Much of what I wrote about THE MUSGRAVE RITUAL (1912) from the same stable applies here – down to the incongruity of watching Sherlock Holmes act as a standalone detective (albeit sporting normal clothes, as opposed to his distinctive 'costume'!) I would say that, rather than a measure of cost-cutting, this decision had something to do with star Georges Treville (ironically, forgotten at this juncture) not wishing to share the spotlight with anyone!
Of course we have to keep in mind that this short was made in 1912, more than 100 years ago - but even for THIS stage, the technical level is horribly low: the cuts are kept at a minimum, and intertitles, which had become a standard movie feature for almost a decade then, are thrown in only every 5 or 6 minutes, thus leaving the actors to do almost a kind of pantomime and a terribly melodramatic one, too, for that matter.The subject of the 'adventure' is more than old-fashioned as well: a father disapproves of her daughter's choice of future husband, locks her up in the shed (!
Considering the wonderful cinema that Holmes has inspired since the little nickeloden title "Sherlock Holmes Baffled" in 1903, this little one doesn't stack up well. Filmed in England by a French (!
The earliest surviving complete Sherlock Holmes film - apparently overseen by the author himself - is something of a disappointment due to a rushed plot and some criminal over-acting from Georges Treville as the detective, and the actor who plays a villainous father who goes to extraordinary lengths to prevent his daughter from seeing a man of whom he disapproves. Filmed in England by French company Eclair.
The 1912 "Copper Beeches" on Grapevine's "Sherlock Holmes" disc is mainly of curiosity appeal. Directed in a remarkably flat-footed style by star, Georges Treville (a hammy and diminutive Sherlock Holmes) and his compatriot, Adrien Caillard, under the personal supervision (so the credit titles inform us) of Arthur Conan Doyle, in a small studio at Bexhill-on- Sea and the surrounding countryside, this short movie has at least five strikes against it: 1.
Sorry, this really isn't a review, but a rebuttal to the review of Michael Elliott dated 3/7/2008 above.Sorry, but Georges Treville does NOT appear in this film.
