The Hound of the Baskervilles
When reading various Sherlock Holmes stories last year, the most negative aspect that struck me was the relationship between Holmes and Watson. Holmes does all the thinking, Watson follows him around and doesn’t pick up on anything at all until the end, when Holmes describes in detail what’s been going on, whereupon Watson gushes about how damned clever his friend is and sits down to have tea. So the last thing I expected when watching The Hound of the Baskervilles was to enjoy Watson, with or without Holmes.
It was somewhat surprising then, to find that Watson, and his relationship with his mentor, was one of the most compelling aspects of this adaptation. While at first the redoubtable doctor (played by Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone‘s Ian Hart) seems a touch dry and boring next to Richard Roxburgh’s (Moulin Rouge) Holmes, he becomes more interesting for his journey to Dartmoor, and by the time the detective pair are reunited they are sparking off each other brilliantly. Certainly once Watson brings his anger to bear on Stapleton, the audience can’t help but love him. Of most interest is Watson’s criticism of Holmes’ methods, and the question of trust between the two men. It comes as a not unwelcome surprise for Watson to save the day at the very end, and for Holmes to depend on him.
Hound itself is not a straightforward Sherlock Holmes mystery by any means. Not even originally intended to feature the Great Detective, it is far closer to a gothic novel, into which Holmes wanders with his rationality and reason. Like the book, we skip vast chunks of detective work — when Holmes reappears, he brings with him a bunch of exposition and a knowledge of the wrongdoer that suddenly scuppers any tension in that regard. But this is made up for not only by what I’ve mentioned above, but also by the brilliant villain, Stapleton (Richard E. Grant).
A person writing into the Melbourne Age complained that Roxburgh and Grant had been cast in the wrong roles. I can’t fathom this for a second. Roxburgh’s Holmes is edgy, determined, yet vulnerable, with a slightly alien manner that both unsettles and charms. Meanwhile, Grant’s Stapleton is all open charm and eagerness, slightly childish, with a devilish yet real mean streak. Grant’s performance is nowhere more impressive than when he threatens his ‘sister’ outside Baskerville Hall. He is certainly a far more fearsome creature than the computer generated hound.
There are a few negative points — the aforementioned hound has the stupidest looking paw ever, for example. The portrait of Hugo Baskerville is so much like Richard E. Grant that it makes everyone — especially the late Sir Charles Baskerville — look incredibly moronic not to have spotted the resemblance. And the seance scene seems rather pointless. While it’s concievable that Stapleton simply wanted to scare Holmes, it seems a risk to frighten Henry Baskerville — the man Stapleton needs to be fearless enough to walk across the moor later.
But these are trifles. If there is a major fault to the adaptation, it is simply that it leaves us wanting more of Holmes and Watson. Sadly, there seems little chance of this for a while. We will however see Roxburgh at least as two more iconic literary figures on the big screen soon — Count Dracula and Dr James Moriarty…
911