The 39 Steps (1935, Alfred Hitchcock) with Sid Gottlieb - Criterion Collection Spine #56

"See how far the truth gets you."

In this episode of Why This Film?, I'm joined by film scholar Sid Gottlieb to explore The 39 Steps, Alfred Hitchcock's 1935 masterpiece thriller and a Criterion Collection essential, the film where Hitchcock became definitively Hitchcock.

The 39 Steps follows Richard Hannay (Robert Donat), an ordinary Canadian accused of murder he didn't commit. Fleeing across the Scottish Highlands, he's handcuffed to Pamela (Madeleine Carroll), a woman who doesn't believe him. What starts as a spy story becomes a meditation on trust and survival. To survive, Hannay must convince strangers he's telling the truth. But truth doesn't always help.

Sid Gottlieb is a Professor of Communication and Media Studies at Sacred Heart University, where he's taught since 1976. He co-edits The Hitchcock Annual and has spent decades inside Hitchcock's own words and interviews through books like Hitchcock on Hitchcock, Framing Hitchcock, and Hitchcock: Interviews. His writing extends to Welles, Capra, and beyond, the kind of range that comes from thinking deeply about how directors construct meaning. He's the ideal guide for understanding how a 1935 suspense thriller became the blueprint for everything Hitchcock would make for the next 40 years.

We discuss:

• Why The 39 Steps is the film where Hitchcock's career took shape
• The "wrong man" motif
• Performance and storytelling as survival strategies
• Hitchcock's critique on institutions
• Pamela refusing to be won over on charm alone
• Class consciousness
• The MacGuffin and why it doesn't matter

Whether you're encountering The 39 Steps for the first time or returning to it, this conversation explores a film that moves at breakneck speed while asking questions about who we trust and why. It's a thriller that is also political. It's a love story where the couple barely knows each other. It's a comedy and also a suspense. And it's the film that taught Hitchcock how to be Hitchcock.

Hollywood ManeStays - Not a pin, not a clip. Just Better.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_08 0:26

And he tells stories in all sorts of different ways, including you use the word lying. Well, yeah, he makes they're they're witty, they're not true. And interestingly enough, with a very hitchhicky and irony, see how far the truth gets you.

Ron 0:42

Hello, everybody. My name is Ron, and welcome to Why This Film, podcast where we explore the artistry, cultural impact, and legacy of movies in the Criteria Collection. Each episode I sit down with experts and Cenophiles to ask why was this film chosen for the collection and why does it still matter today? In this episode, we're tracking one man's journey from London to the Scottish Highlands and back with The 39 Steps, the 1935 film from director Alfred Hitchcock, about a man wrongly accused on the run and handcuffed to a woman who doesn't believe a word that he says. My guest today is Sid Gottlieb, professor of communication and media studies at Sacred Heart University, where he's taught since 1976. He co-edits the Hitchcock Annual, and his books on the Master of Suspense include Hitchcock on Hitchcock, Framing Hitchcock, Alfred Hitchcock interviews. His writing extends well past Hitchcock too, into Wells and Capra, among others. The kind of range that comes from decades spent thinking about how directors actually construct meaning in their stories. Decades spent inside Hitchcock's own words and interviews make him the perfect person to help trace how a film this early set the template for everything that came after. And with that, here's my conversation with Sid Gottlieb. What's the history with the 39 steps? Now you and I were emailing back and forth. There's a lot of different Hitchcock films to choose from in the Criterion Collection. And I could tell, I could just tell in the emails, like, this is the one he wants. Let's just give the man what he wants to talk about. What is your history with just this film in particular?

SPEAKER_08 2:03

It so happens that The 39 Steps was the very first Hitchcock film that I ever saw. And can I get away with saying this? Love at first sight. It was really a knockout. I saw it when I was in high school when my school used to show a public domain film or an old 16 millimeter copy of something that they had. This, of course, was long before the age of video. So there's a very special place in my heart for that reason. It's a great film. It's a great Hitchcock film. It's a great starting point to get into Hitchcock. In some respects, as many people have said, it's a kind of template for Hitchcock films. So there are any number of reasons why I think 39 Steps is a great film to talk about.

Ron 2:49

This is what I've seen is pointed to as where Hitchcock became Hitchcock. It was his first major international hit and it helped move him toward Hollywood. What is it that specifically clicks into place for him that maybe didn't click for him before? Because he made many films before the 39 Steps.

SPEAKER_08 3:06

He he did, and I'm so glad that you're aware of it. For many people, if they've heard of the 39 Steps or watched it, my God, black and white with the British accents in 1935, people know Hitchcock primarily from the great films of the 50s, the color films, North by Northwest. But as you say, critics tend to say something along the lines of this is, if not, the first great Hitchcock film. I mean, there's a lot of contention. Hitchcock himself said The Lodger, made in 1926, one of his silent films, was something he put up for grabs as the first authentic Hitchcock movie. But the 39 Steps was very popular. When we tend to characterize, or maybe even caricature Hitchcock, we think of spy films, we think of witty films, we think of fast-paced films, a lot of banter between the men and the women. And also, not to be too heavy about this, certainly some serious themes. So I think 39 Steps has the reputation of a go-to film when we try to define what a Hitchcock film is.

Ron 4:26

You mentioned North by Northwest. I actually rewatched that this week. I watched 39 Steps and I thought, you know, I'm feeling like I'm getting hints of North by Northwest here, but obviously many years before. Do you see a lot of similarities between those two? I almost looked at like 39 steps as this is the blueprint that he doesn't know he's writing yet. Absolutely. That when he gets to North by Northwest, he can look back at all these different things that he's doing in the 39 steps.

SPEAKER_08 4:49

Absolutely. One of the things that I think people see, and you're quite right, is wow, this is North by Northwest, 25 years before its time. So many of the themes, the wrong man motif, traipsing across the countryside, at least nominally a spy scene, but hand in hand with a romance and very interesting and not altogether easy relationship between a man and a woman. So absolutely, North by Northwest is quite self-consciously a return to the 39 steps. There's a kind of midpoint to his lesser-known film Saboteur from early in when he shifted to America. It has so many of the same through lines as the 39 steps does. But 39 Steps has, among other things, Robert Donat. And then fast forward, North by Northwest has Cary Grant. Well, Saboteur has Robert Cummings. I love him dearly. I used to watch Love That Bob his television show. Is there a big butt coming here in a mouth? He ain't Robert Donat and he ain't Cary Grant.

Ron 6:03

I I read that Hitchcock told Truffaut that what he liked about The 39 Steps was its swift transitions. The movie's only 86 minutes. The pace just doesn't really let up. And I really noticed that on my second watch, I would say. But then on my second watch, I also started noticing a lot of the plot holes. I had a lot more questions about the plot. So I was wondering if the speed of how he moves everything along is meant to cover up for that. You have a question about this? Don't worry about it. We're already two scenes down the line. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain kind of thing. Like just keep enjoying the ride.

SPEAKER_08 6:36

I don't feel that my role is either to defend Hitchcock and this film right down the line or say that it's absolutely flawless. It's it's not. And there are some, as you say, maybe some holes. Although Hitchcock anticipated that. And one of the ways he anticipated it is exactly in the way you say. If things are interesting enough and if they move along quickly, there's not going to be time for the dreaded plausibles. That was his term. For the people who say, wait a minute, how could that be? Or why didn't he do this? But I think the pace of the film is one of the real attractions of it. It covers a lot of what you might call errors, but I think it's valuable in itself. I don't think there's anything wasted in this film.

Ron 7:25

Let's talk about what a MacGuffin, the origin of that term. Do we know the origin of that term? I read that somebody, playwright, used that term and then Hitchcock described it in a way to Truffaut. Well, the way Hitchcock tells it and retells it and retells it.

