Wed 3 Feb 2016
A Sherlock Holmes Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: THE WOMAN IN GREEN (1945).
Posted by Steve under Mystery movies , Reviews[8] Comments
THE WOMAN IN GREEN. Universal Pictures, 1945. Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Hillary Brooke, Henry Daniell, Paul Cavanagh, Matthew Boulton. Screenplay by Bertram Millhauser, based on characters created by Arthur Conan Doyle. Director: Roy William Neill.
Forget the title, which as it turns out has little relation to the story, and just appreciate the movie. For this entry in the Sherlock Holmes film series in which Basil Rathbone portrayed the famed sleuth is an altogether enjoyable movie watching experience, even if the crimes referenced to in this film are particularly grisly.
Directed by Roy William Neill, The Woman in Green has it all: a series of unsolved murders, hypnosis, a formidable villain in Professor Moriarty (Henry Daniell), and naturally for this Holmes film series, a bumbling, but ever-so-charming Dr. Watson portrayed by Nigel Bruce.
The story, as it turns out, isn’t nearly as interesting as it might have been. In many ways, the setup is far more formidable than the eventual payoff (no spoilers here). But that doesn’t end up mattering, as it’s the characters and the dialogue that propel the movie forward. Seeing Holmes and Watson in action, not to mention Holmes facing off against Moriarty, is a sheer delight.
But back to the plot: Scotland Yard is baffled by what they’ve encountered; namely, a series of brutal Jack the Ripper style murders all over London. Making matters worse – and far more grotesque – is the fact that all of the victims have had one finger severed. Who took the fingers? And who committed these horrific crimes?
That’s where Holmes comes in. From the get go, he thinks that the authorities aren’t necessarily dealing with Jack the Ripper Part II, but that there’s something even more nefarious going on. But what could it be? And what is Moriarty’s role in all this, especially given that he was presumed dead? All I can say is, tune in to find out!
February 4th, 2016 at 2:09 am
It does rather give lie to the idea that the series was on a downward spiral at this point. Much grimmer than the standard, with a feeling of film-noir creeping in. Rathbone felt that Daniell was the best of his Moriartys, and the polite, calm discussion between them as they discuss things at 221b is a classic scene.
February 4th, 2016 at 5:38 am
Daniell had an interesting take on Moriarty. Where Zucco and Atwill seemed to delight in crime for the sake of the game, Daniell’s villain is weary with hunting and fain would lie down. As Bradstreet says, it lends a noirish note to the proceedings that the silly hypnotism business cannot dispel.
And there’s some amazing imagery!
February 4th, 2016 at 9:07 am
Seemed like Moriarty was shoved into this as an afterthought. Thought Daniell a poor third to Zucco and Atwill, his usual low temperature an insufficient contrast to Holmes. At least he didn’t steal scenes as his predecessors did, guess Basil appreciated that.
February 4th, 2016 at 3:37 pm
I believe that the producers of the BBC series “Sherlock” said in an interview they were inspired by THE WOMAN IN GREEN to create their series.
February 4th, 2016 at 5:09 pm
Daniell previously appeared in the series as a red herring in VOICE OF TERROR.
One note, if the ending of the film seems familiar it is largely lifted from S. S. Van Dine’s THE GARDEN MURDER CASE, both the book and especially the film with Edmond Lowe as Philo Vance. Some of the dialogue of the two films is very close.
No surprise as Bertram Millhauser wrote both.
It’s the first time Sherlock Holmes ever borrowed from Philo Vance.
I’m not suggesting plagiarism, just extensive borrowing.
February 4th, 2016 at 5:14 pm
For some reason as yet unexplainable, I’ve never seen this one.
While writing up the credits for Jon’s review, I looked for any source material the movie might have been based on, but I didn’t find the Van Dine connection, so thanks for that, David.
I did find this note on the AFI page for the film:
“According to modern sources, the screenplay was loosely based on two of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories, ‘The Adventures of the Empty House,’ (Strand, Oct 1903) and ‘The Adventures of the Dying Detective,’ (Strand, Dec 1913), but onscreen credits indicate that the story was based only Conan Doyle’s characters, and the film bears little resemblance to either of those stories.”
February 5th, 2016 at 2:12 am
Apparently the deal between Universal and the Doyle estate requred that a certain percentage of the films be ‘based’ on the original stories. The borrowings from THE EMPTY HOUSE in this film are fleeting but very clear, and in most of the series the ‘based on’ part of the scripts are similarly slight. However, there are obvious borrowings from more contemporary sources. THE HOUSE OF FEAR has the 5 orange pips from the story of the same name, but the whole set-up is more obviously Christie’s AND THEN THERE WERE NONE.
February 5th, 2016 at 5:42 am
Never made clear the extent of the Doyle Estate’s control of the films. Once you’ve agreed to the updates… Despite being made at Universal, THE home of things that go bump in the night, nothing supernatural ever enters his rational world.
But the films do seem to be made by fans. Arwill’s Moriarty matches the physical description of the story, and even delivers a zinger about “the needle”. At one point, director Roy William Neill took Dennis Hoey’s Lestrade and plunked him into Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man.
The series only ended cuz Rathbone feared typecasting, a trap from which even Holmes couldn’t escape.