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! Anyway, the plot is even more melodramatic here (cue incessant gesticulation by the entire cast), with Holmes entering proceedings only halfway through the 25-minute film! Incidentally, its makers assume audiences would be aware of the protagonist's unassailable reputation within his field – especially since Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories were still pretty new! As in the other adaptation I watched featuring this actor, the case is solved in no time at all
giving (perhaps unwarranted) new meaning to the famously unflappable sleuth's signature quote "Elementary, my dear Watson"!
5 Reviews
The Copper Beeches review
JoeytheBrit25 June 2020
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.
Mainly for the keen fan or the mildly curious!
JohnHowardReid16 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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. No Watson; 2. No editing whatever. Each set-up is filmed in one long take; 3. Doyle and company manfully resist any temptations to actually move the camera, even when all the action is staged right at the left side of the frame; 4. Hammy, gesticulating performances, particularly from the actors playing the villain and Holmes himself (namely Treville, who is not only hammy, but surprisingly small in stature. "In height," Doyle tells us, Holmes "was rather over six feet, and so excessively lean he seemed to be considerably taller." This does not match Treville, who is dwarfed by the rest of the cast, particularly the villain); 5. All the actors are obviously under the impression they are emoting on a theater stage to an audience seated immediately in front of them.
On the credit side, this little movie is attractively photographed, and the tinted print on offer from Grapevine certainly rates 8/10.
Unfortunately, the other movies on Grapevine's Sherlock Holmes DVD are of lesser appeal pictorially. The plot of The Dying Detective is both obvious and dull. The Devil's Foot certainly engages the attention, but the print is murky and, aside from Norwood's Holmes and Willis's Watson, the acting is nothing to write home about.
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. No Watson; 2. No editing whatever. Each set-up is filmed in one long take; 3. Doyle and company manfully resist any temptations to actually move the camera, even when all the action is staged right at the left side of the frame; 4. Hammy, gesticulating performances, particularly from the actors playing the villain and Holmes himself (namely Treville, who is not only hammy, but surprisingly small in stature. "In height," Doyle tells us, Holmes "was rather over six feet, and so excessively lean he seemed to be considerably taller." This does not match Treville, who is dwarfed by the rest of the cast, particularly the villain); 5. All the actors are obviously under the impression they are emoting on a theater stage to an audience seated immediately in front of them.
On the credit side, this little movie is attractively photographed, and the tinted print on offer from Grapevine certainly rates 8/10.
Unfortunately, the other movies on Grapevine's Sherlock Holmes DVD are of lesser appeal pictorially. The plot of The Dying Detective is both obvious and dull. The Devil's Foot certainly engages the attention, but the print is murky and, aside from Norwood's Holmes and Willis's Watson, the acting is nothing to write home about.
A 'stone age' Sherlock Holmes adventure
binapiraeus25 February 2014
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 (!), and forces a young governess he 'hires' for his younger kid and who resembles his daughter to lure the boyfriend into a deadly trap (!!). But the governess fortunately remembers famous Sherlock Holmes and comes to him for help...
Although (or maybe because?) the film was shot under the personal supervision of Conan Doyle himself, it can really be seen today only as a kind of time document from the days shortly after the end of the Victorian era...
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 (!), and forces a young governess he 'hires' for his younger kid and who resembles his daughter to lure the boyfriend into a deadly trap (!!). But the governess fortunately remembers famous Sherlock Holmes and comes to him for help...
Although (or maybe because?) the film was shot under the personal supervision of Conan Doyle himself, it can really be seen today only as a kind of time document from the days shortly after the end of the Victorian era...
A Little Embarrassing
jhboswell30 March 2014
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 (!) production company in 1912, presumably supervised and produced by Sir Arthur himself, it is no more than a filmed pantomime performed by actors who had no concept of the camera. We realize stage actors have to make grandiose gesticulations, but didn't the director know something about filming? Hard to follow, strays far away from the story, a "quickie" very forgettable. I recommend you fast-forward nine years to the Stoll productions.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
