Experiment #13 - "Terror by Night" (1946)

Teapots!

***

When you picture Sherlock Holmes a few images naturally spring to mind. It’s not hard to picture the detective, dressed in his Inverness cloak and deerstalker hat, rushing out into the foggy London night, a pipe clenched between his teeth and a magnifying glass to his eye in search of clues to solve a baffling mystery. As painfully stereotypical as this image may be, it feels right. So, there’s something decidedly not right about Sherlock Holmes singing and dancing. And yet, Sherlock Holmes musicals do exist.

Nick: While they may not be very popular, there have been a number of Sherlock Holmes musicals which have done their best to show that Holmes can sing and dance. By far, the most famous Sherlockian musical in Broadway history was 1965’s Baker Street. The show premiered on Broadway in 1965 and was written by Jerome Coopersmith with music and lyrics by Marian Grudeff and Raymond Jessel. The plot involved Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, Professor Moriarty, and Irene Adler romancing Sherlock Holmes. The show was not a runaway success, but its soundtrack can still be found online, including one song sung by the great detective called “It’s So Simple.”

Cat: Which is...an interesting listening experience. Now let it be known, that I am definitely a fan of musicals and I like the way music expresses stuff a lot. And I have to say...it’s not really as bad as you’d imagine. The tune is actually really catchy. The song itself is Holmes rattling off some deductions about a new client, and it’s almost has a feeling of “so wrong, it’s right”. On one hand, some might find the idea of Sherlock Holmes singing to be extremely appalling - but on the other, if he had to sing and dance, this seems like it feels pretty accurate (especially given that this is a song from 1965). I’m honestly a bit conflicted here. It’s not as bad as I thought it would be. (And it’s now stuck in my head. Thanks, Nick.)

Nick: Sure thing Catharine. And, to be entirely honest, I actually quite like the song. When I first listened to it I thought that I would not, but it’s fun. It sounds very much like your typical song from a musical of the ‘60s, but it works. Now, Baker Street may have been the most famous legitimate Sherlock Holmes musical, but there were many others including one which adapted the works of Gilbert and Sullivan and had Holmes sing a version of “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General.” However, my personal favorite Sherlock Holmes musical technically has nothing to do with Holmes: My Fair Lady. Based, of course, on George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion, the character of Professor Henry Higgins has a very Sherlockian vibe to him as is evidenced in some of his songs (particularly “Why Can’t the English” and “Why Can’t a Woman be More Like a Man”).

Cat: I’m actually not really familiar much at all with My Fair Lady, so I can’t comment on this too much, but after listening to “Why Can’t the English”, I guess I can see that a little bit? I’m not going to deny that I could see a similarity, but it’s nothing that jumps out at me on a first-listen.

Nick: Well, maybe with a bit more context the Sherlockian connection does become a little more apparent: Higgins knows dialects and accents like the back of his hand, is best friends with a military man recently back from India, lives an eccentric lifestyle, and is cruel to his long-suffering housekeeper. My Fair Lady also has an interesting Sherlockian connection: Young socialite Freddy Eynsford-Hill, who falls in love with Audrey Hepburn's Eliza Doolittle, is played by a young Jeremy Brett! Though Brett was an accomplished singer, his voice is dubbed in the film. All-the-same, Freddy's song, "On the Street Where You Live" is a genuine highlight.

Cat: Indeed it is, because Baby Jeremy Brett is pretty adorable. Can’t help but wonder why it was that they dubbed him over though. It would seem that Sherlock Holmes will appear in musicals, whether people like it or not. (And that’s not even counting the handfuls of serious and out-there fan-made “musicals” people have put together with clips of songs and various Sherlock Holmes media!)

Nick: Yes, some of those fan-made musicals can be pretty clever and fun. And, it’s a good point that Sherlock Holmes will appear in musicals whether people like it or not because, as we saw last time in Pursuit to Algiers, musicals will appear in Sherlock Holmes whether people like it or not...FOUR MUSICAL NUMBERS! Ugh...

   

Cat: Nick, some things you just have to let go...and a song lasting not even minute doesn’t count as a musical number!

As you can see this is still a touchy subject around these parts. Perhaps it would be for the best if we moved on with the subject of today’s review.

