The Sign of Four: Sherlock Holmes' Greatest Case

Plot synopsis:
The story is set in 1888. The Sign of the Four has a complex plot involving service in India, the Indian Rebellion of 1857, a stolen treasure, and a secret pact among four convicts ("the Four" of the title) and two corrupt prison guards. It presents the detective's drug habit and humanizes him in a way that had not been done in the preceding novel, A Study in Scarlet (1887). It also introduces Doctor Watson's future wife, Mary Morstan.
According to Mary, in December 1878, her father had telegraphed her upon his safe return from India and requested her to meet him at the Langham Hotel in London. When Mary arrived at the hotel, she was told her father had gone out the previous night and not returned. Despite all efforts, no trace has ever been found of him. Mary contacted her father's only friend who was in the same regiment and had since retired to England, one Major John Sholto, but he denied knowing her father had returned. The second puzzle is that she has received six pearls in the mail from an anonymous benefactor, one per year since 1882 after answering an anonymous newspaper query inquiring for her. With the last pearl she received a letter remarking that she has been wronged and asking for a meeting. Holmes takes the case and soon discovers that Major Sholto had died in 1882 and that within a short span of time Mary began to receive the pearls, implying a connection. The only clue Mary can give Holmes is a map of a fortress found in her father's desk with the names of Jonathan Small, Mahomet Singh, Abdullah Khan and Dost Akbar.
Holmes, Watson, and Mary meet Thaddeus Sholto, the son of the late Major Sholto and the anonymous sender of the pearls. Thaddeus confirms the Major had seen Mary's father the night he died; they had arranged a meeting to divide a priceless treasure Sholto had brought home from India. While quarreling over the treasure, Captain Morstan—long in weak health—suffered a heart attack. Not wanting to bring attention to the object of the quarrel—and also worried that circumstances would suggest that he had killed Morstan in an argument, particularly since Morstan's head struck a table as he fell—Sholto disposed of the body and hid the treasure. However, he himself suffered from poor health and an enlarged spleen (possibly due to malaria, as a quinine bottle stands by his bed). His own health became worse when he received a letter from India in early 1882. Dying, he called his two sons and confessed to Morstan's death and was about to divulge the location of the treasure when he suddenly cried, "Keep him out!" before falling back and dying. The puzzled sons glimpsed a face in the window, but the only trace was a single footstep in the dirt. On their father's body is a note reading "The Sign of Four". Both brothers quarreled over whether a legacy should be left to Mary Morstan, and Thaddeus left his brother Bartholomew, taking a chaplet and sending its pearls to Mary. The reason he sent the letter is that Bartholomew has found the treasure and possibly Thaddeus and Mary might confront him for a division of it.
Bartholomew is found dead in his home from a poison dart and the treasure is missing. While the police wrongly take Thaddeus in as a suspect, Holmes deduces that there are two persons involved in the murder: a one-legged man, Jonathan Small, as well as another "small" accomplice. He traces them to a boat landing where Small has hired a steam launch named the Aurora. With the help of dog Toby that he sends Watson to collect from Mr Sherman, the Baker Street Irregulars and his own disguise, Holmes traces the steam launch. In a police steam launch Holmes and Watson chase the Aurora and capture it, but in the process end up killing the "small" companion after he attempts to kill Holmes with a poisoned dart shot from a blow-pipe. Small tries to escape but is captured. However, the iron treasure box is empty; Small claims to have dumped the treasure over the side during the chase.
