Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
Today’s Subject, My 17th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Sir Henry Baskervilles, from The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959).
Hammer’s “Hound of the Baskervilles” is one of my two favorite cinematic treatments of the famous Sherlock Holmes story. (The other is the Basil Rathbone version, which came out twenty years earlier in 1939.) Much like our earlier entry, the Mummy, you can very much see this film as something of a stepping stone in Sir Christopher’s career: he doesn’t play the bad guy here, he's not a monster of any kind. In fact, in a very rare turn for Lee – even for this point in his career – he is the romantic leading man. In the film, Lee actually plays Sherlock Holmes’ client: a young British earl who returns to his ancestral home in the middle of Dartmoor after the mysterious death of his uncle. The estate is supposedly haunted by a demonic hound, seekin to destroy the young Sir Henry’s life.
I do want to say that it’s kind of funny this was the only Sherlock Holmes movie both Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee did together, as well as the first time either of them DID a Holmes related piece: Cushing would go on to play Holmes in a TV series and a TV film, while Lee would appear in two television films as the Great Detective, and as Mycroft Holmes in a theatrical release. Yet in their first and only outing together, Lee does not play Dr. Watson, nor even the villain of the story Holmes must conquer: he plays the victim, the guy Holmes and Watson have to save and assist. While this is probably one of history’s biggest missed opportunities (since Lee would have made a great Watson OR a great Professor Moriarty, in my opinion), I actually kind of like the fact that Lee’s role isn’t what you would have expected nowadays.
The reason Sir Henry Baskerville ranks so high is because, both for the time and even since then, this was not a role you usually saw Lee play. And he plays it brilliantly: his Sir Henry is my favorite take on the character, without question. He brings authority to the part that other versions of Henry lack, but he still has the necessary vulnerability and romantic sensitivity other incarnations have, as well. With other takes on Sir Henry, they sort of fade into the background while Holmes and Watson get all the fun, so to speak. Not so with Christopher Lee: his commanding presence allows him to stand up strong in the cast, and he, Holmes, and Watson almost feel like a proper trio, rather than it being Holmes and Watson with Henry as “just” their client. You care about Lee’s character, and no scene he appears in turns out to be a bore. He is just as important as the detective and his sidekick.
The only major reason why Sir Henry Baskerville DOESN’T make my Top 15 is simply this: while the part itself is fascinating for what it shows about Lee as an actor at the time, as well as just an actor in general, and he does somehow manage to keep a tight grip on his part and make it just as star-turning as Holmes and Watson…well, let’s face it: it’s still a Sherlock Holmes movie, and at the end of the day, Sir Henry Baskerville just won’t enrapture one as much as the people trying to save him. It’s a brilliant piece of acting in a grand Sherlock Holmes movie…but the film truly belongs to Peter Cushing and Andre Morell as the sleuth and his ally, not to Sir Henry. Again though, this does not make Sir Henry any less great in this movie, and Lee singlehandedly turns what could have been a fairly generic character into somebody you almost wish could have a film all to himself.
Almost. There may not have been a Baskerville Curse…but there is a curse when you work with Sherlock Holmes, and it’s the same as when anyone works with children, animals, or puppets. If you know anything about showbiz, you know what I mean. :P
We’re almost at the halfway point of the countdown! Tomorrow, I present my choice for Number 16!
Yes, I cast Sherlock Holmes books in my head and make movies for my brain. I’ve been doing this for “Hound of the Baskervilles” for over twenty-five years. Now help me with the hardest character to cast, Sir Henry.
I’ve seen a ton of unsatisfying theatrical adaptions of HoB, and they all make three major mistakes, chief among them their portrayal of Sir Henry, the American heir to the Baskerville estate. For some reason, they’ve all decided that he has to be an insufferable nobody. This is the stupidest idea from all of ever. The climax of the novel (and therefor, your mind-film) is going to be –
((spoilers?))
– the scene where Sir Henry gets chased down by the hound. Everything in the story hints that this will happen, and that Sir Henry will die. The audience’s reaction shouldn’t be, “Oh, the hound’s gonna kill Henry? I wonder if it’ll look all fake and CGI.” They should spend the movie biting their nails, wringing their hands in agony, telepathically begging Holmes and Watson to protect him.
If not, who cares?
But Sir Henry doesn’t have a lot going for him in the likability department. Not only is he given almost nothing to do until the climax, he’s also chained to the idiot ball so the plot can progress. He’s essentially just a puddin’-headed brat who fucks up his one job (staying off the moors at night) and is literally too dumb to live.
So the obvious choice here is to cast someone famous and popular with lots of goodwill from some high-profile role, so the audience (that’s you) will love him and be anxious when he’s in danger.
Here’s Watson’s description of him: “a small, alert, dark-eyed man about thirty years of age, very sturdily built, with thick black eyebrows and a strong, pugnacious face. [...] There he sat, with his tweed suit and his American accent, in the corner of a prosaic railway-carriage, and yet as I looked at his dark and expressive face I felt more than ever how true a descendant he was of that long line of high-blooded, fiery, and masterful men. There were pride, valour, and strength in his thick brows, his sensitive nostrils, and his large hazel eyes.”
In other words, Watson wants to bone this dude.
We should recast Sir Henry with all the above criteria in mind: a 30-year-old American actor with dark coloring who is already popular, well-liked and can rock a suit like a mother-fucker. A tiny, brunet American dude who’s so hot, even straight guys dig him, but has perpetual bitchface.
Over ten years ago, I was all in on Joseph Gordon Levitt as Sir Henry. But time marches on.
“[Sir Henry] did raise his eyebrows, however, when he found that my friend had neither any luggage nor any explanations for its absence. Between us we soon supplied his wants.”
I almost read by this too fast before it clicked that Holmes and Watson are SHARING CLOTHES now
you should not be able to play sherlock holmes in a stage play if you're heterosexual sorry. im a big believer in equal rights but the quality of the performance is simply not the same
Left: “He glanced swiftly over it.”
Hound of the Baskervilles, Sidney Paget, The Strand Aug 1901 - Apr 1902
Characters: Dr Mortimer, Sir Henry, Watson, Holmes
Right: “He deliberately knocked the whole thing over.”
Reigate Squires, Sidney Paget, The Strand Jun/Jul 1893
Characters: Watson, Holmes