Vital Statistics:

Terror by Night (1946)

Major motion picture

Starring Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Alan Mowbray (Major Duncan Blek), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Renee Godfrey (Vivian Vedder), Frederick Worlock (Professor Kilbane)

60 minutes, black-and-white

Thoughts:

Nick: I don’t know about you Catharine, but I just think this one has a bit of a weird vibe. It’s not bad by any means, but it’s one of the more unusual entries, I think, in the Rathbone/Bruce series.

Cat: You too?! I was going to ask you the same thing. It’s hard to even put why it’s weird into words for me. I kind of think it’s because the movie starts off with Holmes and Watson already engaged in a ‘case’ that we just jump into. That made it feel a bit off from the beginning for me at least.

Nick: Yeah, it is a little in medias res one supposes. It’s also interesting that we start out meeting one of the film’s suspects first; Renee Godfrey’s Vivian Vedder who is buying a special coffin from a coffin-maker in London. Not to criticize the movie too harshly right off the bat, but it’s fairly obvious that the movie is trying so hard to make her out to be a femme fatale in the style of some of the earlier women antagonists, and it just never really comes off. (The scene isn’t helped by the obviously overacting coffin-maker’s assistant who seems to be utter awe at the sight of Godfrey as he stands with his mouth open, his tongue practically hanging out of his mouth.)

Cat: Yeah, I thought that was a little odd because then, once the action picks up on the train - the main setting of the movie - they don’t really do too much with her. So they don’t even successfully turn her into a femme fatale character. Her character seems to be quite literally for show and little else. Though there wasn’t much character development done with anyone else, so it’s not like that’s a problem for just her character.

The Client, The Femme Fatale, and The Detective

Nick: It is true. Her character delivers one bit of important information to Holmes and little else. As Catharine alluded to above, the majority of this movie does take place on a train where Holmes has been tasked with keeping a watchful eye on the priceless diamond, The Star of Rhodesia. I must take a moment to thank Catharine for pointing out that Rhodesia is the same kingdom where King Nikolas was from in Pursuit to Algiers which, I suppose, sets up some kind of internal continuity in the series. And, quite like Pursuit to Algiers, once on the train, Holmes and Watson are introduced to a number of odd characters who act as suspects and red herrings throughout the entire film.

Cat: So perhaps it’s just the involvement of Rhodesia that is what makes these movies so boring for you? Perhaps the country just has this dull-air that touches all that involves it? ...Or maybe it’s just a weird little coincidence and I get easily carried away. But like Nick said, it’s essentially the same type of a story, but this time it’s on a train. Although this film is already better than Pursuit to Algiers because, as we find out in the first few minutes, Inspector Lestrade happens to be on the same train so he can go on a fishing trip! Oh, Dennis Hoey, how I’ve missed you. I can’t express how much joy he brings me every time he’s on screen.

Nick: Having Dennis Hoey around does make any movie a little bit better. And, though he’s nothing like the canonical Lestrade, Hoey’s inspector is just a lot of fun. To this day, I always read Lestrade’s dialogue in a Cockney accent as a bit of an homage to Hoey. In the same way as Nigel Bruce, his bumbling and buffoonery is endearing and enjoyable. It’s also amusing that he’s trying to travel incognito but drops the guise as soon as the Star is stolen and the man carrying it is murdered (which is, in a nutshell, the plot of this movie).

Cat: Having Dennis Hoey around makes EVERYTHING better! Oddly enough, while it took some time for me to warm up to Nigel Bruce’s “buffoonery”, as you call it, I loved Dennis Hoey’s Lestrade from just about the moment I met him. He absolutely cracks me up. Watching him try to take over the investigation of the theft and murder was pleasantly amusing - especially since he’s the only one on the train who, legally speaking, should be in charge of such an investigation. (Now, if we’re speaking about capability, that’s something a bit different…) At least he tries to get to the bottom of things.

Nick: It is true; Lestrade is hardly capable of handling this investigation. But, since he is in charge, he insists on questioning everyone in the train car and employs Holmes and Watson to help. This leads to, what I think, is actually one of the film’s funnier running gags. Watson begins to question a couple who admit to a theft and, believing that he’s caught the culprit, excitedly reports it to Holmes and Lestrade only to discover that the theft in question was a teapot from a London hotel. The look of disappointment on Watson’s face coupled with Lestrade’s repeated, aggravated mumblings of “Teapots!” is really quite amusing.