SPEAKER_08 7:41

I mean, when he got hold of a good story, hey, if it worked the first time, why not keep it going? And there's some slight variations. But he says it was told to him by his friend Angus McPhail, who was a writer and who actually did a fair amount of work writing and providing stories for Hitchcock. But it goes something like this. So there's a guy on a railroad, and somebody asks the question, hey, what what's that up there? Um that must be a MacGuffin. What is the MacGuffin? Well, it's a device to trap lions in the Scottish Highlands. Well, there aren't any lions in the Scottish Highlands. Well, then that's no MacGuffin. So it's this wonderful, very short, shaggy dog tail nonsense thing. But what Hitchcock went on to say about it is it's basically the plot mechanism that gets things going in the film. And it's the thing that the people in the film are concerned about, whereas we are not so concerned about it. We're so concerned about the film. We want to see things happen.

Ron 8:51

Right. We care more about Hannah and we care about Annabella Smith and we care about these other characters. I didn't really find myself caring too much about whatever this government secret is that he's trying to help now track that. And I obviously I'm looking for it on a rewatch, but on my first watch, thinking back, I didn't really care then either. In fact, I kind of forgot what was going on. I just know he's being chased, he's chasing. It's like a it's a double chase kind of thing going on. There's a little love story. I didn't really care too much about what are the military plans that they're looking for.

SPEAKER_08 9:21

That's all we needed to know. It was something important. It was something that got people in danger. It got poor Annabella Smith murdered. It set Henna on the run with people after him. All we need to know is that it's important. At the very end, we find out that Mr. Memory is the one that has been carrying the secret. And actually, that is a little bit of a who done it. So, on the one hand, we get to know uh it's a device that allows planes to fly silently and be undetected by radar. But he kind of garbles it so we both get it and don't get it. But again, going back to the idea of the MacGuffin, it's what the people in the film care about. But we watching the film, we've got more important things to pay attention to.

Ron 10:12

I would argue that the plot barely holds together in in some spots if you look too closely. Like how are Jordan and Annabella connected? We don't really know. How the killers get into Hannah's flat, and then why did they leave to then chase him? But none of it really matters. Or am I letting Hitchcock off the hook a little too easily by saying none of it matters?

SPEAKER_08 10:32

Well, to my mind, what you just said shows that you're very much on track with what Hitchcock was trying to do, what I think he did so effectively, and the frame of mind that he wanted his viewers to get into. So let me say it, you're the perfect watcher of a Hitchcock film. You can follow along. And at the same time, there's other things to a Hitchcock film, and there are surprises and there are turnarounds. But I think that's exactly the way he structured his films and really the way he wanted for people to view them.

Ron 11:08

I think it's a brave way to make a film. We're gonna have this very, very important piece of information, but you don't need to care about that. That's not the important thing. I can't imagine sitting and writing something like that and just trusting the audience to go along with you.

SPEAKER_08 11:20

I think that's a that's a nice term to use. I think Hitchcock was brave, and Hitchcock was bold. Now that doesn't mean that everything he did worked or worked perfectly. Hitchcock is not infallible, but he really was very brave, very bold, very unconventional. Now, also part of that is, uh, and I think this is true of all great artists, I think they take these steps. They expect and they hope that the audience will take steps, but they also train us, they teach us, they bring us along. So, in some respects, we more than meet Hitchcock halfway. And I think we need to be brave and bold when we watch a Hitchcock film. But he also carries more than a little bit of the weight too. And I think we learn how to watch and appreciate a Hitchcock film by watching and appreciating a Hitchcock film.

Ron 12:14

Well, let's get into this Hitchcock film, shall we? Richard Hannay, played by, as you mentioned before, Robert Donat.

SPEAKER_07 12:20

Yeah.

Ron 12:20

He's in a London music hall watching a demonstration of Mr. Memory, played by Wiley Watson. And Mr. Memory is demonstrating this power of recall when a fight starts, which another one of those things is like, why is the fight start? Well, we don't know. It doesn't really matter. The fact is the fight starts and gunshots ring out.

SPEAKER_07 12:36

Yeah.

Ron 12:37

And Mr. Memory is introduced. We don't really have any reason to believe that this character is going to serve any purpose to us later down the line. We just see our what's established as our main character is just at this show. We have no reason to believe that we have to pay attention to Mr. Memory.

SPEAKER_08 12:51

No, I think you're right, although he proves to be absolutely pivotal. And he actually he haunts Hannah in a way. You notice that the music and the whistling, and he doesn't know what it is. I'm not even sure if we recognize it, but it's there subliminally. So it's a wonderfully subtle touch. But I think right from the beginning, I I think you're right. We're kind of wondering what's the purpose of it all. Although I suppose we could say it is the traditional inciting action. The plot needs to get kicked off. And uh this is a very, very dramatic and witty and funny kind of way of doing it. Exactly as you say, we really don't know and maybe don't even expect that it is going to come back to haunt us or gonna have further significance.

Ron 13:46

The two most important questions is what causes Pip and poultry and how old is May West? That did make me laugh because that that poor man's really asking. He really needs to know what causes this issue.

SPEAKER_08 13:57

I I think those are absolutely memorable questions. And those are the only questions, as I recall, that are repeated. So Hitchcock wants us to remember them. There's a kind of insistence. Now, listen, I want you and your listeners to know I did my homework. I looked up to see actually how old Mae West at the time. Does anybody want to know?

SPEAKER_07 14:21

Yes, please.

SPEAKER_08 14:22

She was 42 years old. I had I had never looked it up before. But let's let's get to some of the points that you're very intriguingly raising. What's going on in that sequence besides the proverbial entree to a film, catch the spectator's interest, and then move things along, because of course what it does is you know the proverbial meet cute between the male and the female interest. Hitchcock worked wonderful variations on that. It might be stretching it to say this is a meet cute moment, but we gotta get the guy and the girl together. And boy, does he do it in a fascinating way.

Ron 15:06

And that's why that's the only purpose that I thought on my initial watch that Mr. Memory, this show was serving, was just to get those two together, not realizing how important that character is to the plot of the film. But then again, I still don't care. Like he had the secret in his head, but really that's not the point.

SPEAKER_08 15:23

After we've seen the whole film, and especially when we go back and watch it again, then I think we start asking questions or expecting different answers to the question you raised. What's the purpose of that opening sequence? And I I think there are other purposes. So we've talked about the wit and the fun and the romance and the piquing our interest, but let's look at that opening sequence in terms of maybe what some of the broader themes are. Not only a spy film in terms of generating interest in the action that's happening, but the 1930s when the film was made, it was a very precarious time. Um, Hitchcock certainly had his eye on contemporary events. Politically, this was a very dangerous period in England, in Europe. This is pre-war, people were pretty much aware at the time that not only war was possible, but war was imminent. And that is the same historical grounding that's in the source novel for it, The Thirty-Nine Steps by John Buchan. So, in any event, all of a sudden, when a group of people out to have fun in a pub, it takes very little to have basically a riot start. And out of nowhere, apparently gunshot sound, and Hitchcock is great in showing us images of chaos. This is not just a kind of drama that's gonna intrigue us. This is a drama that has its both feet, I would say, set in the real life dramas of the time, and that's something that continues throughout the film.

Ron 17:10

No, I think part of the beauty of having these conversations is having that perspective looking back. And it's not just taking a film at face value. You have to have understanding of when it was made, how it was made, where it was made, the characters in the film. Those kind of decisions could be dangerous for some artists.

SPEAKER_08 17:38

I said earlier that Hitchcock does each of those things so well and he balances them and he integrates them. I I think that's something rare, and that's something that is a real part of his genius. He's able to do all of that.

Ron 17:56

Well, in the panic of them leaving that theater, this is where we meet Annabella Smith, played by Lucy Mannheim, and she grabs onto Hannah and talks him into taking her back to his flat. He agrees. A total stranger, nothing to go off of other than her panic, and a few uh, I would say, urgent or flirty words. It's interesting to me because it's a shorter film by a lot of the films that come out by today's standards, but what I've come to expect is that we have Hannah alone, we establish him as our hero, we we get to know him a little bit more, and then we get into the Mr. Memory music hall scene. But we don't do that. We just get dropped right in. We don't know why he's in London, we don't know anything about him, we really don't know a single thing about our hero, and we really don't learn much about him throughout the film, other than he's really good at pretending to be somebody that he's not, interestingly enough.

SPEAKER_08 18:46

That is, when you think about the character and what we remember about him, that to me is one of the first things that comes to mind. I think Hitchcock is very shrewd in characterizing Hanna from the very beginning. He is not a man on the make. There is a little bit of the flirtatiousness. I think Hitchcock underplays that. Exactly as you say, she's the one that picks him up and he kind of goes along for the rides, which by the way establishes him as somebody that's fairly passive. That's something that characterizes him, I think, from the beginning, but then changes through the course of the film. I think he grows, he becomes something other than passive. In fact, he does say, sure. She says, Can I come to your flat? He says, Sure, it's your funeral.

Ron 19:41

Yes, I have that in my notes too. It's like, oh no, poor Annabella.

SPEAKER_08 19:45

It's it's witty and he's very well mannered as far as I'm concerned. Hitchcock's films are under a microscope these days in terms of presentation of the male characters, presentation of the female characters, and presentation of male-female relations in particular. Now, the relationship between Hannay and Pamela in the film is complicated, takes a while to get going, but I don't think it has an edginess to it. Even though, as you said, he pretends to be a tough guy at various points. But I think we've had an introduction to Hannay from the very beginning as genial.

Ron 20:26

No, I'm with you on that. And when you put it like that, you do see a, again, in a very short amount of time, you can see his character growing in some way. I mean, he's forced to. He's put in a situation where he has no choice. And back at his flat, uh, Annabella just openly admits that she is a counter spy who fired the shots to cause confusion because assassins are chasing her. Now, I mean, put yourself in his shoes. It's like, what? What what is she talking about?

SPEAKER_05 20:49

Upset for those shots tonight.

SPEAKER_01 20:52

I fired those shots. Yes, to create a diversion. You see, I had to get away from the theatre quickly. There were two men there who wanted to kill me.

SPEAKER_05 21:04

Really, you should be more careful in choosing your gentleman friends.

SPEAKER_01 21:07

No, no, you don't understand.

SPEAKER_05 21:09

Well, you don't make it very easy for me, do you? Beautiful, mysterious woman pursued by gunmen. Sounds like a spy story.

SPEAKER_01 21:16

That's exactly what it is.

Ron 21:18

I don't think he believes her at first, but she, look from her perspective, she is incredibly trusting of this man that she just met. She's describing a plot to steal military secrets run by a man missing the top joint of his little finger. She says she needs to reach a small village in Scotland. Again, she's very trusting of him with what seems like top secret information. I suppose this means we need to keep the plot moving. The runtime's an hour and 26 minutes. Like it's okay to divulge these secrets.

SPEAKER_08 21:46

That's right. I'm glad you said that. But I also would say that this is still character building for Hannay. He's trusted by her, and in some respects, that's a commentary on him as well as her. As you mentioned, we got to get the plot moving. So blah boom. She's talking about the spies. She even says there's men outside waiting, and he sees them. And you might think Hannah's response is, Whoa, what do we do? We got to protect ourselves. Maybe this is his sense of confidence. Maybe this is his sense of passivity, which is he takes it in stride. And then, of course, the very dramatic moment which shocks me every time I see it, when she Bursts into the room and she falls on him, and you see the knife. That knife that only a few moments earlier he's been cutting bread with, and he makes he was carrying it around with him.

Ron 22:41

He was he carried it with him to the hallway to look out the window. You can clearly see it.

SPEAKER_08 22:46

I think not in any menacing way, but you're right. And uh Hitchcock never wastes, he never wastes anything in the frame. Uh, and then it's not as though he has to snap into action, but it's a very quick, decisive moment where he knows he has to get out of his apartment and he also knows he needs to go to Scotland. So it's remarkably economical.

Ron 23:12

Does this resurface anywhere else in his filmography where the person who's revealing this crucial information before dying or disappearing and the the hero is left just holding that information that he can't really prove? He can't prove he didn't kill this woman. He can't prove what she told him the night before. Is this something that Hitchcock comes back to later?

SPEAKER_08 23:35

Well, that is a really fascinating question. On the broad level, this is the motif of the wrong man. And whatever has transpired up to that point, he knows he's gonna be accused of killing her on flash forward to North by Northwest. And you see that famous image of Kerry Grant again with someone snaps the photo as he's holding. Yeah. So again, this is the setup for the common wrong man motif, the chase motif. He goes on the run and he's chasing after somebody to unravel the mystery who really did it, and he's being chased. This is all the Hitchcockian template, but it's interesting that you raise the whole question about the scenario of somebody confessing to a man that then puts him on the hot seat. Now, there may be other examples in Hitchcock's films, but he made a film called I Confess that is exactly this scenario where um a man literally confesses. Well, in this case, he confesses to a murder, but the game's a foot or whatever, there's these uh crazy things happening, confesses to a priest, and the priest is bound by the seal of the confessional. So he cannot, as people frequently say, why didn't you just go to the police? He can't, just like Hannay in many respects can't, because they wouldn't believe him. So again, it's a fascinating question that you raised. I'm glad I have it answered. There's it, there's at least that kind of repetition of that pattern.

Ron 25:17

When Annabella falls with the knife in her back, she's clutching a map and there's a village circled. And did you notice that on that map when they zoom in, the word killen is is there, the city of killen is there? You know, uh is that a little wink by Hitchcock?

SPEAKER_08 25:31

It absolutely is. And again, just like I said before, I don't want to get too carried away with Hitchcock heaviness, but he is a serious artist with high and innovative artistic purposes. He is a serious analyst of personal problems, of political problems and issues, and he also is so witty, and he's a master of puns and tiny little details. If you go back to that image and you use a freeze frame, there Alt Michelle, if I said it right, is very near killing, and there are some suburbs of that that are killing something or whatever. So, as I recall, there's three or four names that have kill prominently there, and they almost leap out. But the killin, absolutely, and that qualifies as a pun and a pun with significance.

Ron 26:31

Now our main character has direction.

SPEAKER_07 26:33

Yes.

Ron 26:33

He has a destination he he's going to try to reach to get out of the mess that he is now in. And one of my favorite scenes in the film is he knows that the killers, again, the killers killed this woman, and now they leave, and they're just gonna wait for Hannay to leave instead of maybe taking care of him and whatever. We'll just skim over that. We don't need to worry about why the killers left the flat instead of taking care of Hannah at that point. But they are now watching the flat, and Hannay convinces a milkman to give him his uniform to slip out unnoticed. That's one of the first times that Hannay convinces somebody of a story that's not true because he tells him the truth first. He says there's killers outside. Then he makes up the story that he's actually having an affair with a woman in the building and he needs to sneak out in the milk and says, Oh, why didn't you just say so? That is the first time that that Hannay lies to move himself forward and where he's trying to go to accomplish his mission.

SPEAKER_08 27:24

One of the really interesting critics of, you know, people who's written on this film, Maurice Yaakovar, he was an early fan and wonderful critic of Hitchcock's British films, including, of course, his silent films and The Thirty Nine Steps. He gives three a description of three things that the film is about. One is it's about spies and the political. I don't even want to call it subtext. I think it's really part of the text. Number two, of course, is about the romance and it's about male-female relationships, and that's something that is kind of an essential part of Hitchcock and an essential part of this film. And the third thing that Yakovar says, this is a film about narrativity. It's a film about not just Richard Hannay, although that's a key part of his character. He's a storyteller. But the film begins with Annabelle telling her story. And there are other people throughout the film that tell stories. Hannay in particular. I think it's not only a sign of his wit, but it's a sign of what you might call his resourcefulness. It's something that he has from the very beginning, but that he grows into even further. So it's something that pretty much, as you said, and I give you credit for mentioning this from the very beginning, this is something that we follow throughout the whole film. And that is a key part of what he does. And he tells stories in all sorts of different ways, including you use the word lying. Well, yeah, he makes their witty, they're not true. And interestingly enough, with a very Hitchcocky and irony, see how far the truth gets you. He's trying to be honest and direct. And he tries later on, with the police captain, you know, he thinks he's in safe ground, and he's truthful. See how far that gets you. Which is an interesting sub-theme in the film, the pursuit of the truth, but also with a kind of Hitchcockan complexity and irony in a Hitchcock film. The truth sometimes is not a good strategy and is something that gets you in trouble. It gets Mr. Memory killed. In effect, it gets Annabella Smith killed. It almost gets Richard Hannah killed.

