Film of the Book: The 39 Steps

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (1935)

From the book review of The Thirty-Nine Steps by John Buchan:

It’s May 1914 and war is looming over Europe. Richard Hannay has returned from South Africa and is finding England dull. He’ll give it another couple of days, he decides, and if nothing exciting happens, he’ll return to one of the outposts of Empire. But then a man he doesn’t know, Scudder, turns up at his door seeking help. When Scudder is then killed, Hannay finds himself possessed of a secret and Scudder’s coded notebook, running from the conspirators who want to kill him and the police who want to arrest him for Scudder’s murder. And so the chase is on…

You can read the full book review by clicking here

I found the book a shade disappointing, with an almost incomprehensible plot that relied far too much on coincidence and got a little tedious in the middle as our hero ran around over the moors of Scotland, dodging the bad guys. I’d seen the Hitchcock film before but my memory of it was vague, although I remembered enjoying it. So time for a refresher!

Hitchcock’s cameo

Ah, Hitchcock! He’s the master! Scudder has been replaced by a mysterious female foreign agent, Annabelle Smith (Lucie Mannheim). Hannay has been at a music hall where, in the midst of a performance by Mr Memory (the clue to his act is in his name), shots ring out causing the audience to flee. Hannay finds himself protecting the beautiful Miss Smith, who begs him to take her to his flat. Once there, rather than burbling incoherently about vague conspiracies in far-off lands as Scudder does in the book, Annabelle tells Hannay (Robert Donat) that there is a plot to steal plans from the British Military and that she must go to Scotland to meet a man in order to stop it. Later that night, she is stabbed and gives a marvellously ham death scene worthy of Jimmy Cagney at his finest. Fortunately she has left a map of Scotland, carefully marked with the relevant location, and Hannay decides to take her place, especially when he realises the police think he’s the one who murdered her.

Lucie Mannheim and Robert Donat – you can tell she’s a mysterious foreign agent by the way she knocks back her whisky…

This actually gives Hannay a reason to go to Scotland and a purpose when he gets there. In the book, he goes to Scotland merely to fill in a few weeks which (for no reason that made sense to me) Scudder had insisted he wait before going to the authorities. So book Hannay wanders aimlessly around the countryside followed by the baddies on whom he chanced by coincidence, while film Hannay goes to Scotland intentionally to thwart the baddies.

Gus McNaughton and Jerry Verno as two commercial travellers Hannay shares a carriage with on the Flying Scotsman train. Their humour seems like a precursor to the characters of Caldicott and Charters in the later The Lady Vanishes (1938)

The second major change that Hitchcock makes – and this should come as a surprise to no-one – is to introduce a blonde! The book sadly lacks female characters in general, and a love interest for Hannay in particular – clearly Buchan didn’t realise that all great action heroes must have a love interest! Hitchcock puts this right. As Hannay travels up to Scotland on the train, he encounters Pamela (Madeleine Carroll). This first meeting doesn’t go well (and frankly, since he bursts into her carriage, grabs her and kisses her, this is not altogether surprising), but the audience know that they are destined to meet again. Pamela is fun – she’s feisty and independent and not easily won over by Donat’s rough wooing, but she’s also a woman of sense and intelligence who, once she’s convinced he’s the good guy, gives him real help. There’s lots of stuff that seems a bit sexist now, but it was 1935, and I don’t care.

Madeleine Carroll as the shocked Pamela – but he only did it to escape from the baddies…

The Scottish scenes are great. Hitchcock clearly hired real Scots for the bit parts of railway guards and so on, with the result that the accents are authentic, and he moved the locations from the lowland moors to the Highlands – much more dramatic scenery, better suited to film, even if the bulk of the film was probably shot in the studio. John Laurie (much later Private Frazer in Dad’s Army) shows up as a grim bullying crofter with Peggy Ashcroft as his put-upon wife.

John Laurie and Peggy Ashcroft may only have small roles, but they’re still both great…

The plot plays out well, with a lot of humour in the scenes between Hannay and Pamela, and plenty of drama and danger to provide the thrills. The dénouement, I must admit, is nearly as silly as the one in the book, though quite different – but it’s very well done, both dramatic and quite moving, and at least it makes sense.

The two stars give sparkling performances, but they’re not alone – most of the actors in the smaller roles are excellent too. Poor Lucie Mannheim did remind me a little of Lina Lamont in Singin’ in the Rain – she has all the exaggerated over-dramatic gestures of the silent era, especially in her death scene, but it all added to the fun. The film itself shows its age a little at points, such as when Hannay is running and it gives that speeded up impression you get in movies of the Charlie Chaplin era. But on the whole it has held up brilliantly – exciting, fast-paced and thoroughly entertaining.

★ ★ ★ ★ ★

So the choice is easy this time. Hitchcock’s changes turned an OK book into a great film – a true classic. If you haven’t seen it, you should!

