Experiment #10 - "The House of Fear" (1945)

In which Catharine fills the gaps in Nick’s knowledge of Star Trek. Holmes and Watson travel to Scotland and are surrounded by murder...and plaid.

***

Space: the final frontier:

Nick: I am the last one who should be making any Star Trek-related references or jokes. I have never seen an episode and know very little about its characters or continuity. In true Sherlockian fashion, the extent of knowledge is that Spock quotes Holmes at one point and later (in, I think, The Next Generation) dresses up as the great detective on - again I think - two occasions. I don’t know. Fill me in with what knowledge you can Catharine.

Cat: I’ll try, because I don’t boast to be really “in the know” with Star Trek, despite the fact that one of my best friends is an insane Trekkie. I’ve seen the newer movies, a couple episodes of the original series, and Star Trek II. That’s it. That being said, I (think) I can confirm that - though it may be Data in Next Gen who dresses up as Holmes. Point being, someone dresses up at Sherlock Holmes at some point. There’s also something in The Next Generation where the crew has to defeat a holodeck version of Moriarty who is hacking their systems. Details aside (we are clearly not the people to try to speak Klingon to), the great detective has a slight relationship with Star Trek.

Nick: Yes. Holmes does have a connection to Star Trek (which I find kind of cool in itself). However, fans of the great detective and Trekkies alike have wondered for some time now whether the two have more in common than meets the eye. Again, Catharine you may be able to give this more context than I can: when did people begin to wonder if Mr. Spock is descended from Sherlock Holmes?!

Cat: Weeeeeell, in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Spock says at one point, “An ancestor of mine maintained that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” According to Google, the quote is also mentioned by Spock in the 2009 reboot (though without any mention of an ancestor). For those not well versed in Star Trek characters (it’s okay, no one’s judging): Mr. Spock is the pointy eared guy with the weird eyebrows (played by Leonard Nimoy in TOS and Zachary Quinto in the more recent movies) who is from the hyper-logical planet, Vulcan. Though he himself tries to remain logical in the face of all emotion, he is half-human on his mother’s side (which makes this a bit difficult at times). So, to get to the point, many have theorized that the mentioned quote means that (on his mother’s side), he is related to Holmes. I personally have a slightly different theory, but there you have it.

Nick: The really curious thing about Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country is that it was directed and written by Nicholas Meyer who (as most Sherlockians know) wrote three Holmes pastiches: The Seven-Per-Cent Solution, The West End Horror, and The Canary Trainer. Also, according to Meyer, he has joked that if (on his mother’s side) Spock’s great-great-great-great grandfather was Sherlock Holmes than his great-great-great-great grandmother was - you guessed it - Irene Adler. I don’t know how I feel about that. A few days ago I was okay with that idea, but as I have debated that in my mind over the past few days, I’m liking that idea less and less. (And just you wait until we get to Sherlock Holmes in New York when we have some real fun Sherlock Holmes and Irene interactions.) Anyway,your theory makes sense Catharine, if you’d like to share that with the world.

Cat: Well, to me, it makes more sense to interpret that as meaning that Arthur Conan Doyle is the ancestor in question. Especially with my (limited) understanding of the way that holodeck episode that I mentioned earlier is handled. Because, technically, ACD is the true originator of the quote. There are other fans that believe this (I think), but I wouldn’t be surprised if the Holmes version of the theory is more popular. It has a certain “appeal”, I suppose.

Nick: I agree, there is something appealing about it. That’s probably why I was at first okay with the whole idea. I think that it is interesting that Holmes has been a fascination for so many science fiction writers. There are dozens of steampunk variations on the Holmes mythos and encounters with aliens and robots, etc. are found in abundance in pastiches (some better than others, but that’s a discussion for another time). Anyway, one of my favorite sci-fi Sherlockian crossover can be found in the worlds of Doctor Who - a TV show I can discuss in-depth. One of my favorite serials is the 1977 six-parter, The Talons of Weng-Chiang written by Robert Holmes. I think the whole thing is fantastic as Tom Baker’s Fourth Doctor dons a deerstalker hat and Inverness cape in Victorian London and encounters a giant rat in a story which is in equal parts derived from the Fu Manchu stories, Dracula, The Phantom of the Opera, the Sherlock Holmes stories, and Pygmalion. I’m saying it now: when we get to it, I think we ought to review it for the blog.