Small confesses that years before he was a soldier of the Third Buffs in India and lost his right leg in a swimming accident to a crocodile. After some time, when he was an overseer on a tea plantation, the Indian Rebellion of 1857 occurred and he was forced to flee for his life to the Agra fortress. While standing guard one night he was overpowered by two Sikh troopers who gave him a choice of being killed or being an accomplice to waylaying a disguised servant of a Rajah who sent the servant with a valuable fortune in pearls and jewels to the British for safekeeping. The robbery and murder took place and the crime was discovered, although the jewels were not. Small got penal servitude on the Andaman Islands, and after twenty years he overheard that John Sholto had lost money gambling. Small saw his chance and made a deal with Sholto and Arthur Morstan: Sholto would recover the treasure and in return send a boat to pick up Small and the Sikhs. Sholto double-crossed both Morstan and Small and stole the treasure for himself. Small vowed vengeance and escaped the Andaman Islands with an islander named Tonga. It was the news of his escape that shocked Sholto into his fatal illness. Small arrived too late to hear of the treasure's location but left the note which referred to the name of the pact between himself and his three Sikh accomplices. When Bartholomew found the treasure, Small planned to only steal it but claims a miscommunication led Tonga to kill him as well.
Mary Morstan is left without the bulk of the Agra treasure, although she will apparently receive the rest of the Chaplet. John Watson falls in love with Mary, and we learn at the end that he has proposed to her and she has accepted.

Tags: revenge

Review:
This Arthur Wontner version of the Sherlock Holmes story "The Sign of Four" is pretty good for the early sound era, and it makes good use of its limited resources.
The production doesn't look very impressive, but Wontner is believable as Holmes, the story is entertaining, and some of the sets, though low budget, work well in establishing the atmosphere.Wontner's Holmes is less willful and forceful, while more witty and upbeat, than the more familiar portrayals by Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett.
And while the fine Brett version of "The Sign of Four" is probably now the definitive screen version of the story, in its time this one would probably have been highly satisfactory to its audiences.The script adapts the original story somewhat, yet it works pretty well.
As Athelney Jones, Gilbert Davis gets a few good moments of give-and-take with Holmes.Like Wontner's other Holmes features, this one has an obvious low-budget, early 1930s feel to it.
Graham Cutts' 'The Sign of Four' is one of five Sherlock Holmes films starring Arthur Wontner in the main role.
Of Wontner's portrayal, Vincent Starrett (author of 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes') declared, "No better Sherlock Holmes than Arthur Wontner is likely to be seen and heard in pictures, in our time...
Indeed, Wontner beautifully captures the essence of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famed character, enjoyably depicting his quirky brilliance and almost omniscient deciphering of crime scene puzzles, frequently waving off Dr. Watson's (Ian Hunter) stunned admiration with a dismissive, "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary."After an amputee prisoner serving a life sentence, Jonathon Small (Graham Soutten), reveals the whereabouts of his stolen treasure to two prison warders in exchange for his freedom, he is furious when they betray him.
However, when Small comes after Morstan as well, she quite intelligently seeks the aid of the great Sherlock Holmes.'The Sign of Four' is a surprisingly engrossing mystery.
Atherly Jones (Gilbert Davis), was characteristically smug and incompetent, often referring to Holmes as an "amateur," whilst himself reaching completely the wrong conclusion about a mystery.Though the production values are undoubtedly low-budget, 'The Sign of Four' is a solid Sherlock Holmes film with some good performances and an engaging mystery.
I was very dubious since I had eagerly watched the Sherlock Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone and didn't expect this film to best his performance.
Arthur Wontner was able to convey Holmes' intelligence without the superciliousness that often mars other actors' portrayals.
The audience is not introduced to Holmes and Watson until 15 to 30 minutes into the film and the main villain's thick Cockney (?) accent made his dialogue heavy slogging--at least to these American ears.
I have been a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes for many years, both in book form and movie/TV versions.
Personally, I have always favoured the Rathbone/Bruce versions even though they stretched the imagination on occasions by leaping from Victorian London to London during the second World War. I only recently managed to obtain copies of Arthur Wontner in The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes and The Sign of Four and I have to say Wontner seems to be the perfect Sherlock Holmes.
Apart from the sound quality of the print (which has been mentioned in other reviews), his physical similarity to the original Strand Magazine illustrations by Sydney Paget (and others) and his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is quite remarkable..
Best of the Holmes films with Arthur Wontner.
I've seen all four extant films with Arthur Wontner playing Sherlock Holmes (the others are "The Sleeping Cardinal," "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" and "Silver Blaze"), and this one is definitely the best.
Lee and Basil Dean, who had previously directed a Holmes film himself) picked a story with lots of action and hired a capable director, Graham Cutts.
Cutts usually gets dismissed patronizingly in biographies of Alfred Hitchcock (Cutts directed a number of films in Britain in the early 1920's on which Hitchcock assisted, including "The Rat" and "The Triumph of the Rat" with Ivor Novello) as a mediocre director who drank and womanized his way out of a major career.
Judging by his work here, Hitchcock fans should probably be looking at Cutts as an influence on the Master; this film MOVES (most of the other Wontner Holmes films are boring and plodding), it's clearly staged with a sense of pace, it makes good use of unusual camera angles (including a surprising number of overhead shots), and the final fight scene (though obviously done with a stunt double for Wontner) is a genuinely exciting action highlight.
Cutts also gets a marvelous villain performance out of Graham Soutten, and effectively uses the sound of his peg leg at a time when the art of suggesting off-screen action with sound effects was common in the U.S. but relatively unknown in Britain.
He also makes Wontner a more convincing Holmes than in his other films in the role — Wontner even LOOKS younger here than he did in "The Sleeping Cardinal," made two years earlier — and Ian Hunter is a more effective Watson than usual even though it's a bit jarring to see a Watson who's clearly taller than his Holmes.
The Sign of Four is a diverting Wontner Holmes movie.
The DVD I got of two Arthur Wontner Sherlock Holmes movies listed this one as Sign of the Four.
Still, I found myself mesmerised by many of the set-ups especially the London-Years Later scene as the man who killed his partner for the treasure confesses to his two sons about what he did with his fear of the one-legged man he betrayed coming to get him having just broken out of prison.
The rest of the film hardly comes close to that in effectiveness but by that time Wontner and Ian Hunter as Watson are on screen with their entertaining banter of Holmes' powers of deduction.
Regarded by many critics as the best cinematic Holmes, Arthur Wontner made his debut as the great detective in "The Sleeping Cardinal" (1931).
Graham Cutts directed most of the film, including all the chilling material with Graham Soutten (surely one of the most frightening heavies ever presented in a movie), plus the lively scenes at the fun fair, while Rowland V.
I've read all the stories and up until the Jeremy Brett series was created, I always felt that those who created the Holmes films had a lot of contempt for the original material.
While this film starring Arthur Wontner did have Holmes uttering the "elementary" phrase again and again and that pipe was also present, this was about as close to the Conan Doyle you could find until the 1980s.
Gillette had made a career of playing Holmes on stage and in silent films and he liberally changed the character to make it his own--not Conan Doyle's.While far from perfect, this low budget Sherlock Holmes film at least tried more than most subsequent films--being much closer to the source material than the Basil Rathbone films or even the later Wontner films (SILVER BLAZE was a bit of a mess).
I especially like how that accursed deerstalker hat (with the double bill) isn't worn by Holmes like it was in most other films (but not in most of the original stories) and how Lestrade and Moriarty aren't present (they were only in a small number or stories).
Those who read SIGN OF THE FOUR would recognize the original story--the same can't be said of Wontner's SILVER BLAZE.The only serious negative about the film is its quality due to the ravages of time.
Major john Sholto,Herbert Lomas, calls his two sons Thaddeus and Bartholomew, Miles Malleson & Kynaston Reeves, into his study and tells them a story about his dark past that he kept from them all these years.The Major is a both thief and murderer who killed his fellow British officer Captain Monstan, Edger Norfolk, back in India when they discover a buried treasure chest of jewels and pearls in an empty and abandoned ancient castle.Given instructions to the buried treasure by interned British solider Small Major Sholto not only murdered his partner Captain Monstan but left Small out in the cold and behind bars, whom he promised to left go free, taking all the loot for himself.
