Experiment #1 - "The Hound of the Baskervilles" (1939)

In which Nick gives a history lesson. Catharine meets the original Basil of Baker Street and comes face-to-face with Nigel Bruce. Nick tries to convince her to stop calling the Hound “a puppy.” It doesn’t work.

***

Nick: So, let’s start with just a little bit of background. In 1893 Arthur Conan Doyle - having grown tired of Sherlock Holmes - decided to kill him off in the short story “The Final Problem” which introduced Professor Moriarty. The public outcry was incredible! Men started wearing black armbands in mourning and it’s estimated that 20,000 people canceled their subscriptions to The Strand Magazine. In one novel I read, The Sherlockian (written by Oscar-winning screenwriter Graham Moore) - which is partially set in the aftermath of the story’s publication - a woman actually attacks Doyle in the street with her purse! Well, for seven years Doyle stayed away from Holmes with a forty-foot pole until he started working on an idea for a horror novel about a demonic ghostly hound roaming the moors of Dartmoor in Devonshire. As he wrote this story though, he came to discover that he needed a central character to tie the whole story together and, eventually found no choice but to put Holmes in the story and set it four years before the detective’s deadly encounter with the Napoleon of Crime.

From there, discussion evolves into a history of Sherlock Holmes on film and the one-and-only Basil Rathbone.

Arthur Wontner as Sherlock Holmes

Nick: You may be thinking why we’re starting where we are. Sherlock Holmes did indeed have a long and distinguished career on the silent screen (played 44 times by actor Ellie Norwood whose portrayal was approved by Doyle) including a turn by the great John Barrymore. The first sound Holmes movie was made in 1929 and was called The Return of Sherlock Holmes and starred Clive Brook as Holmes. However, probably the best Sherlock Holmes actor of the early ‘30s was Arthur Wontner who, despite being in his mid-50s when he played the part, gave an excellent performance. However, all of Wontner’s films have fallen into the public domain meaning that everyone can get their hands on those movies and every copy out there has both horrible sound and picture quality. The best-quality copy of one of his films, The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes (one of the few adaptations of the novel The Valley of Fear) that I have found has the picture and sound out-of-sync for at least ten minutes!

The other interesting thing about all of the Sherlock Holmes movies made before 1939 is that they were all set in the (then modern) 1930s to cut costs. So when 20th Century Fox decided to adapt The Hound of the Baskervilles and set it in the proper Victorian era, they were really doing something quite different. To play the great detective was Basil Rathbone who was a distinguished Shakespearean actor, but who was best known for playing villains. He had played Sir Guy in 1938’s The Adventures of Robin Hood and had played a fantastic, over-the-top French pirate in Captain Blood (1935). The studio was really casting him against type when they persuaded Rathbone to take up the deerstalker and pipe and play the world’s greatest detective.

With that long-winded preamble at an end, it is time to actually start the film.

Vital Statistics:

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939)

Major motion picture

Starring: Richard Greene (Henry Baskerville), Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Wendy Barrie (Beryl Stapleton), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson)

80 minutes, black-and-white

Thoughts:

Nick: So Catharine, do you think that you’ve just witnessed greatness? (Way to start with a tough question.)

Cat: How is that close to tough? YES. It was really, really, reeeeaaally good. (I'd like to note that this marks a milestone for me: outside of RDJ and the Sherlock Special, this was my first  experience with Sherlock Holmes in his original time period.)

Nick: Well, I’m certainly glad that you enjoyed it. I’d have felt bad if the first time out you weren’t overly fond of the film. So, as the experimenter I suppose I am inclined to ask my test subject a few questions. So, let’s tackle a few topics. First and foremost, what did you think of Basil Rathbone?

Basil Rathbone - Personification of awesome

Cat: I think he was, to be entirely honest, pretty awesome. I wasn’t too pleased that he wasn’t in the movie much? That felt a bit unfair—I mean, you can’t give us greatness and not spoil us with him being on the screen every other minute. That’s just not cool.

Nick: That is, unfortunately, a complaint that you’d have to file with Arthur Conan Doyle as Holmes isn’t present for much of the story. (I think I read somewhere that Holmes is only in the story for about ⅓ of its total length.) He really does take a backseat to Watson and the other characters and I do have a bit of a theory why he’s gone for so long. Would you like to hear?

Cat: Of course I would. Theorize away.

