GREAT BRITONS PETER CUSHING ROYAL MAIL POSTAGE STAMP COMPETITION!

COMPETITION OPEN NOW! 

Here's your chance to win a set of the limited issue, Royal Mail 'Great Briton's Postage Stamps' that were issued last year. We have THREE sets to give away as prizes!

THE QUESTIONS:

1) Director Terence Fisher shot test footage of the Hound with children performers in smaller versions of Christopher Lee's and Peter Cushing's costumes, to try and make the appearance of the 'Hound' look bigger! TRUE OR FALSE?

2) The 'HOUND' was played by a Great Dane. His name was:
a) Trooper
b) Colonel
c) Major
d) Bonzo

3) Complete this line of Sherlock Holmes dialogue from the film: ' My professional charges are on a fixed scale, I do not vary them, except.....

4) The 'HOUND' wore a prosthetic mask, to enlarge his head and make his appearance more frightening. WHO made that mask?

5) Location work for the climax of Hammer films, The Hound of the Baskervilles, was actually shot on the moors of Dartmoor. TRUE or FALSE?

6) Actress MARLA LANDI played Cecile Stapleton, and was recommended for the role by Peter Cushing, after he spotted her in a film. TRUE or FALSE?

7) Hammer films, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' was the second version of the film to be shot in colour.
TRUE or FALSE?

8) THE interior set of Baskerville Hall is actually the redressed set of Castle Dracula from 'Dracula , Prince of Darkness'. TRUE or FALSE?

9) According to uncredited producer Kenneth Hyman, from Warner Brothers, The Hound of the Baskervilles was made with a budget of approximately:
a) £35,000
b) £56,000
c) £92,000
d) £73,000

10) Andre Morell who played Dr Watson, appeared in how many feature films with Peter Cushing?

WHO CAN ENTER?:
As with ALL our PCASUK competitions, this competition is open to everyone! Even if you are not a 'follower' of this website.

YOUR ENTRY:
PLEASE SEND your answers to theblackboxclub@gmail.com ANY entries posted onto the comments feed will be deleted and not counted as an entry.

DEADLINE:
ALL entries must be in by the closing date of this competition: 9PM GMT TUESDAY JULY 22ND. The winners names will announced here on the pcasuk facebook page on WEDNESDAY JULY 23RD 10PM GMT.

Have Fun and Good Luck!

HOW SHERLOCK GOT THE BURNS IN HIS DRESSSING GOWN: THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES

Peter Cushing on his methodical preparation in playing Sherlock Holmes. With the majority of roles that Peter played throughout his long career, this attention to detail, was not unusual....

ANDRE MORELL AND PETER CUSHING: HOLMES AND WATSON: THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES: STILLS GALLERY AND REVIEW

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.

'HEAR NOW, THE LEGEND OF THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES' PETER CUSHING, ANDRE MORELL : SHERLOCK HOLMES : HAMMER FILMS GALLERY AND REVIEW

Considering that I like the character of Sherlock Holmes so much, it may come as some surprise that I’ve never read a word of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original stories. My first, and most extensive, contact with Sherlock Holmes comes from the films starring Basil Rathbone as the world’s greatest detective and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson. I’m aware that the performances these two gave, and the stories they were involved in, varied (sometimes greatly) from the source material, but I like them all the same.

Because I’m so familiar with the Basil Rathbone versions, it’s always interesting when I get to see another actor’s take on Holmes and another set of filmmakers’ approach to the same basic material. Consequently, when the Hammer Films version of The Hound of the Baskervilles aired on MGM HD — an almost, but not quite, variation on Turner Classic Movies — I jumped at the chance. I happen to have a fondness for Hammer productions, so this was a two-fer.

Hammer is known primarily for its horror output (all those Dracula movies foremost among them), so The Hound of the Baskervilles is something different. It still has a quasi-Gothic feel to it — it takes place primarily in a manor house on a moor, after all — so it’s not as divergent from Hammer’s usual product as all that, but it lacks any supernatural elements and is, basically, a straight-up Sherlock Holmes movie with a few Hammer touches.