The Winner in the Book v Film Battle is…

 

THE FILM!

* * * * *

32 thoughts on “Film of the Book: The 39 Steps

  1. This is definitely one of those cases, FIctionFan, where the film is better than the book (and I’m usually pretty firmly in the opposite camp). Hitchcock has a way, doesn’t he, of taking the guts of a story and making that story his own on film. That sometimes means it doesn’t closely follow the story, but that’s not always a bad thing. In this case, his style works.

    • Usually I prefer the book too, but Hitchcock seems to be on a winning streak! He really does sometimes just take the original as a jumping off point, and then creates something of his own out of it. The addition of a blonde in this one was inspired – and she was a fun blonde too! 😉

    • Haha – glad you enjoyed it! Yes, Hitchcock always seems to have the edge for me – he takes the basic story and then makes it uniquely his own. Hurrah for blondes! 😉

    • Perfect for a wet Sunday afternoon! I love Hitchcock and have been having a lot of fun reading some of the original books and comparing them to the films – he was brilliant at making them uniquely his own! 😀

    • Thank you! 😀 I did enjoy the book, but not nearly as much as I enjoyed the film, so I think you should just re-watch the film. 😉 I haven’t seen the Rupert Penry-Jones version – must look out for it…

  2. Well, gee, I haven’t read the book OR seen the film — I guess I need to step off my island more, ha! I usually enjoy Hitchcock movies, so I’m not surprised you liked this one. Doesn’t every movie need a good blonde, heehee!!

    • I knew I’d enjoyed it before but it’s even better than I remembered. John Laurie’s great and so is the woman in charge of the hotel they stay in – Hitch was always fab at finding the right people for even the minor roles!

  3. I’ve never read the book or watched the movie. It does sound definitely like the movie is better. I may have to add them both to my list for next year.

    • Usually I prefer the book, but Hitchcock is the exception – I often enjoy his films more than the books they were loosely based on. I’ve been having great fun reading and comparing a few of them though… 😀

    • Though I usually prefer the book, Hitchcock is the exception – his films are often better than the books they’re based on. It’s great fun comparing them and seeing how he does it… 😀

  4. A few years ago I was watching all the Hitchcock films available in my library, and I remember feeling hesitant about this one. I’m not into spy stories. They’re often so convoluted that I don’t get what happened even AFTER the big reveal. But, Hitchcock has never left me feeling that way. I loved that there were two women who seem like they could be a romantic interest. To have the first one die felt controversial to me, and then we got a new one who wouldn’t take any garbage. I also noticed that the Scottish characters were authentic, and I was glad for that. Even in 2018, we get people all wrong. The star of The Walking Dead is supposed to be a southern police officer, but he’s played by a British man. We had Brad Pitt and his terrible Irish accent in a movie not worth remembering. We have Scarlett Johansson playing every other race just because. I feel like directors get lazy, and Hitch was NOT. While I’m glad that Rebecca was largely like the novel (and the producer had to fight with Hitch to get that), I also love the inclusion of these hilarious side characters not in the book. Caldicott and Charters are my FAVORITES.

    • I often think Hitchcock improves on the original book, and there aren’t many directors I’d say that about. Basically he understands that the point is entertainment – a thing too many authors and film-makers seem to forget! Ha! I absolutely hate when a Brit tries to play an American or an American tries to play a Brit – it almost never works. Mind you, I even hate when they have a Scot play an English character or vice versa. Unless they’re really good, you can still hear their original accent peeping through. They made a film of Sunset Song recently – a real Scottish classic which has as one of its themes the way English culture has drowned out Scottish culture, and unbelievably they cast an English actress in the major role…

      • What a drag. There’s a new movie about an American woman who puts together puzzles with this Indian man, and they cast the American woman with Kelly MacDonald. I love her work, but this is very strange.

        • I saw a clip from a new movie with Carey Mulligan playing an American and her accent sounded totally false even to me. I love her too, but I can’t see why they didn’t cast an American.

  5. What a fun type of post and an excellent movie review. I loved the film and think I will continue to skip the book. Also the stage play version of this was absolutely brilliant. I adored the production that I saw. Arrr!
    x The Captain

    • Thank you – glad you enjoyed it! 😀 I haven’t seen the stage version, but I do love the film – almost everything Hitchcock did was pure gold. The book was OK, but not unmissable – I’d definitely recommend watching the film again instead… 😀

  6. I really enjoy this pairing of movie vs book, because everyone always says the book is better, but i have to disagree, that’s not always the case. And clearly it isn’t here either!

    • I usually prefer the book, but not always. And hardly ever with Hitchcock – he was the master of adding all the right touches of romance and humour to books that forgot to put them in…

Please leave a comment - I'd love to know who's visiting and what you think...of the post, of the book, of the blog, of life, of chocolate...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.