THE 39 STEPS (1935)
5/5 stars
REVIEW BY JOHN ULMER (COPYRIGHT, 2004)
According to Hitchcock, the MacGuffin was a phrase devised from
Kipling that was used to cover any plot curiosity or unexplainable
necessity; the unattainable object that must be attained, or the
mysterious device that must be discovered. The MacGuffin was that of
meaningless intrigue, as when men die for the sake of a tune in The
Lady Vanishes a tune whose relevance and importance is of no
knowledge to them, and exists merely as an excuse for a greater
picture.
A greater picture indeed. In The 39 Steps, Hitchcock's MacGuffin is
presented early on, much to the ignorance of the casual viewer, who
will no doubt pass over its significance without so much as a thought.
Then, the MacGuffin transforms into another key element of the story.
By the end of the film, we get the basic idea of what is going on, but
the purpose for its existence in the first place is never fully
explained nor does it need to be.
Hitchcock's own cynicism towards his "MacGuffins" is clearly evident
in most interviews where he suffers through explaining their
definitions yet once more. But author Eric Rhode explains, "It would
be as foolish to take Hitchcock's cynicism on its face value as it
would be to accept Franηois Truffaut's view that Hitchcock elaborates
a philosophy of the absurd of it. Genuine anxieties and genuine
intuitions do emerge in his filming."
These anxieties appear in full during the course of The 39 Steps,
Hitchcock's early British masterpiece from 1935. Perhaps one of the
first examples of the "buddy comedy" genre to later be fulfilled by
Planes, Trains and Automobiles (1987, John Hughes) and Midnight Run
(1988, Martin Brest), The 39 Steps is a simple story that is
technically flawed and yet structurally perfect. Arguably Hitchcock's
most popular film of the 1930s (closely rivaled by The Lady Vanishes
[1938]), The 39 Steps is a reason to return to his older films and
marvel at their utter simplicity and wonder. For a film released in
1935, filmed with a low budget and a somewhat low-key cast, The 39
Steps is still relatively well-paced and interesting, and should wet
the appetite of most mystery lovers especially those who think the
classics aren't "any good." If you are interested in "weaning"
yourself onto older motion pictures, this is a good start, and still
one of the finest films you will ever encounter on your quest.
In this case, Hitchcock's MacGuffin is inadvertently stumbled across
by a Canadian man on vacation in England. His name is Richard Hannay
(played by Robert Donat), and his presence is never given a backdrop.
A lesser director might employ the unnecessary fifteen-minute opening
that sets up the character, his flaws, his quirks, his reasons for
visiting England. Instead, Hitchcock does something just short of
brilliant by introducing the character to us from the very start,
halfway through his journey, and by doing so therefore lets us judge
him on our own standards, without having forced opinions crammed down
our throats.
Unjustly accused of murder after being told of the "thirty-nine steps"
by a female spy who is assassinated inside his apartment, Hannay flees
into the British landscape, taking along a beautiful hostage named
Pamela (Madeleine Carroll), who is eager to escape, but soon falls for
the Canadian and believes his self-proclaimed innocence to be the
truth.
What is the MacGuffin of the story? In short, we never really know. To
spoil the ending would ruin the entire film, but in a nutshell, Hannay
himself becomes the MacGuffin, as he is the victim being pursued by
men who are not aware of who he is, or what he knows. Hannay is the
story's connecting thread to all of the following events, and the end
presents us with two separate MacGuffins, in a sense: Hannay and the
realization of why he has been chased up unto this point. Hitchcock
does not use his typical MacGuffins here the characters, and what
they know, and why they know what they know, and why their pursuers
want to know what they know, is the theme or the MacGuffin,
depending on how you want to interpret it.
Quentin Tarantino used the MacGuffin ploy in Pulp Fiction fifty-nine
years later what was in the briefcase? No one knew, and it was not
important the idea of the briefcase was all that mattered, and its
presence was what compelled the characters to try and achieve it. We
learned to realize that by revealing nothing, Tarantino was actually
thereby offering our minds room to think for a change. To reveal the
MacGuffin would ruin the entire theory some of us might find it to
be a worthy object and I am sure that many of us would consider it to
be a waste of time. Instead, we react to the haze of light that shoots
out of the briefcase whenever it is opened, and our curiosity grows as
we see each and every character that encounters the case stare in awe
at its presumably marvelous contents.
Hitchcock could be credited for starting this entire trend of
less-is-more cinema. He perfected the sense of mystery in Psycho
(1960), which completely startled audiences across the world, setting
up two oft-mixed genres of serial killers and split personalities. (It
also spawned three inferior sequels, two of which were passable but
all of which failed to realize that the subtlety of Psycho is what
propelled it, not the exploitation present in its offspring.)
In The 39 Steps, the MacGuffin is more clear than usual, but the
relevance of the MacGuffin itself to those who need it is what we are
never sure of and that is why the mystery is never truly explained,
and is miles ahead of many other films that try, and fail, to imitate
its success.
- John Ulmer
http://www.wiredonmovies.com
e-mail: johnulmer2003@msn.com
========== X-RAMR-ID: 37549 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 1271417 X-RT-TitleID: 1000121 X-RT-SourceID: 1382 X-RT-AuthorID: 6769 X-RT-RatingText: 5/5
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews