MovieChat Forums > The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970) Discussion > The Road Show Version - What Might Has B...

The Road Show Version - What Might Has Been ...

posted 15 years ago by dknow3
15 replies | jump to latest

THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES was originally planned as a road show attraction. At the time it was in pre-production, road shows were a vital force in the motion picture industry. For those who are not familiar with the term "road show", these were prestige films made on big budgets designed to be shown in a limited number of flagship theaters on a reserve seat basis at advanced prices. Unfortunately, by the time Billy Wilder's film was in production the market had changed. A series of road show attractions, including 20th Century Fox's DR. DOOLITTLE & STAR had failed badly in 1968. Even their production of HELLO, DOLLY was a huge commercial disappointment in 1970. That marked a definite change in public taste which caused studios to be reluctant to commit the capital necessary to promote a road show attraction.

Billy Wilder voluntarily cut THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES for general release. It was a tough choice, but it was a rational response to an irrational time. Wilder needed to protect his relationship with United Artists, who could have been badly damaged by a commercial failure.

Fortunately, other people have been kind enough to describe the deleted footage. If THE PRIVATE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES had been presented as Billy Wilder had originally conceived it, we would have seen a very different film. Of course, if Wilder could have cast his original choices for Holmes and Watson and we had seen Peter O'Toole and Peter Sellers in those roles it would have been a dramatically different film.

In 1970, I saw the general release version in it's brief run at New York's Radio City Music Hall, realizing that this was a severely cut version. I still enjoyed it and I have a real fondness for it.

"The saddest thoughts ever penned are thoughts of things that might have been."

[–] Keith100 15 years ago

Interesting story as I just posted the question about the "REAL" story behind Wilder giving up on his film, as some have mentioned he did. So it was Wilder who cut it and not "evil" executives.

And never heard the idea of the original casting plan. Sounds smart, especially with the new film version having the silly idea to cast the tall lanky Jude Law as Watson and Downey, Jr as Holmes. We could argue all day about the casting but just going on physical stature alone, it seems Guy Ritchie has it reversed. I hope it is for a good reason.

[–] dknow3 15 years ago

Billy Wilder's original casting choice of Peter O'Toole & Peter Sellers was mentioned in print in a Fall, 1963 issue of CINEMA magazine.

By all accounts, it was Wilder himself who cut the film for general release.

Casting O'Toole & Sellers as Holmes & Watson might have seemed unconventional in the 1960's, but it would not have been out of character by any means. Ritchie's choices simply seem stupid {like alliterating}. The only possible reason for it would have been to get the film financed.

[–] dknow3 15 years ago

Here is an alternate version from from the IMDB Trivia section for this film:

"According to Billy Wilder, since because of schedule conflicts he couldn't himself supervise the bowdlerization of the picture demanded by the Studios, he entrusted the task to the editor, Ernest Walter. Nevertheless, Wilder supposedly strongly disliked the cuts made by Walter, and couldn't re-edit the movie because all the deleted scenes were lost or thrown away. Some of those scenes are available today, but never with both the audio and the video intact."

Although I do not know for a fact that this version is inaccurate, it is open to some interpretation. Hopefully, someone with first hand knowledge of what happened will inform us.

"Ignore the man behind the curtain!"

[–] Keith100 15 years ago

Thanks for the follow up, dknow3. I enjoy this film more for sentimental reasons but one of those is that it did motivate me to pick up "A Study in Scarlet" and the rest is boring history. I own the DVD but I always appreciate any info on this film because even when I saw a PBS special on Wilder, this film was mentioned only in passing(unless I missed it). I know from a "Holmes-purist" POV it is easy to knock this film but I recall the marketing calling it "the one case Holmes couldn't solve" and the fact the Loch Ness monster-mania was pretty big back then. From those angles, I've always looked at this film somewhat fondly.

[–] dknow3 15 years ago

You are not alone. Seeing this film first run at The Radio city Music Hall in New York at an impressionable age was an unforgettable experience for me. Of course seeing John Wood play Sherlock Holmes in the RSC production of William Gillette's play on Broadway was even more impressive.

As one who tends to be a Holmes purist, I make allowances for well conceived and well executed pastiche. Wilder's film is blessed with the wit and sophistication that Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond brought to most of their films.

When people criticize PLSH, they should bear in mind that we are not seeing the road show presentation that Wilder intended. Naturally, I would have loved to have seen Peter O'Toole as Holmes. Wilder explained his choice of Robert Stephens as Holmes by saying, "He looked like he could be hurt."

Isn't it amazing when you consider how much sentiment the most unsentimental character in literature can inspire?

"Ignore the man behind the curtain!"

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] balkaster 15 years ago

By all accounts, it was Wilder himself who cut the film for general release.

Not by all accounts. This article quotes Wilder's sorrow upon seeing what the studio did to the film. He did not cut the film himself.

http://thisdistractedglobe.com/2008/07/26/the-private-life-of-sherlock-holmes-1970/

A good article, also describes the missing scenes.

[–] lor_ 15 years ago

I saw the film firstrun in Philadelphia at a Rittenhouse Square area theater when I was a grad student attending Wharton and have been a big fan of it ever since. I recall the theater being nearly empty.

One matter I would like to bring up -I have enjoyed Genevieve Page's work in many films, but I particularly find her affecting here. The ending with her forlornly signalling using her parasol is a memorable romantic moment for me in cinema, and several years later I bought the album of music -the Heifetz classical LP performing Rozsa's work, which serves well as a substitute for an actual soundtrack LP.

I've seen all of Billy Wilder's films and will always count this one, shortened as it might be, among my favorites.

My recollection is that by 1972, with flops like Lost Horizon and Man of La Mancha, the traditional roadshow phenomenon had ended. Too bad, as the current IMAX craze is no match for the fun I once had of going to see films like 2001 and Ice Station Zebra in Cinerama!

[–] Keith100 15 years ago

Thanks for the link, balkaster. Interesting reading.

[–] Pan32 13 years ago

Wilder was lucky this wasn't a road show as it would have been even more a humiliation than it is. Actually as a Hollywood junk film it fits right in with 90% of the rest of the flotsam so few would have noticed.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jinchelsea 11 years ago

Your response to this film strikes me as ridiculous and shortsighted. Without doubt, even in its shortened version, one of Billy Wilder's greatest films, his "most elegant" film, as Wilder himself calls it. And with the missing sequences, would have been even better.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Cinnyaste 10 years ago

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]