Without a Clue (1988)

Directed by Thom Eberhardt; produced by Marc Stirdivant

In 1900, Sherlock Holmes is the famous private detective who is the hero of every law-abiding citizen in the world, and the nemesis of every villain. Imperturbable, brilliant, eccentric, no criminal is safe from him. And he doesn’t exist. Doctor John Watson (Ben Kingsley) created the character to camouflage his own sleuthing skills for the sake of his professional reputation – and then had to conjure up the ‘real’ Holmes in the shape of an actor, Reginald Kincaid (Michael Caine), to satisfy his fans. Now, Watson is stuck as the sidekick to a dense, opportunistic, womanizing inebriate – just as the evil Moriarty (Paul Freeman) is set to ruin the economy of the British Empire.

This hilarious premise is the basis of the comedy Without a Clue and, though it is a one-joke premise, the film does manage to make it last long enough for a feature. This is due principally to the lead actors. Caine has performed in comedy before this but, except for Shakespeare, I think this is Kingsley’s first foray in the genre; both do very well. Kingsley, in particular, is successful, as much of his comedy comes from eye movements, small expressions and inflection of voice. Caine has the broader laughs, encompassing even slapstick.

The other actors contribute adequately. Freeman, Jeffrey Jones, Lysette Anthony, Pat Keen and young Matthew Savage – like Caine and Kingsley – seem to be enjoying themselves in their roles.

The script is good, though it wavers from hit to miss, and never quite attains the promise of the premise. The writers (Gary Murphy, Larry Strawther) worked almost exclusively in television (including for Johnny Carson’s The Tonight Show) - Without a Clue is their only movie credit – and some of the humour is at sit-com level. (And don’t ask me why Moriarty wants to destroy the British economy; I still have no idea. In fact, since his scheme involves counterfeiting five-pound notes, one wonders how successful it would have been at a time when five pounds was such an amount that most Britons rarely saw such a note…)

One of the problems of the script is with Reginald Kincaid. Played for laughs, he is a drinker and a gambler, someone whose eye for the ladies never stops roving. But because of this, it is difficult to believe that he would ever persuade the public that he is the genius depicted in Watson’s stories, or that Watson would ever have chosen him to portray his creation. There are a number of mitigations for these omissions (eg. Watson may have needed nothing more than a stop-gap measure in hiring Kincaid), but these reasons are not given, and must be surmised. Of course, part of the comedy – and good parts – arise from the ridiculous situation of Holmes’s adoring fans being too smitten by his every action and utterance to think he is not the demi-god they worship. And a character whose failings are more inadvertent may have steered the story into pathos, which clearly was not wanted by the writers.

A good idea was the inclusion of several other characters in Watson’s secret. The loyalty of the Baker Street Irregulars to the good doctor, and Moraiarty’s knowledge that his real enemy is Watson (“He knows you’re an idiot,” Watson tells Kincaid), make for amusing scenes, as does Watson’s revelation to his editor (Peter Cook).

While it could have been much better, Without a Clue is nonetheless a fun movie, a comedy which, despite the insults that fly throughout, is without viciousness. Light, undemanding humour, good performances, and a satisfying finish make it enjoyable entertainment.