Nick: Well, Holmes is a rational, logical guy. In one story, “The Sussex Vampire,” he is quoted as saying “The world is big enough...no ghosts need apply.” So, if Holmes had been present in the entire story the reader/viewer would be less inclined to believe that an actual demonic, ghostly hound is killing off the Baskervilles. Through Watson we are sort of led down this path of uncertainty: Could the hound be real? We don’t quite know until Holmes returns and says “Hey, there’s a person behind all of this. I have the proof.”

Cat: An interesting, and very logical, theory you’ve got there, Nick. Because I agree, while Sherlock Holmes does act as whatever “central element” that was apparently missing in other drafts, if he was there the whole time, it would sort of mess with the audience’s reaction to supernatural aspect of the story. Interestingly enough (from my little prior knowledge on what “makes” a Sherlock Holmes story), it still definitely feels like a Sherlock Holmes story the entire way through. He’s just...ya know...not really there.

Nick: That’s true and, when we get around to some later adaptations (the Jeremy Brett series or even Sherlock - or the original stories for that matter), it’s neat to see how seamlessly the story fits into the rest of a series’ established Canon. Well, now that we’ve discussed Basil a little bit, I suppose we’ve got to tackle the “elephant in the room” - Nigel Bruce.

Catharine is disappointed

Cat: Yeah, about him...I suppose I should start off with the blunt truth and then explain myself a bit: I’m not the hugest fan of him as Watson. Or, rather, his characterization of Watson. I completely recognize that the “bumbling, overgrown child” take on Watson’s character is not uncommon in the overall world of Sherlock Holmes adaptations—but I’ve been entirely spoiled by Martin Freeman and Jude Law (which I do recognize). I’m used to the totally badass John Watson who is just as capable as Holmes, though in different ways, and is just overall awesome. Here, it felt like Watson constantly looked, sounded, and acted like someone who was just startled awake from a nap and was trying to act like he hadn’t been sleeping. But, I have kinda skipped through the “rough drafts” that had to be gone through first to get to the Cool Watson. However, that doesn’t mean that most of my commentary during the movie wasn’t criticizing Watson’s...shall we say, ineptitude? (I’m determined to make “No s**t, Watson” a popular phrase because BOY, did I use it a couple of times, all in the course of one movie!) So I can totally respect Nigel Bruce’s performance and all, and he and Basil Rathbone do have good on-screen chemistry that makes both their relationship and Watson’s bumbling nature work just fine, but it isn’t exactly my cup of tea. (Though he did amuse me as much as irk me.)

Nick: Well, let me put a few things into perspective for you: Prior to Nigel Bruce’s portrayal of Watson, the character was pretty forgettable. Most of the time, Watson was sidelined by other characters and had very little screentime. There’s one movie from the early ‘30s where Watson has less scenes than Billy the pageboy who Holmes actually takes to the scene of a crime! So, for all his bluster and bumbling, Bruce’s Watson did at least get something to do in the Rathbone movies. And, believe me, his comedy will grow on you. I mean, we did pause the movie to revel in the scene in which Watson interrupts Sir Henry and Beryl kissing out on the moor and, after eyeing the situation, asks them if they’d mind “pausing for a moment.” Absolutely incredible!

Cat: Ah yes, Dr. John  H. Watson: professional cockblocker. By the way, quick side note that bugged me the entire time: WHAT KIND OF A NAME IS BERYL?? It’s a mix of Berry and Sheryl. That’s not a real name. It’s just not. It’s like...some kind of a weird fruit pun. Anyway...I do admit, he got some laughs out of me too...though they were frequently at his expense and not always during parts where I was supposed to be laughing...but still!

Nick: According to a website called nameberry, Beryl is Greek in origin and means “sea-green jewel.” Also, according to the site, it’s a “dated British favorite which never caught on in [the United States] where Jade remains the green gem of choice.”

Cat: I formally apologize to all women named Beryl and all the Greek/British people in general.

Nick: As for the rest of the cast, we’ve got Richard Greene as Sir Henry Baskerville and Wendy Barrie as Beryl Stapleton. What’d you think of the film’s two lovebirds?

