The first thing we see in 1965’s A Study in Terror–the very first frame–is of a woman’s feet as she treads a cobblestone road at night in crimson, high-laced shoes. It is odd how much is telegraphed by that image, even to one who doesn’t know anything else about the movie they’re about see: this is a lady of the evening, we are in Victorian times and she is about the next victim of Jack the Ripper. Really, who wouldn’t assume these things from these images?
Despite never facing off against this villain in the original books by Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes is frequently pitted against him in works by others who later borrowed the character. While it seems like this would be a natural fit, I suspect I understand why Doyle never did a Ripper story and that is it seems a bit too pat. At least, it always feels a hair too on-the-nose in pictures such as this one.
It doesn’t help that this film takes such preposterous liberties with the real-life serial killer. There’s a reason he was called “The Ripper”, but I won’t go into that here. He is not believed to have ever stabbed a woman sideways through her neck, which happens to the first victim here. The resulting shot should be horrific but is instead unintentionally hilarious. It’s like those old “arrow through the head” gags. One can readily imagine the loop running behind her neck that connects the two halves of the fake knife.
Holmes is portrayed here by John Neville, an actor I best remember from decades later as the title character in Gilliam’s The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. I am not familiar with most of his work prior to that movie, which came more than two decades after this one.
He is well-cast here, though he is the flavor of Holmes that maximizes the smug douchiness. He is especially condescending to Watson (Donald Huston). The take on Watson here is gushy fanboy perpetually astonished by the detective’s brilliance. The only sign he has a brain is a moment just before the end credits when he rolls his eyes at another one of Holmes’s litany of deductions.
Such scenes always have elements where we are surprised by how he came to his conclusions. But have you ever noticed this line of thinking is never revealed in some of those statements? I’m starting to realize what a cheat it is when he starts a sentence with a word like “obviously”. That’s just shorthand for, “I’m not going to explain how I realized that. You’ll just have to trust that I’m a genius.”
A key to the mystery is a set of surgeon’s tools which have been sent anonymously to Baker Street. A coat of arms concealed in the case reveals these belong to a member of a titled family. The huge-ass book in which Watson finds that’s family’s information is hilarious, simply because it’s hard to believe there was ever such a massive tome devoted solely to the British gentry. I knew they take that kind of thing very seriously over there, but really…
The various characters here who may or may not be suspects include Anthony Quayle as a coroner/mortician who also runs a soup kitchen. I wondered how often he had to perform his dissection services on former recipients of his charity. Assisting him are John Cairney as his Igor (who might just have a secret), John Fraser as a Lord who helps out in the outreach and a surprisingly young Judi Dench. Unlike Angela Lansbury or Jessica Tandy, whom I also mostly know from their work in their advanced years, Dench looks significantly different then compared to how she looks now.
Rounding out the cast are those staples of UK television and movies Robert Morley (as Mycroft) and Cecil Parker (as the Prime Minister). It is always good to see these familiar faces in yet another British film. Morley does his usual thing here, and is especially dismayed when Holmes demonstrates his failure to improve at playing the violin. Since Neville seems intent on playing it like a tiny cello, it’s no wonder his technique isn’t improving.
Anywho, scandal, blackmail and vengeance all factor into the plot of A Study in Terror. In the end, it is an above-average entry in the non-canonical body of Holmes fiction, but only just. The amount of enjoyment you get from this will vary depending upon your standards. It’s like the two men here who are thrilled to find any prostitute on the streets, regardless of appearance: “Here’s one! Two legs even!” Set your expectations as low as that, and you will probably have a decent time.
Dir: James Hill
Starring John Neville, Donald Huston, Anthony Quayle
Watched on Mill Creek blu-ray