The Private Lives Of Sherlock Holmes

[Matt Gemmell]

Billy Wilders excellent take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous creation hits the cinema screen once again in Britain .
From the 9th of December UK cinemagoers can catch up with one of the best Sherlock Holmes movies ever made . The current issue of Empire singles out Christopher Lees performance as Mycroft for praise in its review .
Check local listings as it's for a limited run only . Try and see it as it was meant to be seen , at the cinema .

I will have to look that up see if my cinema is doing it.
The old films always did look best at the cinema.
I used to love going to the cinema each week,or every day depending what was on.

And Mr. Lee never looked better, then on the big sceen.




star38

[Charles Prepolec]

The National Film Theatre in London will be running The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes two to three times a day starting Friday, December 6 right through to Thursday, December 19th. For more information on the NFT screenings click here.

No idea if this charming film will see theatrical play outside of the NFT on this run, but it certainly should, both as an example of Mr. Lee's work in a breakout performance and as an example of the late Billy Wilder's genius!

Cheers!

[Juan Aneiros]

Charles, correct me if I'm wrong.

The total film running time when released was 125 minutes. I was informed when trying to book my tickets, that there was going to be an interval. The film will be show in full, as Billy Wilder shot it, 3 hours long.

I must admit to be happy about the interval, I only wish that they did the same with LOTR films. Bathroom, cigarette, a drink, etc. Too long to be sitting down in one position.

[Old Soul]

I haven't seen an interval for a movie since Gone with the Wind when I saw it up at the show in grade school.

That is a good idea. They should have them for long movies.

Your lucky that you will be seeing the complete movie, wish I could see it.

Old Soul

[Juan Aneiros]

I wasn't sure on the time so I checked. This is what The Times Newspaper says:

"Billy Wilder

[Joakim Lundberg]

A four hour film I can understand but why an interval when the film is only 3 hours. They had no interval when Titanic was shown and neither on The Fellowship of the Ring. Great that it's gets shown in the way the director intented. :)

[39steps]

That's a third of the movie they chopped off... sort of a pity they didn't take the Three Musketeers/Four Musketeers approach. When that ran overtime, they split it into two movies.

The only movie I saw with an intermission was Branagh's Hamlet, but they would be nice in more films... I agree that it's a long time to sit in one place. The only downside is that it does sort of break the flow of the film.

[Colin Bushby]

I would prefer to watch the whole movie at once rather than have a break, there's nothing worse than watching a movie on tv and it breaks up for the news. If the film is good enough it should glue you to your seat as 'The Private Life....'. should.

I know what you meen though Juan about a ciggarette or bathroom, 3 hours for a smoker can seem like eternity, but do what I do, chew something and cross your legs.:D

[Joakim Lundberg]

The only movie I saw with an intermission was Branagh's Hamlet, but they would be nice in more films... I agree that it's a long time to sit in one place. The only downside is that it does sort of break the flow of the film.

I saw that one too. The intermission broke the film. They should have kept going. In the theater yes well needed but cinema no. Only if the film is under 4 hours. Over 4 hours yes.

[Juan Aneiros]

LOTR had a years intermission and it seems normal.

[Charles Prepolec]

My apologies for the delay in addressing this topic, but I'm a little confused by what I'm reading in the posts above. Tired eyes and little sleep I fear, so I'm unsure if anyone actually thinks they are seeing the long-lost roadshow cut or not.

I can see no practical reason for an interval on a film that runs but 125 minutes, of course stranger things have happened, so anything is possible. In checking over a few online ticket sources and cinema listings, I see that this appears to be the, studio imposed, original release cut of 125 minutes.

The original 3 hours plus rough cut has never been released anywhere at any time and is not thought to exist in a complete form at this time. Wilder himself, sometime in the year preceeding his death, had indicated publicly in an interview that he doubted if the full print was still in existence anywhere, as he certainly didn't have it.

The last efforts towards reconstruction took place a few years back, two missing segments had been found, one that was audio-only with no visual image ("The Curious Case of the Upside Down Room"), the other video-only without sound ("The Dreadful Business of the Naked Honeymooners"), both of which were featured on the Image Entertainment laserdisc release. Since that time, I have yet to hear, at least in Sherlockian circles, that any further progress has been made towards restoring the film to Wilder's original concept and running time. While I'm certainly not the be-all and end-all of Sherlock Holmes related information, something like news regarding a screening of the original cut of PLOSH would be hard to avoid, so I'm fairly confident when I say that this is the edited and original theatrical release being shown. More's the pity really, as I expect the missing bits, particularly the flashback sequence to Holmes' college days, a sequence designed to add insight into Holmes so-called 'misogyny', might add much to the viewers understanding of what Wilder was aiming for and given the film a bit more substance. I, for one, would love to see the full version of what Wilder called the most elegant movie he ever made.

However, that being said, I'm envious as hell of anyone that will be seeing even this usual truncated version on the big screen, as the last video release ( I have yet to see the LD version) certainly doesn't do this thoughtful and extravagent film justice. Beautifully shot, wonderfully acted (watch for Clive Revill's magnificent scene-stealing role as the Russian ballet impressario..."Beeg dog from Bas-kair-ville" indeed!) and complemented with a maginificent soundtrack by Miklos Rozsa, I'd recommend seeing this if you get the chance!

While Mr. Lee's screentime is somewhat limited, this was a pivotal role in his career and went a good way towards presenting him as something other than mainly a 'horror film actor', both to the audience at large, and to casting agents. His commanding presence as Holmes' elder brother Mycroft, while not the least bit like the character presented in Doyle's stories (in the Sherlock Holmes stories he is grotesquely overweight and lethargic, but with a razor-sharp mind superior to Sherlock), his character is a key factor in the plot. The sequences that have him verbally fencing with the late Robert Stephens (whose son Toby is currently enjoying some success as a Richard Branson-like character, okay he's the villain, in the latest instalment of the Bond franchise - Die Another Day) as brother Sherlock are particularly engaging. Another interesting side-note, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes also marks Mr. Lee's third performance as a different character in a Sherlock Holmes film, since he had previously appeared as Sir Henry Baskerville in Hammer's The Hound of the Baskervilles opposite Peter Cushing as Holmes and as Sherlock Holmes himself in Sherlock Holmes and the Necklace of Death (both of which can readily be found on Region 1 DVD).

Bottom Line: Go see this film, interval or no interval, in the cinema if you can, whether as a Christopher Lee fan, a Billy Wilder fan (and who isn't?) or a Sherlock Holmes fan, you will enjoy it!

For more on my personal take regarding The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, and more specifically Mr. Lee's involvement, I would humbly suggest visiting Sherlock Holmes and Christopher Lee: An Overview Part 2.



Cheers!

[Juan Aneiros]

Thanks Charles,

Looks like the theater has either given me the wrong information or that the total time with the break is of three hours. The funny thing, The Times also advertised it at running for 3 hours. We shall wait and see.

[Charles Prepolec]

Juan, you have no idea as to how much I'd really love to be proven wrong! I don't give a rats --- as to being right or wrong, since I'd be dead pleased to be shown that a restored print exists.

If a full cut is being shown, by God man, let us know here as soon as possible.

Cheers!

[Juan Aneiros]

Charles,

I don't know how long the film will be. That is why I've asked you in the first place. Apparently, the original film was 3 and 1/2 hour long and not 3 hours like I said previously.