A Study in Scarlet

source: A Study in Scarlet

A Study In Scarlet finds character actor Reginald Owen, much better known as Scrooge in MGM's A Christmas Carol, taking a turn as Sherlock Holmes. Owen had previously played Dr. Watson in another film so he became the only actor in cinema history to be both Holmes and Watson on the big screen. Holmes is hired by Doris Lloyd as Mrs. Murphy whose husband at the beginning of the film met with a mysterious death in a locked train cabin. He was a member of a mysterious fraternal order of some kind whose members assets are split among the other members upon their demise. Alan Dinehart is attorney for this group and he's as slick a shyster as you would ever want to find. In fact Watson played by Warburton Gamble here says that Mrs. Murphy is in need of a probate lawyer more than a detective. Watson is wrong because she does need the services of Sherlock Holmes. In fact the beautiful June Clyde whose place she's in because of her late father also needs his service and even more as it turns out as a few more members start dropping. A Study In Scarlet is inferior Holmes, not because of Reginald Owen, but because of a really bad script that left several questions unanswered. Why is Clyde part of the group when her father's assets should have gone to the others? Why are all the killings starting at this particular point? And for the fact that there is criminal activity at work, this really is a contest of wills and belongs in probate court. Still Owen is a fine Watson and Alan Mowbray is an interesting Inspector Lestrade. But Baker Street purists will not be happy.

The movie has little to do with the A. Conan Doyle story of the same name. Very cheaply made, its sets are so drab as to give the impression that the film is actually an expose of living conditions in the lower depths -- a proletarian Depression saga. The actors -- especially the three rather portly middle-aged stage actors cast as Holmes, Watson and Inspector Lestrade ("Lastrade" here) -- move gingerly around the various pieces of sad furniture, obviously fearful of breaking up the sets, one of which is supposed to be "221-A" (sic) Baker Street. (Perhaps the change in address was for legal reasons.) Again, for reasons of their own, the producers inserted a tedious scene involving some ancient English vaudevillians doing a "drunk" routine, so ancient it might have come from a medieval farce. However, the story, for what it is, does hold one's interest and moves along quickly, even though it made little sense. The pretty little ingénue playing the heroine has the disconcerting habit of displaying emotion two or three beats after the relevant action, and her neatly mustached boyfriend may have been one of the gimcrack chairs strewn around the set for all the life he shows. The gorgeous Anna May Wong apparently wandered in from another movie. She's on camera for only about 10 minutes, but her talent is so much greater than any other member of the cast that she makes every scene she graces memorable. Lord, how that lady could slink! Two possible "borrowings"-- 1. A literary device holding the story together -- a children's rhyme -- may have been borrowed by Agatha Christie for "Ten Little Indians", a book she wrote long after most prints of this movie had been converted to banjo picks. 2. A cinematic device -- a claustrophobic winding staircase -- may have been borrowed by Hitchcock for "Foreign Correspondent."

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception. Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'A Study in Scarlet', especially one with such an appetising and great title. Also with interest as to how Reginald Owen, a bizarre casting choice on paper (but some initially weird casting choices have been known to come off surprisingly better than expected so that wasn't a concern), would fare as Holmes. 'A Study in Scarlet' is a very loose film adaptation, the names and title being the only resemblances. It is not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations certainly, the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being a little better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'. There are good things with 'A Study in Scarlet'. Anna May Wong really spices things up in a sensual performance, shame she didn't have more screen time. Alan Mowbray is a quick-witted and not too idiotic, if not quite electric, Lestrade and Alan Dinehart intrigues as Merrydew. Nice shots here and there and the ending is a satisfying surprise if not ingenious. The set-up and frame-work is neat. However, anybody who raised eyebrows at Owen's casting before watching are not going to find themselves converted seeing him in the role. It's not because he's wrong physically, he is also far too stiff and tends to overplay the role. Warburton Gamble is an insipid and forgettable Watson, having the opposite problem of being too much of a buffoon like Nigel Bruce but displaying little personality. The lacklustre at best chemistry between the two and the wanting performances of both actors makes this iconic partnering fall flat. June Clyde is both melodramatic and disengaged with some ridiculously delayed reactions. Visually, 'A Study in Scarlet' is pretty lacking too, time and budget limitations seem to be evident here. There is nothing evocative or handsome about the production values, the sets being very drab and most of the way it's shot and edited is very primitive. Moreover, too much of the script lacks flow and intrigue, just as insipid as Gamble's Watson and with comic relief that is overplayed and pointless. The direction is never more than pedestrian. Other than Owen and Gamble, the biggest faults are the story and pace. The pace tends to be dull, hurt by some very tedious padding that is not always necessary. The story lacks tension and suspense as well as not always easy to follow. Overall, underwhelming. 4/10 Bethany Cox

