The Hound of the Baskervilles (1939)

 "For that's where crimes are conceived and where they're solved- in the imagination.

This is the first time, barring out-of-context clips, that I've seen any of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films, which I'll be watching every now and then, in order. It's quite arresting to reflect that this film, in 1939, was made less than a decade after Conan Doyle's death and less than forty years after the first serialisation of what would become the novel- many who saw this film in 1939 would have read the story in 1901. The film is set in 1889, precisely thirty years before the film was made. Fifty years is what separates us, in 2021, from the death of Jim Morrison.

Rathbone's performance feels very straightforward to us now, with eight further decades of actors playing Holmes in various ways. But, with those actors preceding Rathbone leaving little mark on posterity, his performance is the template, the benchmark. He is excellent- charismatic and highly convincing. Again, Nigel Bruce's somewhat comical performance as Watson has become something for subsequent performers to rebel against but, judged as the comic role that it is, Bruce's performance is superb.

And so is the film. Unlike other versions, less straightfotwardly shot, this is easy to follow, despite the plot being far from simple, with some nice narrative touches like having the dramatis personae at an inquest scene for Sir Charles at the start, or the faded parchment in the background of the seventeenth century flashback with Sir Hugo. Yet it is the narrative that is simplified without much change to the plot- although having Beryl be Stapleton's sister rather than  his wife has awkwar implications of an incestuous marriage to Sir Henry. 

Moving swiftly on, the whole thing looks suitably atmospheric, with the moor set looking very eerie indeed, and the film has the sense to put storytelling first. A promising start.

It's an interesting ending, though- "Watson, the needle!"

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

"I have a feeling we're not in Kansas any more!"

This is one weird film. Brilliant, extraordinary, but, well... I'm 41 and, probably unlike yourself, had never seen it before. You probably grew up with it, so you don't realise how odd, trippy and downright bizarre this film is.

Mrs Llamastrangler forced- er, suggested that I bring this film forward from “soon” to “now” as it is admittedly pretty much the most ridiculous film not to have seen. But sometimes it’s advantageous coming to a film late, without childhood memories or bias. As ever, there were lots of moments I knew from the pop culture zeitgeist. But I enjoyed it; the film fully deserves its popularity. It’s brilliantly made- extraordinary special effects, superb design and a laudable determination to eschew realism. The script is delightfully witty and Judy Garland is perfect.

Stil... something this trippy was made in 1939? Based on an old children’s novel, half-forgotten, which was largely an allegory for US politicians of the William McKinley era? Bizarre. It’s also hard not to be constantly reminded of the dreadful sexual abuse suffered by Ms Garland, and how depressingly little has changed on that front. But any intended allegories are no longer contemporary by 1939; you can pretty much stamp whatever meaning on it that you want to. I can’t help noticing, though, that the “good” witch Glinda seems to get Dorothy and her friends to risk their lives removing all her potential rivals to absolute power. Hmm.

The film looks amazing, with the special effects surrounding the tornado unsurpassed in 79 years. The contrast between sepia Kansas and colourful, theatrical Oz with its rejection of realism is brilliantly done, especially as Dorothy opens the farmhouse door and sees colour. The songs and dialogue are gloriously and unexpectedly witty. And there’s a suspiciously druggy use of poppies to send our heroes to sleep. Hmm.

One side effect of Oz is probably unintended, though; doesn’t turn of the century Kansas look stultifyingly dull?