The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959)
Directed by Terence Fisher
Screenplay by Peter Bryan
Fans of Sherlock Holmes are living in the golden age of Benedict Cumberbatch. In the long history of Sherlock adaptations there have been some real gems and we are lucky enough to have more than one good contemporary version to choose from. But as all of these many versions prove, there seems to be no real end to the demand for more Sherlock. Fortunately, we are also living in an age where the archives of the past are more available to us than at any previous time and we should take advantage of that availability while we can. So, maybe you need a new fix for your Conan Doyle addiction. There are plenty of good choices out there and Hammer's foray into Baker Street is a good one.
Hammer's Hound film was the first Sherlock Holmes film in color. (Well, colour, to be more precise.) While this film got short shrift from Hammer's horror fans (and to some extent, still does) the fact is that the aesthetics of the film are substantially the same as the other Hammer gothics from the studio's initial wave of films that established its reputation. The only real difference is that The Mummy, Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula all have a few moments of gore and horror added to what would otherwise be easily recognized as a similar kind of mystery adventure story that we see in Hound. Hammer's gorehound fans in 1959 were not pleased and thus dissuaded Hammer from making more Sherlock films with Peter Cushing. (Cushing would go on to play Holmes for a BBC series.) We should not let the prejudices of the initial audience for this film guide our choices. The Hound of the Baskervilles is not just a good Sherlock Holmes film, it's a good film regardless of genre or subgenre.
Although I had seen this film before I thought I should take another look at it as I've been making my way through my Hammer collection. I'm glad I did that, because I also needed some more Sherlock and this did the trick. In terms of overlapping fandoms this film is a great confluence of the streams of culture.
Aesthetically, as I noted, this film is firmly of a piece with Hammer's Frankenstein, Dracula and Mummy. Not coincidentally all three of those films were directed by Terence Fisher and featured Peter Cushing.
The film opens with the legend of the Baskervilles. While this sets us up for the red herring of the "curse" it also serves to give us a certain distaste for the landed aristocracy represented by the Baskervilles. While Sir Hugo's vicious behavior (or, to be precise, behaviour) doesn't have to be a genetic inheritance, I think it's telling that his club of friends isn't exactly excoriating his nastiness or turning it away from him. It's strongly indicated that Sir Hugo was planning on gang raping the servant girl who escaped from the locked room. Gang raping requires a gang and his friends are the rest of the gang. While the Baskervilles come out of this with a curse on their heads the rest of Sir Hugo's buddies (who weren't exactly restraining his excesses or vocally disapproving of them) are allowed to roam around the place curse-free. While the story itself does not approve of an overthrow of the powers that be, it does make the death of Sir Hugo a desirable end for him and on the other hand it introduces a hint of ambivalence about the death of Sir Charles Baskerville and maybe even the death of the seemingly very affable Sir Henry Baskerville.
And if you need something to be ambivalent about Sir Henry it is the fact that in this film he is coming back to England from Johannesburg. Exactly what was Sir Henry Baskerville doing in South Africa? We never find out, obviously, but it raises a lot of questions. The lacuna of his activities allows us a completely open interpretation. We can imagine anything we want, from the most pleasant and edifying scenarios (He was in no way oppressing anyone or he might even have been there to champion freedom and equality for all mankind) to murkier possibilities in the grey zone (he was oppressing only Afrikaaners) to outright Hugo Baskerville levels of darkness. (He was oppressing everybody.)
We can imagine whatever we want about Sir Henry, but his ancestor was definitely a bully and a murderer. The hound that kills him is a symbol of either natural or divine retribution for his ultimate transgression. Justice is swift.
As for Sir Charles, we are ultimately informed that he fell for a classic "honey trap." The "honey" in this case was Cecile Stapleton. Sir Henry also falls for the honey trap, though the rapidity with which he falls for Cecile is a little bit abrupt. Cecile certainly sees Sir Charles's pursuit of her as a moral and ethical failing, an indicator of lechery that only confirms his descent from the terrible Sir Hugo.
But then, the argument is undercut by the revelation that the Stapletons are themselves the illegitimate descendants of the Baskervilles. Once you factor that last piece of information into the idea of the "curse" then the end of the story might even be seen as a proper result of the parameters of the curse as both Stapleton and his daughter Cecile are brought to an end by their evil/murderous schemes.
If the Stapletons are undone by a malevolent sense of familial unity, then Selden the escaped convict is killed because of a more benign sense of familial unity. Selden is Mrs. Barrymore's brother. She provides assistance to him, including Sir Henry's old suit which attracts the hound that kills him. Selden's death is the key piece of evidence for Holmes to solve the crime. Stapleton tries to trap him in a mine shaft, but like Stapleton's other schemes this is again an imperfect solution.
The inherited webbed hand is a nice touch added for the film. It gives Holmes (and the audience) another piece of evidence linking the Stapletons to the motive for murdering all the Baskervilles.
There is certainly a sense of real tragedy in that Sir Henry seems to have developed genuine attraction to Cecile. Mind you, he is very attracted to her in a very short span of time. But still, let's say that his intentions are noble and he really means it and would have been good to her. The tragedy then, is that Cecile might have had a genuine chance to reconcile the historic wrong and unite the "legitimate" and "illegitimate" branches of the Baskerville descendants. But was she always faking her attraction to Sir Henry to keep up her part of the plan? That's what she says. Everything she seems to do to get his attention seems to be part of her plan. She even manages to lure Watson into quicksand believing him to be Sir Henry. (Though she doesn't exactly go far in trying to seduce Dr. Watson the way she is clearly hate-flirting with Sir Henry.) So maybe there was no real chance for Sir Henry and Cecile because she was never sincere in her attraction to him except maybe (maybe) in her physical attraction to him.
As for the "hound" it is a largish dog with a really dumb looking leather mask, but then the original text featured a constant application of glow in the dark dog toothpaste, so maybe the mask is a classier choice.
The comic relief from the Bishop is another nice touch.
As I said before, the only real ambivalence is in the continued rule of the aristocracy that is descended from the degenerate and brutal ancestors we see in the prologue. But Sir Henry Baskerville seems like he is cut from a different cloth. (For that matter, the only bad thing we know about Sir Charles is that he went out on the moors looking for a hot girl--when he is clearly single and living by himself in a large house.) Sure, Sir Henry has been in South Africa but we can at least hope (fervently) that he is a nice guy on the right side of history. Other than that possible bit of unease caused by the lack of information about Sir Henry, he and certainly the rest of the social order of the area appear to be quite benign and charming.
All in all, The Hound of the Baskervilles is a fun film to watch. It is a classic of its genre, a classic of its subgenre and a classic film regardless of genre. It is one of the few Hammer films that holds together (in a way even better than the source material) and where the pacing does not shift to an abrupt ending. This film is highly recommended and hopefully it will find its rightful place with audiences in the future.
Sherlock Holmes -- Peter Cushing
Doctor Watson -- Andre Morell
Sir Henry Baskerville -- Christopher Lee
Sir Hugo Baskerville -- David Oxley
Cecile Stapleton -- Marla Landi
Stapleton -- Ewen Solon
Doctor Richard Mortimer -- Francis De Wolff
Bishop Frankland -- Miles Malleson
Barrymore -- John Le Mesurier
Mrs. Barrymore -- Helen Goss
Selden -- Michael Mulcaster
Perkins -- Sam Kydd
Lord Caphill -- Michael Hawkins
Servant Girl -- Judi Moyens
Servant -- David Birks
Cinematography by Jack Asher
Music by James Bernard
No comments:
Post a Comment