MR+The+39+Steps

Maddie Ross Dr. Farley Richmond Theatre Appreciation 3 October 2011 //The 39 Steps// Misses a Step: A Performance Critique I was originally excited to see UGA theatre department’s production of //The 39 Steps.// I had seen the show before, condescend to a one-act production, at a high school thespian conference. I recalled some of my favorite moments from the play as I trudged up the Lumpkin hill to the Fine Arts building, my heels digging into the soles of my feet on that Friday night. Two and a half hours later, I stumbled down the same hill in my same heels, feeling a little disappointed. The one act high school //39 Steps// production captured so much imagination and entertainment in its Alfred Hitchcock inspired play that the UGA production fell flat in comparison. UGA’s main problem: the theatre team developed a great concept that got lost in execution.

Although I cannot pinpoint one exact element that represented the concept of UGA’s //The 39 Steps,// several clues throughout the play circulated around the theme of old motion pictures. As we waited for the play to start, the theatre projected old cartoons onto a white screen in the center of the stage. I liked how these old cartoons served two purposes. The first was to entertain us while we waited, and I found myself laughing while other more middle-aged members of the audiences reveled in the nostalgia of the old cartoons. The second purpose was to prep the audience to enter the television mind set. Because we were already looking at the screen, that is where our attention focused for the start of the play. As the lights dimed, opening credits that read //The 39 Steps// replaced the cartoons on the projection screen. The opening titles went through the list of the cast, producers, and director, just like the opening of a movie. Because the play is based off of Hitchcock movies, I liked how they incorporated this movie style. When the opening titles were finally over, as there were several slides that said “this is the very last credit” and “seriously, last credit” and “last one…. now”, the production opened with the a pre-filmed section of the lead character, Richard Hannay’s, first lines. Then the two stage hands, the usher and usherette who were included as performers in the production, pulled back the projector screen to reveal the live Richard Hannay, sitting just as he was on the screen. The big reveal set the over-exaggerated level of drama that was present throughout the production. I liked how the televised opening represented the switch from motion picture to theatre. At the end of the play, the lead female Pamela, joined Hannay to close the production with another pre-recorded scene, projected on the screen. This brought the production full circle, from movie to theatre and back to movie.

Although UGA’s production incorporated the style of motion pictures, they also emphasized the fragile nature of theatre. They incorporated many intentional “mistakes” to keep the air of the show easy and playful, while highlighting just some of things that can go wrong in a production. The “mistakes” included actors and stagehands missing their cues and the sound of background music gradually increasing in volume, so the actors eventually had to scream over it. I like the idea of the effect these “mistakes” would present: to keep the show from being too serious. This goal however, was not reached. I can recall only three distinct “mistakes”, and this scarcity was not enough to truly dictate the “anything can go wrong” notion of a play, nor did it keep the play light and spontaneous. The missed cues seemed forced and fake; the audience could tell they were missed on purpose. The two clowns, who in the beginning posed as two cloaked secret agents stalking Richard Hannay, had to frequently jump from onstage to offstage at very precise moments, yet each time, due to the time it took to physically walk onstage, they were always slightly late. So when the time came when they were blatantly supposed to miss their cue, the comedy was less effective because they were always late on their cue. The opposite held true for the stagehands. At every scene change, the usher and usherette changed the set swiftly and accurately, so when they “forgot” to set up a car configuration onstage, it was more out-of-place and odd than cute or funny. The discontinuity would continue when at one point the usher or usherette would look at the crowd and smile. Throughout the entirety of the play, the two acted as if the audiences could not see them and stayed ambivalent on their faces. And yet at one random moment during the play, the usherette would turn around and smile, or the usher would bow after placing a prop. Each one did this only once. It was very unexpected and a little off-putting. It would have been much funnier if the two had “hammed-it-up” all night, bowing and smiling throughout the entire performance. Again the “mistake” felt forced and fake. These few purposeful mistakes did more to break up the continuity of the play than to keep it frivolous and funny. They should have included more “mistakes” to keep the audience laughing.

The overall acting of the play was, for the most part, well done. The overall theme for acting of the night was to over-act. Because they play is over dramatic by nature, the acting has to match it. I liked this approach because it highlighted how over-the-top the play is, and the actors got to laugh at themselves. I feel that most of the actors kept up with the challenge of over-dramatizing their characters. The actor who played Richard Hannay stayed true to his character the entire night, while the lead actress played all three of her characters distinctly and dramatically. The ushers, on the other hand, did not fully embrace their acting roles. As stage hands they were superb, but before the play started, the ushers were milling in the audience. A couple of times they would ask to see someone’s ticket and pretend to throw them out, but they were never convincing. Instead they spent most of the time lurking n the dark stage, whispering to each other, embarrassed to embrace the crowd. It was obvious that they were supposed to bring us some pre-play laughs, but their humiliation prevented them from actually interacting with the crowd. I was also left wanting more with the two clown characters. At the high school Thespian Conference performance, the two actors playing the clowns switched their hats during the train scene so quickly and effortlessly that it was very hard to live up to. The UGA clowns fell just a little too short. Their timing, as stated before with their entrances as cloaked men, was always slightly off. But the boys put in a tremendous effort in embracing each character they had to change in to. But although some actors were hit and some parts were miss, I feel that everyone nailed their accents. From Indian, to Russian, to Scottish, to British, all of the accents were well represented, and added to the over-dramatic nature of the production.

Like the acting, there were some hit or miss discrepancies of the overall design of the play. The first miss was the make-up. I could spot the crisp clean line of black eyeliner on the usher from my seat in the back. I understand the importance of stage make-up, but most of the men’s make up, especially the usher’s, was completely over done. I found the same feeling about the fake facial hair. I’m sure it was fun to play around with having different beards, mustaches, sideburns, and goatees, but when placed on such obviously young characters, they seemed ill fitting and not needed. These extraneous pieces, the make up and facial hair, added to the over-dramatic concept of the play, but really took away from its carefree airy nature. The whole point of having “mistakes” in the play was to keep the play from being to serious and over-produced, yet the superfluous make-up tired to elevate the play to a professional standard. The costumes gave the same effect. They were rich, luxurious, and fit the over-the-top theme, but some were also ill fitting. Some of the men’s tuxedos looked as if they were grown up clothes place on young teenage boys. I was confused as to why there would be such elaborate and professional costumes if the play were supposed to be a haphazard mish-mosh, complete with “unrehearsed mistakes.” The costumes did look historically accurate, but in a play where the audience sees the stage hands move sets and the actors purposefully miss their cues, there is no need for that level of authenticity. I found it rather extraneous and odd.

Overall UGA theatre department’s production of //The 39 Steps// had some great elements. It was full of casually slipped in Alfred Hitchcock references, incorporated old fashioned movies, and captured the over-the-top spirit of the Alfred Hitchcock horror genre. But it where some elements where excellent, it lacked in continuity. The execution of a carefree haphazard play was missed by the misplaced “mistakes” and extraneous elaborate design. After seeing both the Thespian Conference and the UGA version of //The 39 Steps,// I conclude that the high school Thespian Conference production was more hilarious, due to its seamlessness. The acting and purposeful mistakes flowed instead of breaking up the action and underlying carefree tone of the play. However, //The 39 Steps// is such a hilarious production that is very hard to do wrong, and I still was entertained from my night at the theatre. I look forward to seeing if UGA will “step up” to the plate in its next productions.