Ron 29:45

He manages to board the Flying Scotsman train to get to Scotland. And on board, he learns from a fellow passenger's newspaper that he is now the target of a nationwide manhunt for poor Miss Annabella Smith's murder. So he was gone from private citizen, we uh I think, I don't know. His apartment kind of looks like he's a spy himself. He has all of these everything's covered with sheets. It's like he moved in but never unpacked, kind of thing. Interesting. But he he was gone from this private citizen to now the country's most wanted man. And I noticed on this most recent watch, the two lingerie salesmen, I guess they are, sitting on the train, or at least one of them is. He said another woman's been murdered.

SPEAKER_04 30:23

Another woman murdered in the Western flat. What? Woman murdered in West End Clemens. Uh bachelor. Good. Seven before. A well-dressed woman of about 31 with a knife in her back. Lieutenant Richard Henning is missing. Use your pride.

SPEAKER_08 30:53

I think that's one of those lines. It's more than a throwaway line. If you fast forward to frenzy about a serial killer, if you go back to one of his earlier films, The Lodger, about a Jack the Ripper kind of character, there is a sense that that is part of the landscape of a Hitchcock film. Sometimes quite centrally, obviously in those two films that I mentioned. But even this off-handed comment and with a smile on his face, there is almost that momentary sense that in the landscape that Hitchcock shows in his films, it's not easy to be a woman. Women are vulnerable, women are in danger. So I don't think it's a literal reference to, yeah, this is literally happening right now, but it almost seems to be like, dare I say, it's front page news that almost isn't news. What do you know, another woman killed? And there's something a little bit chilling, even though it's just a momentary jocular comment. There's something a little chilling about the the what that tells us about society at the time.

Ron 32:06

If the milkman scene is my favorite conversation, I wouldn't say favorite. I would say it's one that I enjoy. This police search on the train is is maybe my favorite action sequence. I would say there's a there's a lot of movement, there's a lot going on, there's there's claustrophobic feeling of these railway hallways that they're dealing with. And Hannay in in that scramble to get away from what we think are the police at the time, not so sure what they are. He ducks into a compartment that has a woman sitting in there and he kisses her. Yes. And it is our character of Pamela, played by Madeline Carroll.

unknown 32:38

Yeah.

Ron 32:39

And she frees herself of his grasp. There's a shot, there's a close-up shot of him holding onto her wrists, which is which is quite what's the word? Problematic. Problematic that that would that would fit. There's a lot of words that could maybe fit there.

SPEAKER_08 32:52

Well, many people would say worse. Uh, this is an unwanted sexual advance.

Ron 32:59

Yeah, and her first act of the film is to refuse to be used because when the police come in, she doesn't play along with this story. Absolutely. She actively turns him in. So she has agency to say, no, this is not my husband. This is maybe the person that you're looking for. And Hitchcock then chooses to introduce this female lead by having her work against our male lead. What does starting the romance there instead of maybe what we would would expect? What does that do for the audience to have our female lead working against our male lead after the male lead forces himself onto her?

SPEAKER_08 33:32

There is so much in that sequence, and I'm so glad that it's a favorite of yours. It's Hitchcock's variation of a meat cute moment with Annabelle Smith. This too comes under the category, I suppose, of meat cute, but also it is problematic. And part of what makes it interestingly problematic is, and I want to be careful not to push this too far, is that we see it from both perspectives. And if we look at it from the outside, our sympathies are with Hannay already. This guy is on the run, but we know he's not guilty, or he's not guilty of that anyway. That you know, the murderer.

Ron 34:12

Not guilty of murder, at least.

SPEAKER_08 34:13

That's that's right. Hitchcock's characters are often not guilty, but they're rarely innocent. And that's something worth tracking throughout throughout his films. But in any event, I think we see it and we start out seeing it from Hannah's perspective. And again, I I don't want to try to say my perspective on this is everyone's, but it seems to me that in general, the point of view of the film at that point is we're sympathetic with him. He's doing something that's wildly improvisatory and gets him out of a very tough jam. So that's the one perspective we we see it from. But as you mentioned very sharply, we also see it. I'm stretching the term a little bit, but from her perspective, from the perspective of a woman who is evidently a serious woman and she's got glasses on and she's reading. My God, this is a we know already that she's a thoughtful.

Ron 35:07

She's alone in a train car and a man busts in, and there you go.

SPEAKER_08 35:12

And again, her glasses fall off, she has a startled expression. That close-up of you said of her hands, I think, dropping the book. So we see from her perspective as well, yeah, it's a complicated scene. And you led so nicely into this as not only our initial sense of the character of Pamela. This is someone who is independent, she's intelligent, she stands up in this situation very boldly. We know that about her right from the very beginning, and that is when she meets him again later and she turns him in again. We have this dual sense that it's not as though she's being naive or bad in any way. It's just that she's not completely in the no. And I think that's part of our sense of this is a woman who is a strong character. I like the idea that this is a film that is about not only male-female relations, but these are characters, it's not a one-sided thing. And for their relationship to grow, each of them needs to find a way of negotiating and interacting. And when you have two really interesting, strong characters do that, that's a formula for a really interesting film.

Ron 36:36

I I pulled from the Criterion Essay a quote that says, Pamela refuses to play the doting easily one over love interest. Because she needs to be convinced by actual evidence, not the charm of our leading man. She needs actual evidence to believe that he is telling the truth. I love how this goes because they're going to pull the emergency brake here and he's going to jump on off the not off of, but he's going to hide. They're on the fourth bridge, and the emergency brake is pulled and he is able to escape. But we don't see Pamela again for quite a while because we have a sequence where we are going to end up now as Hannah is running along the Scottish Highlands, which are just great landscape shots by Hitchcock here as the police are chasing him.

SPEAKER_08 37:16

When you were talking earlier about maybe a hole in the plot, some people could conceivably say we get this wonderful setup of these two characters, and then she's gone for the next however many minutes. I I don't miss her because it allows Hannah to go off on other adventures. It just wouldn't work for Hannah to be partnered up. It it wouldn't work. We've got to see him on his own for a little bit, and then he's gotta get back to her, and then for the rest of the time, they only momentarily lose contact. She's there for the rest of the film. So I think there are reasons why Hitchcock does separate them at that moment.

Ron 37:56

Yeah, I I mean I don't miss Mr. Memory, and he's gonna come back. I don't really miss him at this point. I just thought of him as part of the show. And I don't know Madeline Carroll on site, so when I see her a second time, I don't think, oh, there's Madeline Carroll again. I think, hey, that's the girl from the train. So even at the time on that first watch, I'm not thinking she's really coming back yet. I just think it's so he he encountered Mr. Memory, he encountered Annabella Smith, he encountered the milkman, he encountered the two men on the train, he encountered uh this woman on the train. I don't I wasn't expecting all of these any of these characters to come back.

SPEAKER_08 38:28

Pamela is not in the original novel. There is no romantic interest in it. I think it's clear that Hitchcock had to do that. I think even in the 1930s, it's I think it's probably inconceivable that there would not be a love interest. But this is something that is added by the screenwriters, and there was a whole gaggle of them, as well as one kind of head screenwriter, and Hitchcock participated in it. There's a danger sometimes of giving Hitchcock too much credit as though he did everything by himself, which is clearly not true. But then there's sometimes a danger in not giving Hitchcock credit for some of the things that he really did again contribute to, in this case, the script here. But again, back to the point, there there was no woman interest, there was no Pamela in the 39 steps. And boy, I'm so glad that she is in the film and that her role is so central to it.

