Mon 21 Nov 2011
Movie Reviews: THE 39 STEPS (1959/2008).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , Suspense & espionage films[15] Comments
THE 39 STEPS. J. Arthur Rank, 1959. Kenneth More (Richard Hannay), Taina Elg, Brenda De Banzie, Barry Jones, Reginald Beckwith, Faith Brook, Michael Goodliffe, James Hayter, Joan Hickson, Sid James. Based on the book by James Buchan. Director: Ralph Thomas.
Based on the book, naturally, just as it says, but if truth be told, this version of the several films made of Buchan’s novel follows the Hitchcock version of 1935, the one with Robert Donat, more than the original text. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course!
So, how does it compare to the 1935 version? Can it possibly be better? It’s in color, which is somewhat of a plus, and even though the Scottish highlands are beautiful in color, there’s something to be said about the edge you get when you see them in black and white.
Kenneth More in this later film is more than up to the role, but he’s still no Robert Donat. As for Finnish actress Taina Elg, she was also a ballet dancer, and her legs are certainly up the role – which leads us straight to one of the better scenes of the movie, if you were to ask me.
The story: When a woman he knows to be a spy is killed in Hannay’s apartment, and knowing time is of the essence in terms of the undercover plot she was working on, and based on what he has learned and knowing that waiting for the police to sort things out will take too long , he decides to bolt and make his way to Scotland – with half of Scotland Yard hot on his trail, or so it seems.
Whereby he connects up with the totally innocent Taina Elg (Fisher), first once on a train, then again later, whether she likes it or not, and of course she doesn’t, although she has no choice in the matter.
Hannay also meets, in pasing, several well-known British character actors, which probably helped to make this movie very popular in England at the time. It’s now many years later, however, and if you — like me — are a long way from the British Isles, the cast may be mostly incidental.
All in all, this is an enjoyable diversion, but in its running time of barely 90 minutes (the same as the 1935 version) the story seems rushed and out of breath for most of its time on the screen. It’s one of those cases, I suppose, where the reviewer ends by saying, “Your mileage may vary.â€
THE 39 STEPS. Made for British TV movie: BBC, 28 December 2008. Rupert Penry-Jones (Richard Hannay), Lydia Leonard, David Haig, Patrick Malahide, Patrick Kennedy, Hellory Sinclair, Eddie Marsan. Screenplay: Lizzie Mickery, based on the novel by John Buchan. Director: James Hawes.
This more recent version of Buchan’s book follows the novel more closely than Hitchcock did, and consequently, more than the film with Kenneth More. (See above.) Of course there has to be a romantic interest in any adaptation of the book – doesn’t there? – and so there is in this one as well.
Which makes the gender of the screenwriter important, or so it seems. The girl, or rather the very capable woman Richard Hannay meets in this BBC production is a suffragette, a grand champion for the right of women to vote in this dramatic adventure taking place in Britain in the dark days before World War I. It’s all about German spies, German sympathizers, a coded notebook and (eventually) a reference to the mysterious thirty-nine steps.
The novel, once again, rather than Hitchcock’s version is therefore the model, but only the model. (There is a scene, however, in which Hannay is fired upon by a wonderfully antique cropduster biplane while he’s being chased against the Scottish countryside, just to remind the viewer, that the master director was not entirely forgotten.)
But twist follows upon delightful twist, so much so that I guarantee you that your head will be spinning by the time you get to the end of the film. Delightful, I repeat, and I mean it (most TV critics did not think highly of it at the time, and that’s an understatement), but in retrospect there’s at least one and a half twists too many. I fear that if I were to watch it again (and I may) the story line would not make any sense at all.
Most of the cast will be unfamiliar to audiences in the US, so again there are no distractions there. Hannay is played by Rupert Penry-Jones, previously the star of the British TV espionage thriller MI-5. He was also said to be in the running to play James Bond at one time , but while he’s very definitely athletic and handsome, he doesn’t seem to have the magnetism and screen presence of, say, a Daniel Craig.
The other of the two leading characters constantly paired off with each other throughout the movie, the very capable Victoria Sinclair (I know, I’m repeating myself), well played by Lydia Leonard, a relative unknown, is often … let’s say extremely efficient and effective and say no more.
There is a scene, by the way, in which the pair are handcuffed together – no surprise there? – but its significance is cut short, alas, by a resolution that comes far too quickly, while the ending asks more questions than are answered, but to my mind, there’s nothing wrong with that.
Trailer: 1935 version (poor sound).
Trailer: 1959 version.
Video clips: 2008 version.
November 21st, 2011 at 7:26 am
It’s a case of re-makes with a lot to live up to.
November 21st, 2011 at 3:12 pm
I watched these two versions back-to-back back in June and wrote up these reviews right afterward.
I’ve been waiting to post them until I had a chance to see the Hitchcock version again, but so far I haven’t. (I have the Criterion DVD which I purchased at Barnes & Noble during one of their half price sales. It’s still in the original shrink wrap.)
I’ve also been hoping to get a copy of the 1978 version with Robert Powell, David Warner, Eric Porter, Karen Dotrice and John Mills. It’s said to be the one that most closely resembles the book (no handcuffs), but it’s available only on a Region 2 (UK) DVD or VHS, both pricey. Perhaps I need to look harder.
