MovieChat Forums > Murder by Decree (1979) Discussion > James Mason too old?

James Mason too old?

posted 11 years ago by ravenking81
8 replies | jump to latest

Mason was 69 when this movie came out, and hell he did look old. I almost had the impression that he had trouble moving and talking. Especially since the movie required him to do some fighting as well. The use of a stunt double was fairly obvious in the scene where he beat up the pimp. And as if this wouldn't have been enough, they had to do the pea scene, which turned the poor man into a complete ass. It almost felt as if Holmes was mocking Watson for being such a useless old geezer. Comparing Mason's behaviour to Plummer's rather youthful Holmes, there was just something really off about their teaming. Watson being 20 years Holmes' senior is just a bit too much. He could have been his father.

Hang on tightly, let go lightly

[–] RugGuy 11 years ago

Both actors were about 30 years too old. But both were great.

[–] Moscoso1967 9 years ago

Do you really think Plummer was 30 years too old?!?! Plummer was only 49 when the movie was released! I don't know how familiar you are with Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Though he wasn't to precise about dates, Holmes and Watson were approx. in their late twenties when they first met and about 60 in their last case. So Plummer's age was perfectly fine to play Holmes (except if you want it to be perfectly "historically" accurate, in this case Holmes would have been in his mid-30s when Jack the Ripper was around).

Well, we don't know how old Watson is supposed to be in this movie (the actor's age isn't necessarily the same as the character's and at least in their last cases he could have been in his early 60s), but Mason was too old compared to Plummer, as Watson is supposed to be only a few years older than Holmes. And if you want to be nit-picking Watson should have been in his mid (or late) 30s in 1888, so the OP is in some way right when (s)he writes that Mason was 30 years to old, Plummer maybe 10-15 years.

So, if you only want a more appropriate age gap, someone like Charles Gray would have been a better choice to play Watson alongside Plummer's Holmes.
And if they both should be the age they probably would have been when Jack the Ripper was around they would have needed younger actors (like Hugh Fraser as Holmes and David Suchet as Watson ;) ).

But the filmmakers obviously didn't care and quite frankly I'm not too bothered about it either as I enjoyed both their performances.

[–] RugGuy 9 years ago

I thought Plummer was much older than 49 when the movie was made. yes, i was saying they were tool old for the era.

Still my favorite pairing of Holmes and Watson.

[–] marktayloruk (2378) 3 years ago

In 1988 I believe that Holmes was 34 and Watson 36. Both actors too old.

[–] greenbudgie (2355) a year ago

Plummer at 49 is a good age choice to play Sherlock Holmes as traditionally Holmes has been around the 50 mark on screen. Basil Rathbone was 47 when he first stated playing the character and he probably retired as Holmes at the right time. Jeremy Brett was 51 when he first started on the character. Good as he was, he was too old by the time he finished with being Sherlock Holmes..

[–] kwestmo (4114) a year ago

Holmes was 24 when he started his business. He was 28 when he met Watson. He would have been early 30s at the time of the Ripper murders.

[–] greenbudgie (2355) a year ago

I agree that if the Ripper timeline is to be taken into consideration, Holmes and Watson would have been younger men. It's just that in all the Sherlock Holmes films until the 1980s, Holmes had always been played by an actor who was at least 50ish at the time.

[–] kwestmo (4114) a year ago

Don't get me wrong, I love Plummer and Mason in the roles. I own the movie.