Cat: Heh. See, it’s funny ‘cause a guy named Holmes wrote it. I can talk about Doctor Who slightly less in-depth, but I do have a soft spot in my heart for the Christmas special The Snowmen where the Eleventh Doctor tries to introduce himself as Sherlock Holmes, which works for about two minutes. He’s trying to rattle off really impressive, entirely unrealistic, and incorrect deductions and it’s just really amusing. I relate to it on a deep level, because I can only imagine that’s how I come off whenever I try to sound super smart.

Nick: I too have a soft spot for The Snowmen. (It too is essentially a Sherlock Holmes pastiche which makes me very happy.) Well, before we move on, any discussion of Star Trek which I am taking part in is not complete without a reference to the sitcom, Frasier. I think it is very possible that it is is my favorite TV show and I have seldom seen a comedy series as well written as it is. In one episode, Frasier is trying to deliver a speech in Hebrew at his son’s bar mitzvah only to have been duped into delivering it in Klingon by his Star Trek-obsessed colleague. The results are, I think, hysterical.  

And with that it is time to get to the matter at hand. After all, there is a movie to be reviewed.

Vital Statistics:

The House of Fear (1945)

Major motion picture

Starring Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Aubrey Mather (Alastair), Paul Cavanagh (Dr. Simon Merrivale), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Harry Cording (Captain Simpson)

68 minutes, black-and-white

Thoughts:

Nick: If you have ever wanted to know what it would be like if Sherlock Holmes was dropped into the middle of Agatha Christie’s And Then There Were None, this movie is probably the closest thing to answering your question.

Cat: Except it’s in Scotland. You know how I knew that? No, not anyone’s accents, but the outrageous amounts of plaid. If I was smart, I would’ve kept a tally for the amount of times a plaid print was on screen. Take my word for it, it was a LOT.

PLAID!

Nick: Catharine is right: there is a lot of plaid in this movie. (And scrolling through some screengrabs to be used in this review only accentuated that fact.) Anyway, let’s take this one apart. So we start with a montage of members of the reclusive club, The Good Comrades receiving envelopes containing orange pips only for them to die horribly. We learn about all of this in flashback and voice-over, delivered by the Comrades’ insurance agent who has come to Holmes for help. It’s a really minor point but I love this scene in Baker Street at the beginning because it feels so much like one of the original stories. So seldom in the Universal films does Holmes really get a client come to 221b and lay out his or her case and, done here, it felt very satisfying.

Cat: Though I can’t help but question a lot about The Good Comrades. It seems like that was just a very odd group of people to have essentially a “best friends forever” club. But, who am I to judge? To be sure, the introductory montage was definitely dramatic and set the mood accordingly, I thought.

Nick: It most certainly did! Finding the case interesting enough, Holmes and Watson are off to Scotland quicker than you can say “holy deerstalkers Batman!” Once in Scotland (and surrounded by plaid), they integrate themselves into the Good Comrades’ mansion and sit back and wait as the members begin to die off one-by-one. And, honestly, I think that’s my biggest problem with this movie: it’s really repetitive. A member of the Good Comrades will receive his mysterious orange pips (more on them in a minute), fear for his life, and then die horribly. I don’t know; usually a plot like this (where the killer picks off people in an isolated location) really works for me. Here, it just doesn’t. Do you have similar feelings?

Cat: Kind of? It does have a very repetitive nature to it that can get a bit boring after awhile, because it doesn’t exactly feel like much happens. With each new victim, the lead-up to their deaths follows basically the same turn of events as you described, Nick. On a side note though, Universal did not disappoint and at least put everyone in a positively gorgeous mansion set, so at least there was a pretty house to look at when you got a tiny bit bored!