I was intrigued by the thought of Reginald Owen playing Sherlock Holmes because I disliked him as Ebeneezer Scrooge in MGM's " A Christmas Carol" (1938). In that role he was very subdued and did not bring the character to life, although I have been spoiled in this regard by Alastair Sim; would the same happen here? Happily, he was much better as Holmes, but once again I have been spoiled by Basil Rathbone and Arthur Wontner. Nevertheless, he was more than adequate but was done in by the leaden pace of the proceedings in A Study In Scarlet - it could have been so much better with a little tension and suspense and a few less dead spots, as the the storyline was excellent. I especially enjoy mysteries in which the murderer is unknown until the last scene. A good entry in the Holmes series - unless you've seen the aforementioned Rathbone or Wontner in the title role.

The copy of this I watched was from one of those 50-film box sets - I think it's "Mystery Classics". I had some hopes for it being a decent copy - all 3 of the Rathbone Holmes on the set are quite clear and presentable - but alas such was not the case, though it appears that the separately-available Alpha Video DVD isn't much or any better. This is scratchy, indistinct and fuzzy at times, with poor sound and lots of noticeable dialog dropout. So it's conceivable that a better print would make some difference in my feelings. Not likely though. Overall this is one of, if not the, poorest Holmes films I've seen. A large part of the problem rests in the casting of Reginald Owen who is not only physically wrong - a jowly, double-chinned Holmes just doesn't work - but also just plain irritating and seemingly uninterested in the character. I'm sure the screenplay has a lot to do with things also, as it makes out Holmes to be more of a super-cop than anything else, and every time he explains (in even more exasperated tones than is usual for the character) his miraculous sleuthing it comes off as talking down to both his fellow police and Watson, and to us the audience. Of course, Holmes is supposed to be arrogant - but here it's a sort of flip arrogance - hard to explain exactly, but it just seems both perfunctory and unnecessary. And having Holmes shoot one of the bad guys in the back at the end -- that didn't work at all. The plot has little to do with the novel from which it takes its name; here Holmes is on the trail of a murderer slowly killing off members of some secret society which is only revealed in nature at the end but which we can figure out very early on. The whole Mormon backstory and flashback nature of the novel is gone - apparently there were worries about alienating people at the time; this is after all a Hollywood, not a British production. Everything feels very by-the-numbers, the rest of the actors aren't really interesting either except for Anna May Wong as the femme fatale who brings at least a little eroticism and enthusiasm to her part.

A secret London society agrees to disperse the assets of it's deceased members to the remainder of the group. It doesn't take long for the victims to start dropping off one by one. Enter Sherlock Holmes (Reginald Owen), brought into the case by the wife of victim number two, upset that there isn't even the hint of an inheritance coming her way. Adding to the mystery, the group communicates via cryptic ads placed in a London newspaper. "A Study in Scarlet" is a credible mystery that gives the viewer a few false leads, but is ultimately solved by Holmes in uncanny style. The title of the film originates from the name of the clandestine group - the Scarlet Ring. There is a familiarity to the plot as each of the victims receives a poetic message referencing the number of members still left alive, as in the Agatha Christie based "And Then There Were None", even though that film came a dozen years later in 1945. I must say, after viewing Basil Rathbone in the title role as the Sherlock Holmes archetype, it takes a bit of getting used to Reginald Owen depicting the sleuth; he's got a little too much padding. Conversely, Warburton Gamble's Dr. Watson doesn't seem to have enough, a la Nigel Bruce's portrayal. That aside, "A Study in Scarlet" is worth the effort, particularly for it's dark and moody atmosphere, and Sherlock Holmes' deft use of the English language.

There were a few Sherlock Holmes - Reginald Owen wasn't the best one. "A Study in Scarlet" boasts an impressive cast - even down to Hobart Cavanaugh in an uncredited bit as Innkeeper Thompson. The plot does seem to have more in common with Agatha Christie's book "And Then There Were None" but that wasn't published until 1939. Even though it was filmed at the California Tiffany studios it certainly had an authentic English feel to it. The amazing thing is how the cast (most of them American actors) came up with very creditable English accents. You didn't even get that in A productions let alone the cheaper films. Reginald Owen had played Dr. Watson to Clive Brooks' Sherlock Holmes in the 1932 film of that name but in this film he played Sherlock Holmes. A body is discovered in a railway carriage pulling into Victoria Station. A code containing the words scarlet and Limehouse is printed in the paper. He is the second member of a secret society (of which Alan Dinehart is the head) to die. They divide up the money but decide not to give any to the victim's widow, Mrs Murphy (Doris Lloyd). She then goes to Sherlock Holmes with a rhyme she found among her husband's things. After the meeting another member is shot through the heart. Sherlock Holmes talks to the widow Mrs. Pike. Played by Anna May Wong with a very creditable English accent. Even though she is given top billing she is not given much to do - she does look very exotic though. The members are killed off one by one - each one receiving a little poem before hand. It is clear that Thaddeus Merrydew is the master mind behind all the murders but the actual murderer was a surprise. June Clyde plays the heroine Eileen Forrester. She made a little splash in early musicals ie "The Cuckoos" (1930), "Hit the Deck" (1930) then in 1932 she was named a Wampus Baby Star. That kept her career going until the end of the 30s. Allan Dinehart, that oily villain of so many 30s movies plays Thaddeus Merrydew. Billy Bevan, an old silent comic, has a part as a helpful patron at the inn. Recommended.

As long as one understands this version of A STUDY IN SCARLET bears no resemblance to its source material, one can enjoy the performance of Reginald Owen -- best known for playing Scrooge -- as the inimitable Sherlock Holmes. The story as such involves a secret group of individuals who are being knocked off one at a time. A fortune is at stake! Holmes is called in and more or less immediately identifies the killer(s), but the movie stretches events out to feature length, and a bad movie it is not. Owen makes an acceptable Holmes, even though the story has been moved forward to the time in which the movie was made. Warburton Gamble's Dr. Watson leaves something to be desired, but most movie Watsons can be found lacking. Only Ian Fleming in 1935's TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and the Dr. Watsons of the Jeremy Brett TV series come even close to the Watson of the Conan Doyle stories. Worth a look as a novelty.

"A Study in Scarlet" was produced by the low-budget E. W. Hammons at the low-budget Tiffany Studios starring a former Watson (possibly cast because of his association with Holmes films), Reginald Owen, as Sherlock Holmes. The presence of Holmes and Watson is the only connection to the Arthur Conan Doyle story of the same name, and that, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I have no problem with a Sherlock Holmes film straying from slavish fidelity to the creator of the character. However, this one seems to deviate from the original not as a result of the filmmakers' creativity being exercised in order to make something new, but often in ways that make Holmes into someone that resembles a generic detective protagonist more than the most recognizable of them all. It's a little odd to see a supposed Sherlock Holmes dart around wearing clothes clearly dated to the 1930s (the only appearance of the famous deerstalker is in cartoon form in the opening titles), but since the story doesn't depend on anything terribly time-period appropriate, the transposition to the contemporary setting doesn't have too much of an effect. A curiosity here is that we are repeated told that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221A Baker Street, not the traditional 221B, even though he still seems to be living upstairs. Whether that's a simple error on somebody's part or a nod to the liberties being taken with the original stories there is no way to tell. Owen, unfortunately, is rather stiff and unremarkable in is portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Many point out that he doesn't look the part (and, traditionally, he doesn't) but that hasn't been a problem for countless other actors. If he had managed to make the role his own through his performance it wouldn't have been for him either. He has little presence and seems to think that if he bellows each line with enough conviction and self-satisfaction he'll sound as if he knows what he's talking about. Sadly the rest of the actors are rather wooden and unimpressive as well, including Anna May Wong. Warburton Gamble makes no impression as Watson, and some of the murder victims are laughably unconvincing in their hesitant screams for help at their dying moments. Everything is taken deadly seriously except for some overplayed comic relief involving characters at a pub, which only semi works. There is a good mystery story at the heart of this film about a circle of criminals whose members are being murdered one-by-one, but the execution (including the direction which, the exception of one clever shot inside Merrydew's office near the end, mainly doesn't go beyond static two- an three-shots) is too lackluster to serve it well. The scriptwriter deserves credit for a good concept and for a good method of developing the story through showing us going on in all quarters without completely explaining its significance, but nobody else seems to have been trying very hard. It's still entertaining most of the time, and fun for viewers who will eat up anything Holmesian, but it's far from the best executed film version of the detective's adventures.