PERFECT STORIES: YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES (1985)

I still remember, vividly, seeing this movie with my mother when it premiered in 1985. Holmes was produced by Amblin Entertainment, with Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy as executive producers and Chris Columbus as screenwriter. According to Wikipedia (which I occasionally disagree with but overall find helpful), it represents the first appearance of a computer-generated photorealistic character, with special effects by Industrial Light and Magic and a brand-new company known as Pixar. After 35 years, the special effects still hold up.

I have selected Holmes because it is a near-perfect “reveals” plot.[1] Just about every scene conveys a critical piece of information, whether or not that revelation is obvious. Each revelation leads to another revelation, until the mystery, at last, comes together. It makes for an extremely engaging watch and satisfying payoff, in terms of both plot and character development.

Rather than reinvent the wheel, in defining “reveals plot,” I will simply refer the reader to Truby’s The Anatomy of Story; specifically, to pages 262-63, and 305-10. In sum and substance, a “reveals plot,” as the name implies, relies on a timely revelation of information to the reader/viewer, usually contemplating a closed universe of characters about which little is known at the start, but more is gradually learned over time. The joy of engaging with such a story is the reader’s/viewer’s thirst for information, their ever-building anticipation, and the thrill of finally receiving it, whether or not it was what was expected.

One piece of guidance from Truby does bear reproducing verbatim; namely, the 3 keys to a successful revelations sequence. As he writes: “1. The sequence of revelations must be logical [and] must occur in the order in which the hero would most likely learn of them; 2. They must build in intensity [and i]deally, each reveal should be stronger than the one that came before it; and 3. The reveals must come at an increasing pace.” As I discuss below, Holmes executes this perfectly.

Another way in which Holmes succeeds is its running time. While this may be a biproduct of its era, when motion pictures needed to fit on VHS cassettes, this picture, clocking in at a cool 104 minutes, nails the sweet spot. Having watched it again recently, I was taken aback at how heavily edited the final film is, but how effective that editing is. As taught by one of my mentors, Jenny Milchman, less is usually more; when text is cut, it leaves something of a haunting echo, which deepens the story. Such is the case here. While an attentive viewer might notice a few unexplained points (discussed herein), their absence makes the story feel more organic, as if the characters were real people with separate lives outside the four corners of the film. It also actively engages the reader’s imagination, which, compared to reading, is no mean feat for a motion picture. While the imagination of a reader, engrossed in a book, is actively creating the world and characters he/she is reading about, a movie viewer is (typically) only passively receiving such images—that is, except where the film asks the viewer to fill in the gaps, thereby inviting the viewer to take a more active role in the creation of the story. Such happens at several points in Holmes, making it that much more interesting.

Character development in Holmes, which occurs in the two main characters Holmes and Watson, is simple but effective. The story does not plumb the characters’ psychological depths to any great degree, but it does give them enough of an arc to create personal stakes, and further engage the viewer. They are not merely ciphers existing for the purpose of wandering from one set-piece action sequence to the next.

Below, I present the structure and scene weave for Young Sherlock Holmes, with plot points in black and character development points in red. Naturally, there is some overlap. Commentary, which I’ve tried to keep to a minimum, is in italics.

• Mystery: Bobster is assailed by a cloaked assassin with a jingling bracelet, who shoots him with a blow dart, causing him to hallucinate and leap to his death. The special effects in this scene are top-notch and occasionally terrifying, mesmerize the viewer, and establish the high stakes our protagonist will eventually have to contend with.

• Point-of-view (POV) Character/weakness and need: Watson, shy and insecure, arrives at university and meets Holmes.

• Protagonist/weakness and need: Holmes uses deductive reasoning to navigate the world, but his intellectual brilliance is balanced by an emotional, undisciplined streak, demonstrated by his frustration with having not mastered the violin after only four days.

• Opponent/ally: Holmes reveals Dudley’s timepiece to be fake, humiliating him in front of Elizabeth, revealing Holmes’ love for Elizabeth and his jealousy. Holmes’ hotheadedness contrasts with the Holmes of Conan Doyle’s fiction, who is stolid and emotionless. The viewer is subtly being groomed for a major event which will bring about that character arc.

• Audience Revelation: While in the library, Watson hears the jingling sound, which (unknown to him but known to the audience), was the same sound from the assassin.

• Mystery: Waxflatter dismisses Holmes, Watson, and Elizabeth to speak with a mysterious man. In Waxflatter’s lab, Holmes notices a circled newspaper article about Bobster’s death.

• Fake-ally Opponent: Rathe and Holmes, mentor and protégé, fence. Rathe warns Holmes never to replace discipline with emotion.

• Audience Revelation: Elizabeth’s dog Uncas chases and bites off a piece of the assassin’s cloak. The fleeing assassin makes the jingling sound.

