Pages

Sunday, December 03, 2023

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1959)

This will never be my favorite adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles by A. Conan Doyle (so, fear not, Jeremy Brett!), but it also will never be my least-favorite (sorry, Basil Rathbone).  I enjoy this one pretty well, enough to own a copy of it and have watched it more than once.  

The Hound of the Baskervilles is one of my top five favorite books of all time.  I reread it this October for the umpteenth time, and it was an absolute delight, as usual.  So, I will freely admit that rewatching this 1959 version so soon after having read the book may have made me a little less enthusiastic about this version than I was in the past.  But it also made me really appreciate some aspects of this version, particularly the casting for Sir Henry Baskerville.

The story in a nutshell is this: Sherlock Holmes (Peter Cushing) is consulted about whether or not Sir Henry Baskerville (Christopher Lee) should move to Baskerville Hall, which he just inherited when a relative died under mysterious circumstances.  Holmes delegates the job to Dr. Watson (Andre Morell), who heads out to Baskerville Hall with Sir Henry, determined to figure out if the last Baskerville's death was as mysterious as it seems.

I don't particularly like Peter Cushing's portrayal of Holmes, as he spends an awful lot of time berating Watson and making shrill proclamations.  And Andre Morell's portrayal of Watson is adequate, but kind of bores me.  The real highlight of this movie, for me is Sir Christopher Lee.  He plays Sir Henry as intelligent, shrewd, curious, and secretly passionate.  Sir Henry in the book is fairly brash and bold, which is A. Conan Doyle's assumption about anyone who has lived in North America, but Lee doesn't take the "make lots of loud announcements about your own courage" route that could feel like the obvious choice.  Instead, he gives us a Sir Henry who has a lot of strong feelings and opinions, but is self-controlled and keeps a firm hold on himself... most of the time.


The first time we really see this come to the fore is when a deadly tarantula crawls all over Sir Henry and he must keep absolutely still to keep from startling it and making it bite him.  Now, if you have ever read the book this is based on, you will know that there are ZERO tarantulas in the book.  This movie is a Hammer Films production, and that means it needs to be scary and creepy and thrilling and weird, and the filmmakers seem to have decided that a giant, glowing, spectral hound was not scary, creepy, thrilling, or weird enough, so they tossed in all this nonsense with deadly tarantulas.  I happen to loathe spiders and be a total arachnophobe, so I have to close my eyes for most of this scene, but I have watched enough of it between my fingers to know that Christopher Lee plays Sir Henry as being terrified, but also having the supreme self-control needed to not scream like a two-year-old girl and flail madly about, which is certainly what I would have done in his position.  That's really great character development, because we are eventually going to see Sir Henry confronted by events that he can't quite control himself so well about, and that will make us see how deeply he's moved by them.


By the way, that will not be his encounter with the spectral hound that haunts his family and scares them into dying, or rips out their throats, etc.  No, no, what causes Sir Henry to lose his composure is an alluring girl (Marla Landi).  She is a real piece of work, half the time coming on to Sir Henry in the most obvious ways possible, and half the time behaving like the sight of him makes her want to puke.  No wonder he eventually is so frustrated by her hot-and-cold nonsense that he can barely restrain himself from just grabbing her and holding her still so he can kiss her back after she unexpectedly kisses him and then switches moods and slinks away from him.  The look on his face that says "I am sick and tired of constantly having to lock away what I think and feel" hits me hard.  

If you like somewhat lurid horror movies from the 1950s, with lots of "oh no!" vibes and jump scares, and you aren't too picky about your adaptations of classic books (for instance, this one wanders off in the last act and has this huge section that takes place in an abandoned mine and involves a cave-in, and then totally changes up who the villain actually is), this version of this classic story is pretty fun.


This has been my contribution to the Hammer-Amicus Blogathon IV hosted by Cinematic Catharsis and Realweegiemidget Reviews.

If you like blogathons, check back tomorrow for an announcement about one I'll be co-hosting soon!

