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.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for