Thanks to Cat, Nick now knows the origin of the name "Beryl"

Cat: If you can call them that...I mean. They barely met and then they’re kissing and then they’re engaged. Pretty quick relationship if you ask me… However, I did greatly enjoy Sir Henry's character. He acts as the “supernatural disbeliever” in the movie, but (thankfully) never gets annoying with his lack of belief in the Hound/his family’s curse. He seemed like a nice enough guy and I was very glad that he was paired up with Watson for most of the movie. To be honest, if it was just Watson doing a lot of solo investigating without Sir Henry tagging along most of the way, I might have been a bit sad. Beryl (name aside) was a bit forgettable, in my opinion. She was just sort of there, filling in the typical “nice romantic leading lady” role. No disrespect to the actress though because she did give a solid performance in that role and, as Nick told me when the credits were rolling, she is related to Peter Pan author J. M. Barrie and any pal of J. M. is a pal of mine. (Yes, I’ve been a Peter Pan nerd since I was about 5. It should be expected that that made me happy.)

Nick: Yes, Wendy was J.M. Barrie’s goddaughter and, though her film career wasn’t what you’d call extensive, it appears as though she did do a good deal of TV work in the ‘50s. Now, seeing as Wendy Barrie played the good Stapleton sibling, we need to discuss the bad one - Jack Stapleton (Morton Lowry) who, I might add, was not in Cat’s good graces as soon as she saw that he collected butterflies. I was remaining pretty tight-lipped about plot details so I figured that the game was up at that point and that she had out Sherlocked Sherlock. I don’t think she actually figured it out until a bit later though. Any singular thoughts?

Cat: Yes, I would like to make it known to the Internet and the world that I TOTALLY CALLED IT! (This is a big deal for me, I’m typically way off base with these things.) To tell the truth, the butterflies were just icing on the cake for me. It took a little while, but I got a somewhat obnoxious vibe off of him once he started talking to Sir Henry and Watson on the moors. He was just too amiable and seemed to be a bit of a stuck-up know-it-all.

Nick: The last few supporting characters can be dealt with fairly quickly. First off is Dr. Mortimer (Lionel Atwill). Despite the fact that Mortimer is, in the book, a nerdy, young doctor, he was made a full-on suspect who “dabbles in the occult” and his married to a medium. Though it was a total invention of the screenwriter, I am actually quite fond of the seance scene (definitely, I think a nod to Arthur Conan Doyle’s actual obsession with spiritualism late in his life), and it’s cool to see how a later adaptation of Hound took that scene and topped it with a brilliant, terrifying payoff. There are also the butlers - the Barrymans. There names are Barrymore in the book but it’s been speculated that the names were changed in the movie as to avoid confusion with the famous Barrymore acting family. John Carradine, who plays Barryman with a perpetual leer, is fantastic. He’s the reddest of red herrings.

Cat: Which I did fall for, admittedly. The guy was a monotone, suspicious creep! Also, I would like to mention that Nick and I had a very good laugh over how casually the fact that Dr. Mortimer “dabbles in the occult” was tossed out.

Nick: Very true. He might as well have said, “That’s interesting, Sir Henry...by the way my wife talks to dead people.” Not so subtle.

Cat: No, not so much.

Nick: Now, you mentioned something which I think is quite worth pointing out. You were drawn to Holmes’s dialogue concerning the imagination: “That’s where crimes are conceived and where they’re solved. In the imagination...That’s why so many murders remain unsolved, Watson. People will stick to facts, even if they prove nothing. Now, if we go beyond facts, use our imagination - as the criminal does - imagine what might happen, act on it, as I’ve been trying to do in this case, we usually find ourselves justified.” What made you so interested in those particular lines?

Cat: Oh my god, I loved those lines so much. I’m going to sound like a total geek here, but during that moment in the movie, I was just totally drawn into Holmes’s character and what was going on in the story and everything. I really liked it for one main reason: I felt it was very true to the character. It feels like the people who aren’t super well-versed in Holmes tend to view him as the almost irritatingly smart crime solving machine who knows literally everything and can do literally anything, when that’s not true. While pure logic and reasons and facts are important to how he solves crimes, he’s not literally a robot who operates on that alone. That’s one of the reasons why he frequently (if not always) is better at solving crimes than Scotland Yard, he can see the out of the box solutions. And, going off of that, I like how he places the solving and the creation of crimes in the same mental category. I’m sure I’ll go into this loads of times later (and will probably get annoyingly meta), but I feel like that idea is also somewhat reminiscent of the duality between Holmes and Moriarty—which is a topic/plot point/theme that I think is really, really, really cool. Saving all my thoughts on that for now, but it was a cool and unexpected moment where you got to almost see and understand what goes on in Sherlock’s head.