One confession. I’ve never read the book; I’ve only read about it!
November 21st, 2011 at 3:34 pm
A biplane with Siemens-Schuckert- synchronized machine-guns BEFORE the war. Hmmm.
No homework, no view.
I still think Hitchcocks version simply a great film, the book I have yet to read, the British post-war-version I remember dimly, the BBC made for TV thingy, well nuff said.
The Doc
November 21st, 2011 at 4:09 pm
I spent much of my academic life reading and writing about John Buchan and I have read and reread The Thirty-Nine Steps many times as well as the other Richard Hannay stories. There is an interesting distinction in spelling regarding the title. If you refer to the book you spell out the number, if you refer to the film you use numerals. I have not seen the Kenneth More version since it was released and I walked uptown to watch it at my home town theater. Buchan himself attended the premiere of the Hitchcock film when he was Governor General of Canada and he admitted he might have been wise to include a female in the original novel.
November 21st, 2011 at 7:37 pm
The Hitchcock version is probably my favorite film by him, hands down. I was so taken with the movie I had a moment of weakness and decided to read the novel. The version I read was serialized in three issues of Argosy pulp magazine in the late 30’s. Boy, was I disappointed! I’m going from memory here, and maybe someone will straighten me out about what I recall. The spy who Hannay met in his apartment house was a man, not a woman. There never was a “Mr. Memory” in the book (hats off to the script writer who came up with that character!). What I seem to recall is mostly a lot of running around the highlands and moors trying to evade the bad guys. Anyway,I was so disappointed, I’ll probably never read another novel by Buchan.
November 21st, 2011 at 7:58 pm
I’ve read Buchan’s book and did not care for it. The Hitchcock film works well as a prelude to North By Northwest. The Ralph Thomas film is competent, but Kenneth More does not really hold the center of gravity as Donat, or Grant. Especially Grant. Taina Elg is not nearly as strong a performer, nor as beautiful as Madeleine Carroll, but she is warmer and more sensual. All in all, it works well enough, and better than most remakes. Notable exception, The Maltese Falcon.
November 21st, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Oh, and everything Paul Herman writes about the book and its development, is on the money.
November 22nd, 2011 at 1:57 am
Paul: It’s a shame that you’ll never read another Buchan novel because Hitchcock didn’t stick closer to the book. It’s not even his best work, although film makers tend to remake it because it is already pre-sold by the previous versions.
November 22nd, 2011 at 7:23 am
Having seen all the film versions mentioned, I’m firmly a Hitchcock fan and I would strongly recommend the “39 Steps” stage version which is an hilarious homage to that film. It has a cast of four (or could it be five….?)- one of whom “plays” the Forth Bridge! Great fun.
November 23rd, 2011 at 11:43 am
I’ve been dying to see the stage version but so far have been unable to make it happen. Something to look forward to. 🙂
I love Hitchcock’s version primarily because of Robert Donat who is absolutely wonderful. Secondly, I love the whole idea of Mr. Memory – a brilliant stroke and great way to make the story come full circle.
I read the book years ago, but always thought the movie was better.
I, too, have never read any more Buchan. But only because I haven’t run across any.
As for the two later versions of 39 Steps, didn’t think much of them. Although I do like Rupert Penry-Jones.
November 23rd, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Paul’s also told me to make sure I see the stage version, but even though I’ve had the chance a couple of times, I just never have.
The BBC version from 2008 is certainly revisionist in lot of ways, but I enjoyed it. Of the two I reviewed in this post, it’s the one I’d watch again, given a choice.
November 23rd, 2011 at 3:50 pm
If you don’t mind me asking, how available are Buchan’s works in the USA? I’ve seen stuff written on various different American blogs where he is almost always referred to as ‘nearly forgotten’. In the UK he is still very much in print. Most of my copies of his books are of recent vintage, and even my small local bookshop has a paperback copy of THE COMPLETE ADVENTURES OF RICHARD HANNAY, which includes all of the novels. If Buchan isn’t a bestseller, he does seem to be in that happy situation of being regarded as a modern classic, and hence worthy of being regularly reissued. Is this the case in the USA?
November 23rd, 2011 at 4:05 pm
I’ve just checked to see what’s available of Buchan’s work on Amazon, and without trying to do a complete tally, there’s about 40 or so titles available.
I think they’re all recent reprints also, maybe most of them published in the UK but distributed here. It might be that his work is public domain. There appears to be a good many editions of each of them.
Nonetheless, I’d still think of him as “nearly forgotten” over here. Other than 39 STEPS, I doubt that most people would recognize the titles of any of his books.
Would they even be able to come up with his name as having written 39 STEPS? I wonder.
November 24th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
#12 BRADSTREET, most, if not all, of Buchan’s work is in public domain. ManyBooks.net offer eleven different titles, including 39 STEPS for free and available on a variety of e-book formats. I suspect any e-bookstore offers some of his work for free or in collections for under a couple of dollars.
November 24th, 2011 at 9:36 pm
Maybe he’s “nearly forgotten,” but you obviously don’t have to look far to find his books and he wrote much more than the thrillers: historical novels (Witch Wood may be the best of those) and biographies and literary studies and even books (like Prester John) for young readers (The 39 Steps used to be marketed as a book for boys). There is a John Buchan Society in Great Britain to which I belong.