Ron 39:31

I think in the original novel, the 39 steps was an actual staircase, wasn't it?

SPEAKER_08 39:34

And that too is another yes, yes, everybody.

Ron 39:38

The 39 steps, they are not steps. So he's being chased across the the highlands and he comes to a crofter's cottage.

SPEAKER_07 39:45

Yeah.

Ron 39:46

And he is able to stay the night with a poor crofter played by a character actor named John Laurie, who was in tons and tons of films. And his young wife, played by Peggy Ashcroft. There's of course that little comedic line where he says, Is this your daughter? and he says, My wife. She she recognizes him a newspaper article. There's not even a photo. She's putting it together by the newspaper description and recognizes who Hannah actually is. She chooses to protect him. The husband makes a different decision because when the police show up looking for him, she sends him on his way. What is her motivation to allow him to escape? Because she doesn't know him from anyone.

SPEAKER_08 40:21

This is one of those reminders, if this is something that a lot of people who watch Hitchcock films aren't aware of. We think of him as a master of suspense, a master of thrillers. We think of him in terms of romances and male-female, male-female relations. He was from the very beginning and to the end a maker of melodramas, but more precisely, melodramas that are very much focused on women, women under pressure, women in a domestic environment that is not a happy one for them. So, really, all of a sudden, with this new episode, we are in that territory. And I think he does it incredibly well. And I think it's a real addition to the film. You know, we started out earlier talking about the episodic nature of the film. On the one hand, there may be a little bit of a disconnect. On the other hand, there are connections, and they add up to greater than the sum of the parts. So she, uh the woman character there, it's clear this is not a good situation for her. Um, we don't know the details, we don't know how this old guy and this severely religious character ended up with a woman who has her eye on broadening her horizons. And she's heard about the great city. She asks Henna, is it true that the women there paint their faces or whatever? She wants to see the larger world and she's been kept from it. So you might say that when this intriguing adventurous man enters into the household, she sees this as a way out. But the other thing that I wanted to add to what you said is she is good. She is trusting. Now you might say she's naive, but at a certain point she's looking at the picture and reading the newspaper upside down, and she looks up. She knows in the very least that this is a man suspected of murder. But from her previous contact with him, as brief as it is, she has a sense that she knows more and she trusts him. It's an oasis in a Hitchcock film. In a Hitchcock film that is filled with so many untrusting people, just to see her look at him and kind of her heart goes goes out to him. Unfortunately, it ends unhappily. She helps him, he kisses her, just this fleeting kiss. But I think kisses are so significant in Hitchcock. This is just that momentary kind of kiss that means the world to her. It changes her life, at least for a moment. She'll never forget it. But I don't think there's anything problematic about it. This is not an abusive kind of thing in any way. And then there's that heartbreaking moment when you see he's left and you see the expression on her face. I hope that that description sends everybody back to the film and to that moment in particular. When we think of the term Hitchcockan, we don't ordinarily think of sequences like this. Perhaps we should.

Ron 43:38

It's very well said. That's very well said. Thank you. One additional note is that she gives him her husband's Sunday coat. It's important to mention that that is a coat to be worn on Sunday. It's something that in a film that is so precise and efficient, there's a reason for just about everything. So the reason to give someone a coat, the reason why it needs to be cold, the reason why it has to be a coat from Sunday, it's going to come back up in short order. Because Hannay.

SPEAKER_08 44:06

Please do. I hope I didn't interrupt, but I'll be very quick. It's a wonderful setup. And in the very least, it's incredibly dramatic. And we get to experience two things the death of Richard Hannay. We think for sure he shot point blank. And it's it's a wonderful, dramatic scene. And the expression on his face is our expression. My God, this can't be happening. And then we get To see him live on. But if we're thinking of broader messages, dare I say, I think something along the lines of, yeah, religion saves, but it saves in the most curious and bizarre and eccentric kind of ways. There is a religious component, but there also in Hitchcock's films, but there also is he takes his jabs at religion. And I stand by what I say, that little bit of a message. Yep. Religion saves, but in this really kind of curious, eccentric, witty way.

Ron 45:05

This is one of the plot points. It was a little head scratching to me. He arrives on foot at this village. I don't know. He's in a town somewhere, and it's this large estate, and he gives Annabella's name to the maid. Both the maid and someone else lie to the police about seeing a stranger. Did anyone see anyone here? No. No, didn't see anyone that we don't recognize here. Absolutely. So that's a little strange.

SPEAKER_08 45:28

We realize very quickly that this is not gonna be. Well, I shouldn't say very quickly. There's a little bit of drama, but uh it isn't long before we see that this is not a refuge. It's one of those Hitchcockian traps. Just when you think you're safe, the guy holds up his hand and the maid misleads the people looking for him. But as it turns out, that is not for anything that's gonna ultimately be helpful. It's only a little bit of a delay before we realize that he is even deeper in trouble now.

Ron 46:08

Right, it's it's not long that he is alone with Jordan. Yes. And he tells the whole story.

SPEAKER_03 46:15

What about our mutual friend Annabella? She's been murdered. Murdered? Oh, the Portland Mansions affair. What our friends outside are looking for you for. I didn't do it. Of course you didn't.

SPEAKER_05 46:28

But why come all this way to Scotland to tell me about it? I believe she was coming to see you about some air ministry secret. She was killed by a foreign agent who was interested too. She tell you what the foreign agent looked like? It wasn't time. No, there was one thing, part of his little finger was missing.

SPEAKER_03 46:44

Which one?

SPEAKER_05 46:45

This one, I think.

SPEAKER_03 46:46

Sure, it wasn't this one.

Ron 46:49

He spills the beans because why wouldn't he? This is where Annabelle has shared that is the destination that she was going to attempt to get to. So he tells the whole story. And Professor Jordan Professor Jordan, of course, you add that term professor. It has as you well know, it adds a bit of esteem to your It is a class reference as much as anything.

SPEAKER_08 47:11

And that's an aspect that Hitchcock is very attuned to. Very quickly, the music hall setting at the beginning is marked, lower, lower middle class. I think Pamela is not always characterized as snooty or whatever, but I think very well off and literate and politically engaged. And the professor upper class, they turn out to be the real traders in their midst. And then in the book-ended scene at the very end, when we see Mr. Memory come in again, it's at the Palladium, which is not exactly the musical, it's a slightly upper middle class. So that that by way of saying that Hitchcock is very, very class conscious. And again, back to the professor, part of the point, part of the irony or the dig is the guy that turns out to be, in some respects, I mean, there are fascists and there is a threat from abroad, but this is a fascist, this is a threat not only built into British society, but in the upper class society. So again, Professor is meant to be a loaded term.

Ron 48:24

Well, Professor Jordan reveals that he is missing the top joint of his pinky finger in in probably it's almost a comical type of shot where we cut to just someone him holding his hand in the air. I love that shot. And Jordan at the end of this conversation shoots Hannay. But the bullet, of course, as we as we know, is stopped by the Crofter's hymn book that was left in his his coat pocket. So what does he say?

SPEAKER_08 48:45

Him hymns that save me or songs that whatever. A witty remark. And yeah, some of that religious stuff is pretty thick. So they get their mileage out of that. Yeah.

Ron 48:56

I I found it interesting that everyone in the film has to decide whether they're going to believe Hannah's story or not. And then finally he comes across somebody and he guesses wrong about Jordan. You know, every he's trying to convince everybody, look, this is true. This is what happened to me. And then he finds the one person that he should not be sharing these things with, and he ends up almost paying for it. But why does Annabella die before she gets the full message out? Is it no, this is where the enemy is located, not seek refuge here, because he should not be seeking refuge here.