Nick: Very true and very interesting ideas about Holmes and Moriarty (which you may get to explore more in the very near future). So, I think our final point of discussion: the Hound. I for one have never really been a dog person so I have always thought that the prospect of Sir Henry Baskerville getting mauled by a dog to be a horrifying thought. And, it’s especially creepy in this movie. The Hound is savage. It’s big, and bad, and scary and it’s always snarling as it attacks Henry. And, surprisingly, Sir Henry walks away with some pretty extensive damage done to his person. (Granted, later versions will make his injuries even more unpleasant, but for 1939 Richard Greene’s bloodied head was something of a sight.)

That is not a puppy

Cat: Aaaand despite that all, just about every time this horrifying creature was on screen, all I could do was say “Puppy!!!!”. (Much to Nick’s displeasure.) To be fair, I think this is because I could only ever see it as a dog. Unlike if it were some CGI monstrosity...it only ever felt and looked like a puppy snarling on command, and I was very sad when Sherlock shot the poor thing and the audience got to see where he had been kept the whole time. However, all the times the Hound was around, but not actually on screen, I loved that! The atmosphere that created was awesome! So, morbid as it sounds, I actually look forward to the more horrific, violent, and terrifying versions. I want to be scared by this thing! But for now, I suppose I’ll just have to be content with the Evil Puppy and wait and see.

It’s time for final thoughts.

Nick: I have always been pretty partial to this film. It’s not my favorite version of Hound, but it is one of the few which really nails the atmosphere. The amount of fog which is used extensively in this movie is incredible and, with a distinct lack of music, there’s this uncomfortable, foreboding feeling which permeates the film. Of course, Basil Rathbone is brilliant giving, I think, one of his best performance as the detective. Down the road it was obvious that he’d lost interest in the character but in this movie everything was still fresh and new and exciting. Yeah, Nigel Bruce is nothing like his Canonical counterpart but he is really entertaining and, after a while, you really do get accustomed to his brand of humor. The rest of the cast really compliment the stars and the production values - oh, the production values are gorgeous! Victorian London is stunningly realized on film and the moor - an indoor set - is spectacular. Until the 2000s, I think it’s safe to say that this version is the most rich-looking version of Hound. It may not be perfect - the ending feels really rushed to me and Holmes doesn’t get a chance to explain everything away. What’s more, the film’s streamlining of the novel’s plot does leave some plot holes, but for the most part, the whole thing is really, really well done. And what do you think Catharine?

Cat: This was definitely a fun introduction to the classic Sherlock Holmes for me. As much as I poked fun at it (and boy did I—we didn’t even go into the multitude of snide remarks I made in response to something a character said), I did really enjoy the film. Basil Rathbone was utterly amazing and I felt that he more than did the part justice. Though I mercilessly teased his bumbling nature, Nigel Bruce wasn’t even that bad either. He was enjoyably frustrating. This was also my first introduction with the actual story for Hound (because the Sherlock version is hardly in-line with the original story), and I enjoyed that too. I liked the ghost story quality of the whole thing; it never felt overdone or implausible. It was almost like Scooby Doo: yes, we’re pretty sure it’s not actually some supernatural being, but SOMETHING’S behind all this, though we have no idea what/who. I think that the movie managed to capture that essence really well, especially in the creepy atmosphere, which, like Nick said, was really stellar. (Though I do wonder how many fog machines were used in this production?) Overall, this was just fun. Which sounds odd, as this was supposed to be a frightening and horrific case and not some kind of a good-old-fashioned romp, but I found it fun because it just felt very Sherlock Holmes-y in nature. Admittedly, there were some plot holes (and they really felt more like plot omissions than gaping holes) or odd character moments that left me scratching my head, but they didn’t take away from the overall experience. And, most importantly, Nick has officially gotten me hooked on the drug that is Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes. (It’s a blessing and a curse.)

Nick: You don’t know how glad I am to hear that. Now, we have a special rating system on this blog - five possible deerstalker hats. How many deerstalkers do you give The Hound of the Baskervilles?

Cat: I give it a solid four out of five deerstalkers. Not perfect, but definitely awesome and deserving of rewatches for a good handful of elements that are really amazing. How many deerstalkers from you, Nick? What’s the judge’s ruling?

Nick: I too give this movie four out of five deerstalker hats. It’s a well-done movie and a great adaptation of the book. To paraphrase Alan Barnes, author of the invaluable book Sherlock Holmes on Screen, this film is one of the few Sherlock Holmes movies which can truly stand on its own alongside the genuine classic films of the era.

Nick's Rating

Catharine's Rating

Next Time: Holmes matches wits with the Napoleon of Crime and Cat wonders how a man can make flowers so terrifying.