The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939)

When it comes to screen adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes stories, the ones that usually come to mind are the Basil Rathbone films. Two studios handled the production of this series; 20th Century Fox retained the original Victorian era setting for the two films they made, while Universal brought Sherlock Holmes to the modern world for 12 additional films. Today I’ll be talking about my personal favorite of the Sherlock Holmes films I’ve seen so far: 20th Century Fox’s The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

Ann Brandon (Ida Lupino) is afraid for her and her brother’s safety after receiving a suspicious drawing that is similar to one her father received before he was murdered. She comes to Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) hoping for his help in finding out who the murderer is before it’s too late. Holmes suspects Professor Moriarty (George Zucco) may somehow be involved and he and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) set out to prove it before it’s too late, while Moriarty has his own trick up his sleeve.

The opening credits claim that this is based off of a popular 1899 play in which the role of Holmes was played by William Gillette. However, judging by the 1916 film adaptation of the play that also starred Gillette, the 1939 film has very little resemblance to the source material outside of Moriarty’s involvement. Despite this, Adventures still manages to be an entertaining film on its own.

For the most part, Moriarty’s plan seems to be pretty obvious from the start, especially since he reveals that he’s using a decoy for Holmes. There still is a twist towards the end regarding his plan, though. The objective of what he wants to take actually ends up being different than what we initially think it will be, which I like. I remember the first time seeing this that I was disappointed by the fact that they seemed to be revealing Moriarty’s plan so early on, but seeing just how much more convoluted it is towards the end makes for a really good change of pace compared to other mysteries that keep everything in the dark until the very end. It’s strange to think how effective faux-obviousness can be.

Also, because we know Moriarty is the villain throughout most of the film, this instead allows us to focus on the characters themselves. Holmes’s intellect has always been of great interest, especially with Rathbone’s performance. Holmes almost seems like a robot at times when he is concocting plans and discovering evidence, but Rathbone is really able to put some emotion into it, and his hatred for Moriarty as well as his inability to put him behind bars goes to really show the humanistic qualities in him. I also like his motivations. As great as the 1916 film is, my one major problem with it is the fact that Holmes is given a love interest. I think it speaks more of Holmes’s character when he decides to help someone simply because he’s concerned that someone’s life is at stake, rather than helping partly because he has an emotional connection to the person who is in danger.

One common complaint I’ve heard about the Rathbone series is that Bruce made the Dr. Watson character a bit too goofy. As someone who has only read some excerpts of the original Holmes stories, I can’t say for certain, though there is no denying that there is at least somewhat of a humorous element put into the portrayal. Personally, I like it. I feel it gives more character to Watson and makes him far more interesting than the other Watsons I’ve seen on film, who often act as simply the observer to Holmes’s intellect. For fans of the original stories, I can understand why they don’t like the change, but I enjoy the Bruce version of Watson and I’ve always felt it’s important to make at least a few changes when it comes to film adaptations in order for it to stand out from the original work, which is a topic I hope to talk about in more detail sometime in the future.

Ida Lupino does well in the role of Ann, capturing very well the gloomy aspect of the part and really giving you the idea that this is someone who has been deeply affected by her father’s murder. George Zucco, though not given a whole lot of screen time, still does a good job at portraying someone who matches Holmes’s intellect while at the same using it for nefarious purposes. Just look at the way he reacts to his servant’s treatment of his flowers; it’s hard not to hate this character, which, of course, is the point.

I also really love the production design of this film. There’s a lot of charm in seeing Holmes in his natural Victorian setting and the high budget does show in the set design. The night atmosphere is also really cool; whenever it shows the outside, it’s usually covered in fog, sort of going with the gloomy atmosphere that surrounds the Brandon family and their fate.

There is one very minor problem I have with this film, and it has to do with Ann’s fiancée, Jerrold Hunter (played by Alan Marshal). He’s sort of the red herring in this film, out there in an attempt to make the viewers believe he’s working for Moriarty. Holmes explains his involvement at the end, clearing him of any charges. My question, though, is why didn’t Jerrold want Ann to see Holmes earlier on in the film? He’s so dedicated to protecting his client, yet he has reservations about hiring a brilliant detective to help him out? The only explanation I can give for this is that he’s a bit too egotistical and doesn’t want any outside help because he genuinely believes he can protect Ann’s brother by himself. Like I said, this is a very minor problem and not enough to spoil my enjoyment of the film, especially since there is at least one way to explain it.

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is a solid mystery with interesting characters and even some nice action-packed moments. If you’re looking to get into Rathbone’s Sherlock Holmes series, this is a great place to start.

10 out of 10