A murder and stolen treasure pique the interest of Sherlock Holmes…
The Sign of Four, published in 1890, was the second of four Sherlock Holmes novels written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Though
not quite so popular and oft referenced as, say, The Hound of the
Baskervilles or even some of the short stories, it weaves a pleasingly
complex, twist filled tale and has been adapted on numerous occasions. The
first known cinematic adaptation emerged in 1913, under the title
Sherlock Holmes Solves The Sign of Four; it is now believed to be a lost
film. Another silent adaptation followed in 1923, as part of the Ellie Norwood series filmed in the UK. The
first sound version was released in 1932 and starred Arthur Wotner, who
was arguably the preeminent interpreter of the role on screen
until Basil Rathbone inherited the deerstalker in 1939. Rathbone
never had a go at The Sign of Four, and indeed it would remain
untouched by producers until this 1968 adaptation for the BBC series,
Sherlock Holmes.
Later versions would hail from as far
away as the-then USSR (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson:
The Treasures of Agra), and would even include an animated version
(1983’s Sherlock Holmes and The Sign of Four, with Peter O’Toole voicing
the great detective). The best versions would later be
done for British TV, however – first with Ian Richardson and David Healy
as Holmes and Watson (1983), then with Jeremy Brett and Edward
Hardwicke essaying the roles (1987). The 1968 version falls decidedly short of the excellence of those later versions, but
is still worth seeing for Peter Cushing’s customarily accomplished portrayal of Holmes.
Of the six surviving episodes of Cushing’s tenure on the program, The Sign of Four is easily the weakest. Part of this is down to the rather stiff, uninspired direction of William Sterling. There is also trouble in the casting, with few of the actors measuring up to the standards of Cushing’s performance. Even
Cushing, it has to be noted, seems a bit off his game in a few scenes,
lending credence to his own later complaint that the shooting schedule
was too rushed to allow to him to do his best work. Even so, it’s still a joy seeing him in the role, and Nigel Stock again proves to be a solid and dependable Watson.
On the downside, the use of a middle aged actor
to play Watson works against the romantic subplot which was so crucial to the story. Watson
becomes smitten with the character of Mary Morstan, and indeed – as
readers of the stories will be aware – he would later marry her. This
works perfectly well in Doyle’s story, as Watson is rather younger in
Doyle’s conception – but the sight of avuncular Stock lusting after
pretty Ann Bell comes off as awkward at best, creepy at worst. Bell
– who also costarred with Cushing in Dr. Terror’s House of Horrors
(1964) – does a competent job in the role, but she has zero chemistry
with Stock, and it’s just as well that his proposal to her at the end of
the story was dropped from the screenplay adaptation. Supporting
actor honors go to John Stratton, another familiar face in
the Cushing universe (he would go on to play the comically blustering
asylum director in Frankenstein and the Monster from Hell, 1972), who
gives a good account of himself as the clueless and supercilious
Inspector Jones. Howard Goorney, a busy character actor
whose credits include The Evil of Frankenstein (1964), Blood on Satan’s
Claw (1970) and The Offence (1972), also shows up in a small role.
The
Sign of Four is by no means an unmitigated disaster, but it definitely
comes up a bit short compared to the other surviving episodes – and it
looks very poor indeed compared to the earlier episodes starring Douglas
Wilmer as Holmes. It all comes off as a bit rushed and
awkward, lurching in an uneven pace from one talky, prolonged set piece
to one all too hurried a bit of action and intrigue. Cushing
gives a game attempt, but there are moments wherein he comes off as a
little hammy and theatrical, reminding one of what a delicate balancing
act it can be to play Holmes properly on screen. It’s a
difficult role, one which has defeated many fine actors, but happily
this particular outing is not indicative of Cushing’s interpretation in
general. But even if he comes off a little poorly in a few
scenes, Cushing’s inherent presence and charisma as an actor help to
redeem this otherwise disappointing adaptation.
Images: Marcus Brooks
Review: Troy Howarth
Please JOIN US at the official FACEBOOK FAN PAGE of PCAS :HERE