The Hound of the Baskervilles has been made into a movie 24 times, so I’m going to lay odds you’ve seen at least one version at some time in your life. Accuracy to the source material varies, I’m sure, so arguments can be made about which is more faithful, but for me these kinds of things boil down to who’s playing Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. I’ve already told you that I favor Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, but in this film we have Peter Cushing and André Morell.

First a quick word about Peter Cushing. I have seen him in other things, most notably as various Van Helsings and Frankensteins in Hammer Films’ other type of movies. Despite all this, the very first thing I think of when I see Peter Cushing is Star Wars. I know it’s unfair to boil an actor down to a single role like that, and it’s equally unfair to Alec Guinness, who likewise had a long and varied career, but Peter Cushing equals Grand Moff Tarkin in my mind. As a result, he had a tough row to hoe when it came to winning me over as Holmes. It may surprise you that it didn’t take long.

Peter Cushing makes a really excellent Sherlock Holmes, and he went on to play the character many times afterward, so I’m not the only one who thought so. He has the almost sneering air of superiority about him that Basil Rathbone did so well, while remaining just likable enough in his brilliance that we can still root for him as the hero. Equally important, André Morell acquits himself quite well as Dr. Watson, something that’s absolutely essential in The Hound of the Baskervilles because Holmes is offscreen for fully one half of the picture.

Morell’s depiction of Watson is completely absent the lovable buffoonery that marks Nigel Bruce’s portrayals of the character and is more in line with (as I understand) his literary roots. Let us not forget that Watson is a decorated war veteran and, while he may not be as gifted intellectually as Holmes, is a medical doctor and partner to the detective. In the whole of this The Hound of the Baskervilles he does precisely one silly thing, which serves as foreshadowing for the demise of one of the other characters.

Story-wise there are differences between this film and the other with which I’m familiar. I consider these the Hammer touches. For example: the Baskerville family apparently suffers under a curse brought upon them by the excesses of an ancestor. In The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939), this information in shared with the audience via good, old-fashioned exposition. In this The Hound of the Baskervilles, we get a prologue set well into the past, where Sir Hugo Baskerville holds a wild party in which murder and rape are on the menu. This is the kind of thing that set Hammer Films apart from, say, Universal’s horror output: the willingness to push the envelope and even feature some (brilliantly colored) blood.

This Hound turns a supporting character into a sultry Spanish temptress, the better to feature her exposed legs and bare feet and bosom to the audience for their titillation, no pun intended. Another supporting character has a grotesque webbed hand. I’m not saying the old Rathbone pictures didn’t have good-looking women in them, or characters with weird traits, but they weren’t quite so in-your-face as these examples are. The difference between making movies in the ’30s versus the ’50s, I expect.

There’s a nice bit of cultural shorthand in The Hound of the Baskervilles that is likewise appropriate to a Hammer film. Christopher Lee — looking tanned, handsome and very aristocratic — plays Sir Henry Baskerville, the latest heir to the Baskerville manor and fortune. While he’s unfailingly polite and gentlemanly, he finds himself nearly out of control with sexual desire when it comes to the aforementioned Spanish temptress, the daughter of one of his neighbors. He presses his sexual attraction on her without an ounce of shame, calling back to a time when the aristocracy were essentially masters of all they surveyed, including the “little people.”

With some exceptions, the mystery plays out pretty much the same as it does in the Rathbone version. I won’t spoil you with the solution to the curse, even though you’ve had over 100 years to read it (I still haven’t), but I will say that the Hammer Films approach to the climax is more violent and, in its way, mean-spirited than the way they handled things in 1939. I’m not saying this is necessarily worse, only that it’s different.

You should check out The Hound of the Baskervilles for a few reasons, including a rare chance to see Christopher Lee playing a good-guy role, and Peter Cushing essaying Sherlock Holmes. The stage-bound, colorful images are an added treat, being as much a Hammer signature as the heaving breasts and blood.

Maybe I’ll actually read the novel now.

REVIEW: Sam Hawken
IMAGES: Marcus Brooks

COMING SOON!

COMING SOON: HEAR FROM THE WOMAN WHO MADE THE HOUNDS MASK ...MARGARET ROBINSON, WIFE OF HAMMER FILMS PRODUCTION DESIGNER, BERNARD ROBINSON, IN A 1980 INTERVIEW ON THE BLACKBOXCLUB.COM PODCAST SOON!