Well, the set's nice

Nick: Universal was not rivaled when it came to creating creepy mansion sets and The House of Fear does not disappoint. (I also love how in one scene you can clearly see the wolf-headed cane- which figured very prominently in the plot of Universal’s The Wolf Man -leaning against a wall.) Another way to alleviate any tedium comes in the ever-welcome form of Dennis Hoey’s Lestrade. If you do not question the reason that a Scotland Yard inspector is about as far away from London as possible, then his antics are enjoyable as always.

Cat: Okay, I genuinely have grown to love every second Dennis Hoey is on screen. He is amazing and he brought me much joy in this film. As if Lestrade by himself wasn’t great enough, every second he and Watson are on screen together is pure GOLD. The only way I can describe their relationship is by saying that it’s similar to two little kids desperately trying to out-do the other to prove their worthiness and gain admiration from their teacher/big brother/friend/father/whatever role you want Holmes to take in this scenario. They play off of each other really well. Maybe it was because the mystery in this movie got a bit tedious at times, but their antics were particularly amusing in The House of Fear.

Nick: And what makes things even funnier is the way that Rathbone plays Holmes in that he is pretty clearly stuck in the middle of their bickering and cannot stand it. The three play off each other really well throughout the entire movie. However, as I noted to Catharine before we started this movie, this is the one and only time in the series that Bruce’s Watson ever got on my nerves. There is one scene in which Watson is left to his own devices and takes to shooting at a suit of armor and a cat only to exclaim “they’ve got me surrounded.” This bit of comic business goes on too long in my mind and is really only there to pad out the runtime.

Cat: Honestly, I wasn’t as “offended” as Nick was. I mean, I didn’t start out as Nigel Bruce’s biggest fan, so I certainly can’t fault Nick for not enjoying this one scene. As I recall, Nick, you considered it to be “the definition of facepalming”. I found it kinda funny. Harmless might be the better word than funny, but you get the point. Besides, it could always be worse. I mean, it could have been longer…

Nick: It certainly could have been worse, I suppose I just don’t find it funny. Nigel Bruce trying to pull off a man’s beard I find funny. Nigel Bruce asking a police officer “what’s cooking” I find hysterical. Nigel Bruce shooting at a suit of armor, I find myself burying my head in my hands.

Cat:  Well, I find Nigel Bruce essentially getting pushed over and left sitting on a set of steps in Hound to be downright cringe-worthy, so I suppose there’s just a moment for everyone.

Nick: Well, as the Good Comrades continue to die, let’s take a moment to discuss two things: the orange pips and the manner in which they died. Now, I love all of the original stories (even “The Mazarin Stone” which many consider to be one of the worst), but I have never considered “The Five Orange Pips” to be one of the best. It’s good and it has some excellent atmospheric bits, but the solution is telegraphed from the outset, so I have often wondered what has prompted so many writers to be influenced by this one story (it’s been referenced twice in Sherlock alone). And - thanks to Catharine - I’ve come to realize it’s not the story’s plot which is so appealing, it’s the concept. The idea that someone could receive five innocuous orange seeds and know that he/she is about to die is, admittedly, pretty neat. So, in the context of this story, I think it works pretty well.

Bravo ACD! You made seeds scary!

Cat: Yay, I helped! But I have to agree, the concept itself is really cool, and I’m sure it might even be better to read than to watch. Because to watch the cool concept play out can make for a slightly boring time because of the repetitive nature. However, I’m really trying not to knock the movie too much. There were some little things here and there (aside from the pretty set and possibly-cringe-worthy-Nigel-Bruce-moments) that at least kept me interested. The members of the Good Comrades were sometimes very interesting characters because of how odd they seemed (again I ask, how exactly did these guys come together to form a “league of friendship”?) and their deaths helped raise interesting questions on the killer’s motive, as none of them were the same. Though I do have to call out the movie for this one scene. I can’t remember which member it was (Nick, help me out), but one of the members is found dead in the furnace, having apparently been burned to a crisp. That’s all well and good (well, at least as good as a human bonfire gets), but then Holmes, Watson, Lestrade, and everyone else stands around the furnace examining the crime scene without a care in the world! It should have smelled absolutely AWFUL down there if someone really had been burned like that. Yes, I’m being ridiculously nit-picky, but when Sherlock Holmes has impacted the field of forensic science so much, I can’t help but get a bit pouty over such a glaring inaccuracy.

