The 39 Steps

Watching this at face value as a Masterpiece production, it was quite enjoyable. Rich production, lovely looking actors, and enough suspense and drama, with a bit of humor to pass a pleasant evening. Not having watched the previous versions, I didn't know what to expect and didn't have any expectations. I was looking for ninety minutes of entertainment and intrigue, and found it. If it had been called anything else besides the classic 39 Steps maybe there wouldn't be such a fuss. Sit back and enjoy, and stop comparing to what's been done. It's rare that a Masterpiece production is not worth watching. I'll check out the other versions eventually, but this one decidedly was more than watchable.

It was known that Alfred Hitchcock would buy a book or a story and then use as little as a sentence of it and create a whole new scenario for his film. This version of "The 39 Steps" is based on the book, not the Hitchcock movie; therefore, it's different. The stars are Rupert Perry-Jones, Lydia Leonard, Patrick Malahide, and Eddie Marsan.

Having seen the Hitchcock film and the play which uses the Hitchcock film, this 39 Steps is interesting but ultimately a downer. Hitchcock made this story his own, and anything else is going to be a disappointment.

The acting is good. Rupert Perry-Jones is an attractive lead, but he's not called upon to do very much. He's not Robert Donat, after all. Lydia Leonard is the suffragette Victoria. She's fun but she's not Madeline Carroll. There's not much, if any, suspense to be had - no being handcuffed together, no music hall scene, just a lot of chases through nice scenery.

It's worth watching to compare to Hitchcock and appreciate him all the more, but that's about it. I'd call this pleasant rather than exciting or suspenseful. There was one big surprise in a beginning apartment scene - if the film had continued like that, it would have had something.

When the Guthrie Theatre of Minneapolis announced its 2010 dates of live presentations and The 39 Steps was a part, I thought first of Hitchcock and wondered. His 1935 film was immensely entertaining when I first saw it on TV in the '50s or '60s -- Mr. Memory at the Music Hall, the Scotland chases, the room at the inn, and back to the Music Hall with Mr. Memory's explanation. I could hardly wait to see it again, and when I did it had lost something for me. Obviously, with mysteries, that is the case. Nevertheless, I'll always treasure the first experience. Years later I found Buchan's 1915 novel (one of a series using Hannay as the protagonist) at a yard sale and ate it up. As John Huston did with The Maltese Falcon novel, Hitchcock did with The 39 Steps -- followed a great story well told and just translated it to film. Or so I thought. I'd forgotten until finding this under "Questions" about the film: "... the actual 39 steps are different ... Hannay is never handcuffed to a woman...the romantic bit was made up for the movie...". But "both stories are highly episodic.... Buchan ... long discrete chapters ... whereas Hitchcock hurtles abrupt changes...". Well, why not since novels employ the art of high, middle, and low points but film language is the art of high points, mainly. Gotta be that way. Reluctant to watch this TV version, I did so anyway. You have to for comparison sake. I found the two leads, male and female, attractive and effective, and the camera work just as good. I'm still planning to find the book on one of my shelves. And when I do, I'll give it another go. And lay it out for my wife to consider. (Oh, oh. She says I did that the first time, and she has read it.) I remember the book as rather thin in appearance but thick with adventure. A red binding. The Guthrie stage version was a testament to creative stage adaptation. The fast pace was great fun with five (5!) actors doing quick changes for multiple roles but never harming the context. Now I found the book: copyright MCMXV, fewer than 230 5x8 pages.

I suppose that i am biased given that having seen Hitchs version i think that this is one of the great films of all time.I tried to watch this TV version with an open mind.However after about 45 minutes i just lost interest and made myself a cup of tea.The opening 15 minutes was quite reasonable but after that i felt that it fell away badly.furthermore it is invidious to compare the leads of this with Robert Donat and Madelaine Carroll.Even the sometimes bland Kenneth Moore did a reasonable job.Quite frankly bearing in mind the many books written by John Buchan it is difficult to understand why they chose to remake this.

I was so prepared to not enjoy this, that when it was automatically recorded by my TiVo as part of the "Mystery" series, I very nearly deleted it without watching. I am a huge fan of Hitchcock, and have likely seen his version of "The 39 Steps" a hundred times. I had read the book years ago and remember thinking that the Hitchcock movie must not have been an adaptation.

Out of boredom, I decided to watch the 2008 version, thinking that I would turn it off and delete it within the first few scenes. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it did indeed resemble - if not follow faithfully - the original book. It held it's own. The characters were likable and well played. I thoroughly enjoyed Lydia Leonard as Victoria. They took liberties with this character, but in a satisfying way.

I will watch it again with my husband, whom I think will enjoy this as well. If you're expecting a remake of Hitchcock's movie, you'll be disappointed. Then again, I can see no reason to remake ANY of Hitchcock's films, so I was happy with this version of the book by John Buchan.