In a society full of re-makes and adaptations, the
theatrical adaptation of Alfred Hitchcock’s The
39 Steps is not impressive because it is an adaptation from film to
theatrical performance. For whilst it
is true that the most commonly known across media adaptations are from book to
film and usually result in the disappointed words of fans saying, “The book was
better,” it isn’t always the case. (Not just in the type of adaptation, but in
the quality as well.) In fact, there are many cross media adaptations that adapt
books to live action musicals (e.g. Phantom of the Opera, Cats and Wicked) and
The 39 Steps certainly isn’t the
first film to be adapted for live action performance either (Spamalot and Mary Poppins immediately come to mind).
That being said, however, does not make the theatrical adaptation
of Alfred Hitchcock’s 39 Steps any
less remarkable. Indeed, it is made even more remarkable in that even though adaptations
from movie to theatre or book to theatre are becoming quite common, it still
takes a certain skill to make it successful. What is even more remarkable is
that upon further examination one comes to realize that the theatrical
production of The 39 Steps is an
adaptation of an adaptation for Alfred Hitchcock’s film itself was an
adaptation from the book, The Thirty-Nine
Steps, by John Buchan. But even further still is Patrick Barlow’s ability
to not only create a cross media adaptation that changes the genre from
suspense to comedy, but that he does so quite successfully in a way that
audiences adore it.
The 39 Steps is
set apart from all of my aforementioned adaptations in that it is the only one
(that I know of) that changes the genre whilst sticking so truly to the plot of
the original inspiration (in this case, Alfred Hitchcock’s film). The only
adaptation that comes even close is Wicked
in that the book by Gregory Maguire is much more serious with darker themes and
political undertones, where the musical is more light-hearted and tends to
focus more on the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda and is at some points
even funny.
The 39 Steps far
surpasses any attempts Wicked might
have made to lighten the genre. The key element that makes such a feat possible
is the fact that there are only four actors who between each of them play 139
roles. The way they achieve this almost lends an improv vibe where actors are
switching hats whenever they say lines by different characters. At one point
one of the actors is halfway wearing a coat and is turning to each side while
rapidly switching hats as he has a conversation with himself. Another element
that helps the theatrical version be perceived as a comedy is the pacing. In
the movie, the pacing is slow with tense eerie music and even tenser silences
to portray to the audience how serious a situation Richard Hannay is in, but
the play has a rapid, quick step pace that forces the actors to keep moving and
makes for entertaining costume changes as they all have so many roles. Indeed,
they change roles so swiftly and skillfully that the audience is forced to
admire them for it. The first time we witness this is when Annabella Schmidt is
telling Hannay that there are spies outside of his window and every time he
goes to look, the two other actors (who play most of the roles) have to carry a
light pole to the side of the stage and stand there menacingly (with music of
course) before running off again as soon as he stops looking. Of course then,
Hannay has to look several times and speed up the act each time so that the other
actors have to move more quickly to get in place. (This is done two times and
then on the third time Hannay changes his mind so they have to rush back off
stage again.) This theme of fast pace perpetual movement is kept throughout the
entire performance so that not only is it developing in the audience and
appreciation of their skill, but the tempo is also pushing the mood of the
audience forward creating an urgent feeling that is imitating Hannay’s own
urgency.
The second key feature of the comedic structure of the play
is the direct parodies they make of scenes in the film. They purposefully
follow Hitchcock’s film scene for scene and practically verbatim, but with
gross exaggeration. The first obvious difference is that the actors have fun
with each character’s accent. In the movie the characters all have different
accents (German, Scottish, English, etc.) and the actors in the play take that
and over exaggerate it to such a comedic effect you as the spectator can’t help
but laugh. This is particularly evident when the female spy Annabella Schmidt
is trying to pronounce the name of a certain town in Scotland and Hannay keeps
asking her to repeat it and then he too says it so over pronounced that you can’t
understand what city they are actually talking about. Another great difference
is the over exaggeration of serious scenes such as death scene of Annabella
Schmidt who, in the film gets stabbed in the back with a knife and falls to the
floor telling Hannay that he is next. In the play she goes into these wild
death throes collapsing over the sofa where Hannay is sitting gasping and
flailing about for minutes until she finally goes still with Hannay trapped
beneath her. Hannay then makes a huge scene of trying to get out from under her
without having to touch her body that he eventually slinks out from the bottom
of the chair. He then is trying to pull a clue from her dead grasping clutches
and decides to rotate the knife in her back as if it were a switch to make her
drop the papers (and of course she does).
The third and maybe most crucial part of the theatrical
performance is the actors’ creative use of body language and props to convey
motion and scenery on an otherwise mostly bear stage. There are not all that
many props in each scene, but the actors do a fantastic job getting the
audience to believe in each scene through the use of their bodies and what
little props they do have. When it is supposed to be windy out (whether it’s
just weather or because they are on a speeding train) all the actors will flap
their coats or dress while a wind sound effect plays. This works exceptionally
well in the train scene for they all bump and rock back and forth as if they
are on a bumpy train ride to Edinburgh. They do this for the car scenes as
well. There may be only four chairs and a steering wheel with the actors
bouncing and swaying back and forth as if on a bumpy back road, but they complement
their movements so well to coincide with the sound effects that one can’t help
but see that they are obviously on the road. Yes, the movements themselves are
funny (especially whenever someone slams on the breaks), but it is the
ingenious way the actors cleverly use everything around them (including
themselves!) that fills the audience with delighted laughter. So even though
all of their movements are over the top, it is necessary in that it creates a
space on stage that the audience can buy into and believe.
My favorite part of the show however, is their open
acknowledgement to the fact that they are poking fun at Hitchcock’s film in a
loving manner. They even give a jaunty tip of their hat to him by making direct
references to other movies. For example, the female lead refuses to climb up a
later because it gives her *dramatic pause with hand to the forehead* Vertigo. And at one point she is taking
a shower and they make a reference to Psycho
(complete with music).
Overall, The 39 Steps
is a clever, exhilarating theatrical adaptation of a film adaptation of a book. Well
done I say!
No comments:
Post a Comment