Lestrade and his teapots

Cat: It truly is. Especially because Nigel Bruce and Dennis Hoey have this beautiful dynamic where they keep trying to prove themselves smarter or more capable around Holmes - very much like two small children stubbornly competing for affection and praise. (Poor Holmes.) So every time Watson messes up like that, Lestrade gets all high and mighty about it and vice versa. While perhaps not the most accurate characterizations, they certainly are true. Watching that play out makes all the questionings very entertaining. I think my personal favorite parts of this gag was when Watson also tried to question Professor Kilbane and only succeeds in aggravating him and getting himself sent out of his train compartment. Watson really does try to be helpful, but it so rarely turns out well.

Nick: Not only does Watson get himself sent out of the compartment, but Kilbane turns the tables on the good doctor and actually accuses him of the murder! All-the-while though, Holmes is beginning to believe that the theft of the Star of Rhodesia may have been committed by the late Professor Moriarty’s right-hand man, Colonel Sebastian Moran. As he comes closer to the truth, Watson’s friend - and fellow traveler - Major Duncan Bleek decides to throw his hat into the detecting ring and try to give the detectives a hand but, as it soon transpires, Bleek is actually Colonel Moran!

Cat: Yeah...I’m still trying to make sense of that twist. It comes out at the end of the film, though Holmes suspects it for a bit before that, but we never get any real explanation about the unspoken implications about that. You hear Watson and Bleek/Moran talk about their military past together, but once the reveal of Bleek’s true identity happens, you never get Watson’s opinions or feelings on the matter. I don’t think they even specifically mention what the motive here was supposed to be?

Colonel Sebastian Moran!

Nick: That is true. Moran is sort of just being evil for the sake of being evil. It is cool that Sebastian Moran turns up as the major villain in this movie though. So often he’s overlooked as a villain, but he has such a fascinating story in the canon. There’s even a neat anthology of short stories which are told by Moran as he acts as Moriarty’s sidekick as they go committing crimes all over London. It’s a lot of fun! There’s another nice canonical reference in this movie in that the coffin which Vivian brought aboard has a secret compartment allowing Moran to smuggle his confederate aboard the train. The secret-compartment-in-the-coffin trick is lifted from the story “The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax.”

Cat: Ooh, cool! But yeah, it feels a bit strange because you find out “whodunit” - but without any “whydunit”. That threw me a bit. But here’s how it works out: the train stops and picks up a few Scottish police officers (or as I like to call them “the real Scotland Yarders”) and Holmes gathers them, Watson, “Bleek”, and Lestrade to spell out how everything has occured in the dining car. Through this explanation, he tells everyone that Bleek is indeed Moran and after denying it for a moment, he admits it as true. Though, as I said earlier, we don’t get much of a reaction from Watson over this news, though he happened to be seated on a bench next to where Moran was standing. In a rare moment of sheer awesome-ness for Bruce’s Watson, he punches him and initiates a scuffle that ends with Holmes overpowering Moran in the dark and handing him off with his jacket pulled over his head to the Scottish officers, who exit the train with Moran in handcuffs….or so it would seem. Only once they’re gone does Holmes reveal that the police officers were really some of Moran’s comrades, who were hoping to take him with them, but they ended up getting Lestrade. While Lestrade takes control of that situation, Holmes puts the real Moran (who was stashed under a table in the fight) in handcuffs and everything seems to work itself out alright. Keep in mind though, this all happens in roughly seven minutes or so? It’s a bit of a rush.

Nick: Seven minutes is a very accurate estimate. Like a lot of these latter Rathbone films, they end really, really quickly and this one is no exception. However, this whole finale is actually pretty well-done and interesting and it throws in one last twist to keep the audience on their toes. I also really like the reference to the Scottish Inspector MacDonald who assists Holmes in the novel The Valley of Fear. Of course, this Inspector MacDonald is not all he seems to be.

Inspector MacDonald...or is it?

Cat: It definitely is, and I enjoyed it, but it felt very quick and almost as if there were multiple things that went unresolved. I would’ve really liked to see it stretch on for just a few more moments to wrap things up just a bit better. And on the note of Inspector MacDonald, I thought it very funny when Holmes informs Moran that he has been entirely thwarted that he says that he actually knows Inspector MacDonald, so his attempt was in vain practically from the beginning. That made me giggle a bit.

