It is unusual to see Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes in an abbreviated role as the famous grand sleuth - naturally his presence is barely felt throughout "The Hound of the Baskervilles." This is the first film to feature the iconically cast Rathbone as the violin-playing, cigar-smoking and occasionally needle-needing Scotland Yard detective whose powers of intuition surprise everyone except himself. If only there was more of him.
The opening scenes at the moors of the Baskerville estate in Devonshire suggest Universal horror imaginings, evoking something supernatural. An older man, Sir Charles Baskerville, runs through the foggy moors from a fierce and hungry dog or a wolf, falls over and dies. There is the legend of the Baskerville curse and the story goes that several centuries earlier, Sir Hugo Baskerville was killed by this devil dog, this alleged hound from Hell. Every since then, all generations of Baskervilles have been killed by the same dog including Sir Charles. What does this all mean? And will Sir Henry Baskerville (Richard Greene), the last of the Baskervilles, be the next intended victim or is there a grander scheme involving a huge family fortune?
Now how on earth is the witty Sherlock Holmes going to deduce anything worthwhile out of this except to prove that the hound theory is hogwash? Back at Baker Street, Dr. Mortimer (Lionel Atwill) who was good friends with Sir Charles, is trying to determine that Sir Charles died from heart failure following the prospect of an attack from the hound. So Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce), Holmes' assistant, is sent by Holmes to investigate the matter at Devonshire, although why send Watson packed with a gun for protection? Probably because the character's slight incompetence in determining a murder case's probable outcomes was not marked as a hindrance in this entry - Watson's weak analysis of details only progressed in subsequent Holmes films. Leaving dear Sherlock out of this story (as was the case with the book) is problematic and doesn't serve the narrative or build any real momentum either. The real truth is that author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had no intention to make this a Sherlock Holmes story, and I am sure that also meant leaving out Dr. Watson altogether.
This is the case where the book is far more fun to read than seeing the film adaptation. "Hound of the Baskervilles" is still one of the weaker Holmes stories and one of the weakest Basil Rathbone entries (just as weak is "Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror" which had Rathbone's Holmes sans his deerstalker cap in a WWII scenario involving Nazis) yet it is still sort of fun to watch once Holmes is involved in the case towards the last twenty minutes (he disguises himself as an old coot selling various trinkets). For Holmes completists, check it out and for others, prepare to be bored by the first half of the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment