Back in 2002 and 2004, the BBC commissioned two Sherlock Holmes adventures featuring Ian Hart as Dr Watson. The first, an adaptation of The Hound of the Baskervilles in 2002 starring Richard Roxburgh. The second, The Case of the Silk Stocking in 2004 starring Rupert Everett. I’m not sure why they kept the same Watson while changing the lead actor, given that Ian Hart wasn’t the best thing about the 2002 film and Rupert Everett was possibly the worst thing about the 2004 film.
Anyway, last evening the cable channel Drama broadcast The Hound of the Baskervilles in a two-hour slot with adverts. My memory of both films were not favourable. I had memories of a dislikeable Watson, an awful Sherlock Holmes, non-canonical story devices such as excess recreational drug use by Holmes, and what seemed to be anachronistic characters (such as a professional female psychologist).
I’ve always hesitated to rewatch these BBC offerings because of those memories but, last night, I relented – primarily because we’ve since had Sherlock, a modern interpretation that varies wildly from source. With the intention of challenging my memory and a wish to discover when the BBC gave up their long history of successful Sherlock Holmes productions, I tuned in to The Hound of The Baskervilles.
I shan’t go into any great details of the story here because everyone who wants to know the story has surely either read it or watched at least one film/TV version. Suffice to say that Sir Henry Baskerville is returning to claim his ancestral seat following the mysterious death of Sir Charles. The family is believed to be cursed by a devilish hound that has plagued the Baskerville family for many years. Does the curse truly exist, or is there something even more devilish afoot?
Almost immediately, you’re put on the back foot as you’re presented with the cast list and having to peer beyond John Nettles’ alarming array of facial hair, and you spend much time trying to convince yourself that you’re not really watching Barnaby or Bergerac. The film opens at the coroner’s inquest that’s looking into Sir Charles’ death, and it’s clear that not everyone is being truly open about what might have happened. Dr Mortimer (Nettles) sticks to the facts for fear of being discredited if he reveals what else he saw that night.
Once you can look beyond the stunt casting, you’re wrapped in excellent production values and good performances from all involved. It feels, from these opening scenes, that you’re watching a quality production that’s being taken very seriously.
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson are introduced in a scene very unlike any I’ve seen in any previous Hound version. Rather than being at home with Holmes challenging Watson to deduce the owner of a walking stick, this version opens with Holmes and Watson half-dressed in a sauna with Holmes telling Watson that he has an appointment later that day with Mortimer. This scene is the first of a few at the start of the film that feels like it’s put in just to make it different, for the writer/director to stamp their mark on the production, rather than for adding anything to the actual story. There’s no Sherlock-esque hint of the characters being gay, fortunately, but it does feel very incongruous.
Shortly after the meeting with Dr Mortimer, while Holmes is deciding whether he’ll take the case, there’s a scene suggesting recreational drug use by Holmes – which goes against the original character in which Holmes’ drug use was solely when he had nothing to occupy his mind. While it could be said that he hadn’t yet decided to take the case, his mind would have been very occupied with all that Mortimer had imparted. Like the sauna scene, then, this moment feels like it’s been inserted for no logical reason. Perhaps the writer or director was using Basil Rathbone’s version of The Hound of the Baskervilles as his source material, rather than the Conan Doyle book? If so, it doesn’t work.
With both the sauna scene and the drug scene being so early in our introduction to Richard Roxburgh’s Holmes, it’s as though they’re trying to make us dislike the character from the very start. I’m sure this is something that happened when first broadcast because, other than these two scenes, Roxburgh’s Holmes is actually quite compelling.
It’s a sad fact that, with all versions of The Hound of the Baskervilles, Sherlock himself is missing for the vast middle section of the story. This version is no different. We’re left to rely on Dr Watson to guide us through the procedings. It wouldn’t be unfair to say that The Hound of the Baskervilles relies heavily on the character of Watson and the actor that plays him and, in this version, we don’t get much of an understanding of what Holmes is doing in the meantime.
Back in 2002, Ian Hart seemed far too young to play Dr Watson but, oddly, today he doesn’t. In 2002, we were used to slightly older characters – Watson was always a mature character, as were our other heroes like Doctor Who. Today, TV is obsessed with youth and it’s hard to consider Ian Hart too young when he was the same age in his first outing as Martin Freeman was in his, and he was a good few years older than Benedict Cumberbatch was as Sherlock in his first outing. So the age aspect doesn’t really hold back his character as it once did. That’s something that’s improved with time.