Nick: That is a true, and very acceptable nit-pick. And that brings up a good point about this movie: the people die horrible, horrible deaths. They’re burned, blown up, cut apart, etc. But, it actually serves a plot point: the Good Comrades have all been faking their deaths and using the money from their life insurance to pass onto their other members. It’s a fairly surprising twist ending (one which I did not see coming when I first watched this movie). What did you think? (And I honestly cannot remember which Good Comrade was burned in the furnace.)

Cat: I was...surprised, for sure. Like I (poorly) explained in our last post, I like the mysteries that feel more like a thriller. I kinda sort of said that with The House of Fear in mind, because it felt like  the solution was figured out/revealed in the blink of an eye. I kinda feel like I missed something, somewhere - which I didn’t exactly enjoy?

Nick: Things did end very quickly. Though, there is a little bit towards the end which I particularly liked (and which made up for Watson’s scene of stupidity): Watson discovers that the special tobacco smoked by Captain Carey has disappeared (even though it was there before the Captain’s death). In essence, Watson therefore spots the vital clue to unraveling the whole thing. And he boasts about this back at Baker Street when the case has been closed. In typical Watson fashion, he makes it out as though he solved the whole thing only to be stumped when questioned on one or two more complex points. Holmes’ amusement at the whole thing only furthers the two men’s friendship and in this scene in particular you can see the real life friendship between Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.

The Baker Street Bros

Cat: Which was really nice. They are truly the Baker Street Bros.

It’s time for Final Thoughts:

Nick: Well, since I gave my formal opinion first last time, would you care to do the honors Catharine?

Cat:  Sure thing. I feel like I’ve kind of already made my opinion evident by now. By no means was this a bad or not entertaining movie, but it feels like there are elements about it that can make it a bit...boring? I don’t really know if boring’s the right word; it might be more accurate to say that this feels like a very “standard” mystery movie. You sort of know what you’re going to be in store for within the first fifteen to twenty minutes or so, and the movie very much follows those expectations. For me, at least. But, there were still very enjoyable elements to it, like some good comedy between Watson and Lestrade. It didn’t necessarily “make” the movie for me, but it kept it fun and entertaining enough to still make it enjoyable. What’s your take on this, Nick?

Nick: As a fan of “standard” mysteries (I love Agatha Christie), this one was a little disappointing. The repetitive nature of the movie just takes out a lot of the excitement and - while there is promise in the premise - there is a lot of padding to flesh this out to a full length film. There is a certain amount of inventiveness in the story (the final reveal is especially good) and I do like the orange pip motif. There’s also something almost tangibly horrific in the gruesome deaths of the Good Comrades (I liken the mood to The Scarlet Claw). But, a good concept simply couldn’t sustain this movie all the way through. By no means bad, but I think the definition of a mediocre mystery film. What would your deerstalker rating be?

Cat: I almost feel bad saying this, but I think I have to go with a 3.5. Basing my rating on how much it captured my interest and how likely it’d be for me to rewatch the movie on my own (which is my typical criteria), this one kinda missed the mark for me. It’s really, really not bad, it just didn’t totally grab me. What’s your deerstalker rating?

Nick: I too would give it a 3.5 out of 5. There is nothing wrong with a 3.5 in my mind. The House of Fear is a good Sherlock Holmes movie, but it lacks something special. I agree; this is one which I do not often find myself coming back to.

This review marks our tenth experiment as part of The Great Sherlock Holmes Experiment. As something of a minor milestone, we hope that you have enjoyed these reviews/discussions as much as we have had making them. Join us next time when the game will - as always - be afoot.

Nick's Rating

Catharine's Rating

Next Time: Things get dark...really dark