Mysteries Ahoy!

This post is part of an on-going effort on my part to look at the many, many adaptations, continuations, parodies, and pastiche films and television shows that use the character of Sherlock Holmes. Some, like today’s post, will be widely known but I am also intending on covering some works that I will politely describe as ‘deep cuts’ in the Holmes canon.

Today’s film however is far from being a deep cut. This was the first of a series of fourteen films to feature Basil Rathbone as the Great Detective and he remains one of the actors most associated with the role more than eighty years on. As I have mentioned before, this series of films was particularly important to me as they were some of my earliest interactions with the character, and so there is a certain amount of nostalgia for me in these films. Still, I shall do my best to put that to one side for the purpose of this series!

The Hound of the Baskervilles

The Rathbone adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles was not the first film to be made of Holmes’ most famous adventure but it is feels much more ambitious and, dare I say, filmic than any of its predecessors. It not only adapts more of the novel, sticking pretty closely to its essential story elements and structure with a few additions, but it also does a much better job of bringing its setting of the Devonshire moors and mires to life.

The additions that are made are mostly designed to enhance that sense of atmosphere, contributing to the sense of danger that Watson and Baskerville find themselves in, and also to spread a little suspicion onto the wider cast of characters. The most significant of these additions is a séance scene that happens during the dinner at the Stapleton home. It is pretty brief and fairly inconsequential in terms of how it affects the story but it does allow for a lowering of the lighting and some mood-setting as the howling in the background grows and the characters look a little unsettled.

Other alterations are more minor. One, in which we see someone trying Watson’s door in the middle of the night, is a neat little addition that adds an early suspenseful beat before allowing the scene to play out as in the book while another introduces the character of a peddler on the moors. This is more indulgent but understandable in the context of giving a little more business for one of the leads and I enjoyed its playfulness.

One other thing I find interesting about the film’s structural choices is the decision to tell the story of the legend of Sir Hugo Baskerville in an extended flashback sequence. This feels suitably filmic, allowing us to observe the action for ourselves, but the performances are rather unconvincing, particularly that of Sir Hugo himself whose devilry and rage didn’t really convince. I assume the need to conform to the Code was partly responsible, keeping us from seeing his worst behavior, but I think if we had seen him carousing in a more disreputable manner earlier in the sequence it would have felt a little more convincing.

As you may notice from the poster on the right, Basil Rathbone isn’t given top billing for this film and with good reason. For those unfamiliar with the novel, Holmes is absent more much of the middle of the story, putting the case in Watson’s hands. Instead our hero for most of the film is the young, handsome Richard Greene who plays Sir Henry Baskerville as a dashing, romantic hero. His relationship with Wendy Barrie’s Beryl Stapleton runs throughout the picture and it seems clear that the filmmakers intend the audience to become invested in the idea of their happiness.

Greene is certainly very watchable but this viewer focused more on the pairing of Rathbone and Bruce. Both are highly watchable actors and I enjoy their partnership, even if it isn’t exactly the one I read in the original stories. It is clear that the two actors play well off each other, creating a strong sense that these men have had a long-standing friendship and are fond of each other, even if Holmes is prone to teasing his friend.

Rathbone’s Holmes captures some of the energy and perhaps a little of his character’s arrogance about his own mental powers but at times feels rather too jovial and flippant, particularly given the danger Baskerville will be in toward the end of the film. He is often entertaining, particularly in the scene in which he reappears, and I do think he does a nice job of handling the explanation of what has happened and who is responsible, but it lacks some of the depth found in some later interpretations of the part.

Much is made of the comic nature of Bruce’s Watson but that is something I feel develops later in the series. Here he is solid, dependable and while the film demonstrates his lack of imagination when it comes to analysis, the film shows us not only why Holmes finds him useful, but his practicality when under pressure. It’s a performance that works well enough in the context of this film and this story, particularly when called on to spend much of his time on this case working alone. I think it is testament to how watchable Bruce is, that I wasn’t impatiently waiting for Holmes to make his return as I often do in some other adaptations of this.

The other thing that really struck me about this film was that it does look impressive. The Baskerville Hall set in particular has a pleasing sense of scale and grandeur, as do the scenes that take place on Baker Street, making this feel like a proper big screen feature, while the black and white cinematography lends itself well to the story’s more horrific elements. It should also be noted that this is the earliest known Holmes film to be shot as a period picture, those period details adding to the film’s gothic tone.

Overall, it was a pleasure revisiting this film again after so many years. While later adaptations of this story would have more impressive hounds or make more use of the landscape, this does a fine job of capturing the essence of the story and cultivating a strong sense of atmosphere and holds up as worth watching over eighty years after its original release.