GF+The+39+Steps

The 39 Steps: Theatre Critique Gemma Formby

Before starting my critique, I would like to talk a little bit about what I expected for this performance. As a child, I was forced (well, perhaps not quite forced) to watch several Alfred Hitchcock films with my English grandparents on my father’s side, among these I remember seeing The Birds and The Lady Vanishes, which is still to this day one of my favorite films. Before going to see the University of Georgia adaptation of the film 1935 film __The 39 Steps__, I read a summary of the film to make sure the plot would not evade me. As I read the summary, I realized that I had seen this Hitchcock film also. I vaguely remembered the scene in the apartment where Annabella Schmidt was killed and the main character escaping and being pursued by the law. Honestly, as an eleven year old I thought that this was really boring so I left and did not see the rest of the film aside from a few more minutes in the middle of it. The film was not at all “a fast-paced whodunit that blends a Hitchcock masterpiece, a juicy spy novel and a dash of Monty Python”, as this play was described as being.

I did not remember __The 39 Steps__ as a very interesting film, so I was very cautiously anticipating seeing how the director George Contini would go about making it a comedy and if the play would reference the film or try and break away from the mold. The Cellar Theatre was smaller than I imagined and at first I wished that the play would be held in a bigger place. In the end, I think it fit the play that was being performed and the lack of spaced added to the comedy and made the interaction with the characters and audience more personal. The atmosphere for the play was set by the old projections of film onto a screen in front of the audience. The purpose of this seemed to be to make sure people understood the time period as well as to get the audience into the mindset and hinting as what is to come. This was a good idea to get the audience interested in some cartoon visuals, which would contrast with the acting of the people on stage, but I felt like this transition was a bit abrupt. Another thing that went on during the wait was the usher and usherette in the crowd, talking to the audience members. This was just a taste of how the actor and actresses would break the Fourth Wall throughout the play.

The true genius in this adaptation of “The 39 Steps” lies in the acting. There were only half a dozen characters acting out several roles throughout the play. While the main character only played a few characters (although Tressa Preston played almost all of the lead female roles, in which all of the characters were very different), the actors who played the roles of the clowns, Adam Fiddler and Ryan LaMotte, were incredible in their diversity. The fact that they played many roles has a lot of significance. Together, they played the roles of Professor Jordan, Mr. Memory, policemen on the train, innkeepers, pedestrians, men’s wives, and many other smaller roles. First, this adds to the comedic aspect of the play because these two characters were not trying to hide that they were playing different characters. The costume changes were good but it seemed intentional the way that these changes were not hidden well. What is even funnier is how these roles had to be changed and done by a different actor, because one of the clowns had to act a different role in that scene. Second, the way that characters are played by others in the play is very reminiscent of films during the 1930’s and 1940’s. Hitchcock often had a motif of “doubles” in his films in which one character is mistaken for another. This also reminds me of the 1940’s Robert Hamer (who directed School for Scoundrels) film __Kind Hearts and Coronets__ in which Alec Guinness plays a total on nine characters, some of which are shown right after the other in different, almost silly outfits. The way that LaMotte and Fiddler changed from character to character within scenes, often by quickly changing part of the costume on stage was wonderful and made many of the scenes, even if the changes were slightly awkward, very dynamic and interesting to watch.

Another notable actress was Tressa Preston. Although she only had three roles, they were all very different and important characters. She played each of Mr. Hannay’s female companions: Margaret (farmer’s wife), Annabelle (spy), and Pamela. While the clowns were defined by their costume changes and switching between characters, Preston changed character by the way she dressed but mostly her presence. She also used different accents to show her change of characters. The most memorable was that of Annabella with her exaggerated accent. She did a good job of switching from older to younger characters, mostly shown in her chemistry with Mr. Hannay as well as through her costume choices. As Margaret, the farmer’s wife, she is a bit older and wears more conservative clothing but as Annabella she is a more sensual and exotic character and her brighter more flashy costume reflects that. When she, as Pamela, and Mr. Hannay are stuck together in the inn and she has to take off her stockings while comically handcuffed to him is a very important scene which I remember from the film. The chemistry between the two characters was very good in this scene. Another part of the play that stood out to me was the use of different accents. Because the play is set in Britain there were a variety of accents used. Some of the accents were good but as a Brit, I couldn’t help but cringe at a few of them. These accents did have a few purposes. First, they established the setting. But the more important reason for these exaggerated accents was to create distinctions between the characters. This was especially important when the clown kept switching between characters, even in the middle of scenes. It also played on Annabella’s character with her thick German accent. The use of accents was not as important as the costume changes or the stylized differences between characters used by the clowns, but it was still effective.

Another important part of the performance was the use of the smaller stage and the props. Like I mentioned before, the stage was smaller than expected so it was a great surprise to see how the characters used the stage and the props to their advantage. The look of the set was sort of older and “antique-looking”. The props were handles by many characters, especially the usher and usherette, who break the Fourth Wall several times. Several props were used several times, like in the train scene, which mimicked the swapping of costumes between the clowns in different roles. The props were moved around, often for a comical effect. One example of this was at the farmer’s house Lastly, the lighting and sound were used quite effectively. I did not take too many notes on this, but I do remember that the lighting was used mostly to highlight the cues for the actors, which were often missed or lagging to add to the comedy. Also, they were on occasion used to highlight important characters and phrases. For example, when the clown were playing a particularly comedic role like on the train, or they were hiding, a spotlight was often on them to show their hiding places to the audience.

Overall, the performance of “The 39 Steps” was different from the Alfred Hitchcock film not in the scenes but in the comedic interpretation. The use of the clowns in the different roles really stole the play in a good way and changed the entire dynamic of the 39 Steps away from a thriller. The performance was great and the drama department utilized their space and props to the fullest extent and I’m excited about seeing more from the drama department at UGA.