SPEAKER_08 49:24

Absolutely. I think there is a dual point about what you've said several times very nicely, people telling their stories and then whether or not people believe them, and the multiple layers of telling the truth sometimes doesn't work out very well for you. But also there is, to a certain extent, it's a litmus test. And when the crofter's wife believes Hannay, and it's an interesting shot where you see it from outside, where the husband goes outside to check on something and he's looking through the window, and you see Hannah and the Crofter's wife talking. So we don't actually hear the words, which is wonderful. It's a litmus test for her. What a good, wonderful person she is that she believes him. And I think it's nothing that we hold against Pamela, but it's a little bit of a trial. She has to come to believe him, but she ultimately does. So she passes that test ultimately.

Ron 50:24

Is this film suggesting that having a nice house, good manners, and some money can act as a disguise?

SPEAKER_08 50:33

That whole element of disguise, it's a term that we haven't used yet, but that ties in so nicely with the idea that people are constantly telling stories about themselves and trace all the disguises that we have, starting with Annabella, and then the wonderful scene that you mentioned where he puts on the milkman's outfit and he pretends to be somebody later on. He really pretends to be this bloodthirsty murderer. But there are disguises that are necessary strategies, and when used by the right people for the right purposes, like Hannay, things work out okay. And then there are disguises that are used nefariously, and we have to be on the lookout for them, and we can't always tell.

Ron 51:20

We don't know how Hannay gets he gets shot and then he ends up at the local sheriff. Am I missing a scene of how he gets from Yeah?

SPEAKER_08 51:28

He gets shot and he then then he's arrested, but then he breaks out of the window.

Ron 51:34

He just jumps through this window of the police station, and then he's walking with this political parade of something. Okay. And he's he's taller than everybody else. He's standing out like a sore thumb walking with all these people. And then he he finds his way into a hall where he's mistaken for a political candidate's introductory speaker. And he doesn't know anything about the candidate whatsoever. He improvises, well, he actually follows somebody who you can barely understand what he's saying. It's a complete opposite of what he's going to be like when he speaks. This person that goes first, he's mumbling his words, you can't really hear him. And he improvises this very rousing speech about people being unjustly accused and hunted, and then Pamela spots him.

SPEAKER_08 52:14

Yes. That's a scene, it's framed as a political scene. So what does this tell us about Hitchcock's take on politics? I think you can glean a number of different messages. On the one hand, as you say, he gives this rousing speech that when as much as I can follow it, it seems to be really liberal, progressive, and we see that people getting roused and they're cheering, and he gets let out as though he's a hero.

Ron 52:43

He's waving to them. He's got handcuffs on one hand and he's waving to them.

SPEAKER_08 52:48

And we could take from that, yeah, this is kind of underscoring a positive progressive message. Hannay starts out improvising, and you get a sense that while you could take what he says positively and literally, there's also a way in which this is a demonstration of demagoguery. And if we think of it as progressive-minded and for the good guys, that's one thing. But in a film that has started out by showing us the volatility of people, situations are explosive. And once you've generated that kind of volatility, who knows where it's going to lead? So I think there's a dual message. This is a film that wants to cheer the good guys fighting for liberty and freedom, but wants us to be aware of the danger of fascism, but also the danger of demagoguery. That's why I love Pamela so much. She has to be one over. She doesn't get just swayed by his charm. So I do think this is a very articulate and coherent political analysis that Hitchcock is weaving into the film.

Ron 54:03

She's very skeptical of him at every turn.

SPEAKER_08 54:05

Properly so.

Ron 54:06

She also recognizes him and she goes to two men that she thinks are the police and is pointing out who he is.

SPEAKER_07 54:12

Yeah.

Ron 54:12

And they're all three driven off together. And Pamela realizes that they passed the real police station and missed the turn to the next town.

SPEAKER_08 54:20

That's right.

Ron 54:20

And she believes these men are police purely on appearance and their confidence in themselves. Just I think of again as like Hannah is he's acting or disguising himself as now a political speaker. These men are disguised or acting as if they are the police. Everyone is telling some sort of lie, really, except for Pamela. Pamela's a person here that is who she says that she is.

SPEAKER_08 54:43

Well, she's not quite as shrewd as we would like her to be, or maybe as she thinks she is. Now, when they're in the car, he drops all pretense. He said, I told you a million times these other bad guys. And she doesn't believe him. It's okay to be skeptical, but uh it's gonna take more than skepticism at a certain point. You have to make judgments, maybe even leaps of faith, about who you believe. And if I had to describe Hitchcock's philosophy, I think skepticism is what our take on the world should be. I think people grow by and grow into skepticism. One step away of saying wisdom. But saying wisdom might be a little bit too high for Luton for Hitchcock, who always wants us to be on our guard.

Ron 55:35

I think if you just put yourself in her position, there's not much different that you would do. You would probably act the same way. Hey, this guy's wanted for murder, and I recognize him. He accosted me on a train a few days ago. You know, you're probably seeking law enforcement or who you think are law enforcement.

SPEAKER_08 55:52

And I think what you're pointing out is exactly the duality of what I mentioned when he first kisses her.

Ron 55:59

Well, they're handcuffed together. This is one of the men handcuffs Hannah to Pamela before they come across a flock of sheep that have would have a flock of sheep. Is that what it is? A group of sheep is a flock. They're blocking the road. One of the men handcuffs Hannah and Pamela before they get out to try to move the flock. And as soon as they leave that car and are distracted, Hannay sees the opportunity to get out of there, but he's obviously has to bring this poor woman with dragging her along with him. But they're hiding under a bridge covered with sheep, they're behind a waterfall. I felt like there are some respects of the sequence that it turns into a bit of a comedy. Some of these are so outrageous and comical. But how does Hitchcock pull off this slight tonal shift? But he does it in a way that he doesn't undercut the danger that these two are in. We saw what kind of man Jordan is, so we know what danger they're in. But but how does he pull this off where he doesn't undercut that danger?

SPEAKER_08 56:51

When Hitchcock talked about how he set up his films, he always based them on people being put in danger, but he was quite clear saying he wanted to have it both ways. He wanted us to sympathize with their danger and worry about them, but not to the point where we ever felt that the worst was gonna happen. So we know that Cary Grant is not gonna get killed at the end of North by Northwest. At the same time, when he is endangered, we still are inside of him and feeling his pain and all that. The same thing I think happens in the 39 steps. I think we are worried enough so that we still have a kind of interest and emotional connection and concern. But here's the other thing, which I'm glad we have a chance to talk about. He set the comedy up so successfully, so brilliantly, so thoughtfully. And that makes me want to add another layer to the kind of film that Hitchcock made and always had in mind. We talked about the suspense thriller, the murder mystery, the melodrama. He was incredibly influenced by the screwball comedy. And exactly as you all but said it, I mean, they're handcuffed, they're hiding, they're surrounded by people that are threatening them.

Ron 58:13

There's sheep everywhere.

SPEAKER_08 58:14

There's sheep everywhere. They're trying to escape and they hop over a fence and he goes under, she goes over. I was gonna say, this is quite literally out of a screwball comedy. It is, not only in terms of the genre, but a year before this time, it happened one night by Frank Capra.

Ron 58:31

I literally just Googled it happened one night because I wanted to check the year, because that was what was in my mind. That's so weird. That's freaky, actually. I was just checking the year 1934.

SPEAKER_08 58:41

You're very sharp and very in tune. It happened one night, and the idea of them being on the road, of them kind of starting out, doing battle against each other, losing tremendous wit and resourcefulness and self-dramatization and narrativity. They make up stories and everything like that. Hitchcock was very sparing in his praise of other films and other filmmakers, but it happened one night is one that he mentioned in particular.

Ron 59:10

They end up at this inn and they're still handcuffed together. He's got his hand in his pocket, he's he he's kind of hiding that they're still handcuffed together. And uh Pamela doesn't believe his story still. Yeah. They are posing as a runaway couple, so here's Hannah and yet another persona that he takes on, which is a a future husband, husband. He's half of a runaway couple in love.

SPEAKER_08 59:31

Which is also it happened one night.

Ron 59:32

That's a good double feature. 39 steps in, it happened one night would be a fun double feature.

SPEAKER_08 59:37

Absolutely. That that would be a terrific double feature for sure.