• Mystery: The assassin shoots Reverend Nesbitt with a blow dart, causing him to hallucinate and jump in front of a carriage to his death. This is the CGI scene where a knight from a stained-glass window comes to life. Still effective 35 years later.

• Opponent: Holmes solves Dudley’s challenge (he’s hidden the school’s prize trophy) using deductive reasoning. The juxtaposition of Nesbitt’s brutal murder with the low-stakes contest creates tension for the viewer, knowing that Holmes must soon match wits with an infinitely mightier opponent.  

• Mystery: Back in Waxflatter’s lab, Holmes notices another newspaper obituary, this one for Nesbitt.

• Fake-opponent ally/first major revelation: Holmes approaches Detective-Sergeant Lastrade, claiming Bobster and Nesbitt were murdered as part of a single plot. Holmes reveals both men graduated from the same university in 1809 and that their deaths do not fit their respective personalities. It is unclear how Holmes learned this information (or why he didn’t simply ask Waxflatter) but it allows the viewer to speculate, deepening the viewer’s engagement with the film.

• Apparent Defeat: Dudley frames Holmes for cheating, getting him expelled from school, despite Rathe’s interventions.

• Audience Revelation: In a fencing match, Holmes is distracted by Rathe’s ring and wounded on the face. Look fast, and you might see a vital clue: the symbol on the ring.

• Mystery/Inciting Incident: The assassin attacks Waxflatter, causing him to hallucinate and stab himself to death. The assassin flees the crime scene, dropping the blow pipe, which is recovered by Watson. As Waxflatter dies, he utters the word “Ehtar” to Holmes. This is the moment when the stakes become personal to Holmes, and he must turn his abilities towards solving the mystery.

• Mystery: At Waxflatter’s funeral, Holmes notices the mysterious man, who disappears before Holmes can find him.

• Gate/Gauntlet/Visit to Death, Drive, and Plan: Holmes announces his belief that Waxflatter was murdered, same as Bobster and Nesbitt, and that he intends to solve the mystery. Holmes convinces a reluctant Watson to help him. They agree that finding the mysterious man is key to solving the crime. They also agree there is a connection between the cloaked assassin, the blow pipe, the jingling sound, and the name “Ehtar.” According to Truby, the Gate/Gauntlet/Visit to Death is the point at which a character makes a principled stand, harkening back to Greek drama, in which the protagonist would literally descend to the Underworld and see his/her future. Here, both Holmes and Watson take such a stand, risking their careers, and possibly lives, in the name of justice.

• Reveal: In a curio shop, it is revealed that the pipe is Egyptian. Per Truby, the pace and importance of reveals now begins to increase…

• Reveal: Holmes and Watson go to an Egyptian tavern, where the owner reacts with horror at the sight of the blow pipe, shouting “Rame Tep!”

• Reveal: In the university library, Holmes researches “Rame Tep” and discovers that it is a death cult with violent and sadistic rituals, whose members use hallucinogenic thorns shot from a blow pipe to assassinate their enemies.

• Reveal: At Elizabeth’s revelation about Uncas biting the assassin, the three find the piece of the assassin’s cloak and analyze it. Holmes determines that the cloak has traces of paraffin.

• Mystery/Opponent/second major revelation: The paraffin leads the three to a warehouse in London, filled with Egyptian artifacts, which they discover houses a pyramid-like temple. Inside the temple, they observe the Rame Tep cult embalming and then preparing to kill a young woman with boiling wax. Holmes steals thorns from a cult member and interrupts the ceremony, prompting the high priest to orders the cult members to get Holmes, Watson, and Elizabeth, who are all shot with blow darts. The ritual sacrifice scene here is obviously an early sketch for the Thugee ritual murder scene in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I dare you to watch them, side by side. They’re pretty much identical.

• Ghost: Holmes, Watson, and Elizabeth flee to a cemetery, where they experience hallucinations. Holmes’ backstory (that he discovered his father having an affair and told his mother) is revealed. Unusual place for backstory, but effective: it deepens Holmes’ character and demonstrates that with sleuthing can come collateral damage and pain, subtly setting up the viewer for an even bigger example of this.

• Fake-opponent ally/third major revelation: Holmes tells Lastrade about the Rame Tep, and his belief that they are connected to the men’s murders and the recent disappearance of four young girls. He leaves the stolen hallucinogenic thorns for Lastrade to test. Unclear how Holmes learned about the missing girls but, again, it enlivens the story.

• Reveal: In Waxflatter’s lab, Watson discovers a drawing of Bobster, Nesbitt, Waxflatter, and the mystery man, who is identified as Cragwich, together as young men.

