One thing that has often interested me is how one fictional character can become so recognizable to the general public that he reaches the status of “icon.” There are a lot of examples-Superman, James Bond, Frankenstein’s Monster-but the one that I want to examine is the great detective Sherlock Holmes.
In case you are not familiar with the man, allow me to give you a brief rundown. Holmes was invented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in a long-running series of stories published in the Strand Magazine. His first appearance in the 1887 novel A Study in Scarlet set up most of the series’ trademarks such as the stories being told by supporting character Dr. John Watson, Holmes’ ability to notice and analyze the most minute of details at a moment’s notice, and Holmes’ status as “the world’s only consulting detective” meaning that the police call him in whenever they need help.
Holmes holds the record for most portrayals in film, having appeared in over 250 films to date. He has become one of the most famous characters of all time, an icon of mystery-fiction, his name being synonymous with intelligence. With such an impressive resume, I can’t help but be curious as to his character’s history.
That’s why I’m starting this new column where I’ll examine the Cinematic History of Sherlock Holmes. And what better place to start than with his first ever filmed portrayal? This is Sherlock Holmes Baffled. What’s even better is that, since it is both public domain and very short, I can have you all watch it first:
I imagine that at the last shot, the director yelled “And… he’s baffled. Repeat, he is baffled. Cut tape.”
Despite the copyright date of 1903 at the beginning, this film was actually filmed in 1900 on a New York rooftop. The American Mutoscope Company made the film to be viewed on their “Mutograph” device, a rival to Thomas Edison’s Kinetoscope. Here’s a picture of one. So this wasn’t an actual movie so much as a carnival sideshow attraction, which explains some things about it.
Alan Barnes’ Sherlock Holmes on Screen lists this as a “parody” film, but I think that’s a bit of a cop out. The title does not imply parody, and while the action might be humorous it does not poke fun at Sherlock himself.
What kind of thief, even with movie-magic teleportation powers, would break into Sherlock’s place? That guy has got some guts, especially when you consider the fact that he came back after getting away.. And give the man credit, Sherlock was well and truly baffled. I also like how, at the 0:28 mark, Sherlock just shrugs off the teleporting burglar like it’s no big deal.
Oh and at 0:38, yeah just shoot the guy right in the head Holmes, it’s not like you should try to question him or anything.
So for Holmes’ first foray into the cinema, this was kind of disappointing. It has a certain entertainment to it, in a silly way, but what does this have to do with Sherlock?
You might be thinking, “isn’t it unfair to expect this film to portray the character from the stories?’ not really. Keep in mind, this was 1900. The Sherlock Holmes stories were still relatively new. In fact, this film only happened to come out during the “great hiatus,” a period in which Doyle temporarily stopped writing about Holmes, but the stories resumed shortly after this. If I was living in 1900, familiar with Holmes, and happened to see this, I would sure as hell be disappointed.
Before I talk about this movie, you should watch this clip from Brian de Palma's thriller Sisters. (The clip is in french, but the dialogue doesn't matter for our purposes)
That scene is an excellent use of split-screen, a technique de Palma is fond of. The advantage of split-screen in that scene is in the contrast between the events on the right and those on the left.
Split-screen is an interesting device. It basically accomplishes the same thing that could be done with simple cuts, but allows events to move faster and can better show the relationship between events. However, unless it is done well, this can get very annoying very fast.
Sisters, which is awesome by the way, came out in 1973. Later that same year... this happened:
Yeah, that bit about "special projection equipment"? That's a lie.
An entire movie in split-screen? Sounds like a bad idea. Or does it sound like... a great idea?
No, no. It sounds ungodly awful.
Who is responsible for this creation? Why that would be Richard L. Bare, a director more famous for his work in television. In particular, the famous "To Serve Man" episode of The Twilight Zone.
According to Bare he got the idea for a split-screenDuo-Vision film while driving one day: "I was driving down the highway from Newport to Los Angeles, looking at the white line. As I glanced from one side of the freeway to the other, I noticed how my mind was taking a picture over here, then another over there."
