette look-alike Clive Brook (Holmes), Miriam Jordan (Alice Faulkner) and Reginald Owen (Doctor Watson), all forgotten editions with limited reissues and appeal in modern times, yet there's more to Sherlock Holmes of the movies than anyone would come to realize. This is one of them. (**)

The granddaddy of Holmes feature films is back and it's pretty good

[MissSimonetta · 8/10 · 6 April 2016]

After being so let down by the 1922 John Barrymore Sherlock Holmes, which boasted a lackluster leading lady and way too many intertitles, I was not expecting too much from the long-lost 1916 version, in spite of the presence of William Gillette. Thankfully, I was wrong: this is a well-paced, atmospheric, and well-acted picture. Thank God it was found.

For someone who never acted in front of a camera before, Gillette is phenomenal. Like Sessue Hayakawa and Mary Pickford, here was another actor who understood the camera came with its own rules, a need for a greater subtlety which comes with the intimacy of the projected image. Self-assured, intelligent, and understated, Gillette is a great Holmes; no wonder he was so influential in our modern conceptions of the character.

The plot itself (based off the popular 1890s stage play and later used for the bland 1922 film) is a mess, a mish mash of images, characters, and story elements from an assortment of the original Holmes stories. Some of the developments are silly and there are some plot holes, but what keeps the film from sinking are the mysterious atmosphere and the charisma of the performers. The pacing is slow, but never boring. I can only describe the picture as having a hypnotic quality.

Many are put off by the addition of a love interest for Holmes, but I don't mind too much. At least he and Alice have some chemistry. It makes me think a lot of the 1970 film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, where director Billy Wilder examines the emotions behind the famous detective's rational reserve.

Film buffs and Holmes devotees will be interested. Give it a watch.

Lost Film Found

[GManfred · 16 November 2015]

The great news was told to us recently on TCM, accompanied by a premiere showing; a copy of "Sherlock Holmes" was found and restored earlier this year year in France. It was originally released as a 4-part feature in 1916 but was released in France as a 7-part serial in 1920. It has been restored to its original 4 parts and that is what we saw here on TV. It is great news since it is the only existing film of Sherlock Holmes' most famous impersonator, William Gillette.

As impressive as the restoration was, with its alternate scenes tinted blue and orange (the orange seemed gold, but no matter), the story itself was simplistic in nature and lacked the resourceful cleverness of Doyle's stories. Maybe it was the only way to tell a story on film without the benefit of dialogue, but this one was straightforward and without guile. A young woman is held against her will so her kidnappers could make her tell the location of some letters of hers, which could be used for ransom. Holmes wants to help her, and so he does. The bad guys get their comeuppance and all is right again.

Gillette was 60 at the time and was probably heavily made up. Otherwise it would have been a stretch to have him win the heart of the damsel in distress. In no other Holmes story did he 'get the girl'. Nevertheless, it was rewarding to finally view this lost treasure and to realize another lost film could be preserved for posterity.

Delightful Little Pre-Noir Classic

[revoltrightnow · 9/10 · 3 June 2016]

8.5 out of 10 I had the privilege of seeing this at the Castro Theater in 2015 for the public world re-release at the Silent Film Festival there. I had no idea what to expect since the film had been lost for nearly 100 years, and I have never been a huge Holmes fan (but I don't dislike the character at all). As we know, silent films can sometimes move at a snoring pace, so I kept my expectations low.

This film really surprised me with its Mystery Comics/early Noir kind of feel- splitting the film into "to be Continued...!" type of segments, since it was originally a serial. I imagine it can be enjoyed watched in 3 separate parts as well (it wasn't meant to be a 2-hour sit-down affair).

The pace is great overall, only a little sluggish at first with the introductory part of the plot (a letter scandal or sorts?) being very outdated. After the first part of that serial you will feel right at home (or Holmes!) with all the booby traps and laughs. William Gillette absolutely steals the show every time he's on screen and it is no wonder that he was adored for his portrayal of the character at the time of release.

I won't give away any of the gags or trickery, but they are top-notch and this film has Chaplin-inspired hoodwinking all over the place. If you enjoyed Chaplin's Essanay work like "Police" or his work on "The Adventurer" then this will be right up your alley.

Going deeper, this film also provides a fascinating insight into the development of the modern "Super Hero." Sherlock Holmes was in many ways the world first superhero, his intellect being the primary superpower. It's kinda neat to think of how this protagonist archetype has developed over the last 100 years! A fine gem to be preserved for future generations :)

classic

[gavandaly · 10/10 · 29 March 2021]

I saw this when it first came out it was good i can remember much about it. I remeber when ma husband saw it in the old summer 1980 oh what a year that was.

Highly Entertaining Holmes Film

[Michael_Elliott · 23 December 2015]

Sherlock Holmes (1916)

*** (out of 4)

A member of the Royal family writes some letters to a woman who suffers from a broken heart and dies. Her sister Alice (Marjorie Kay) gains possession of the letters and the Royal family wants them back. A couple blackmailers learn of the letters so they kidnap Alice and plan on using the letters for money but Sherlock Holmes (William Gillette) also has an interest in them.

SHERLOCK HOLMES was a lost film for decades but thankfully a print from France showed up. I'm not going to lie. I love silent movies and each year it seems more and more films are being discovered, which is great but I've noticed that a lot of the films aren't all that good. Even if they aren't that good it's always great when one is discovered. SHERLOCK HOLMES, on the other hand, is actually a very good movie and it turns out to be a real discovery.

Gillette was one of the most famous actors of his time and he did a tremendous tour playing Holmes, which took him around the world. Whenever someone thought of Holmes it was Gillette that they thought of and you can see certain things that would be borrowed by future actors. It's almost hard to believe but this here was Gillette's only film and it was produced by the Essanay Company after they lost Charlie Chaplin.

The film is pretty much what you would have seen on the stage at the time so it's fascinating getting to see the film. Gillette certainly makes for a very good Holmes as he certainly has command of the character and a certain grace that really jumps off the screen. It's rather shocking that this was Gillette's only time in front of the camera because he really comes off as a natural. Kay is also very good in her role as is Ernest Maupain as Professor Moriarty and Edward Fielding as Dr. Watson.

SHERLOCK HOLMES features a story written by Gillette and it too is very good and manages to hold you attention for a few minutes shy of two hours. The movie has a terrific pace to it and it's well-shot. This film is so much better than the 1922 version with John Barrymore so film buffs have a lot to celebrate with this one turning up.

Silence is truly Golden

[ldeangelis-75708 · 8/10 · 8 September 2021]

I never thought I'd watch a two hour silent movie that had no background music, and get so interested I see the whole thing. But that's just what I did, despite the lack of any sound and less captions than there could have been. It just held m y interest and didn't let go. It's not because I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan, because there have been several SH movies that I've b een less than impressed with, and didn't see from start to finish. It's also not because I got to see the famous William Gillette (though maybe that's part of it). I just found it very entertaining and well acted. I also liked the way you get some movie history, as you find out it was seen in theatres in several parts (back then, movies ran for a short time, no one would expect to watch one for two hours). At the end of one, they inform you it'll be continued next week, then when the next one starts, they give you a synopsis of what went before. That was entertaining in itself.

If you're a silent movie fan, watch this one, you won't be disappointed. If you're not, give it a shot, you may change your mind.