2014 Film OCD #106 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1958) is Hammers crack at the classic novel, which nobody has completely cracked IMO, and it is certainly distinct and has some terrific moments. Peter Cushing in particular, with his piercing blue eyes and commanding presence, makes a really fine Sherlock Holmes. Andre Morell is one of the very first Watsons not depicted as bumbling comic relief. The details of the plot are changed in ways that emphasize the themes of the film. The art direction is terrific. The horror tinged elements work. But the actual investigation and mystery never is that interesting and the whole thing has the burden of living up to a terrific opening which it never quite manages to do. The opening depicting the legend of the hound and the curse of the Baskervilles is one of Hammers and Terence Fishers finest sequences, swift, brutal, using closeups at terrific points of emphasis (and in one instance as almost comic relief as one guest dribbles wine down his face), using deep focus and planes of action to create suspense, having a fine sense of art direction throughout, especially the bright red coat of Hugo Baskerville, and utilizing the camera well as a device to show the hounds presence. It might be too good as the rest of the movie has a hard time living up to that sequence. If the climax had matched that opening, it would be one of Hammers very best films. Cushing is one of the very best Sherlock Holmes and there are all sorts of small details that make the performance work, glances as he gathers information for instance. Even his legendary prop fiddling works as kind of a nervous energy that fits the character well. Holmes is a little out of character speaking of things like the forces of evil or darkness surrounding the case, instead of being supremely rational, but it fits the art direction just fine. One of the things of interest is that people are routinely being misidentified. Holmes is mistaken for hotel management and a telescope repair man during the course of the film. A convict is mistaken for Sir Henry. Watson is mistaken for Sir Henry. In the end, its up to Holmes to sort out the true identities and motives which fits well. Theres also a clear disdain for the upper class running through the film. The Baskervilles have bad hearts, in more than one way, and their roving eyes seem to be passed down. The romance between Sir Henry and Cecile cant possibly be seen as anything other than a noble man taking advantage of his position as marriage would be next to impossible in 19th century England and Sir Henrys motivations dont seem particularly chaste. Thats hardly atypical of Hammer either as, except for Cushing in The Mummy, all of the Counts, Barons, Lords, and Sirs in Hammer films are suspect if not outright villainous. Sir Henry may have learned a lesson here, but he scrapes by through no credit to himself. Miles Malleson as the local Bishop might be part of that disdain, but the performance is too entertaining for him to be anything other than charming. Malleson was one of Hammers/Fishers go to character actors for comic bits, along with Michael Ripper, and he really delivers. Fisher never made a really good comedy, but he certainly knew how to use comic relief well in his more serious films, especially basing it around characters instead of situations. One of the things that the base story seems to struggle with in adaptation is that while the legend is impressive, Holmes is always going to reveal that its just a dog in the end. Thats always going to be somewhat deflating. Its not helped in this case by a dog that just doesnt come across as very impressive. Holmes finding rational explanations for everything is part of Holmes appeal, but it doesnt always excite the imagination. Still, its a good movie. Its disappointing that it didnt do better, because a Hammer Holmes series with Cushing could have been a lot of fun. As it is, Im glad we have this one and theres a lot to like about it.
Posted on: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 04:05:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015