Skip to main content

It means murder, Watson. Cold-blooded, refined, deliberate... murder.

The Hound of the Baskervilles
(1983)

(SPOILERS) The 1988 Jeremy Brett Hound of the Baskervilles was, sadly, an early sign his incarnation wasn't full proof, doubly disappointing because there was an expectation, based on previous form, that it might have been the telling of the tale. Luckily, there's another '80s TV version that's much more satisfying. Half a decade earlier, Douglas Hickox directed Ian Richardson in the latter's second, and alas final, Holmes outing. If The Sign of Four was merely adequate, in part due to the changes made to the story, Charles Edward Pogue furnishes Hound with several creative solutions to key challenges in adapting the material.


One thing I didn't recall from seeing this originally was how unrestrained the material is in places. Not in the gothic sense of the Hammer 1958 version (still one of the most satisfying), although the realisation of the 'orrible 'ound itself is appealingly fantastic – animated phosphorescence and striking glowing eyes – and the studio-created, fogbound Grimpin Mire of the climax is a marvellously evocative creation (cinematographer Ronnie Taylor won an Oscar for Gandhi the year before). No, I'm referring to the sexual and sadistic content. 


In an early scene, Dr Mortimer (Denholm Elliott, underutilised) recounts the legend of the hound as presented by cruel Hugo Baskerville, who takes off across the moor in pursuit of a serving wench. He proceeds to rape her, Hickox intercutting the act with a horse floundering in the mire, before the hound puts a stop to him. 


Later, Laura Lyons (Connie Booth), whose association with Sir Charles Baskerville was that of a full-blown affair in this version, is strangled in her bed while her drunken husband Geoffrey (an ever- explosive Brian Blessed, "cursed with a vision of genius and only a mediocre talent to express it") sleeps below. It's a particularly cold, unblinking fate, particularly given the way Holmes and Watson earlier exit the Lyons' abode with Geoffrey poised to inflict untold violence on her (for all they know), which doesn't seem very noble (Holmes' straightening of the poker Geoffrey has just bent is very nifty, however – taken from The Speckled Band).


LestradeHe isn't in one of his silly disguises, is he?

David Stuart Davies referred to the main weaknesses of this version as "the additions and infelicities introduced", but I'd argue such elements make frequently adapted texts the more interesting. As such, I consider the addition of Geoffrey Lyons generally a positive one – I mean, it's Brian Blessed! – even if Pogue never does enough to really make his presence an effective red herring, or to allow his framing for murder have an impact (he needs to speed on to the climax). 


Part of the problem in the suspects stakes may be that, very good though Nicholas Clay is as Hugo/Jack Stapleton (I can only assume, with Cherie Lunghi in The Sign of Four and Clay in this, that Sy Weintraub was a big fan of Excalibur – and why wouldn't he be? – although perhaps not enough to entice Nicol Williamson to play Holmes again), there isn't enough misdirection in the unfolding, such that we're in little danger of failing to observe that the man in Mortimer's story is very similar to the one making a pretence of butterfly hunting, and how the portrait on the wall resembles both (although, we're supposed to have caught up by that point). 


It doesn't help that the suspiciousness of Mr and Mrs Barrymore (Edward Judd and Eleanor Bron) has been reduced to the point of immateriality. I suspect, however, that there's intentional paralleling between the unrestrained frenzy of Hugo early on and Stapleton's gun-wielding attack on Holmes, Watson and Beryl Stapleton (Glynis Barber) at the climax.


Gypsy HolmesThe lady’s heart is burdened. Before her lies a difficult choice that in choosing has but one answer. Life and Death. Though in choosing death, she also chooses life. Though she cannot choose life without death. It is a choice with no choice. Yet she must choose. 

Pogue comes through with flying colours in filling the gap of the absent Holmes, however. Taking a leaf out of the peddler book from the Rathbone version, he goes a step further and includes the sleuth as a gypsy on the sides of the action, almost from when Watson arrives in Devonshire. While not as spooky as the séance in the Rathbone version, Pogue also adds a "supernatural" element in Holmes telling Beryl's fortune. Of course, he's wrapping his deductions in mystical language, but its nevertheless a curiously-motivated course, deceptively interposing himself between the woman and her fate and causing her great distress, essentially acting the puppeteer. To be so cavalier with consequences doesn't seem very in keeping with the generally warm-hearted Richardson characterisation, but that may be why it’s one of the most resonant scenes in the movie. 


Richardson noted of Pogue's dialogue that he "spent a great deal of time anglicising to make it sound like Conan Doyle" yet had to bow to certain Americanisms (smoking a "monstrosity like a meerschaum"), but there's little here that feels too wrong-footed. Neither Martin Shaw (who has been dubbed by an unnamed performer – Kerry Shale has been suggested) as Henry Baskerville nor Barber seem quite right in their roles, though, both looking as if they’re being dressed in period costumes rather than inhabiting their roles (Barber is also sporting a very '80s fake tan). 


Then there's Watson. Richardson was disapproving: "Churchill gave such a silly ass performance. He didn't give a damn about the part because it was just another job for him… Churchill's Watson was too common". There's definitely something of the buffer about Donald Churchill's performance – as there is about David Healey in Sign – a legacy of the defining Nigel Bruce incarnation, but I don't think he's nearly as disastrous as Richardson suggested. In part, both he and Healey are merely playing up Pogue's characterisation. More to the point, I just don't think Healey would work for this more action-orientated story. It needs someone who could conceivably be an ex-soldier, and convincingly shoot a convict or a hound. 


WatsonWere I the Notting Hill murderer, I should feel supremely confident with Inspector Lestrade bungling about.

I'm less convinced of Ronald Lacey as Lestrade, mainly because Lacey's too intelligent a performer to play an idiot entirely successfully. Thus, when Watson is one upping him, calling him an uncouth bounder or telling him to bugger off, or later when he reveals his scriptural knowledge, I'm more inclined to give Scotland Yard's finest the benefit of the doubt. 


HolmesBut without the imagination, Watson, there would be no horror.

Hickox does a stylish job, even if his peak period (Theatre of BloodSitting Target) was behind him. There's a curious choice of showing a glimpse of the very end of the film at the start (Holmes smiling as Henry and Beryl exit a room in Baskerville Hall together), while he generally knows how to step up the tension, the moors scenes proving particularly effective, avoiding a jarring sense of dislocation between the interiors and exteriors (by keeping the former at night and the latter in daylight). 


If you're thinking of picking up the Blu-rays of either of these Richardson Holmes releases, you might want to reconsider; the point of a 4K restoration is entirely defeated if you lose a third of the picture (they’ve been presented in widescreen, but clearly only the 4:3 prints were available). As for the David Stuart Davies commentaries, I'd recommend his starring Sherlock Holmes instead – a very good read. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .