In 1933, Reginald Owen starred as Sherlock Holmes in A Study In Scarlet.  This one shares little in common with the original Conan Doyle novel.  The original A Study In Scarlet tells the story of Watson and Holmes meeting for the first time.  It tells a terrible story of revenge, and it has a strong and solid back-story that takes up half the novel.  It’s no wonder more people like the name than the story!

In this version, the “Scarlet” in question is not the colour of blood (although there are plenty of deaths), it’s that the story is centred around a secret society of the “Scarlet Ring”.  I supposed it could be said that there are tentative links there to the original novel, given the “ring” is based on a collection of criminals but it’s nothing more than tentative.  In truth the story has more in common with The Five Orange Pips in that each victim receives a letter containing a verse in which the number of remaining members decreases by one prior to the murder.  I’m not sure the verse would be acceptable in these new politically correct times given that one of the lines could be construed as being racist to the extreme fringes of society that look for trouble where there is none.

Sherlock Holmes is played by Reginald Owen who makes for a physically rather bland interpretation of the part.  Apparently Owen had played Doctor Watson the previous year against Clive Brooks’ Holmes in the William Gillette (radio Holmes) penned “Sherlock Holmes”.  In many respects, watching this Sherlock Holmes in action is very similar to watching other 30s and 40s movies that did the rounds – such as The Saint and The Gay Falcon.  Personally, I think that Raymond Massey had more of the right kind of gaunt quirkiness that Sherlock Holmes requires than Reginald Own has.

Reginald Owen does have the advantage in that such bland features are ideal for the lengthy sequence in which Holmes is in disguise.  Compare this to Raymond Massey’s moustache and hat, and only one truly convinces you – and that’s Owen.

Dr Watson is played by Warburton Gamble and he looks very much like Athole Stewart from The Speckled Band just two years earlier – so much so that you’d swear they were the same actor.  This Watson, though, does a little more questioning and is a little more unsure of himself.

Here are some screengrabs from the DVD –

The transfer to DVD is of similar quality to that 1931 adventure, except that the audio quality doesn’t suffer anywhere nearly as badly with the cracks, pops, and hisses.  It doesn’t sound like you have the movie projector running two inches from your ears, which could be said about Massey’s outing.  The visual quality is marginally better than the previous one, and there are significantly less drop-outs.  This is really quite essential given that the story is less like the original novel than Massey’s movie was, so you need to see it all to appreciate the story.

Speaking of the story, it is interesting that the story is given priority over the characterisations.  Holmes doesn’t dominate the movie which is an intriguing, although not unique, way of doing a Sherlock Holmes story.  It’s true that the resolution of the plot, and who the murderer is, is telegraphed some half an hour before the end, but it helps to have everything confirmed.

In regards of quirkiness and interest, I’d have to say I prefer the Raymond Massey “adventure”.  But in terms of DVD quality and intriguing story, Reginald Owen comes out on top.