And so, rather than throwing this idea away like a sane person might, Bare took his unsold screenplay The Squirrel and changed it into Wicked, Wicked. What's weirder is that he actually re-wrote the screenplay in two sections.
Is there any chance that this movie will be good? No. Why should that stop us? Let's watch Wicked, Wicked.
The film takes place at a large beach side hotel. At the films start, there is a warning about the exciting new technology of Duo-Vision!
You are about to see a new concept
in motion picture technique...
Duo-Vision
In this process you will witness
simultaneous action through use of
a double screen...
an experience that will challenge
your imagination.
The film begins proper with a blonde woman checking into the hotel on the right, while on the left we see somebody spying on her from a secret compartment in the ceiling. She goes up to her room and we get to see our killer stalking her on the left side, while she undresses on the right. When the killer, in traditional Town that Feared Sundown bag-over-head attire, reaches her room the screens merge and, surprise surprise, he kills her. This opening is actually pretty good. That changes fast.
The killer sneaks the body away in a room-service cart, and we cut to the next morning. A maid realizes that the room is empty, so the manager assumes that the woman left without paying. He sends a page to look for the hotel detective, and we get to meet our hero: Rick Stewart-Hotel Detective Extraordinaire. Rick is having sex with some random woman in his office, as I'm sure he does frequently being the manliest detective this hotel has ever seen. Also, it isn't at all awkward having a sex-scene on the right screen, while some guy wanders around on the left shouting "Mr. Stewart! Paging Mr. Rick Stewart!" Not awkward at all.
Rick goes to talk with the manager, and this is where we get one of the few clever uses of the split-screen exciting new Duo-Vision in the film. While the manager describes the four women (all blonde) who have skipped out on their bills in the past month, the right-side screen shows the four women being killed.
Next we get to meet Jason, the assistant mechanic for the hotel. His hobbies include machinery, being creepy, and obviously being the killer. Throughout the film, we get flashbacks on one screen of Jason's childhood. He has typical psycho-killer background. Abuse, adoption, loneliness, the whole nine yards. I don't know if the film-makers wanted to keep the killer's identity secret at first, but if so they did a poor job.
We also meet Mrs. Carradine, undoubtedly a less successful leaf on the Carradine family tree. She has been living in the hotel for some twenty-two years, and is starting to miss her payments. Throughout the film we find out more and more about her life. She had been a stripper, then an actress, then killed her abusive husband and has been using his money to pay for the room. Jason spends a lot of time with her, and wants to use the money he gets from the dead women to help her.
Next up is Henry the lifeguard, played by Edd Byrnes of 77 Sunset strip fame. What's that? You don't know Edd Byrnes? Well allow me to introduce you:
You're welcome.
Henry is the initial suspect for the murder. Remember that, it'll be important later.
Finally we meet Lisa James, a brunette singer who is booked to perform at the hotel. Rick meets her, and we find out that Rick and Lisa used to be married but she left him to become a singer. She didn't even tell him why, she just left! Because, you know, there is absolutely no way to travel around and remain faithful to your husband.
At this point we also discover that Rick used to be a cop, but lost his job after he shot an unarmed man for no reason. Am I supposed to feel sorry for him? It isn't like he was set-up or anything, we see it happen in a flashback! He burst into this room and shot some guy!
Lisa is the terrible singer from the trailer. Jason is working the spotlight for her show, and the two meet at a rehearsal. Jason only kills blonde women, because of his blonde foster mother, and so he's fine with Lisa at first. However, for no reason at all, Lisa decides to start wearing a blond wig! Guess what happens next! She gets attacked! Big surprise!
At no point does Rick, who knows that blonde women keep vanishing, tell Lisa to stop wearing the wig. Even after she was attacked, he lies and tells her that the killer was caught! Why would you do that? Do you want her to die?
Oh, there's this too:
Lovely.
While we're on the subject of music, let's talk about the film's score. Early on in the film, we see an organist open the music book for The Phantom of the Opera. Not the musical, the score to the 1925 silent-film version. Anyway, that serves as the score. I guess it works, and the plot is similar to Phantom in some respects. The weird part is that we see the woman playing it. Throughout the film, whenever there isn't anything interesting enough for one side of the screen, we see this woman playing the music on an organ. And at the end, we see her leave the hotel. So, this hotel has its own score? Can you actually hear the organ in every room? Must be maddening.
When Jason attacked Lisa, he got away. But he did kill a maid (by the way, the only two black characters in this movie are killed with no lines) and that brings in the police. The police chief is convinced that it was the lifeguard, and... then this happens:
...Um...Okay.
Rick discovers Jason's hidden compartment in the hotel walls, and begins to suspect him. At this point, something really strange happens. Jason steals a bunch of stuff from the kitchen, and mikes up fake blood. Then he rigs up the pipes in one room, waits for the maid to look in the sink, and blows in the pipe so the fake blood gushes up. Why? No clue! I guess they needed an extra two minutes and figured: "Hey, blood geyser. Why not?"
In the film's climax, Jason takes Lisa up to his compartment while Rick and the police chief pursue him. He shows Lisa the bodies of the prvious women, which he has converted into giant marionettes. He also has a guillotine set up, which he uses on Mrs. Carradine. Mrs. Carradine was a brunette. Thre goes that plot point, though actucally Lisa doesn't have the wig on at this point.
So Rick saves Lisa and Jason threatens to throw himself out the window. Then the police chief decides to be an idiot and use reverse psychology on Jason, saying "You don't have the courage to jump." Because this is the worst plan ever, Jason promptly jumps and dies.
In the end, everyone is happy. You know, except for all the dead people. the police chief is running for District Attorney, despite having botched the entire thing, the hotel is a tourist attraction, because people are sick, and Lisa continues on her tour.
And what of our hero? Will he return to the force, presumably to kill more innocent people? No, he stays at the hotel and leaves to sleep with that woman from the beginning again. Truly, he has learned so much in his adventure.
This movie is bad. So bad that Richard L. Bare would never direct a feature film again. But the real question is, was the Super-Ultra-Amazing Duo-Vision effective. No. Half the time it adds nothing, and when it is useful it jut gets confusing or distracting. not that this film would have been any better otherwise.
Duo-Vision was never used again, thank god, and this film has all but vanished. If anything, I can commend the idea. It is certainly interesting, an all spit-screen film. A valiant effort, but not worth the time.
So... I only saw twenty movies this last year. Therefore, my list of the worst ten films of the past ear are just the ten that aren't on my top ten list. Bear that in mind.
#10: J. Edgar
While Clint Eastwood's biopic J. Edgar is a good film for the most part, it suffers from the same problem as many other biopics. Namely, refusing to take a side. While the majority of the film works, the ending feels lacking and leaves the audience hanging. This lack of direct characterization makes for a disappointing movie-experience.
#9: Rise of the Planet of the Apes
I remember reading something about a tentative Planet of the Apes prequel a couple of years ago, but I did not know about this movie until I saw a poster last January. This worried me. A lack of marketing led me to believe that the film would be rushed and that it would only be a cheap cash-in. I was wrong. This is a good movie, but it suffers from the horrible problem of constantly referencing the classic film. This gets very annoying very fast.
#8: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
I would have enjoyed this as a four hour film, but I guess that a lot of people don't want to sit through that. The problem with this is the same as the problem with part 1, this isn't a complete movie. It is always a bad idea to split a story in two parts. it messed up this movie and it will mess up The Hobbit. The first film was painfully dull, and this one had no real story to it other than a series of battles. I imagine that in the intervening year most people have forgotten what happened in part 1.
#7: Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol
Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol is a fun movie, but falls into the traps of all spy-thrillers. It attempts to parody the ridiculous films of its genre, but by the end it is doing exactly what it had parodied. Another problem with this film is the ending, which is forcibly sentimental and completely pointless. The film fails at balancing humor and action with drama. Good in small dosages, but a bit too much in the end.