What hasn’t really improved is Hart’s inconsistency with the character. He goes from a wallflower that’s happy to do what he’s told to arguing over the unarguable at the click of a switch. The character doesn’t feel like Dr Watson. Oddly, he fits right in when the body of Seldon is examined in the mortuary. When he disappears into the background, he’s okay. He’s only an issue when he has to take charge of a scene and “be” Dr Watson.
Unlike most versions of Hound, Watson doesn’t take the lion’s share of the story here – which is probably fortunate given Hart’s interpretation of the character. We see him writing to Holmes, but we have no notion of what he’s written. We don’t see him post the letters, or do much investigating of his own. Nor does he keep reminding Sir Henry of Holmes’ warning not to go out on the moor after dark. It’s hard to know what he’s there for.
It may seem that there’s little to recommend in this version of the story, but that would be the wrong assumption. The Hound of the Baskervilles works very effectively in this version, due primarily to the supporting cast taking the whole thing very seriously and Roxburgh being a largely inoffensive Sherlock Holmes. Everyone from John Nettles as Mortimer to Richard E Grant as Stapleton and including the rest of the supporting cast, makes this a production to be proud of. Grant’s Stapleton is both charming and unsettling at the same time – sadly, most of his menacing scenes were cut out from this latest cable broadcast which makes it difficult to get a feel for how nasty the character really is.
Miss Stapleton is played excellently by Neve McIntosh and it’s easy to see how Baskerville could fall so quickly for someone both beautiful and feminine (although how she got hooked to Stapleton in the first place is more of a mystery). I’ve just discovered that McIntosh plays Madame Vastra in modern Doctor Who these days – a character I really dislike, that I find thoroughly unconvincing and, to top it all, they put an alien mask over her wonderfully evocative features. You truly wouldn’t think they were the same actress.
The Barrymores are played by Ron Cook and Liza Tarbuck. Other than Mrs Barrymore being a bit too insolent for a servant in those days, both play their characters well. Unfortunately for them, their characters are not written well. Rather than being the loyal servants of the original story that have a secret to hide from Sir Henry, and who thank him for his faith with renewed commitment and further loyalty, the Barrymores in this version feel at ease with lying to Sir Henry. They concoct a fictious tale of Barrymore being unfaithful to his wife. They lie to him at every availability and, when the lies are revealed, Sir Henry doesn’t do anything about it. Odd given that, previously, he attacked Barrymore and then threatened to sack him (which he apparently didn’t do) when he believed Barrymore was betraying him.
Deviating from the original story, as many versions have done, there’s no mention of Laura Lyons or the litigious Franklin. That whole thread of the story is gone – as it was in the Hammer version back in the 50s. Almost as though in keeping with the Rathbone version (as the needle scene was earlier), there’s a seance seen with Mortimer’s wife apparently being a medium. This scene doesn’t feature in the original story but was included in the Rathbone version to add in a creepily atmospheric scare. The scene serves the same purpose here in which, during the seance, the Hound attacks the house and attempts to break in through the window (it’s gone when Watson gets outside). The lack of a proper explanation of how the Hound vanished so obediently at this point shows up the scene for what it was – an obvious “scare the b*ggers to death” moment.
The Hound itself is largely CGI, thus avoiding the pitfalls of dressing up a tail-wagging Great Dane. This works and doesn’t work at the same time. Some of the scenes of it chasing Sir Henry did feel quite dramatic, sadly let down by the knowledge that it wasn’t really real. The scene also lost out at the hands of the scissor-happy censor as we miss the actual moment of attack – just like previously when we didn’t see how much carnage the Hound had inflicted on Seldon until he was cleaned up on the mortuary slab.
Danny Webb makes an eleventh hour appearance as Lestrade, who is competent enough in that he hardly does anything.
Overall, this isn’t a bad version of The Hound of the Baskervilles. Other than some relatively minor niggles, an annoying Watson, and some deviation from the source material, the production values stand up superbly well and the acting is largely of a very high quality and quite convincing for the most part.
At this point I feel I must apologise for having previously misjudged Richard Roxburgh’s outing as Sherlock Holmes. Perhaps perceptions change over the years and what might once have looked inferior when compared with superior predecessors now looks excellent compared to some that have come after it. I would much rather watch this The Hound of the Baskervilles again than another outing for Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman.
If you haven’t seen it before, I can only recommend that you give it a go. You will have seen worse. It may be shown again on cable/satellite – check out the channel “Drama” – although the censorship edits do not help it.