#plummer holmes

The passing of Christopher Plummer has made think about Murder by Decree from 1979 again, and how good a film it is.

The film is one of many “Sherlock Holmes hunts Jack The Ripper” stories that have been made. The pairing is of course almost irresistible for writers. The Ripper murders are perhaps the most famous unsolved crimes in history, and they took place in London during a time period when Holmes, the greatest fictional detective of all, was active as a detective.  And if you are playing the great game, the Ripper murders seem to pose a contradiction that call for interesting answers. Holmes must have known about the murders. And thus if he investigated them, why was no solution made public? Did Holmes fail to find the killer? And if Holmes didn’t investigate the murders, why did he not?

This is actually the second film made about Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper, after “A Study in Terror” from 1965, which also had Frank Finlay as Lestrade and Anthony Quayle in a supporting part. But the 1965 film is mediocre, without any glaring flaws but not any outstanding virtues either.

Whereas “Murder by Decree” is one of the best Holmes films ever made in my opinion. One of the main reasons is Christopher Plummer as Holmes. He portrays an Holmes that is not only highly intelligent, but also emotional, deeply moved by the plight of the women that is victimized by the serial killings and the conspiracy behind them. He even cries in one scene.

This is not as contrary to canon as people would have you believe. The Holmes of the canon is more empathetic and emotional than later adaptations like BBC Sherlock and the Guy Ritche films would lead you to believe. Admittedly, the Holmes in the canon is not as outwardly emotional as the Holmes in this film is, but this is also presented as extraordinary events for him.

And Plummer makes it all work via his amazing acting, every emotion rings true. The film ends with a long monologue from Holmes explaining the case and the strength of the acting makes it riveting viewing. He won an award for this role, (the Genie award, which was awarded to Canadian films) and you can see why.

James Mason as Doctor Watson is really good too. He is way too old for the role (as is Plummer to be fair, most fan chronologies would put Holmes and Watson in their mid 30s in 1888,), but his acting makes any viewer willing to forgive that. Doctor Watson is depicted as intelligent and capable despite his age, and while Watson is a bit underused (his medical knowledge doesn’t come into play), he is a very good Watson.

The friendship between Holmes and Watson is very nicely depicted in this film, there is a believable chemistry between them (the friendship and chemistry between Holmes and Watson is an underrated part of any successful Holmes adaptation). The famous pea-squashing scene is especially well-done, illustrating the different personalities between the two men.

The supporting cast is great too, with outright luxury casting of great actors in small roles. Geneviene Bujold as Annie Crook, a victim of the conspiracy, is in basically only one scene, but it is a great performance in a very emotionally affecting scene. She also won a Genie Award for her role, deservedly so. Susan Clark is also moving as real life Ripper victim Mary Jane Kelly. Anthony Quayle as Sir Charles Warren and John Gielgud as Lord Salisbury both play historical figures, but they are depicted as villains in this film and work well as such, as does David Hemmings in the fictional Inspector Foxborough.

The most problematic part of the cast is Robert Lees (another historical person), but that is due to the script rather than the acting.Donald Sutherland plays him very well and makes these scenes watchable. But the subplot of his visions of the murders don’t really lead anywhere in the film. There is also a very non-canonical bit where Holmes seems to believe Lees psychic visions.

The film’s solution of the Ripper murders is based on the entirely discredited masonic-royal conspiracy theory that was popular in the 70s. It was part of the general popularity for conspiracy theories in the Western world during that decade, due to the mistrust of authority caused by real-life events like Watergate and The Pentagon Papers, which uncovered real, verifiable conspiracies in politics.

It was also a popular subject in film too, and while Murder by Decree has an historical setting, thematically it has a lot in common with other late 70s conspiracy thriller movies like “Marathon Man”, “Three days of the Condor”, “The China Syndrome” and “Capricorn one”

So the royal-masonic theory spoke to the popular mood. Back then, the theory actually rekindled interest in Jack The Ripper, but nowadays doesn’t even seem to be popular among the conspiracy theorist crowd. The foundational texts of the theory like Stephen Knight’s once bestselling book seem all to be out of print, which says something for the fall in popularity of the theory, when far more ludicrous books like “Chariots of the Gods” and “Holy Blood, Holy grail” have remained in print for decades.

