Original title: Der Hund von Baskerville
The Germans seem to have, at one time, loved The Hound of the Baskervilles. The very first screen version of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s novel was made by the Union-Vitascope company as a seven-part series between 1914 and 1920 (Der Hund von Baskerville (1914), Das einsame Haus (1914), Das unheimliche Zimmer (1915) and Die Sage vom Hund von Baskerville (1915), all directed by Richard Oswald with Alwin Neuß as Sherlock Holmes; Das dunkle Schloß (1915 and) Dr. MacDonalds Sanitorium (1920) directed by Willy Zeyn with Erich Kaiser-Titz taking over the lead role; and finally Das Haus ohne Fenster (1920) directed by Max Greenbaum Jr), and Richard Oswald returned to direct a silent version in 1929. German television broadcast a version in August 1955 and between them lay this brisk and oddly structured 1937 version from director Karel Lamac, using the name Carl Lamac. It was inevitably eclipsed by the success of Twentieth Century Fox’s version starring Basil Rathbone just two years later though it gained some notoriety in later years when it was revealed that it was one of two films (the other being Karl Hartl’s Der Mann, der Sherlock Holmes war (1937)) found in the Führerbunker after Adolf Hitler committed suicide.
The film takes an unusual approach to the film, unpacking the back story and presenting it all in chronological order. Thus for the first 25 minutes or so we get to see Lord Hugo Baskerville (Artur Malkowski)’s appalling actions that initiate the “curse” in the first place, see the death of Lord Charles (Friedrich Kayssler) and the arrival in Britain of Lord Henry (Peter Voss) and his receipt of the warning note made from letters clipped from a newspaper before get a full rundown on the Barrymores (Fritz Rasp and Lilli Schönborn, the former having played Stapleton in the 1929 version) and their family problems, all before we finally get to meet Holmes (Bruno Güttner) and Watson (Fritz Odemar). After that the film settles down to the familiar order of events – minus the flashbacks and some of Holmes’ explanations of course and in a contemporary late 1930s setting – before a climactic encounter with a surprisingly furry hound.
It’s not just the order of the story that’s likely to catch seasoned Holmesians off guard – it’s Holmes’ bizarre appearance. Güttner has the tall, gaunt look we expect but someone had the odd notion that he would look good in a turtleneck sweater and leather greatcoat (he doesn’t). He’s a rather undistinguished Holmes and the film seems to be have been his last – of just three productions he appeared in in two years. He joined the German army on the outbreak of war and died in France on 13 September 1945. None of the rest of the cast really shine either and it’s only Willy Winterstein’s moody black and white photography and Lamac’s often inventive direction that make any kind of impression. Paul Hühn’s non-descript score is frequently punctuated by extracts from Modest Mussorgsky’s Night on Bald Mountain, a rather grand piece for a film that often looks under-resourced and lacking in energy. The scenes on the moor use the obligatory banks of dry ice to obscure that fact that they were shot either in a studio or on an anonymous patch of scrubland, though art directors Willi Depenau and Karl Vollbrecht give the interiors a touch of class that must have stretched to the limit a budget that was surely rather limited.
Even at a frugal 80 minutes, this version of The Hound manages to outstay its welcome thanks to too much chat and not enough action, and crucially an almost entirely charisma-free Holmes and Watson. They could be any old pair of investigators to be fair with only the occasional Holmesian flourish from Güttner to remind us who it is we’re supposed to be watching. It’s not by any means the worst adaptation of The Hound ever committed to film but it is, at best, rather bland and undistinguished. The decision to switch the chronology of events around so drastically does it few favours as it takes what feels like an eternity for Holmes and Watson to arrive – and then when they do, they disappoint. See it for the direction and the often beautiful lighting but don’t expect too much of a film that doesn’t really seem to understand the whos, whys and whats of its main characters.
The EOFFTV Review 