This Above All (1942)

 "A man ,must have integrity..."

This is another British war film, reasonably obscure despite starring Joan Fontaine, and a fascinating snapshot of the age.

It is, I suppose, a wartime romance on the surface. And the performances and characterisation are excellent. Yet at its core it's far more philosophical- about the ethics of war, of duty, of what's being fought for- in a way which could only have emerged in the middle of the Second World War.

Prue is a young, aristocratic lady who scandalises her rich family by joining the WAAF... as a private, despite her upbringing, wanting to do her part, frustrated by the stuffy life of privilege she sees around her by those who see the War as an inconvenient intrusion on their comforts. Clive, meanwhile, is a brave soldier, Dunkirk hero, mentioned in dispatches... yet AWOL and on the brink of desertion not from cowardice but disillusion with the privileged nonentoities whom he percieves to be in charge.

The narrative plays out as the well-done melodrama that it is, with a happy ending after many twists and turns. Yet what lingers most about this film, aside from the very contemporary attitude towards pre-marital sex, is that yes, the message is one of patriotism, of duty, of honour. But it is also a film, pointing forwards to the 1945 election, that Britain has come together for the war and so must never again go back to the old ways of privilege, poverty and a nation divided.

This film is no more than quite good, I suppose. But it's a fascinating snapshot of the age.

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!"

Suspicion (1941)

"What did you think I was trying to do? Kill you?"

In hindsight it's easy to see why this isn't one of Hitchcock's most well-known films. Oh, Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant are their usual charismatic selves and the direction is, as one might expect, superb. Except that the story upon which the film is based is both not that good and somewhat lacking in suspense. Essentially, rich heiress Lina marries gambling ne'er-do-well Johnnie, who is irresponsible but has a good heart, ad the film comes up with unconvincing and contrived reasons for her to suspect him of trying to kill her for her money. Even the idea that he might be a killer is broached late in the film, never seems convincing even with Hitchcock;s bag of tricks as a result of the script failing to establish him as a potential threat, and the frantic ending just feels odd and at variance with the rest of the film.

It's notable how very posh the milieu of the film appears to be, just as there doesn't seem to be a war on; our couple honeymoon in Paris, Monaco and Italy- in 1941. It's engaging for much of its length, and both Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant are obviously watchable. Just... don't necessarily make this the only Hitchcock film you ever see.