
 
Following
 the success of The Curse of        Frankenstein and     
   Dracula, Hammer Studios decided to turn their attention to the       
 work of Sir        Arthur Conan Doyle.  In        keeping 
with the        tone of their recent films, their choice of The Hound of
 the        Baskervilles        seemed a solid concept.  Certainly      
  it was        the most famous of Doyle’s many Sherlock Holmes stories,
 and it        was arguably        also the one that was best suited to 
feature length adaptation.  On
 top of that, it had a        macabre component –        even if the 
inevitable intervention of logic would render its        supernatural   
     elements easily explained by the master
 sleuth by the time the        film faded to        black.  The casting 
of        Peter Cushing
 as        Holmes was a given, even if Hammer executive James Carreras’ 
assertion        that he would be the screen’s first 
“sexy” Holmes remains highly        questionable.  Had the 
       film been made a        few years later, it would not be 
inconceivable to picture Holmes        as being        played by 
Christopher Lee (who would indeed later essay the role        several 
times,        beginning with the bizarre West German production Sherlock
        Holmes and the        Deadly Necklace, 1962, directed by Terence
 Fisher), with Cushing        supporting as        Dr. Watson.  In
 1958,        however, Lee was        only beginning to establish a name
 for himself, whereas Cushing        was more of a        proven 
quantity.

 
Sensibly        realizing that        Lee was too young and too 
imposing to play Holmes’ right hand        man and        confidante, 
Dr. John Watson, he was instead given a chance at        playing the 
romantic        lead, a bit of casting which Lee openly relished; he 
would        therefore become one        of the few actors to lend much 
in the way of presence and color        to the usually        disposable
 role of Sir Henry Baskerville.         To play Dr. Watson, Hammer turned to veteran actor Andre        Morell.  Morell
 was known        as a prickly sort, given to        speaking his mind, 
and he and Lee apparently did not hit it off        at all – but neither
        ever made much of a commentary on this, leading one to suspect  
      that perhaps        they were simply too similar in disposition.         Happily,
 no such conflict would come into play with        Morell’s       
 relationship with Cushing – they had already acted together in        
the        controversial, Nigel Kneale-scripted adaptation of George    
    Orwell’s 1984 (1954)        for the BBC , and following        
Hound, they would        appear in Cash on Demand (1960), Cone of 
Silence (1960) and She        (1964).  Sadly, however,     
   this would mark their one and        only outing as Holmes and Watson
 – while Cushing would go on to        play the role        many more 
times (always on TV, it should be noted), Morell’s        association 
with        the world of Conan Doyle would begin and end on Hound.

 
The film itself is a problematic one, and        this is down more        to the screenplay than anything else.         While
 some Hammer fans have praised scenarist Peter Bryan        for        
structuring the film so that it would
 have some consistency with        the “sins of        the fathers” 
motif that was so common in Hammer horror (and in        British horror 
       in general, if truth be told), it seems to this writer that his  
      attempts to “Hammerize”        the material results in a film that
 sits unsteadily between two        different        styles of 
filmmaking.  The        more        sensational elements 
feel rather grafted on, while the mystery        angle becomes        
negligible in the bargain.  Viewers unacquainted        
with Conan Doyle’s story might hope to have some sense of        
surprise        when the killer is finally unmasked, but thanks to the 
heavy        handed approach,        there’s never any real doubt as to 
“who done it.”  As such, the film fails as        a 
mystery, and        while there are token gestures towards the horror 
crowd, it’s a        little too tame        and
 restrained to really work on that level, either.

 
Director Terence Fisher does manage a        tremendous set piece 
       at the beginning, however, as he details the cruelty of Sir      
  Henry’s infamous        ancestor, Sir Hugo (David Oxley).         Oxley
        tears into his role with ferocious abandon, teerting on the     
   verge of camp        overstatement yet remaining a credible villain.         His
 presence is sorely missed when the film switches to        the present 
day,        with Ewen Solon’s sour-faced Stapleton proving to be a dull 
and        rather listless        villain.  Fisher and     
   cinematographer Jack        Asher work hard to create a sense of 
menace on the moors, but        the cramped        production values 
sometimes conspire against their efforts.  Hammer’s use of 
standing  
      sets was beginning        to show through at this juncture, though
 Hammer’s great        production designer,        Bernard Robinson, 
certainly does what he can to disguise the        subterfuge.  With
 James        Bernard’s music booming away, it’s        clear that this 
Hound is meant to be as scary as their previous        Dracula and      
  Frankenstein pictures – but it never quite catches fire.

