This 1916 version of Sherlock Holmes sets up a cinematic character that we still recognize today. Arthur Berthelet adapts the theatrical version of Holmes that was popular at the time to the new medium, and he even casts the playwright and star, William Gillette, in the lead. A lot of the adaptation succeeds.
A big part of the success here is due to Gillette. With an eye to the theatrical, he introduces Holmes’ signature cap, pipe and cape in this very first screen appearance of the character, and the Gillette also uses a less-exaggerated acting style than many of his more melodramatic peers. But Berthelet adds elements of the cinematic, too. Faced with scenes that would run longer than a film canister, Berthelet uses dissolves to keep action continuous and in the same setting when he has to change film rolls. He also uses depth of field to advantage. For example, there’s a point where we have Dr. Watson’s back in the foreground of a door opening while we look into the well-lit interior of the room and see Holmes moving in the background. In another moment, we have an exterior with a carriage in the foreground and people moving in windows in the background. Berthelet has none of the fluidity and editing that Griffith will burst onto the scene with the following year, but he’s clearly using cinematic elements in adapting Gillette’s play.
As interesting as the Sherlock Holmes is to watch, there is no small amount of discontinuity and turgidity to the narrative. It’s hard to know how much of this has to do with the original material and how much is the fault of Berthelet and the man who adapted the work to the screen, H.S. Sheldon. But it’s also important to remember that the film was released as a four-part weekly serial, each part with its own episodes. What jars us as we watch the film at one sitting likely wouldn’t be as bothersome if we watched it with a week between each part.
This is quite a worthy film to watch, both as the screen debut of the iconic character and as a fun, silent serial.