#6: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
The fourth film in the Pirates of the Caribbean series is... well it isn't the third one, that's good. This movie has fun, but again we have an incredibly weak ending. It also has no real link to the other three aside from Johnny Depp, which leads me to question what the point of this entry in the series is. It is based on a book which had nothing to do with the other films, so why not just adapt the book in its own film? Johnny Depp isn't bad in the film, but the Jack Sparrow character is getting old. Not to mention a plethora of inexplicable plot twists, such as Black Beard's bizarre magical powers.
#5: Super 8
Super 8 has a lot of potential to it. The problem comes as soon as the audience is allowed to see the alien creature, in all of its ill-designed glory. This ruins the mystery of the creature and its intentions. One would think that after Cloverfield, bad though it was, JJ Abrams would know when not to show the monster. It is also overly sentimental, and contains some appalling performances on the part of the children.
#4: New Years Eve
This was one of the more painful experiences of recent memory. By my count, this film contains 8 stories. Of these, I will say that 3 were mildly enjoyable and the rest are terrible. This film gave us: Bon Jovi singing terrible songs, Robert De Niro in a bland and forgettable part, cheap romance, awful jokes, every cliche in the book, and sympathy-garnering gimmicks that are the absolute dirtiest tricks available to film. this movie is about horrible, vapid people being horrible and vapid.
#3: Source Code
Yet another "science is evil" movie. The de-facto villain of this film is the scientist who insists on keeping comatose Jake Gyllenhaal alive in order to test his amazing and revolutionary "source code" device. For whatever reason, he is vilified for wanting to test this machine on the only person he know it works on. Why is he the villain? Because no matter how much good this device may do, it seems wrong to keep Jake alive as a guinea pig. How incredibly vain of Mr. Gyllenhaal's character.
#2: Green Lantern
I did not see this movie in 3D, and it still gave me a headache. The problem? Painfully bright effects and two bad villains. The first villain is Hector Hammond, whose increasing intellect is causing his body to suffer. Maybe this is just me, but I don't enjoy seeing Ryan Reynolds punch a wheelchair-bound man out. The second villain is the monster Parallax, who is yet another terrible CGI monstrosity. basically a giant fiery octopus, Parallax comes out of nowhere in the last 15 minutes and is quickly beaten. This film had potential. As a comic-book fan, and a Green Lantern fan, I know that the hero can make for a good film. Hell, he did make for a good film. It was called Green Lantern: First Flight and it was excellent. This though? This was a disappointment.
#1: Anonymous
This is probably not the worst film of the year. In fact, it is probably not the worst film that I saw this year. But it is the only film that actively made me angry. What's more, it was proud of making me angry. Let me start by saying that they are wrong, and Edward de Vere did not write any of Shakespeare's work. But, I concede, it could make for an interesting story. Only this film, it does not know how to tell a story. Lackluster performances only worsen the confusing timeline-jumps that plague this mess. It is confusing, not worth the effort that it takes to follow. I hate this movie. It is a symbol of intellectual-imperialism and pig-headed arrogance. It is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the most loathsome film of the year.
2011 had more sequels than any other year in cinematic history. Whether that is a good or bad thing is debatable, but either way it points to the direction of the industry.
These are the top 10 films that I saw last year. Admittedly I did not see some of the bigger films of this year, such as The Artist. I'm not saying that those films weren't good, but I just haven't happened to see them yet. These aren't the best movies of the year, they're just the ones that I enjoyed the most.
#10: Coriolanus
Coriolanus, Ralph Fiennes directorial debut, surprised me this year. I happened to catch a festival-screening of it in October and was blown away by the quality of this film. A modernization of the Shakespearean play, Fiennes delivers a great performance in the lead. It also features Gerard Butler who is, shockingly, very good as the mad general Tullus Aufidius. The film succeeds where many Shakespeare-based films fail in being able to get the complicated plot across while being entertaining. This is even more difficult when you consider that it is not one of the more well-known plays, but Coriolanus does it smoothly and beautifully
#9: Helldriver
Technically this is a 2010 film, but it only became available in America this past year. This film from Japanese director Yoshihiro Nishimura is one of the strangest films I saw this year, and one of the most entertaining. A comedic zombie/splatter film, Helldriver is weird, disgusting, and hilarious. Basically two hours of bizarre gore effects and insane fights, a beautiful play on modern horror films. This is not a movie for anyone, but if you like splatter-films then this is right up your alley.
