Der Hund von Baskerville

Der Hund von Baskerville (1937)

*** (out of 4)

Sherlock Holmes (Bruno Guttner) and Dr. Watson (Fritz Odemar) have to investigate the murder of Lord Baskerville and the fact that it might have been done by a large beast.

DER HUND VON BASKERVILLE is an early sound adaptation of the Arthur Conan Doyle novel and while it's certainly not as good as the Hollywood version that was made with Basil Rathbone, it's still quite good on its own terms and if you're a fan of the story then you'll want to check it out. Of course, it's place in history will always be due to the fact that a print of it was found in the bunker where Adolf Hitler killed himself.

The print I watched was in German without any English subtitles but if you're familiar with the story then it's not too hard to follow. What makes this version so good was the visual look of it. I was really impressed with how the film looked and I really enjoyed the darkness to it. The film was shot very dark but it looks beautiful as the B&W cinematography really jumps off the screen. Director Karel Lamac has no problem building up a nice atmosphere and this certainly helps.

Another plus is the fact that both Guttner and Odemar are so good in the roles. In my opinion no one will ever beat the Basil Rathbone- Nigel Bruce teaming but this duo were quite good as were the supporting players. The ending packs a nice punch and at just 75- minutes the film moves extremely well. Without subtitles I was obviously unable to follow the dialogue but the story itself pretty much follows the story as you'd expect.

There must be so many different versions of this classic tale, just discovered this one, Der Hund Von Baskerville online and it was fairly enjoyable. It did seem a little strange seeing it in German but thankfully it came with English subtitles. Nicely shot, acting seemed ok and some atmosphere. The musical composition Night on Bald Mountain is used effectively several times. Nowhere near as good as either the Basil Rathbone or Hammer versions though.

During the 30ies, Czech director Carl Lamac directed a number of mystery-thrillers in Germany; most of them being adaptations of the works of Edgar Wallace - like "Der Zinker" or "Der Hexer" - and most of them featuring the great Fritz Rasp among the villains. Unlike Fritz Rasp, who had a big comeback after the war in Germany's successful Edgar-Wallace-murder-mysteries of the 60ies, Carl Lamac never received the appreciation he deserved.

"Der Hund von Baskerville" is one of his best films. It takes a lot of liberty with the original story; and it is not set at the end of the Victorian era, but in contemporary present. Actually, this is very usual for any Holmes-adaption of that period or before - ask Roy William Neill about that.

Yet, to be honest, Bruno Güttner as Holmes IS a problem. And I respect the many good reasons why most of the real Holmes-Fans will not be able to accept him as the "real" Holmes whom they know and love. To make it short, Güttner's Holmes is anything but "canonical". Pretty much like Margaret Rutherford's interpretation of Agatha Christie's "Miss Marple", he has absolutely nothing in common with the character presented in the books. Well, all three are creative thinkers, and that's the way how they solve the crime - as it should be. But: like Mrs. Rutherford, Bruno Güttner portrays a PROLETARIAN character. He does not "deduct", he "kombiniert"; a much less sophisticated and much more common (German) expression pretty well fitting the character Güttner portrays: he wears a sailor's overall instead of the Inverness-cape, and instead of the deerstalker a workers cap which actually was a very common peace of cloth in Berlin during the period. Obviously, the Germans did not get the message: the "real", canonical Holmes as described by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is neither common nor proletarian. He'd never wear a common cap, if not for disguise.

Anyway, this was the way the Germans saw or wanted to see the character. Hans Albers' Wannabe-Holmes from the great comedy-masterpiece "Der Mann der Sherlock Holmes war" looks almost the same. It is the way Holmes was portrayed in a series of German pulp-fiction-novels "Aus den Geheimakten des Weltdetektivs" written before the 1st World War and reissued some time after it. (You can see many of those during the opening credits of "Der Mann der Sherlock Holmes war".) Few Germans could have told you the difference between German Pulp-Holmes and Conan Doyle's.

But, taken as a mystery-thriller with creepy atmosphere and some inventive and effective studio-shots, it is a good movie nevertheless. Like Fritz Lang's "Das Testament des Dr. Mabuse", it is a thriller in the best tradition of the German silent-movie-expressionism, which has influenced about every important American Horror-movie of the 30ies, 40ies and 50ies, containing its typical effects of light, fog and shadow - and, taken just as a thriller, the Bruce-Rathbone-version does not compete with it.

Erich Ponto from Carol Reed's "The Third Man" remains in my mind as the best Stapleton I have ever seen (despite of William Shatner J), and Fritz Rasp gives a real creepy performance as the servant Barrymore.

(In the German version of 1929, the last silent "Baskerville" ever made, Fritz Rasp had played Stapleton instead. By the way, I don't understand, how that 1929 version got a 2-star-rating, or any rating at all. Actually, it is still reported to be lost, so, pray tell me, WHERE THE HELL IS THE SENSE OF RATING A MOVIE THAT DOES NOT EXIST? And how can you possibly rate a movie, that does not exist any more except you had gone to hell and watched it there? Well, why don't you just stay and save yourself the long way back there?)

I watched this in German with out subtitles so some of this was tough going.

Actually the film isn't bad, the problem is that its a 75 minute film where Holmes and Watson don't show up for 26 minutes. This isn't bad, but if you're watching this and not understanding the language the fact that most of the first half hour is simply people talking in a room makes it very very difficult to follow whats going on. Just before Holmes arrives you get out of the room and its more than people talking so you can begin to be able to follow the plot, assuming you do know the story.

This is a good version of the story, one that I plan on trying again another time, starting 25 minutes in, I don't want my experience tainted by the long talk.

If you get a chance to see it, preferably with subtitles, by all means do watch it. Even with out subtitles its worth a shot, just zip through the first 25 minutes on scan.

A most pleasingly atmospheric rendition of the tale, noirishly photographed and moodily set, this is the version which probably would have delighted Conan Doyle the most. There is one important plot change which enables the beautiful Alice Brandt to enjoy both a larger role and a more intriguing part in the proceedings. This change also builds up the parts of Dr Mortimer and Lord Charles, yet at the same time provides a nice introduction to the is-he-sinister or is-he-a-good-guy Barrymore, deftly played here by Fritz Rasp.

Despite the sting of its well-developed story, the spellbindingly atmospheric direction and the engrossing performances delivered by the entire cast, many fans may find this version somewhat disappointing. For at least three reasons: As in the novel, the part played in the narrative by Sherlock Holmes, though vital, is minimal. And in this version, not only has no attempt been made to enlarge his role, if anything both writer and director do their best to minimize it. Holmes does not even make his entrance for half-an-hour, and when he does finally appear, he has his back to the camera. It is Fritz Odemar, as Dr Watson, who receives the more favorable camera angles. And there is a purpose in this. It is Watson, not Holmes, who figures as the main protagonist of The Hound of the Baskervilles. For the bulk of the narrative, Holmes disappears. It is Watson and Lord Henry (Peter Voss) who take up the running. The movie is almost over, before Holmes closes in on the villain. And even so, this is not the obsessed, self-important Holmes we are accustomed to see taking charge. Another problem is that the title hound itself does not figure a great deal in the action, a downgrading which will undoubtedly rate as another major disappointment for fans. And finally, it could be argued that the script gives too much attention to Conan Doyle's red herring, the escaped convict, and not enough to the real villain.

This said, it must surely be admitted by all, that Odemar's interpretation of Watson—intelligent, charming, level-headed, courageous and resourceful—is much closer to Conan Doyle's conception than either the bungling, inveterately stupid Nigel Bruce or the self-effacing Ian Fleming.

One other player deserves special mention: Erich Ponto (Dr Winkel in The Third Man) who seems exactly right for Stapleton. A difficult part, superbly played.