Ron 59:40

The innkeeper's wife, I love this character. She just is all about this young couple in love and letting them have their privacy. She believes the ruse completely.

SPEAKER_02 59:49

Very well. I say, please don't go. Why not? Is anything wrong?

SPEAKER_05 59:56

Of course there's nothing wrong. She wants to tell you something, that's all. We're a runaway couple.

SPEAKER_02 1:00:01

I kend it all the time. I'm there after you.

SPEAKER_05 1:00:04

You won't give us away, will you, please?

SPEAKER_02 1:00:06

Of course we will not give you up. A good night to you both. You'll no be disturbed.

Ron 1:00:13

She is lying to protect them when our fake police show up and they're asking questions. Yes. There's a pretty risque scene here where Pamela has to take off her wet stockings, and you just have the close-up, not that really a close-up, but it's more of a tracking shot of their hands, their handcuffed together down her leg as she's removing her stockings because they need to dry them and hang them over over the fire. I don't I don't have a good frame of reference of what is racy for the 30s. Well You know, I just don't know what would be considered as, ooh, don't let your kids see this. We've got a woman's bare legs here. We don't want them to see that.

SPEAKER_08 1:00:51

I think that, well, certainly the 30s, especially the so-called in America pre-code, when the production code administration really became enforced, which actually was right around the time of it happened one night, and it happened one night, manages to evade it in a number of different ways. But I think this is clearly meant to be highly sexual, highly erotic without being problematic. This is not a man maneuvering to get a cheap feel. There is something very sexual, very erotic, also very trusting, very normal and natural about it. He holds her sandwich at one point.

Ron 1:01:36

Right, she hands him the sandwich. See, that's part of the comedy, though. It doesn't, it didn't feel sexually charged to me. I thought it was more comedic with her holding, he's holding the sandwich as she's taking up one. He's getting the sandwich back from him.

SPEAKER_08 1:01:48

Again, comedic and and also very trusting. I hope it doesn't sound outrageous for me to say this, but this is the way a grown-up relationship should be. I mean, it's not leering, but it is erotic, it is sexual. And again, it happened one night. The most famous sequence, perhaps, in It Happened One Night is Claudette Colbert hitching a ride, pulling down her stocking. So who knows whether that had had any role in it? But maybe that's stuck in uh Charles Bennett's mind, one of the screen riders. But it's a wonderful scene and not at all leering. But I let's let's be very focused on this. This to me is just a wonderfully charming and erotic scene. I think you're quite right.

Ron 1:02:36

Yeah, I think the uh the final shot of North Bar Northwest is more erotic than this with the train going into the tunnel. And again that that to me is like more sexually charged than than her asking him to hold his half a sandwich as she takes off her Hitchcock, of course, meant it specifically as the proverbial phallic thing.

SPEAKER_08 1:02:55

And some some people might find that well, if it's phallic, it can't be any whatever. Or they could find it a little worrisome or not for all tastes or whatever.

Ron 1:03:07

But you know, it's 2026. We can look back on it now and sit and laugh about it and and find it comedic.

SPEAKER_08 1:03:13

You know, I was about to say it's 2026, it's a dangerous time to look back and wink on it, but I'm glad to hear you say that. A wink isn't always a problematic, dirty, dirty joke. But again, back to this wonderful moment, which is part of their getting to know each other and getting to really see each other kind of honestly and intimately.

Ron 1:03:37

Right, just just like it happened one night, they're forced to bond. They're forced to get to know each other. They're laying in a bed together, and he's he's trying to saw off this handcuffs only to fall asleep, and she just slips it right off of her wrist, of course. Yeah. And this is when she hears the fake police come in and they're asking questions. Absolutely. And she overhears one of them on the phone, confirming everything that Hannay has told her, and now she finally believes him. But again, not because of anything that he has said to her. This is the confirmation that she needed that what he's telling is the truth. Because the entire film, Hannay is spending his time trying to talk his way into being believed. And I don't know if I'm really stretching this, that the movie's arguing that that level of persuasion is not going to work. You need more than you need more than just someone's word to be to believe the truth.

SPEAKER_08 1:04:24

I absolutely agree with you. And there's something to be said when you could put both of that in the same package, and that's what Robert Donat did under Hitchcock's direction and the skillful plotting and screenwriting, there's a way in which charm isn't enough.

Ron 1:04:42

She returns to the room, and I love the decision here that she's going to sleep on the sofa. And I I also like where she takes the blanket and then changes her mind, or she gives him the blanket and then changes her mind. It's like, no, I'm actually cold. I hold the blanket onto myself. I enjoy those little sequences that they aren't necessary, but when you have gifted filmmakers and you have gifted writers, you get that charm in there without using a single line of dialogue.

SPEAKER_08 1:05:07

This is intelligence and sensitivity, and also trusting that the audience is gonna get it. And think of how this also adds a nice little touch to the complexity of the Pamela character. It's a wonderful moment and it's intelligent, and we get it. And it's such a witty moment, and it adds something to the character of Pamela.

Ron 1:05:33

At this point, there's only 10 minutes left in the film. We're at about 80, it's an 86-minute film, and at this point, there's about 10 minutes left. We still have no idea what the 39 steps actually are.

unknown 1:05:43

Yeah.

Ron 1:05:44

I find it fascinating, just the level of confidence you have to have to hold back the title's meaning of the film until the last probably what two minutes of the film? Because there's only 10 left. Pamela tells Hannah what she overheard. She talks about how the spies are heading to London. She calls Scotland Yard before before leaving, and she visits them in person. Investigators find that there were there weren't any secret documents reported missing, and they do not believe her. And they let her leave because they want to follow her, hoping that she will lead them to Hannah. I look at things like this and think that the filmmaker is communicating with us. I think the suggestion being that you can't always trust these institutions that you're supposed to be able to trust. I don't know if Hitchcock in many of his films show. The police to be incredibly helpful. A lot of times it you know, we're talking about the wrong man, we're talking about people in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could argue Pamela was in the wrong place at the wrong time twice in this situation. But the police are really not very helpful. Is that what Hitchcock is trying to share with us? That, hey, don't always trust these institutions.

SPEAKER_08 1:06:48

Absolutely. And one of the stories that Hitchcock was famous for telling and retelling is he would always say, I'm afraid of the police. And that uh figured not only in his own life, he didn't drive a car. I think he did have a certain amount of that kind of anxiety. But he told a story. His father just kind of walked him down to the local police station, winked up at the sergeant, and they put little Alfred behind bars. What's going on? What did I do? And they let him stay there for a little time. And he didn't know what to what he did. And then they let him out, and that became a kind of emblem of the unpredictability of the world, the way that police in particular were enforcers of that kind of unexpected punishment, whether you deserved it or not. And that's something that he felt marked him for the rest of his life, and that he wrote into so many of his films. I think that was tied in with exactly what you say: a critique of not only the police, but a critique of basically all the institutions of our life that are ideally meant to serve us, to protect us, to be good, whatever, make us happy, and they inevitably let us down. Whether it's the police, whether it's the uh government in at this point in time as well. The government, other institutions. But I just want to get back to sort of your your lead up to the conclusion of the film. We've used the word trust, I think, in a number of different contexts. And I want to introduce a new context, which is I feel that at this point I trust Hitchcock. I know I am in the hands of a master storyteller. I might not know exactly what's coming, but I know it's gonna be good. So I trust Hitchcock, the filmmaker, the storyteller, for that. And he doesn't let us down in this film.

Ron 1:08:48

I remember my first watch of this, and I'm looking at the little time on my player. Three minutes. There's there's a few minutes of, I don't know what the hell is going on. I just know that I'm here and I'm back. And and Pamela meets Hannah at Mr. Memory's show at the London Palladium. And this is when, as a viewer, you think, oh yeah, I remember that guy from an hour and 20 minutes ago. What the hell is what is he doing here? We're gonna we're gonna bookend the film with Mr. Memory.