 
One would be hard pressed to fault Hammer for        their casting        of Cushing and Morell, however.         Cushing’s
        hawk-like visage and thin frame made him ideal casting, though  
      his average stature is rather unfairly shown up by Fisher on      
  occasion – when playing scenes        opposite very tall men like Lee 
and Francis De Wolff (as the        sour-pussed Dr.        Mortimer), it
 would have made better
 sense to minimize this, but        Fisher elects        to have the 
other actors towering over Cushing, who has little        choice but to 
       look up at his co-stars when he should be firmly in control of   
     the scene.  Cushing’s        devotion to the role was 
absolute,        and he added bits of business straight from Conan 
Doyle, as well        as from Sidney        Paget’s famed illustrations 
from the original Strand Magazine        publications of        the 
stories.  He brings        intensity to the        role, but he does sometimes rely too much on favored mannerisms.  There
 are moments when his        decision to        emphasize the 
character’s theatricality verges on ham acting,        but he manages to
        convey the character’s aloof nature and addiction to cocaine    
    without becoming        as over the top as Jeremy Brett would later 
be in the rightly        celebrated       
 Granada TV adaptations of the Conan Doyle canon.  It is a 
performance that        compares favorably        with Basil Rathbone’s 
iconic, possibly definitive, portrayal for        Fox and        
Universal in the 1930s and 1940s, but he would arguably grow        into
 the role and        play it with greater subtly and effectiveness when 
he took over        the deer        stalker from Douglas Wilmer for the 
BBC         television series of the 1960s.

 
Morell’s
 challenge was arguably greater, in        that the 
character        of Dr. Watson had been reduced to the level of 
caricature        courtesy of Nigel        Bruce’s portrayal opposite 
Basil Rathbone in the afore-mentioned        series of        films.  
Make
 no mistake,        Bruce was a        charming and engaging performer, 
and his blustery portrayal had   
     tremendous        chemistry opposite Rathbone’s aloof and somewhat 
acerbic master        detective, but        it was a portrayal that was 
far removed from Conan Doyle.  In the stories, Watson is   
     really the author’s        mouthpiece, and it is he who narrates 
the action and fills the        reader in on the        characters and 
their motivations.         Far        from being comedy 
relief, Watson is a solid, dependable medical        man with a        
military background; he may seem “dim” compared to Holmes, but        
that’s merely        because Holmes represents a kind of intellectual 
ideal.  Watson is the everyman, and        Morell’s        
interpretation is faithful to this conception.         Morell resists 
the urge to play up the comedy, though he        does have a few        
moments of subtle humor along the way.

 
It
 is, in short, an ideal pairing of two fine        actors – and 
it        is this, above anything else, that makes Hammer’s Hound linger
        in memory.  Cushing’s        wound up, energetic 
portrayal        contrasts nicely with Morell’s more restrained 
approach, and the        two men        clearly have genuine respect and
 affection for each other.  They make a wonderful team,    
    though other        vehicles – notably Cash on Demand and 1984 – 
would play them off        as        rivals.  It’s to be   
     regretted that Hound        was something of a flop at the box 
office, as this killed off a        potential        series of 
Cushing/Morell/Hammer Holmes adaptations.  Had they had a chance to     
   grow into the roles        and establish more audience familiarity, 
it’s possible that       
 Cushing and Morell        would have eclipsed Rathbone and Bruce in the
 mind of the        public.  As
 it stands,        however, we only have this one,        flawed vehicle
 to judge them from – and if the film itself has        problems, 
there’s        little doubt that the two actors acquitted themselves    
    beautifully and were        determined to remain as faithful as 
possible to Conan Doyle’s        original        conception.  For this  
      reason alone, the Hammer        Hound remains an essential entry 
in the Holmes on film canon.