Small getting together with a gang of weirdos that he recruited out of the local circus the Tattoed and Tonga the Snake Man, Roy Emerton & Toga, plan to get Major Sholto's treasure by first finding out when he hid it from his sons Thaddeus & Bartholomew.
After a close call from The Tattoed Man, who came to her store to buy flowers, Mary goes to private detective Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Wontner, for help and protection which she gets but also falls in love with his friend and assistant the dashing and dynamic Dr. Watson,Ian Hunter, as an extra bonus.Early Sherlock Holmes movie with a witty and super observant Holmes, the guy can tell if someone is missing a limb or not just by studying his handwriting, using both his brains and his boxing skills, Sherlock throws a really wicked left hook, to solve the case and save the girl from a bunch of murderous villains.
The Small gang take out brother Bartholomew with a blow gun, curiosity of the Snake Man Tonga, after getting the information from him where the treasure was hidden by his late dad Major John Sholto.
But Small is still not satisfied and wants the pearl necklace that's with Mary who's being protected by Sherlock Holmes and the London PD.
Arthur Wontner was for many years considered 'the critics choice' as Sherlock Holmes, in England at least.
Although Basil Rathbone et al had not yet appeared this claim was not unchallenged, as previous nominees for the top position in this part had also been considered pretty weighty; in the silent era Eille Norwood had made over forty films as the great detective in Britain, John Barrymore followed, Clive Brooke and Raymond Massey appeared in early talkie versions of the character and William Gillete was wowing audiences with his stage version, personally OK'd by Sir Arthur himself.
I like the quiet scenes in 221b Baker street rather more than the action sequences in 'Holmes' films, though the chase across the Thames was good in this film, and the fight a little less inspiring as it had been sped up in the manner of some films of the time.
Yes, there were some brilliant portrayals of Holmes in later years but I still have a soft spot for Arthur Wontner, who incidentally probably looked more like the original Sidney Paget drawings in the Strand magazine than anyone else.
Until Jeremy Brett came along to give the consummate portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, the character of Watson has been mired in buffoonery.
Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories.
Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations as possible of the story sparked my interest in seeing this 1932 film adaptation, as part of the series of films with Arthur Wontner.
While it is not as good as the Jeremy Brett Granada version, to me the definitive version of the story, this is a worthy effort in its own right and anybody wanting to see early versions of Sherlock Holmes will get a kick out of it.
Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing.
I like Arthur Wontner's portrayal of the great detective Sherlock Holmes.
He is not as flamboyant and arrogant as Basil Rathbone's Sherlock but Wontner is still fun to watch - just not nearly as fun as Rathbone.This movie starts out with a backstory where we what happened years before the current time the film is set in.
We witness a death and robbery of treasure, then we fast-forward a few years to see what the past has lead to and Sherlock Holmes being called in on the case.
Arthur Wontner plays Holmes with an arch and knowing air.
He appeared again with Wontner as an arch villain in THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES in 1935.
The boat-chase-scene was very ambitious for 1932, and the early fight-scene between Sholto and Morstan seems more intense and realistic than similar efforts from that time-period.Having watched the DVD version just last night, I am sorry to say that understanding the audio-- at least in certain scenes-- takes a good deal of effort.
A fine film featuring The Great Detective, plus poison darts and a lethal wooden leg.
But before he died and in an act of conscience he instructed his two sons to deliver to a Miss Mary Morstan, the daughter of the man he killed so long ago, the priceless pearl necklace that was in the treasure chest.
It is apparent that the case is intriguing, just as it's apparent that The Great Detective's good friend, Dr. John Watson, is smitten with Miss Morstan.
"I don't want to interrupt the violent flutterings of your heart," says Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Wontner) to Watson (Ian Hunter), "but perhaps you'd be interested to know that never in my career have I encountered a more intricate case." Or, perhaps, a more diabolical one.