Nick: That is a pretty amusing bit. The other bit which made Catharine and I laugh was the random sarcophagus which can be found in the train’s baggage car. It’s just standing there as if it were a completely normal item to cart around. I like to think that it’s the mummy which the two archaeologists in Pursuit to Algiers dug up.

Cat: Wouldn’t be surprised, as there was apparently some unintentional continuity here. (Though we can’t keep straight the fact that there have been three Moriartys, who all have had on/mostly onscreen deaths...just saying...)

Nick: Well, they’re obviously three brothers named James…

Cat:  Oh, of course. No other possible explanation. (Though technically they have to still be siblings with a somewhat logical age gap that spans the typical Victorian era and the 40s. But it could still work. Maybe George Zucco was a cousin or something...or the other two Moriartys’ father! ….Or maybe we should quit while we’re ahead.)

Nick: Yeah. Not a bad idea...   

It’s time for Final Thoughts:

Nick: If it seems like we really have not had much to say about Terror by Night it’s because there isn’t much to say. It’s really one of the most straightforward films in the series with a simple plot and simple consequences of the plot. Really, when you sit back and think about it, this movie is comprised of going back and forth down one stretch of hallway questioning suspects. And, while something like Murder on the Orient Express springs to mind as an obvious similar story, that story had a more complex plot and a fascinating cast of characters which really held your interest, I don’t know if I can say the same for Terror by Night. It is, I think, a distinct step up from Pursuit to Algiers, but it just feels a bit dull and, even though it’s the shortest movie in the Rathbone/Bruce series (clocking in at just one hour), it actually, at times, feels longer. That is not to say, however, that this movie is all bad. The inclusion of Colonel Moran is a definite plus as are the references to Doyle and the complex finale. The scene where Moran attempts to kick Holmes from the train is also a neat one. It’s not especially suspenseful or exciting, but it’s a welcome breath of fresh air in the plot. So, overall, I think Terror by Night is pretty ho-hum. And you Catharine? Your thoughts?

Oh...yeah, Holmes was almost pushed off the train...

Cat: For the most part, I have to agree. While I didn’t think that Pursuit to Algiers was the painful bore-fest that you did, for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, this did feel like a definite step up. I liked the scene where Holmes get pushed out of the train - a moment we glossed over, but it had me on the edge of my seat - and I definitely liked the ending. I thought it was cool that they used Moran as an actual character, because even with my limited knowledge, I know that’s not exactly frequently uttered name. It got a bit dull at times leading up to the ending, with the dead ends and the going in circles with the suspects on the train, but even still, it wasn’t awful. It just wasn’t particularly exciting. Even still, though I did really enjoy the ending, I still wish there had been just a bit more resolution - especially with the revelation that Watson must’ve had that he had served with the right-hand man of the Napoleon of Crime! And, even in the less exciting moments, there were the antics of Lestrade and Watson to keep me giggling and entertained (if not interested). I think that about sums it up for me, actually. Entertained, if not always interested.

Nick: That’s an excellent way of summing up this movie. Well, I guess the last bit of business would be to give it our deerstalker ratings. I’ll go for a 3 out of 5 with this one. Not bad, but this is one which I seldom find myself going back to. And you?

Cat: I think I have to go with a 4.0 at the most and a 3.5 at the worst. After the movie was over, I had felt decently enough satisfied with what I had seen, and I really did like that ending and the use of moran as the culprit of it all. I’m only really noticing some of these duller moments now that I look back on it and pick it apart. I would have liked a bit more from it, but with what I got, I really did like it alright enough!

Nick: Wow! A 4.0! That’s pretty high. I must say that if this movie ends up with a higher rating than Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Seven Per-Cent Solution, or Murder by Decree, I’ll end up rather upset!

Cat: Nick, I will rate these movies as I please. And besides, if that’s all that I do that upsets you on this blog, I’ll be rather disappointed in myself. ;)

Nick's Rating

Catharine's Rating

Next Time: The Basil Rathbone era ends on a rather poignant note. (That’s a pun because the plot of Dressed to Kill involves musical boxes. Get it?)