SPEAKER_08 1:09:12

But then remember the particular way that he answers the question. And this Hitchcock has great dialogue in the film. There's a lot of verbal wit and things like that. But he was famous for defining what he called pure cinema by visual storytelling. So the actual denomin, the explanation happens silently. Henne picks up the binoculars, we look up, oh my god, I know this guy. It's the guy with no little finger. And then we hear the music, I remember that theme, and then we see Mr. Memory. So it's done cinematically, or as Hitchcock would have it, visually.

Ron 1:09:55

The entire spy plot resolves only because Mr. Memory is incapable of not answering a direct question. Hannay, he starts to put the pieces together because Jordan makes a gesture toward Mr. Memory, and Mr. Memory gives him a nod. Hannay then is able to put it all together. I think Hannay has a future in working in some sort of spy agency. He's a man on the move, he's able to disguise himself, he's able to talk his way in and out of situations, he's able to put this whole thing together. Pamela's trying to get him out of there, and the police are closing in, and he shouts, What are the 39 steps?

SPEAKER_07 1:10:25

Yes.

Ron 1:10:25

And Mr. Memory, not being able to help himself, compulsively, begins to answer before Jordan shoots him.

SPEAKER_06 1:10:32

You originally isn't there something you ought to know. Yes, but look here, let them understand. Where's the people of What are the 39 steps? Come on, shut up! What are the thirty-nine steps?

SPEAKER_00 1:10:53

Collecting information on behalf of the Foreign Office of And the dying Mr.

Ron 1:11:01

Memory. He recites the formula for a silent aircraft engine, which again, who gives a shit what it is because we don't really care. We just loved the ride that we were on, and it didn't really matter what the formula was. And the film comes to a close with Hene handcuffed still on, holding hands with Pamela. And I can't think of a better way to close the film.

SPEAKER_08 1:11:22

He does what the spies don't do very well. And I think that's part of the point, as you were mentioning in a moment ago, this institutional critique. So far from him joining those institutions, he goes a long way towards saying they are inevitably flawed. And it's maybe what we need is the outsider who's able to do what they can't do. To go to the real finale of the film, that incredible moment. Basically, they focus on the hands. Interestingly enough, it's not a close-up because I think they want us to show the full perspective of it. In the far background, you have the dancing girls and the world of a really the clear response to gunfire is the show must go on, I guess. And they do that at the beginning when it's and at the end. And there is something very bracing about that, and also something very ominous and not quite conclusive about it. And then you have the intermediate ground or whatever with Mr. Memory, who I think we feel a moment of sympathy for. I find it very touching. And part of what's touching is he can't act otherwise, exactly as you said. He has this talent and he's being used by people for sure. Or maybe he lets himself be used. But then he's asked a question, and exactly as you said, he can't not answer. And he gets shot, and it's kind of pathetic. He said, I work so hard for this. I want to tell somebody. And then the film heads towards wrapping up. But as is typical with Hitchcock, it doesn't wrap up all the loose ends. I think it ends up with a mixture of tones, uh a mixture of feelings. What is the future of them as a couple? I don't think it will be the knee-jerk and they lived happily ever after.

Ron 1:13:19

He's gonna need some furniture in his apartment if they want to live happily ever after. Right now, everything's just covered in sheets. Because who is this man? We don't really know. Even though we've we've established that it doesn't really matter all that much, I still feel the need to mention what the 39 steps are. In the film, that is the name of the spy organization that Jordan is a part of. But in the novel, the 39 steps, they were a real staircase tied to an escape route. But Hitchcock and the screenwriter or screenwriters, yes, they kept it abstract instead. That feels satisfying in a way. It's very abstract, and I think it works in this case.

SPEAKER_08 1:13:59

And whether it was Hitchcock's idea, one of the other screenwriters, I think it absolutely works. And part of the reason I say that is because there have been other versions of the 39 steps, one at least of which, maybe even two, that revert to the idea of the 39 steps are a place. I think it absolutely is a creative touch to turn it into the 39 steps. He does identify them. He does say the 39 steps is an organization on such and such. So in an intriguing way, he has it both ways. He establishes the MacGuffin by saying it really doesn't matter. And then at the very end, he tells us what it is, he has it both ways.

Ron 1:14:42

I think audiences appreciate, and maybe they always have appreciated, to see something that they are not expecting. So when you see something with that name, you have an expectation. And when you leave the theater or you put the film on and the film ends, and it's not what you expected, I think that it can be very negative, but it could also be an incredibly positive part of experiencing film.

SPEAKER_08 1:15:05

I wouldn't have thought of this if you hadn't led into it this way. Let me take one step to one of those broader things that I think Hitchcock is presenting in this film and in his films in general. I think he sets it in the palladium as a little bit of a reflection of the power of art. And he establishes the palladium as a place of this climactic dramatic action that is going to really engage people. Oh, I was there, I've been there, I sat in that seat, or I've heard about it. But I hope this isn't too much of a stretch to establish these national monuments and in this case this playhouse as a place of danger. When you go to a music hall, when you go to the palladium. How about this? When you go to a Hitchcock film, you're gonna be entertained. You're gonna go on one of his favorite and famous metaphors on a roller coaster ride, and that's gonna be a place of entertainment and enjoyment, but also to a certain extent, it's gonna be a place of danger. And I think there is that level in this film, and it's supported by setting it exactly in a theater. Expect that out of a Hitchcock film.

Ron 1:16:17

Look at that. I said something that made you think of something differently. How about that? Absolutely.

SPEAKER_08 1:16:21

Wow, this is wonderful.

Ron 1:16:22

Put it on the resume.

SPEAKER_08 1:16:24

Keep it in the podcast.

Ron 1:16:26

That's right. Anytime a guest praises me, that's just gonna be a super cut. So as we close every episode, the guest gets their chance to give their answer to why this film, as if we haven't dove deep enough into it, but uh everyone gets their chance to answer why this film. So why the 39 steps? Why does it deserve its place in the Criterion collection?

SPEAKER_08 1:16:46

Criterion was really a major force in giving us access to truly great films, films that were canonical, but also expand the canon. Um, and you can't expand the canon if you can't have access to more things. Um, and Criterion absolutely served right from the very beginning that function and continues to serve it. So there are no clunkers, and it's a great service for us that through them we can pay attention to them. Now, the 39 Steps, along with a few other Hitchcock films, was one of the early choices. So making the canonical films, the films that unquestionably are the ones that people should see and see repeatedly, and also have commentaries and extras and things like that. They they showed, I think, great judgment. So, in some respects, it was a no-brainer. The 39 steps had such an incredible reputation. But part of what you're asking is why did it have and does it have the reputation? I think it's a film that is for more than just Hitchcock lovers. I think it's a film that is an action adventure and romance and comedy and melodrama. Lovers of all those kinds of films can see that in the 39 steps and not only see it in bits and pieces, but see it woven together so incredibly effectively. It's a film lover's film. Sometimes it narrows the field down too much to say, well, Hitchcock was a filmmaker's filmmaker. I think he was, but he was so much more than that. He was a film lover's filmmaker, people who like to be entertained and moved and excited by films. The 39 Steps, I think, does that for a wide range of people, young and old, uh, different backgrounds, different persuasions, and whatever. And it also is incredibly well made. Old school, it's literate, it's witty, it's incredibly well put together. The acting for all that Hitchcock talked about, well, film is a director's medium, and uh pay attention to the director, not the actor. These are marvelous performances. And technically, it's not the most innovative film in terms of unconventional and shocking, but he uses the film medium so effectively to carry on a story, to get us engaged, and also to make us say, wow, look how he did that and look what he did. So I guess you get the picture. I like this film. I think it's a great film in all those ways.

Ron 1:19:35

Thank you again to Sid Gottley for taking the time to speak with me about the 39 steps. If you'd like to support the show for as little as $3 a month, you can do so by selecting the support the show link in the episode description. You can follow the podcast on Instagram for updates and check out whythisfilm.com for additional resources. Next time I'll be joined by Jack Ryan to discuss John Sayle's 1987 drama, Maitwan. Thanks again for listening. Please be sure to follow, share, and keep an eye out for the next episode.