There is a tendency for cherished works of literature to be the subject of unnecessary trifling when artists (normally far detached from the original creator of the work) attempt to redefine the characters through their perspective – it’s not so much a matter of adapting a particular work as it is plucking out the characters and creating entirely new scenarios for them, which sometimes feels like expansive fan fiction more than anything else, and can sometimes be excruciating to see iconic characters reconfigured into new situations by artists who seem to think such an approach is appropriate. However, one of the few characters that has mostly resisted this development is Sherlock Holmes, who is inarguably one of the most iconic figures in the history of fiction, and someone who has been at the centre of countless works, whether direct adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s fantastic texts, or entirely new stories that make use of the brilliant Baker Street sleuth in bespoke contexts. This doesn’t mean that every attempt has been successful, some of them being quite dreary and unconvincing. It often seems like the major difference isn’t the specific story or context in which Holmes is placed, but rather the person guiding this interpretation from behind the camera, and their level of admiration for the original creation. As far as notable directors go, few could stand at the stature of Billy Wilder when it came to understanding the art of cinema, and as a self-proclaimed Holmesian himself, it seems only logical that he would eventually construct his version of the character. The result is The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, a revisionist history of the famous detective, as told through the perspective of an artist who adored the character enough to write and direct his unique exploration of his life behind closed doors, leading to a rivetting two hours of thrilling filmmaking, but one of cinema’s most genuinely gifted storytellers.

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is not one of Wilder’s most well-known films, but it is certainly one of his best, the popular choice for those who want to cite how Wilder was not limited solely to his iconic, lavish Hollywood comedies and dramas, but also capable of some very interesting work outside the studio system, which mainly occurred in the latter half of his career, where the esteemed auteur took a more experimental approach to his filmmaking, which may not have always been successful but did result in some fascinating films. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is one of his late-career successes (and the film that many claim to be his final masterpiece, which depends on how one feels about the biting satire of The Front Page, or the unhinged absurdity of Avanti!, amongst others produced in the 1970s), which is hardly surprising considering how Wilder had both an affinity for Holmes as a character and a fondness for crime stories, which goes back to the earliest days of his career, where his first major success as a director was Double Indemnity, which is regularly considered one of the definitive works of film noir, one of the many genres Wilder massively assisted in gaining visibility. A very different kind of mystery film, but one that still carries that same brooding complexity that made Wilder’s more serious films so interesting on their own, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is an enthralling reminder of what a gifted director he was, so much that he could radically step out of making the kind of films he was known for, as well as momentarily departing from his regular rotation of frequent collaborators, to set sail to the United Kingdom to make an intimate detective story, and yet still have it be a complete masterpiece from beginning to end. This kind of hyperbole seems out-of-place, but when one witnesses the extent to which Wilder was willing to go when crafting The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, it makes perfect sense, and may even be something of an understatement.

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is a film made by someone who genuinely loves the material – we’ve seen on countless occasions where a director or writer would take the stock archetype of Sherlock Holmes and place him in different situations, relying on the fact that audiences will almost always be interested in a story about Holmes and his investigations, with a built-in viewership that rarely (if ever) wanes, especially at the time in which this film was made. The fundamental difference is that Wilder seems to have an authentic appreciation for Holmes but as a character and literary construction. Revisionist histories tend to have a bad reputation – one simply can’t just rewrite existing events or redefine characters and still expect it to be taken seriously since it often lacks nuance and tact, and usually exists as a way of provoking a bit of discussion, rather than being artistically resonant. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is undeniably one of the few times that this doesn’t feel like a rewriting of the titular character, but rather a restructuring, an affectionate and loving look into one of the most famous literary creations ever committed to page or screen, by someone who understood the value of being able to characterize someone as more than just a bundle of quirks, which is unfortunately what Holmes has been reduced to as a result of the oversaturation of films that feature him as their central character. The film dares to challenge some of the more intricate aspects of the character, presenting an argument towards Holmes being a far more complex individual than just a very skilful detective. Wilder is daring to ask some deep questions surrounding his fundamental humanity, looking at his identity (presenting him someone who may be in a close intimate relationship with his companion, Dr Watson, something that many texts have alluded to, but only The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes dared to address it directly), while leaning into canonical aspects of his character, like his penchant for injecting himself with opium as a way of curing his boredom that comes about in between cases. It’s not the most desirable depiction of Holmes, but it is certainly one of the most complex and fascinating.

In casting the role of Holmes, Wilder chooses to go with someone who was not a household name (at least in terms of the kinds of actors he was mainly working with at the time, his status as one of the most beloved filmmakers allowing him to have free-reign over the industry, which included casting nearly anyone he felt would fit into his artistic vision), in the form of Robert Stephens, who plays the role of Holmes. Not an obscure name, especially considering the amount of work he did on stage, Stephens was a very different choice for Holmes, being one of the rare instances where someone was cast, not to lend the film gravitas or make it more marketable, but rather to get beneath the skin of the character. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is developed like a stage-play, using slightly more limited locations to place more focus on the character himself, rather than the mystery, which becomes secondary to Wilder’s vivid depiction of Holmes as a much more complex individual, someone who remains brilliant and an excellent investigator, but who has a life outside of solving crimes. Colin Blakely is just as good as the rambunctious Dr Watson, the more logical of the two central characters (which is an ironic development, considering how Holmes is normally viewed as the pinnacle of rational thought, while Watson is the reactionary companion who exists mainly as a channel through which the story can flow in the form of dialogue), and the leads have incredible chemistry. Wilder’s decision to go with slightly less well-known actors, as opposed to bigger stars, was a calculated risk that worked out swimmingly, since not only are these iconic roles placed in capable hands, but they’re developed as very complex and interesting individuals, rather than just archetypes that patiently await to be used as the central subjects in another revisionist tale of Holmes and his exploits.

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is a fascinating combination of genres, with the tone being caught somewhere between riveting mystery, intense character-driven drama, and loving parody. Wilder has a lot of admiration for Holmes, manifesting in a way that only those who genuinely love a text can gently poke fun at. Taking a look into personal hobbies of Holmes is a fascinating subject all on its own, so the concept itself was immediately noteworthy, essentially meaning that Wilder (as well as frequent collaborator I.A.L. Diamond, with whom he wrote the screenplay) had half the battle already won the moment the cameras began rolling. It’s an extraordinarily well-written screenplay, the kind of unique script that is filled to the brim with an equal abundance of sparkling wit, particularly in the discussions between Holmes and Watson, and very sobering conversations that point to the deeper meaning hidden beneath the events depicted on screen. The only flaw with The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is that it feels like two films thrown into the space of one, almost as if Wilder had two very different ideas in mind, but either had his request to make two Holmes films declined, or chose to try and combine them into a single film, which ultimately doesn’t work particularly well, since both stories are strong (particularly the first, as it is the one that dares to suggest that Holmes and Watson were in a romantic relationship, which is a controversial development, even by contemporary standards), but fall victim to the lack of time available to both, since Wilder had limited space to explore them both. This is only a minor flaw, and it’s difficult to not adore what the director is doing with the material in this film, especially when it becomes increasingly clear the extent to which he adored the source texts, so much that he put in the work to reconfigure it from a new perspective.

If there was ever a need to provide proof towards the idea that any cherished work can be effectively reinterpreted from entirely new perspectives, Billy Wilder’s efforts in making The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes are amongst the most admirable. He is breathing new life into an archaic character, bringing him to the contemporary space without updating the social context, keeping him firmly within the boundaries of Victorian England, and instead daring to peek behind the curtain. It’s often important to remind ourselves that this film is the work of speculation – outside of a few wayward references throughout the novels, a lot of the more interesting commentary on Holmes as a character comes through in Wilder’s interpretation, which is odd considering how genuine the development of the main character is throughout the film. It’s just the signal of an effortlessly gifted filmmaker when they’re able to essentially take a centuries-old text and make it their own, so much so that their artistic liberties are seen as indelible in the legacy of the character. The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is a tremendous film, a charming and insightful mystery film with broad overtures of dark comedy and psychological thriller, making it a multilayered masterwork, carefully pieced together by one of the great filmmakers of his or any generation, a fact that becomes increasingly difficult to ignore the more we spend time with Wilder and his incredible body of work.