31 comments:

  1. "which is Conan Doyle's assumption about anyone who has lived in North America" >>> I'M SOBBING. Too true.

    Can confirm, there are zero tarantulas in the book! Where did the tarantula in the movie come from? Was it a deliberate attempt on Sir Henry's life, or did there just happen to be a deadly tarantula wandering about?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Doyle's Americans always crack me up. "Just toss in a lot of slang and bravado, and boom! Instant American" seems to be Doyle's attitude.

      So, the tarantula is a deliberate attempt to kill Sir Henry and make it look like an accident. Later, we learn it was stolen, and have to see lots more tarantulas in jars, which is also horrible. Bleah, now I have to go scrub my memory.

      Delete
    2. Ahh, I see. I wonder if the "evil tarantula plot" was loosely inspired by the villain's interest in rare butterflies and other insects? Like, he definitely doesn't keep tarantulas in the book, but I suppose it's not TOO much of a stretch to say he could...

      Delete
    3. Katie, yeah, kinda. That fascination with rare insects & such gets transferred to a different character who is kind of a wacky amalgamation of like 3 characters from the book, and that IS who the tarantula gets stolen from.

      Delete
    4. '"which is Conan Doyle's assumption about anyone who has lived in North America" >>> I'M SOBBING. Too true.'

      The USSR did a TV film series of Sherlock Holmes in the very early 1980s. Their version of Sir Henry is the most OTT "Yankee" I've ever seen, and played by an (allegedly) notorious ham.

      Delete
    5. Tom, oh my! That sounds... bizarre. Wow.

      Delete
    6. It's in keeping with a bizarre series, in terms of styles, especially acting styles - their Moriarty (in a different story lol) is clearly modelled on German silent cinema; he looks like, and is sometimes filmed as, something from a Fritz Lang movie.

      Ironically, the actor playing Watson is 100% pitch perfect - he is the character from the books brought to life

      Delete
    7. Tom J. Jones -- oh my. I haven't watched much Fritz Lang aside from Nosferatu, but I can see how that style would lend itself to a very sinister Moriarty!

      Delete
  2. As a major Sherlock Holmes fan myself over many years, I'm positive I must have seen this particular old movie but, you know, I cannot remember it so I guess it didn't make a big impression on me. Speaking of Sherlock, I just finished bingeing the BBC series with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Great re-interpretation of both the characters and the classic cases! Especially the Hound of the Baskervilles!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Debra, it's not what I would call a "must see" for Sherlock Holmes fans, but I do get a kick out of it.

      I really love the first few seasons of Sherlock -- and their take on The Hound of the Baskervilles is wonderful! I really love the way they re-jigger things to make them work for the modern day, from text messages taking the place of telegrams to the fact that hey, guess what, England was at war in Afghanistan *again,* so John Watson could be injured there still. Everything about the show is so clever... but the last season vexed me, all except the "Lying Detective" episode. Perhaps I just need to watch that season for a second time. Which I probably will, eventually.

      Delete
  3. Now I have to ask you how does the William Shatner version of The Hound of the Baskervilles rank? (I kid you not, I discovered it after writing about Sally Ann Howes, who also stars in it). Thanks for joining! Now off to check out your blogathon...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gill, wait, WHAT?!?!?!? My beloved William Shatner is in a version of Baskervilles?!?!? Oh my word. Must look this up...

      ...am back from IMDB, and DUDE. That's the version with Stewart Granger I've been wanting to see! Clearly, I must track that down now. Thank you!

      Delete
    2. Now I can't wait for you to review this.. was so intrigued after reading Shatner did this. Keep me posted.

      Delete
    3. Gill, well, I think I found it on YouTube, so... we shall see what we shall see!