• Fake-ally Opponent: Rathe discovers and turns on Holmes, resolving to send him, Watson, and Elizabeth away from the university

• Reveal: Mrs. Dribb, the school’s nurse, seems unusually hostile towards the dog Uncas, and Uncas seems uncomfortable around her.

• Fourth major revelation: Holmes and Watson find Cragwich, who explains that Waxflatter, Bobster, Nesbitt, and himself were business partners in their youths. Intending to build a hotel in Egypt, they desecrated sacred Egyptian ground, where five princesses had been buried, causing the British army to massacre the locals. The men were then sworn vengeance against by an Anglo-Egyptian boy named Ehtar, in the name of the Rame Tep, who vowed to replace the five princesses. This, the biggest reveal in the plot so far, also reveals the film’s heavy editing. When Holmes first approaches Cragwich, he asks, “Why did the Rame Tep kill five men?” To this point, however, the viewer has only seen three murders. Presumably, the other two were cut from the film. There is an “echo” of this seen in the drawing discovered by Watson, which depicts a total of six young men.

• Fifth major revelation: Elizabeth is attacked by Mrs. Dribb, revealed to be the assassin by her jingling bracelet. Revealing himself as a Rame Tep, Rathe uses his ring to hypnotize Elizabeth to use her as the fifth sacrificial “princess.”

• Sixth (and final) major revelation: Holmes, recalling Rathe’s ring, engraved with the symbol of the Rame Tep, which had temporarily distracted him and resulted in his facial injury, realizes that Rathe is Ehtar.

• Battle: Holmes and Watson track Rathe, Mrs. Dribb, and the hostage Elizabeth to the Rame Tep temple, where Rathe, the high priest, presides over Elizabeth’s ritual sacrifice. Holmes causes the temple to collapse. In the ensuing chaos, Holmes kills Mrs. Dribb. Rathe flees with Elizabeth. Holmes is knocked unconscious onto a chandelier, as fire engulfs the warehouse.

• POV Character/moral decision: Watson saves Holmes by hoisting the chandelier, using Rathe’s carriage as Rathe flees with Elizabeth. This action completes Watson’s story arc, from timid boy to confident and resourceful man.

• Battle: Elizabeth takes a bullet from Rathe, saving Holmes’ life. Holmes and Rathe fight, first with swords and then with oars, with Rathe egging Holmes on about the latter’s lack of discipline. Rathe appears to drown in the frozen river. Elizabeth dies in Holmes’ arms.

• Self-revelation/new equilibrium: Holmes and Watson part company for the time being. Holmes resolves to spend the rest of his life alone, brokenhearted over Elizabeth. This completes Holmes’ arc, from reckless youth to disciplined adult, earned in unimaginable loss.

• Moral affirmation/audience revelation: It is revealed that Rathe survived and is, in fact, Holmes’ arch-nemesis Moriarty. I’m not entirely sure what the screenwriter was getting at in this scene. My best guess is that it shows that Rathe was, and still is, employing his trademark stoic discipline by having played the “long game,” tricking Holmes into believing he was dead, so he can plot his revenge at will. So, it represents a moral affirmation of the principle by which both he and Holmes, his arch-nemesis, have come to live their lives.

Doesn’t get much better than that, folks. A simple but extremely compelling, airtight mystery, with solid character development, not to mention ahead-of-their-time special effects and great acting.

Finally, one more excellent attribute of this movie—as you’ve probably already realized—is that it trusts, respects, and takes seriously the viewer. It does not pander to the cheap seats with distracting, irrelevant explosions and fight sequences. Every bit of action is in its proper context and advances the plot. The viewer is expected to pay attention and keep track of the various clues garnered along the way. At the same time, neither is this movie a Christopher Nolan or M. Night. Shyamalan-type high-minded thriller (not that there is anything wrong with those), where the clues are doled out but you are expected to miss them. Rather, Holmes readily invites the viewer to tag along, living vicariously through Watson as the POV character as the mystery deepens around him.

In summation, I would encourage any aspiring mystery writer to watch this movie twice, the first time for pure enjoyment and the second for its structure. In my opinion, it showcases a reveals sequence, beginning in the very first scene and continuing after the closing credits, which is near-flawless, and a good blueprint, or “form,” for constructing mysteries of your own.

If you are interested in an in-depth assessment of a project you are working on, or to retain my services as a developmental editor, please feel free to comment below or e-mail me at toddgmonahan@live.com. 

And finally, as I cannot wish you happy writing, since writing so often is decidedly not happy, I wish for you that that tiny light at the end of the tunnel gets a little bit brighter every day.

T. G. Monahan

[1] Another great “reveals” plot worth studying, too lengthy for this blog, is Season One of Netflix’s Stranger Things. The writing for that season, in particular the first episode, is nothing short of genius.