Alternate Best Actor 1979: James Mason & Christopher Plummer in Murder By Decree

James Mason and Christopher Plummer did not receive Oscar nominations for portraying Dr. Watson and Sherlock Holmes respectively in Murder By Decree. 

Murder By Decree is decent, though the decidedly not great, film that pits Sherlock Holmes against Jack the Ripper. 

That central conceit is perhaps where the film doesn't live up to its full potential as two of the most iconic figures of Victorian England though one being fictional and the other being often fictionalized, right down to the name "Jack" that is likely from a false letter. Where the film does work is in its star pairing of two great actors Christopher Plummer and James Mason, as Holmes and his famed sidekick Dr. Watson. Two actors that do share something in common, which is the prolific nature of their career, as both worked right up till their deaths, suggesting a strong passion just for the act of performance itself. Mason offers his talents, in what is his late period, once again in developing a unique Dr. Watson for this version, an apparent an insistence from Mason himself who did not want to be a buffoon Watson as was the standard set by Nigel Bruce in the Basil Rathbone Holmes films. There is an additional element of an older Watson that presents a slightly different state of the character in terms of being Holmes's sidekick which is slightly shifted here, and amplified by Mason's performance. 

Thinking about the role of Sherlock Holmes, who is a particularly prolific character in cinema and therefore has had many actors wear the deerstalker, I began to wonder what truly defines an actor's approach to Holmes. The function of the character is always as the detective trying to solve some kind of mystery, and in almost all circumstances is a brilliant man with an independent streak, despite almost always being accompanied by the loyal Watson. Plummer with his regal voice and strong manner instantly suggests such a detective. Plummer has the innate quality as a performer, to begin with, that suggests a degree of intelligence. You don't need to question Plummer ever in the role of intelligence as he simply exudes such a quality. In turn, once Plummer is onscreen you accept them as this brilliant man, and you might as well "there is Holmes" the moment you see Plummer. Plummer just feels right for the part of Holmes, and confidently steps into the familiar part with the ease and grace you'd expect him to do. Ideal casting in turn is just ideal performance. 

The part of Watson is often played by a more modest performer, or at least when compared to the actor playing the brilliant Holmes. This juxtaposition isn't the case with Mason who even in his older age is a naturally commanding and captivating figure onscreen. Mason, even though I would say he plays Watson as meek, sets himself up as of equal importance within the scheme of the film, and even if the writing frequently still treats him as secondary, he stands firm in his place as an essential part of the film. Mason has such a powerful presence as a performer that he can be technically meek, fulfilling that requirement but not at all retiring in terms of his presence. Mason even here where his delivery is never lifted much beyond a quiet voice manages to be easily heard in his natural manner of depicting Watson's demeanor as an observant man. His Watson has an innate sort of power because Mason himself has power. He is the secondary to Holmes but in this Mason creates this manner of his own that Watson is watching in a way for the basic truths while Holmes searches for the more complex secrets. 

What I suppose makes any Holmes performance unique in a way is how the performer approaches Holmes as an idiosyncratic man, and there are a lot of different ways to take this as Holmes being this extraordinary man, therefore there should be something decidedly unique about him. Plummer's performance I'd say its closer to the Rathbone template which is going relatively easy on the ego, though it is something that is there, and more so showing him as a more heroic figure even if he definitely has a determination that is all his own. This works and Plummer has an innate grand manner about himself as a performer, however again Plummer so earns it that you don't take it as an obvious ego. Plummer in portraying Holmes handling a crime scene or a suspect, or disguising himself, Plummer brings this certain thrill to the investigation, his manner is someone who loves the chase to be sure, but again there is such a sense of intelligence in his eyes that never does he feel like someone merely playing a game either. Although this also speaks to Plummer's inclusion of his performance, often excised in Holmes's portrayals, but essential to Plummer's which is a palatable degree of empathy. 

Now where the two excel is the way these two performances work against each other both indirectly and directly. Indirectly we do get Mason as the more straightforward investigator, but in his quiet manner, Mason creates such a potent sense of sympathetic purpose in Watson as he tries to figure out different elements of the case. And unlike Plummer, has this wonderful sort of actively thinking quality in his work as he needs to put energy to sort out the details. This honestly could've been played as the fool, but Mason brings this deliberate energy that is wonderful in creating just a man who takes his time to know. What is most remarkable in this is showing the moments of direct competence of Watson, such as taking down the pimp of a hooker he was trying to procure information. Mason's manner is terrific as he shows the ease, but really also reluctance that Watson shows as he engages in the violence. Mason shows this certain distaste in the act even as he shows a man, even at his age, who can most competently deal with lowly threats. Again though particularly potent in contrast to Plummer as Holmes goes headfirst in, while Mason shows the more careful approach. 

Of course, that isn't mentioning how great they are together where they craft a unique Holmes and Watson chemistry, which I think plays well into their age difference. Plummer brings the youthful energy with great aplomb, while Mason acts as the perfect straight man against that with his sincere deliberate manner. Mason brings this great comic energy in their moments together, with such a terrific low key undercurrent to it in Watson being Watson against Holmes being Holmes. A favorite of mine, and honestly maybe my favorite scene in the film, being when Watson is trying to stab a pea, and Mason delivers his intention with such a slow but honest conviction as a man, before Plummer's proper exasperation that leads him to smashing the pea for it to be more easily caught. Mason one ups his earlier moment then by his very specific delivery of Watson so earnestly explaining that he wanted really the texture of biting down the pea and is unhappy with Holmes's blunter approach. Mason is terrific as a fuddy duddy against Plummer being a bit of a whipper snapper in comparison. A highlight of this being when Holmes chides Watson after the latter gets arrested during his prostitute interrogation. Mason's face of gentle stubborn of annoyance is just great against Plummer's beaming, yet very affable joy, at his friend's expense. 

 

Now that empathy that is the most remarkable facet of Plummer's work, outside of his chemistry with Mason, in this portrayal of Holmes. Throughout the end of the film, as Holmes discovers the true nefarious conspiracy behind the murders, Plummer is incredible in bringing such a sense of genuine emotional concern in the moments of finding the truth of the case. This is particularly in two scenes. One being visiting a key woman in the case (one scene wonder Genevieve Bujold), where Plummer as he asks Holmes's prying questions in his eyes conveys such a sense of care for the woman's plight. The other being his final speech where he decries the system but also himself that failed to help the victims. Plummer brings a palatable passion and brings a real striking sense of the care Holmes has for those lost. In many ways what puts this film over to worth watching are these two performances that consistently and artfully amplify their material as a performance should. If the film had a lesser pair this would be a truly disposable Holmes film, but these two best that. Again because of that chemistry but also again through what they find unique within their VERY well worn characters, as you'd expect from two great actors that were Mason and Plummer, two performers that in particular I wish were immortal as it seems like neither would've ever stopped acting if they could've helped it. Again with Mason finding a measured and quietly comical Watson, and Plummer crafting a Holmes with conviction but also a powerful empathy.