      Delete
  4. It's a bit too melodramatic to be a proper Holmes adaptation (Cushing did some for a BBC series some years later, and played it differently), but it's one of the most entertaining adaptations. It's also VERY Hammer!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom, yeah, it definitely gets over-dramatic here and there, especially that weird ending with the, like, altar and temple and stuff? The whole last act is just bizarre. BUT... Christopher Lee is worth it ;-)

      Delete
    2. True - I love him in this film. it's interesting that he's playing a different version of himself, in a weird way - someone from an aristocratic background, but an outsider.

      I'm not sure if this was ever intended to be the first in a film series - the mind boggles

      Delete
    3. Tom J. Jones -- I agree! You can draw a lot of parallels between Christopher Lee and Sir Henry Baskerville, and that makes him in that role extra interesting.

      I read somewhere (probably IMDB) that they did think of doing a series, but this was a box office failure because it wasn't the sort of thing Hammer Films fans wanted, but it wasn't what mainstream audiences wanted either. Bummer.

      Delete
  5. Great review!
    I enjoy this version, despite its flaws. However, you are right. Sir Christopher Lee is the reason to watch this film!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I haven't seen this in a very long time, and I completely forgot about the tarantula attack. I'm always bemused by the use of tarantulas as deadly threats in movies, as they are about the least effective way of killing someone you could think of. Hey Sir Henry, don't mess with the tarantula and she won't mess with you! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian, yes, I know most of them aren't deadly, and many aren't even venomous -- but they are super horrible and creepy and I would probably die of fright if I encountered one unexpectedly, so if you are thinking that Sir Henry might have a bad heart condition like his relative did, it could be a way to scare him literally to death.

      Delete
  7. Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes! The rest are just pretenders. Christopher Plummer is probably my second favorite Holmes (Murder by Decree). Anyhow, Cushing is a fine actor, but he isn't really playing Holmes, he is playing Dr. Frankenstein with a deerstalker hat. This adaptation of the great Doyle book is fine as long as you see it as a Hammer production and not as a Holmes movie. Great review!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Movie Maniac, high five! I couldn't agree more. I adore Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes (and reviewed his 1988 version of Baskervilles right here a few years ago). And yes, this works on some levels, but not if you want a truly Holmes-ish movie.

      Delete
  8. Speaking as the "brash and bold" North American stereotype, I can say that after having lived in the UK, most stereotypes about Europeans are also remarkably true...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J-Dub, I feel like stereotypes can be incredibly useful for helping you when you are just going to encounter someone briefly. Like, assuming that all people from the state of Iowa are going to be kind of stubborn means if you meet an Iowan, you aren't going to push them to do something. Or if you assume all American Southerners are friendly, you won't be weirded out if a cashier at a store in Georgia calls a perfect stranger "honey."

      And then, as you get to know a particular person, you can replace those stereotypes in your mind with what that individual is actually like. But for casual encounters, they can kind of help you know what to expect or make allowances for another person's behavior.

      Delete
  9. That's a bummer that this version isn't great. What did you think of the Jeremy Brett one?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rebecca, it's not great, but it's not terrible either. I've watched it more than once of my own free will, after all.

      I LOVE the Jeremy Brett version, tho. I reviewed it here a few years ago, if you're curious. I also really like the Sherlock version, which I reviewed here a while back too.

      Delete
    2. (Just realized that review of the Sherlock ep is from when I first saw it, and I didn't like it much initially. Now I think it is really really good. Just had to see it a second time!)

      Delete
  10. Whatever happened to David Oxley? He had such a striking presence.

    I think the worst version is the 1983 version, in particular in regards to how they handle Francesca Gonshaw in the Hugo flashback.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, don't know that I have ever seen David Oxley in anything else. And I haven't seen the 1983 version, though I wouldn't mind giving it a try, just for Denholm Elliot as Dr. Mortimer.

      Delete

Agree or disagree? That is the question...

Comments on old posts are always welcome! Posts older than 7 days are on moderation to dissuade spambots, so if your comment doesn't show up right away, don't worry -- it will once I approve it.

(Rudeness and vulgar language will not be tolerated.)