Skip to main content

Oh, it’s a whole flock of detectives!

The 39 Steps
(1935)

(SPOILERS) Hitch’s gamechanger and still one of the most purely enjoyable pictures in his oeuvre. Much of that, beyond simply telling a breathless narrative with endless invention and style, is The 39 Steps' pitch-perfect casting; he’d rarely be quite as lucky again with both his leads.

Of course, The 39 Steps gets all the attention, despite honing the elements established by the previous year’s The Man Who Knew Too Much; that’s probably because it does so in a yet lighter and frothier manner. Consequently, it cemented the thriller as the director’s synonymous genre, along with all the ingredients – mostly in the form of strung-together perilous vignettes, or set pieces, featuring our hero – later most identified with the modern action movie. Hitch confirmed this as intentional: “I saw it as a film of episodes, and I was on my toes. As soon as we were through with one episode, I remember saying, ‘Here we need a good short story’… each one would be a little film in itself”.

Which is why the picture doesn’t really show its age at all. The 39 Steps doesn’t waste a minute and is often extremely impressive in the way it speeds creatively from scene to scene. Hitch was quite correct to be both dismissive of the need for the plot to make perfect sense and to admit to what he had done well: “What I like in The Thirty-Nine Steps are the swift transitions”. He uses as an example Richard Hannay (Robert Donat), arrested by the police; Hitchcock cuts to the street outside, and we see Hannay burst through a window, head off, take cover as part of a Sally-Ally band and then slip into a conference hall (where he is a victim of a case of mistaken identity and gives an impromptu speech in support of whoever the political candidate – “Mr McCrocodile” – is). Hitch really wasn’t blowing his own trumpet when he commented “The rapidity of those transitions heightens the excitement. It takes a lot of work to get that kind of effect, but it’s well worth the effort”. The 39 Steps exudes that effort.

Hannay: A beautiful mysterious woman pursued by gunmen. Sounds like a spy story.

A sense of urgency intrudes from the first, when the picture’s running theme of playful innuendo is introduced and Hannay agrees to Annabella Smith (Lucie Mannheim) accompanying him home. There, he cooks her a hake (not the most romantic of dishes), and she reveals she is an agent to “any country that pays me”. From there, Hannay’s intrigue at his guest rapidly escalates into desperation when she staggers into his bedroom with a knife in her back.

Hitchcock pocks the picture with such sublimely-staged sequences, from Hannay being pursued across the Highlands, to hiding under a bridge with a reluctant Pamela (Madeleine Carroll), to being shot by Professor Jordan (Godfrey Tearle as the man with a missing finger Hannay was warned about; in a lovely ironic touch, he reveals his lack of appendage to Hannay just as the latter relates Annabelle’s information).

But the key to the picture is that it’s every bit as good with the character work as it is with the set pieces. Hitch waxed approvingly of Buchan, commenting that the appeal of the author was “his understatement of highly dramatic ideas”. For all the director’s changing of the text – courtesy of Charles Bennett, the peak of his string of collaborations with Hitch that decade – this element comes through most in Donat’s marvellously capable Hannay. He received great notices at the time for how he “suddenly blossoms out into a romantic comedian of no mean order” with his “easy confident humour” (CA Lejeune in The Observer). Lejeune was absolutely right to compare Donat’s potential to Gable or Coleman, but he never really made the most of the kind of roles Hitch would later provide Cary Grant.

Hannay’s sprightly quick wit is weighed and balanced against an unerring ability to make the wrong decisions. He wants to tell the truth from the off (as he does in a nice little sequence with Frederick Piper’s milkman, before winning his cooperation by telling him he’s having an affair with a married woman, right up a milkman’s street). Unfortunately, he fails to learn from his mistakes, first confessing to Pamela, who promptly shops him (and later, she shops him again for good measure). Then to John Laurie’s crofter (who takes his money and then shops him). Then to Jordan. And then to Frank Cellier’s sheriff. It’s well after the hour mark that Pamela finally believes him, and only because she overhears the fake policemen discussing their plan.

Hannay: For all you know, I murder a woman a week.

Beyond that, though, the chemistry between Donat and Carroll is on It Happened One Night levels; even if there weren’t a thriller element, the love/hate back and forth between Hannay and Pamela would be hugely entertaining. That they’re stuck together, due to the inspired handcuffs conceit, only makes the sexual tension that much more effective. The extended bedroom scene, full of suggestion while remaining entirely chaste, is a suspense-free highlight of the film, relying as it does on its stars’ timing and Bennett and Hitch’s ready wit. The reluctant couple have already proved a hit with the innkeeper’s wife (Hilda Trevelyan), who can only see how in love they are (“Mr and Mrs Harry Hopkinson, the Hollyhocks, Hemel Hempstead” intones Hannay breezily as they check in). The wonderfully-timed business that follows involves removing stockings, eating sandwiches, and attempting to pick handcuffs.

Carroll is absolutely terrific, a funny, headstrong Hitchcock blonde who more than holds her own against her leading man (she’d be rather let down by their second and final team up Secret Agent a year later; even given that the director was unable to bring back Donat, her role simply wasn’t up to snuff).

As I said, there’s no waste here at all. The apparent interlude where Hannay stays with crofter John Laurie and his lonely wife Margaret (Peggy Ashcroft) is both an exercise in suspense (Laurie quickly becomes suspicious that he has designs on his Margaret, but the reality is that she has figured out Hannay is wanted for murder) and a very sad little tale in miniature (“He’ll pray at me, but no more” she assures Hannay of potential repercussions for her helping him escape; the last we see is John moving to hit his wife on learning Hannay took off in his best coat).

Audience Member: Where’s my old man been since last Saturday?

Hannay boards a train replete with double-act corset and bra salesmen. Godfrey Tearle is the first of a run of extremely polite, genteel villains that culminates in James Mason. More still, he’s humanised by having a family (see also Sabotage and Foreign Correspondent for villains who really do care for their relatives). Mr Memory (Wylie Watson) is both part of the slightly dappy loop plotting that doesn’t withstand much scrutiny – the film kicks off with Hannay at his performance, and it turns out that he’s the key to the entire affair – and an instantly, er, memorable character in his own right. The opening scene, in which the audience doesn’t pay much attention to Memory’s requests for sensible questions (“How old’s Mae West?”) is highly entertaining in itself, but his climactic delivering of his secret after being shot, noting the 39 Steps is an “organisation of spies”, is touchingly pathetic (and the sort of thing ripe for comedy riffs).

Pauline Kael called The 39 Stepsone of the three or four best things Hitchcock ever did” and it’s difficult to dispute her assessment. If anything, the picture impresses more every time I revisit it, for the sheer confidence and also how fresh it remains. Hitch would later command bigger budgets and bigger stars, but this is where he is at his most consistently assured.



Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.