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.

Shades of Robert Donat, Kenneth More and Robert Powell hover over this festive production from the BBC of John Buchan's classic novel, heck I can't even get Michael Palin's brilliant "Ripping Yarns" spoof out of my head, but it entertained pretty much all the way by taking itself just seriously enough without reverting to knowing post-modern sarcasm or worse yet campness. This is a "Boy's Own Adventure" and can only ever work by playing it straight. Don't mess with the Buchan in other words! Rupert Penry-Jones makes a fine Hannay, good looking, muscular if oddly blonde (the perfect Aryan specimen, ironically enough!) and interacts well with Lydia Leonard as the resourceful suffragette-cum-spy Victoria. I really liked Eddie Marson as the rent collector in the BBC's recent "Little Dorrit" dramatisation and so felt a little short-changed with his early demise. Of course the story is one long chase stopping only long enough for the various action or suspense-punctuating set-pieces and I rather liked the fact that these were accomplished without SFX or CGEN tricks.

I last read the book years and years ago so can't state for certain how faithful to source this was, (I only recall the political meeting episode from the novel if truth be told) but otherwise was perfectly happy to sit back, admire the glorious Scottish scenery, ancient cars period costumes and see True-Brit spunk and ingenuity triumph over the evil Bosche. The plot is of course wholly unbelievable and barely hangs together (including to top things off, a literally death-defying recovery by Victoria at the end to complete the happy ending), but just swallow an improbability pill beforehand and enjoy.

There are a couple of respectful references to Hitchcock scattered about (there must be people out there who think the original Hannay was a Hitch original, so ingrained in the memory is the Robert Donat/Madeleine Carroll film prototype) although quite how "North By North-West's" crop-duster scene found its way in here I'm not sure and perhaps more could have been made of the handcuff-scene, treated much more cheekily by the Master 70 odd years ago.

Nevertheless, I'll take this standard "Tally-Ho!" British fare over Indiana Jones any old day and hope there's a follow-up of sorts as I for one would welcome a revolt into style away from big-budget effects-fests in favour of more homespun dramas like this, tongue-in-cheek or not...

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.

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.

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.