The plot even bears some resemblance to the original story as it was written by Watson in 1890, using the name of his literary agent, Conan Doyle.
Arthur Wontner starred as Sherlock Holmes in five movies made between 1931 and 1937.
It's also satisfying to see that Ian Hunter plays Watson as a reasonably intelligent man and a good friend, not simply a buffoon or foil for Holmes..
Holmes and Watson don't appear until about twenty minutes into the film.
I spent two years on a small Pacific island and it was almost immediately apparent whether the marks of bare feet in the sand had been left by natives or tourists.For those of us accustomed to a Sherlock Holmes that looks and acts like either Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, Arthur Wontner is a strange specimen.
It sounds as if it's HE who should be behind the counter in that florist's shop, not Mary Morstan.Watson is Ian Hunter, better known as Richard the Lion Heart in "The Adventures of Robin Hood." As one of the Sholto brothers, Miles Malleson is incredibly youthful and looks something like Alfred Hitchcock.
But it is, after all, Sherlock Holmes and, unlike the updated versions from Universal Studios in the 40s, this one tries to show us something of the original story..
Sherlock Holmes in action - and Dr. Watson in love....
This is not only one of the best, but also one of the most unusual of all Sherlock Holmes adaptations - Arthur Wontner is doing great again as Holmes, he's really brought his image to perfection in his third Holmes adventure: noticing every little detail and most cleverly deducing the most unbelievable things, so that Dr. Watson (Ian Hunter) almost believes he's a mind reader; but it's only 'elementary', as he keeps remarking as usual.But there's much more to this adventurous treasure hunt for a bag full of jewels that four people had promised to divide among them long ago (hence the "Sign of the Four"): Holmes isn't only thinking and sleuthing all the time, but also does a perfect impersonation of an old boozer in a bar, and for once gets into a real nice brawl during the dramatic climax in an old warehouse - while Dr. Watson isn't only the object of Holmes' teasing and the (more or less) reliable watchdog, but he also falls in love with the pretty young daughter of one of the 'Four' who's been murdered; and in the end, it's HIM who gets the kiss, and it's HOLMES who remarks: 'Amazing...' And for once, HE can reply smiling: 'Elementary, my dear Holmes, elementary!'...In short, this movie - once it'll be given more attention, since all the other Sherlock Holmes movies seem to vanish behind the shadow of Basil Rathbone's portrayals - will thrill ALL sorts and ages of movie fans, because it's got about EVERYTHING in it: from logical crime detection to creepy murders to motorboat chases to brawls and even a lovely bit of romance!.
I always go into a Sherlock Holmes film expecting the best, but fearing the worst.
But where I really lost it was when Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Wontner) was able to determine that a note sent to florist Mary Morstan (Isla Bevan) was written by an amputee, because the letters STAND UP on their own legs!
Here, one doesn't know what's to be taken seriously and what's to be taken in good clean fun.With "The Sign of Four", nothing is "Elementary My Dear Watson", especially in Ian Hunter's portrayal of the acclaimed detective's accomplice.
The Sign Of The Four or at least the screen version of the Arthur Conan Doyle novel has something you'll never see in another Sherlock Holmes film.
It's Baker Street heresy in fact to have Dr. Watson get the girl.But that's what happens here as young Isla Bevan seeks the aid of Holmes and Watson portrayed here by Arthur Wontner and Ian Hunter.
Soutten's out and taking his revenge.The part of the crazed prisoner is played by a real life amputee who gets around pretty good.
That part of the film could almost have been called Sherlock Holmes meets Freaks.Young Ms. Bevan and Hunter start falling for each other, but Hunter in his attempt to one up Wontner puts her in harm's way.
It leads to more of an action climax than you will usually find in the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce series of Holmes films.Still the idea of Watson getting the girl is really too much for Baker Street purists to take.