#8: Captain America
I was skeptical about Captain America at first. I was afraid that it may take itself too seriously, as many comic-book movies do, instead of having fun with the subject matter. It turns out that my fears were misplaced entirely. Whereas, say, Chris Nolans Batman films refuse to have any fun at all, and most of the Superman films after the second one are too silly to enjoy, Captain America has a perfect blend of seriousness and comedy. Obviously the wartime scenes are more serious than, for example, the scenes of scrawny Steve Rogers back home, but the film knows when to be serious and when to have fun. This movie did its job of getting me excited for The Avengers, which I must say is a very ambitious project and one that I am looking forward to.
#7: The Muppets
The Muppets is one of the most fun movie experiences I've had this past year. For those of you who, like me, enjoy the classic Jim Henson films much more than the recent entries of Muppets from Space and Muppet Wizard of Oz, this is the film for you. Largely a tribute to the television show, but with all of the size and excitement of the films, the movie is one enormous nostalgia trip. Every character is there with a perfectly defined personality, and the fantastic music only adds to the experience. One of the best films of the year, and one of the best children's films in recent memory, The Muppets is an amazing picture.
#6: X-Men: First Class
This is, by far, the best of the X-Men movies so far. I was, again, skeptical that this origin-story prequel would take itself to seriously, and this time my fears were a little bit more grounded. For the most part, the film has fun and does what it wants. It is only at the end that the movie decides to act serious and pretend that what just happened is ridiculously deep and meaningful. At first this irritated me, but then I realized that X-Men is all about taking itself too seriously. If you look past that, this is an incredibly exciting and well-made film.
#5: Thor
Another comic-book movie, and one from a favorite director of mine: Kenneth Branagh. My worries with this film were that the CGI world of Asgard would end up being painfully bright and fake. However, good effects and perfect balance between Asgard and Earth won me over. Thor is not the most famous of Marvel's heroes, and I had trouble believing that a film would be worth the money. But Branagh's excellent direction made this one of the best comic-book films I have ever seen.
#4: Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen's latest film is absolutely beautiful. One of the problems with some of his more recent work has been in casting. it is hard to find another actor to play the parts that Allen is to old to do himself. This one is different, in that the lead character is not really a Woody Allen character. Owen Wilson has all of Allen's wit, but in a much more refined way. he makes the part his own. The concept, that Wilson is able to travel back nearly a hundred years in time while in Paris, is a strange one and well-executed. This is Allen's best movie in recent memory.
#3: I Saw The Devil
Again, this film came out in South Korea in 2010, but was released in America this past year. This crime thriller from director Kim Ji-Woon is one of the most suspenseful films I have ever seen. It's the story of a secret agent, played by Lee Byung-hun, who goes an a quest to avenge the death of his girlfriend at the hands of a deranged serial killer, played by Choi Min-sik in his return to the screen after 4 years. It is absolutely perfect. Words cannot describe the pacing of this film. I can only hope it gets a wider release here.
#2: Hugo
There is not much to say about Martin Scorsese's Hugo that has not already been said. If you have ever created any work of art, you will love this movie. It is a loving tribute to the creative spirit. It also features a neat little film-history lesson, and a handful of charming subplots. this movie is also the only film that I have ever seen which benefits from 3D. It's a movie about dreaming, and it is wonderful.
#1: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
The question many people asked about this film was: Is it better than the Swedish version. The short answer is: Yes. This film does many things better than the Swedish film, most notably in the characterization of the two main characters, and makes for a far more exciting feature. It also contains one of the best opening-title sequences in years. The main benefits of this film are Rooney Mara's amazing job as Lisbeth, and Fincher's brilliant choices as director. This is my favorite film of 2011
.jpg)