The film’s reliance on an outdated conspiracy theory isn’t really a problem in my opinion. The royal/masonic conspiracy makes for a good story (in fact that is part of the appeal of conspiracy theories, they make for more exciting stories than the dry facts often do, and the believer gets to participate in the drama in the heroic role of the truth-teller for their belief).  And the film makes effective dramatic use of the theory. The script may be flawed, but is often genuinely well-written with some great dialogue. “We've unmasked madmen, Watson, wielding scepters. Reason run riot. Justice howling at the moon. “

The story, regardless of any factual inaccuracy, is rich with themes of the cruelties the rich and powerful’s perpetrate against the dispossessed poor and working class. There is the arch-victorian hypocrisy of the upper class men who condemn women who work as prostitutes while committing sexual infidelities and murders themselves. And in this film, literally murders these women to cover up the sexual indiscretions of a prince.

Holmes’s final speech is not just a presentation of the facts he discovered, but a moral condemnation of the men who perpetrated it. As Holmes so eloquently puts it, directly to the prime minister: “You create allegiance above your sworn allegiance to protect humanity. You will not feel for them, or acknowledge their pain. There lies the madness.“ The empathy that Holmes feels for the victims is what makes him a hero, and the callousness of the powerful conspirators to the poor people they consider expendable is what makes them “madmen wielding scepters”.

I don’t know how seriously the filmmakers took the conspiracy theory at the root of the film. While the film treats it seriously, it also fictionalizes some historical personalities, which possibly indicates the film is not intended to be a representation of the facts. The William Gull character is named Spivey for example. Either way, regardless of any intentions you can easily treat this film as pure fiction and the conspiracy as allegory for the evils of the Victorian British class system.

The film is carried by the actors and emotional story, but it is a well-made film in other aspects. The direction by Bob Clark, the music by Paul Zaza and Carl Zittrer and the editing by Stan Cole all won Genie awards as well. And it is all very good, with the film-making telling the story effectively, most of the time without drawing attention to themselves, with the exception of a few more expressionistic sequences to heighten emotion. The production design is great, and the recreation of Victorian London in studio sets looks great.

Okay in fairness that ‘bland’ moniker isn’t strictly accurate.  Plummer is a fine actor and brings quite a lot of gravitas (and the occasional much-needed dose of humor) to the often grim and horrifying Murder by Decree.  Unfortunately, I just don’t think it was enough.  Like I said, Plummer is fine, but this is Sherlock Holmes, a larger-than-life legend, we’re talking about.  We need a little more than ‘fine’ or else the actor kinda disappears into the Ulster and comes off a bit, well, bland.

Anyway!  Despite Plummer’s non-fatal shortcomings in the role, his affection for Watson is beautifully on display throughout and vice versa.  (And Mason, for all that he’s the most serious Watson I’ve ever seen, is absolutely hilarious.)  It’s a very comfortable and quiet sort of affection, like they’ve long since had their rough edges sanded away.  They’ve obviously been together for many years by now and are well acquainted with each other’s habits and foibles.  They know just how to make each other feel better with a subtle word or gesture, and how to tease each other without truly hurting any feelings (see: Holmes laughing uncontrollably after bailing a put-out Watson out of jail).

While the stereotypical bickering Old Married Couple theme is less blatant here than in other versions, it actually makes their relationship seem all the more romantic.  While they do bicker (when don’t they?), they have a quiet, ‘settled down’ feel to them that basically all other versions I’ve seen lack.  That’s not to take away from other versions, many of which are far superior, but that softness and that comfortableness is something that is unique to Plummer and Mason, which helps make Murder by Decree worth a watch or two.

Director: John Davies Released: 1977 Watched: May 2026

Part of a series of British/Canadian half-hour television films (this being the only one based on Sherlock Holmes) this is a decent adaptation of Silver Blaze.

I quite like Plummer as Holmes. I hear he deliberately went for a pale look to stress his drug habit, and he does look quite gaunt in many scenes, though I was watching a crunchy recording I found on Youtube that may have exaggerated that. He's also barely seen without a deerstalker and pipe - to such a degree it almost borders on parody, but so it goes.

I am quite keen to watch Murder by Decree now, which Plummer also stars in.