sherlock: the silent movie

10

Buster Keaton, for instance, protested to the end of his days that he had no notion of what his admirers were talking about when they spoke, as Andrew Sarris did, of his “cerebral” qualities, or when they detected a pervasive surrealism in his films that - considering the period in which the films were made - virtually placed him in the avant-garde.  "I was just trying to get laughs" was his constant and stubborn answer to questions.  Keaton was, in fact, a brilliant analyst of film, as his dazzling film-within-a-film in Sherlock Jr. indicates: the sequence illustrates basic theories of continuity and cutting more vividly and with greater precision than theorists themselves have ever been able to do.  But the analysis is not in Keaton’s head.  It is in the film.  He went past cerebration and worked only with the thing itself, creating what amounts to theory out of his body, his camera, his fingers, a pair of scissors.  Art is often something done before it is something thought: Keaton’s impulses were not only stronger but more accurate than any verbal formulation he might have chosen to offer for them.  

- Walter Kerr on film artist Buster Keaton, The Silent Clowns, Alfred A. Knopf: New York, 1975, p. 98

10

The world lost the Great Stone Face on February 1, 1966. But I am happy to say that Buster Keaton left behind a legacy fit for a King. Within his 70 years on earth, Buster managed to give to us some of the greatest masterpieces in cinematic history to remember him by. I have a tremendous amount of respect for this man who risked his life to do all of his own stunts in his films and spent endless hours thinking up ways to make his audience laugh. Buster’s dedication to his craft shines through each time you see one of his films. For it seems that as much as Buster Keaton is still loved today, there is no sign of his legacy ever fading away.

Buster Keaton (October 4, 1895 - February 1, 1966)

Love is for Fools; Sherlock x Reader

Requested by Anon: Hello, I kinda wanted to make a request if you are already busy ignore this but well if you could do one where the reader explains love to Sherlock and she accidentally tells him she loves him. Just really fluffy. Thank you 😊

You and Sherlock sat in your separate chairs inside of Baker Street, warm and content watching Pride and Prejudice. Somehow you had coerced Sherlock into watching a move with you so obviously it had to be this one.

“I don’t understand this,” Sherlock finally admitted.

“What don’t you understand?”

He sat up, looking ready to give you a whole list of reasons. “First off, why does Lizzie even care about him so much he’s an asshole and historically he would clearly have other women in town? And second, Lizzie’s family is not doing too well financially it doesn’t make any sense for a man of Darcy’s stature to be marrying here.”

“Love, Sherlock. Just chalk it up to love. Love crosses social boundaries and it also requires quite a lot of trust that Lizzie has clearly earned from Darcy.”

“Love is your solution?”

“Love is always the solution.”

Sherlock rolled his eyes before pausing the TV, preparing to enter a heated debate. “I want one real life situation,” Sherlock demanded.

“Easily. Your parents, John and Mary, Molly and… Tom?… you and me- Obvis-“ you began before realizing what you had just let slip. You looked to Sherlock to see if he had caught your mistake and the look on his face showed he had.

“You and me?”

You looked away from him in shame, not in the mood to discuss your feelings, or rather get rejected. “I don’t really want to talk about it Sherlock,” you told him, unpausing the movie. Sherlock remained silent as the movie kept playing and he remained quiet until the credits began to roll. In fact he had been so quiet it scared you. “I think I’m going to bed,” you said, standing up before you felt Sherlock grab your hand.

He stood up and looked you directly in your eyes. “Love is for fools and… I think I’ve became a fool,” Sherlock whispered before he swept you up in a long awaited kiss. Your lips moved in time as you revealed in the long-awaited touch of his lips and Sherlock seemed just as eager as you were.

Finally Sherlock pulled away and stared deep in your eyes as you saw the look of desperation in him.

“If love is for fools, than love is for fools like us,” you whispered.

bbc.com
Five ways an American changed how Sherlock Holmes looks and talks | BBC News

External image

A 1916 silent movie featuring Sherlock Holmes - long presumed lost - is due to have its premiere in Paris. It stars a man who changed the way we see Conan Doyle’s famous sleuth forever.

He was the first great Sherlock Holmes. But few will have heard of US actor William Gillette.

He is thought to be a distant relation of the family behind Gillette razors, wrote plays about the American civil war, patented a noise to imitate the sound of a galloping horse and built an enormous castle in North Carolina. But it is his Holmes that fascinates people today.

And until three months ago, it seemed that no-one would ever see it.

Gillette adapted Sherlock Holmes for the stage in 1899 and played Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective more than 1,000 times.

He made only one film, the 1916 silent movie version of Sherlock Holmes. For decades the movie was presumed lost, one of the great missing links of Sherlockiana. Then in October 2014 it was discovered at the Cinematheque Francaise, a film archive in Paris.

“At last we get to see for ourselves the actor who kept the first generation of Sherlockians spellbound,” says the man supervising the film’s restoration, Professor Russell Merritt. “As far as Holmes is concerned, there’s not an actor dead or alive who hasn’t consciously or intuitively played off Gillette.”

Not only was Gillette the Benedict Cumberbatch of his day. He was the actor who decided - perhaps more than any other - how Holmes looks and talks, and whose relationship with Conan Doyle may have breathed new life into the Sherlock Holmes franchise.

(Read the entire article at the link! It’s super interesting!)