PHENOMENALITY: *uncanny*
MYTHICITY: *fair*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *drama*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTIONS: *psychological*
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Conan Doyle's "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" rates with me as one of the best Sherlock Holmes tales, with spooky atmosphere, a hiss-worthy villain, and a method of murder so peculiar that it falls into my category for "bizarre crimes" in the uncanny mode.
The villain of the piece is the fulsomely named "Doctor Grimesby Roylott," though the name is altered to "Rylot" in this 1931 film, apparently the first sound-movie adaptation of the Doyle story. Roylott is the consummate evil stepfather. The story tells us that he came from an old but dissolute aristocratic family, but managed to get ahead somewhat by serving as a medical man in India, which exotic locale helps him come up with the aforementioned murder-method. Back in England, Roylott makes a good marriage-- especially good for him in that his wife passes away shortly (apparently not by foul means) and leaves Roylott an inheritance contingent on the condition that he continue to care for his wife's two grown daughters by a previous marriage. When one of the daughters threatens to marry and leave Roylott's care, she indirectly imperils Roylott's fiscal security.
To give the game away, Roylott murders the first stepdaughter by unleashing one of his Indian beasts-- a poisonous swamp adder-- through a ventilator leading into her room. The crime goes undetected, but a year later the second stepdaughter also announces an engagement. However, her stepfather so terrifies her that she fears on some intuitional level a repeat of her sister's fate. Thus she appeals to Sherlock Holmes to solve the mystery, which the detective does, in such a way that the "biter" gets very literally bitten.
The 1931 film seems to follow the basic text faithfully, but the only surviving version has been severely cut, possibly having lost anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes. One of the worst cuts appears during a scene where the irascible Doctor Roylott confronts Holmes at the detective's office. In the prose story, this provides Holmes fans with one of the best hero-villain faceoffs, as the huge-shouldered Roylott illustrates his malice to Holmes by grabbing a fireplace poker and bending it double. Roylott then leaves before Holmes makes his riposte, calmly taking the poker in hand and bending it back to normal with his own strength. In the 1931 film, Roylott confronts Holmes, they exchange words, and then a mysterious cut shows Roylott leaving quickly. Was the poker-scene filmed in some manner? The world may never know.
This film was the first and only time in which respected actor Raymond Massey played Holmes for the cinema. Massey makes a decent but rather cold and imperious Holmes, while a bald actor named Athole Stewart plays a fairly "straight" John Watson (though Holmes still picks on him somewhat).
Lyn Harding, who would play Professor Moriarty in two future Holmes films, chews the scenery as the perpetually angry "Rylot," but his characterization does contribute the film's one original mythic moment. The heritage of Freud makes it impossible to think of an evil stepfather preying on his daughters-by-marriage without sexual motivations, particularly when both women are about to marry when Roylott makes attempts on their lives. However, the Doyle story constantly emphasizes that Roylott's only motive for violence is money. To be sure, Holmes discovers that his client has received a modicum of violent treatment from Roylott, for the detective descries bruise-marks on the woman's wrist-- but this in itself still does not connote sexual motivations for the villain. However, the film-- directed by one Jack Randolph, whose other credits seem to be a group of utterly forgotten Brit-flicks-- adds a scene at the manor, in which Rylot tries to force the stepdaughter to sleep in the same room where her sister died. The sight of the huge older man trying to force the sweet young thing into a bedroom can't help but communicate sexual overtones, and I suspect that one of the filmmakers added the scene to spice up the proceedings a bit.
There are several wonderful HOLMES films pre-dating Basil Rathbne that I love, and several of them desperately need massive restorations. THE SPECKLED BAND is one of them.
ReplyDeleteSomething that came tro my attention, the 1931 DRACULA, FRANKENSTEIN, and SPECKLED BAND, were all based on stage play versions of their respective stories. This would explains some of the additional material seen in this film. I've also noted, if you watch enough movies from this early sound era, after awhile, their style starts to feel "normal"!
I loved the addition of Holmes taking a job as a builder to scount out the scene of the crime. The bizarre addition of a room of secretaries adding information of Holmes' cases into a room-size COMPUTER filing system, seems more out of place than WW2 does in the early Rathbone films.
I love Massey as Holmes. The end of the film is rather sad, when Watson says, "It comes to us all, Holmes." After Watson leaves, Holmes says to himself, "Not all, Watson." He seems to say this with some regret.
I would LOVE it if someone cold locate a complete print of this film, and then do a restoration on that.
Good point about Holmes' masquerades. I'm not sure I've seen any original Holmes screenplays that have him undertake such impostures.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know the SPECKLED BAND movie was based on a stage play, but it tracks as a standard approach for the time. And early movies continued the process. I think I've seen two BASKERVILLES adaptations that include the 1939 seance scene, though said scene has nothing to do with the main story.
And yes, Massey's very good as Holmes. Granting that all the Old Hollywood luminaries have dimmed these days, Massey doesn't seem to get much appreciation even from older viewers.
Rathbone was in disguise in HOUND (as a peddler), ADVENTURES (as a dance-hall singer), SECRET WEAPON (as a book-seller, later as a former Moriarty henchman, and later, as a scientist), WASHINGTON (as an annoying customer at the antiques store), SPIDER-WOMAN (as an Indian at the casino), THE SCARLET CLAW (as the next intended victim, facing the killer who is disgused as the postman). He must have loved doing that.
ReplyDeleteSHERLOCK HOLMES (1932)-- a direct sequel to the stage play-- Holmes is disguised as a woman (Moriarty does not recognize him-- hilarious scene). I was surprised when Richard Valley, the late publisher of SCARLET STREET magazine, in his commentary for ADVENTURES, seemed unaware that ADVENTURES was a remake of the 1932 film, both by Fox. It sure seems for decades, most people were unaware of anything made before 1939.
In the Ian Richardson HOUND, once again, he's disguised as a peddlar. I love when he's playing a French accordion, and Watson says, "Wait-- I know that tune." And Holmes suddenly says, "Well I admit it does sound better on the violin." Watson grits his teeth and says, "Holmes, I DO wish you'd tell me when you're up to something."
One of the funniest has to be the 1916 HOUND, based on a stage version. the audience knows Stapleton is the murderer from the beginning. When Sir Henry tries to enlist Holmes, he steasls the letter, ands shows up disguised as Holmes. Holmes reads about it in the papers, and tells Watson, I'm gong to have a look at this Sherlock Holmes person. Later in the film, hs shows up disguised as Stapleton. Stapleton, once again disguised as Holmes, immediately knows the jig is up. That film is further afield than the 1959 Hammer version, but, is SO much fun to watch! They brought back Stapleton for several sequels, but, apparently, none of them are known to exist at the moment.