The opening scene in each movie is different. Douglas Hickox’s version opens with a dark, creepy view of the manor house. We then see Sir Charles Baskervilles running away, locking himself in a green house. At this moment we can hear the hound in the background and Sir Charles is very aware of this. There is ‘chase’ music; making the scene more interesting as it starts to build the audience’s tension up. When Sir Charles is actually being attacked by the hound, we can see short clips of him from the hounds view; this makes it seem as if the audience is ‘attacking’ him. Whereas in the 2002 version, the movie opens with the inquest of Sir Charles’ death. It is more affective as we get to see Sir Charles’ gruesome body being examined. Another excellent aspect of this opening is that there are short clips of the body, with sharp music every time they appear. This is very good as the audience are taken aback not only by the music, but the clips they see. The audience then also imagines Sir Charles’ body when the fierceness of the hound is described, as they can actually visualise the damage it can do.
Another scene that is different in each version is when Holmes tracks down the carriage driver to gather information. In the 1983 version, the scene is not so mysterious than in the other version. It is set in Sherlock Holmes office, and the lighting is like it would be in normal daylight. Holmes also comes across as more relaxed, and bribes the driver to tell him what he wants to know by giving him money. This seems to the audience the easy and tranquil way round to get to know what he wants. In the 2002 version, it is not so obvious where Holmes is, as we see him get evidence/exhibits from somewhere. The audience later realises that he is in the carriage. The setting is much more sinister and even scary as Holmes acts more violent in this scene, using physical contact to gain information from the driver. The camera directing is much better in the 2002 movie in this scene, not only because it is set in different places and time, but it makes the audience feel more involved in the story. In the 1983 version, this scene doesn’t seem so ‘important’ as is comes across to be in David Attwood’s interpretation. This might be because it is more serious in the second, and the atmosphere was colder and had a darker vibe to it.
In David Attwood’s version, there is a scene that is not in the book. This is when Dr. Mortimer’s wife leads a séance at the dinner party to contact Sir Charles Baskervilles to ask him about his death. The whole scene is quite creepy, particularly when the hound appears at the window; which is unexpected to the audience. There isn’t actual music in this scene, but music affects such as wind blows and low piano notes, making it scary; as if the music is portraying Sir Charles’ presence.
The endings in the movie were different to one another; but at the same time slightly similar. In the 2002 version, things seemed to make much more sense as it was ‘pieced together’ much better. When Sir Henry is being chased by the hound, we occasionally get to see clips of the hound, but not a lot until nearer the end. This is very affective to the audience as they will want to see the beast that is the cause of the whole movie. When we do get to see the hound, it almost looks supernatural as it looks very brawny and life threatening. However, the other version was more rushed and not as good. One of the reasons for this was that Stapleton seemed like he had succeeded with his plan in David Attwood’s version, making the audience wonder if there will be a comeback for someone to defeat him so he will not have the power the audience thinks he now does.
The way in which Stapleton dies differs in the two versions. In the 1983 version, he drowns in a bog; which is dramatic, but David Attwood’s interpretation of how he dies is much better. The reason for this is because we do not think that he is going to die because Holmes is the one drowning in the bog, with Stapleton watching. Watson then comes and shoots Stapleton, which is not expected at all as we think he is back at the house unable to move because of a gun wound. When Watson manages to pull Holmes out the bog, there is a sense of relief for the audience, as they know that the villain has been killed, and that Holmes has survived.
The characters vary between the two films. Sherlock Holmes came across as being more serious and posh in the first version studied. It also seems that he was always being professional and slick in all aspects. However in the 2002 film, Holmes comes across as more laid back, but professional at the same time. He is also seen as having more luxuries in the 2002 version, as in one of the scene’s he is in a steam room; signalling that he takes time out to relax; unlike in Douglas Hickox’s film.
Watson seems very different in these two particular productions. Apart from appearance, his personality a great deal. In the 1983 film, Watson comes across as being a bit shy, and afraid to say things. He also comes across as being whiney, when he says, “Then you use me, and yet do not trust me!” The audience can also notice he is always keen to please anyone, making him almost desperate for attention – the audience is invited to laugh at him, and feel that he is foolish. Whereas in the other film, he is not afraid to say anything in order stand up for himself. The audience can see this (in the 2002 film) when he angrily asks Holmes to “keep him more informed in what’s going on.”
In conclusion, I prefer David Attwood’s version of The Hound of the Baskervilles. This is because I find it much more interesting because there is much more special effects which make it have a better visual content. I prefer the 2002 version because it is also full of suspense and its is much more bloodcurdling. This version was much easier to follow too, whereas Douglas Hickox’s’ version seemed more complex and appealing to the audience. I have also chosen this version because I thought that the characters were more open to their personalities, and the audience were able to know what kind of people they are more than in Douglas Hickox’s version.
