1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die: #7
I've talked some crap before about how I think a lot of older films (specifically English language pre-New Hollywood ones) do not hold up well at all, likely because they were mostly dictated according to the whims of the producer and the position of the director was more of a formality. At least if you were working under one of the big 5 studios at the time.
But this is Alfred bloody Hitchcock, BOI, and so I do have to admit that directing-wise, this is much better than a lot of films from around this time. This guy knows how to frame his damn shots, for one thing, and for another, he knows how to make something that could be rather benign, like two guys standing next to a phone booth, looking at someone over the top of a newspaper, or a noisy crowd, very visually interesting. Of the four films I've seen from Hitchcock, personally I wouldn't put him anywhere near the title of one of the best directors of all time, but I totally get why he would have been considered as such at the time.
It's just that I think that he has also suffered from not aging particularly gracefully as time has gone on, and this is a prime example. While I was interested in the unfolding mystery this film presents, and I found it well presented and generally fun to watch...it was one of the first "man on the run" style thrillers, and it unfortunately shows. The story is fun, and it keeps a good pace, but I frankly couldn't tell you a damn thing about any of the characters other than the most basic motivations possible, and even at a mere 86 minutes long, this does feel rather padded out to me. Like how many times is the main character going to run somewhere with absolutely no relevance to the plot, and then have to run away again in short order?
And how much of that could have gone towards making characters that are a bit more interesting instead? Probably a decent chunk, I'd wager, and it doesn't help much that the acting from around this period of cinematic history from the leading man and woman always feels nearly identical to every other film of the time. It's not bad, but I swear with every new film I see from before the New Hollywood, I'm more and more convinced that any of the Golden Age's stars could have played each other's roles.
What saves it a little for me is that there is some brilliant dialogue, even if some of it does feel a little creepy, there are other lines that are witty, or intriguing, or shocking.
So that's The 39 Steps for you. My dad'll be happy I finally watched it after him nagging me to since I can bloody remember. And you know what, I'm happy too. I've definitely spent 86 minutes a lot worse in my time.
I've talked some crap before about how I think a lot of older films (specifically English language pre-New Hollywood ones) do not hold up well at all, likely because they were mostly dictated according to the whims of the producer and the position of the director was more of a formality. At least if you were working under one of the big 5 studios at the time.
But this is Alfred bloody Hitchcock, BOI, and so I do have to admit that directing-wise, this is much better than a lot of films from around this time. This guy knows how to frame his damn shots, for one thing, and for another, he knows how to make something that could be rather benign, like two guys standing next to a phone booth, looking at someone over the top of a newspaper, or a noisy crowd, very visually interesting. Of the four films I've seen from Hitchcock, personally I wouldn't put him anywhere near the title of one of the best directors of all time, but I totally get why he would have been considered as such at the time.
It's just that I think that he has also suffered from not aging particularly gracefully as time has gone on, and this is a prime example. While I was interested in the unfolding mystery this film presents, and I found it well presented and generally fun to watch...it was one of the first "man on the run" style thrillers, and it unfortunately shows. The story is fun, and it keeps a good pace, but I frankly couldn't tell you a damn thing about any of the characters other than the most basic motivations possible, and even at a mere 86 minutes long, this does feel rather padded out to me. Like how many times is the main character going to run somewhere with absolutely no relevance to the plot, and then have to run away again in short order?
And how much of that could have gone towards making characters that are a bit more interesting instead? Probably a decent chunk, I'd wager, and it doesn't help much that the acting from around this period of cinematic history from the leading man and woman always feels nearly identical to every other film of the time. It's not bad, but I swear with every new film I see from before the New Hollywood, I'm more and more convinced that any of the Golden Age's stars could have played each other's roles.
What saves it a little for me is that there is some brilliant dialogue, even if some of it does feel a little creepy, there are other lines that are witty, or intriguing, or shocking.
So that's The 39 Steps for you. My dad'll be happy I finally watched it after him nagging me to since I can bloody remember. And you know what, I'm happy too. I've definitely spent 86 minutes a lot worse in my time.