The 39 Steps

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 agree with the reviewer who dismisses critics of this version as pseuds. They have no sense of social history. I've been reading and rereading Buchan's novels for over 70 years and have always enjoyed Hitchcock's 1935 film version regardless of its departures from the novel, which add to rather than detract from the original. The 1959 Kenneth More version still strikes me as attempting but failing to capture Hitch's touch, and, having recently rewatched the 1978 Robert Powell remake, I found it more enjoyable than I had remembered it. I approached this (2008) TV film with some apprehension, but as soon as I saw the opening frames of Hannay dispiritedly spinning a globe in the comfort of his club I knew I was going to like it. My first thought, of course, was to wonder how this version would contrive to introduce a female lead into the story, and in this respect I was not disappointed. As Victoria Sinclair, Lydia Leonard is rightfully as delightful as she is unbelievable. I've always thought Hitchcock did right to follow his inclination to give Hannay a partner. The trouble with all Buchan's novels (to my mind) is that he was incapable of painting a convincing female portrait. He may himself have been married, and even Hannay has a wife in the later stories, but he has absolutely no understanding or appreciation of women. In reflecting the masculine hegemony of Boys' Own tales he reflects the times he lived in, as do all the film versions each in their own way. I find this TV film just right for its time, and look forward to enjoying it again.

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.

It will not shock anyone to learn that, having watched this 2008 TVM, I'm not proposing that we just burn Hitchcock's version on the basis that we no longer have any need for it. However neither will I add my voice to those queuing up to tell you how awful this film is. The truth may be closer to the latter extreme than the former but this is not a terrible film, just quite an OK one that suffers badly by comparison by how well it has formerly been done. The plot is not completely the same and there are some key changes even if the overall flow is the same but, for some reason the changes that have been made are overwhelmingly negatively impacting. The most famous set pieces are gone and have been replaced by, well, not much. Perhaps they were looking to shake off the shadow of Hitchcock's film you say? Well if that is the case why make room for a clunky North by Northwest reference then?

It is all very solid stuff despite this and it is perhaps good enough to satisfy as a festive piece of easy entertainment thrown to viewers too sleepy or bloated to really cope with much more. However, outside of this home-court advantage the weaknesses are much clearer and the plot does feel too slow and unengaging. It closely follows the original film version but without anywhere near the same impact or sense of thrill or adventure. I never particularly cared about what was happening or was going to happen as it went along – nor indeed felt a lot in the way of urgency or menace. These are key things to deliver but they are lacking and, as a result, so is the film. I do often defend the idea of the BBC licence fee (and continue to do so) but it is hard to see the justification or remaking something without having anything of value to really bring to it – the rights to the original film must be cheaper to get and the difference could be used to make something original or more daring (accepting that it may fail). As it is, this BBC production is an example of them not delivering.

The cast are reasonable and thus fit with the overall film being "OK". Penry-Jones is strapping but bland and his character isn't consistent or believable across the film. Leonard is the same as the narrative changes her but she didn't have me believing it very often. Malahide isn't a good villain. He has the potential for menace but he has nothing about him to convey it and no spark to make him stand out. Marsan is a nice find in a small role early on but is soon out of the picture a required by the film. The direction matches the general production values by being solid and sturdy but never spectacular.

The whole thing is what you hope it isn't going to be – average. It isn't awful and it does provide a base level of entertainment if that is all you are looking for but I imagine that, like me, many viewers will find little of note about it and wonder why they or the BBC bothered.