Os 39 Degraus

(1959) The 39 Steps MYSTERY THRILLER ESPIONAGE

Adapted from the novel by John Buchan, the second of four adaptions that has traveler, Richard Hannay (Kenneth More) attempting to return a baby rattler to a nanny (Faith Brook) pushing her baby carriage. It was obvious from the get-go she was attempting to follow some guy holding a remote control toy boat. And by the time she reaches to the road, a car with two men then make an attempt to run her over. The next scene then has a law enforcement officer present asking questions while the nanny was being driven to the nearest hospital. While this was happening Hannay took the liberty to take a deeper look inside her baby stroller. And inside is no baby but covered by the baby blanket is a small handgun and her purse, and decides to confiscate those two particular items from the pram for the intention of returning them and meeting her. And by the time his business with the officer was over, he then heads toward the hospital where she was taken, only to find out later she had already left. Upon Hannary heading back to the flat, he decides to look inside the contaminants in her handbag some more, and notices their were two tickets to see a stage show on a particular time. And he decides to take advantage of this by using one of the two tickets, anticipating the nanny would show up and use the other one he left for the doorman to meet him.

Having recently re-read John Buchan's (short) novel "The 39 Steps" and already owning the 1935 and 1959 videos, a reappraisal seemed appropriate. While the '59 version is a delightful movie, it is a long way removed from the novel. On screen, Kenneth More is more Kenneth More than Richard Hannay. There are one or two "I don't think so" scenes such as Perce's (Sid James) attitude to a wanted killer. But we'll let that pass. You have to look at the production in its own right, because as a movie version of the book, it just doesn't make it. The Hitchcock version was much better in that respect. However, the Kenneth More film is utterly enjoyable as a bit of light drama. Certainly the underlying plot is worthy and overall, I'd give it 7 out of 10.

An enjoyable adventure, notable for good location shots of London, not the obvious tourist's traps, and the highlands of Scotland. Having identifiable locations increases the local tourist trade, many people want to visit the"scene of the crime".

Does it matter that the film didn't follow the book too carefully. Was it entertainment in its own right, or do we want to follow the scenes and dialogue, like some old theatre and concert goers with their carefully annotated "libretti". No,the movie industry stands on its own feet, and of course it uses literature. Didn't the original author not take classical themes, innocent man accused of criminal activity, trustworthy persons in power turn out to be the baddies, boy meets girl, loses girl, refinds girl. There really cannot be total originallity in any modern work of creativity, all is based on what has gone before.

Thirty nine steps, a ripping good yarn, to be enjoyed in the spirit in which it was offered.

From the perspective of 2007, British cinema in the 1950s appears more notable for its supporting players rather than its leading lights, and Thomas's remake of The 39 Steps is no exception... look beyond Moore's 2D Hannay and we find a delicious roll call of character turns: De Banzie's aging nympho', Brook's enigmatic 'spook', Cruickshank's foolish sheriff and especially Joan Hickson's hilarious turn as Miss Dobson, all giggling gawkishness with sensible hair and shoes (look at Miss Marple, and then review Hickson's cinematic career - a real unsung hero if ever there was one). Even the schoolgirls on the train are familiar (Carol White became Loach's Poor Cow; Stranks was a 70s 'Magpie' presenter).

Not a patch on Hitchcock's original nor the faithful 1978 interpretation, but as a snapshot of British 50s cinematic talent it's a must!

So far, there have been three film versions of this film, though there has been another announced for this year (2005). I can't really do any of the others down, and in fact the Hitchcock version starring Robert Donat is a classic. This is probably the least good of the three, due to the poor cinematography and lack of continuity in the lighting. That having been said, Kenneth More is really on form in this, and actually uses the dull background to great effect by allowing himself to become the focus of the film at all times. This is, of course, an ideal way to view the film as it fits the story perfectly. Not a film I can watch more than once a year, but definitely worth a viewing every twelve months.