|
Post by roverpup on Feb 20, 2021 21:01:44 GMT
I am too OBS! I love a good thriller movie!
Dan and I watched Hitchcock's original film this morning and quite enjoyed it. Very witty in spots. The lead actors were excellent! And some of the shots were remarkable.
I went searching later for some articles about this movie and came across one from The New Yorker magazine in 2012. In it the writer interviewed Robert Towne, who had high praise for the Hitchcock film, originally saying that The 39 Steps is the film from which all other contemporary escapist films spring from.
The interviewer asked Towne to elaborate on this assertion and this us what he said:
“Because most ‘pure’ movie thrillers, especially when you think of Hitchcock, are either fantasies fulfilled or anxieties purged. ‘The 39 Steps’ is one of the few, if not the only one, that does both at the same time. He puts you into this paranoid fantasy of being accused of murder and being shackled to a beautiful girl—of escaping from all kinds of harm, and at the same time trying to save your country, really. A Hitchcock film like ‘Psycho’ is strictly an anxiety purge. ‘The 39 Steps’ gives you that and the fantasy fulfilled. It’s kind of a neat trick, really.”
Apparently there have been a number of direct remakes of The 39 Steps - at least 4.
As for movies using the same thematic format, there are even more! Including Hitchcock himself used it when he did North by Northwest. Which goes to show that you can "remake" The 39 Steps into some pretty wide interpretations and still follow the same basic "plot".
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 20, 2021 21:40:47 GMT
Sabotage is a slightly lesser known Hitchcock movie but it's also basically the same plot.
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Feb 20, 2021 22:35:12 GMT
What I remember of The 39 Steps was the book which was in English. I was young (12 or13?) and I guess the book wasn't intended for me. Perhaps it was for my older sister and I read it anyway. It left me a certain uneasyness because of not being able of understand it completely (language, history, etc). I remember very clearly the cover which had a man on the top of some stairs, near a pier and a boat. I don't remember if I watched the movie.
I have no problem then with the remake. I hope the script is good. Edward Berger is a very good director so I'm sure it could be a good miniseries. There are more books of the same author and there was a series based on the character with Robert Powell (who played him in one of the movie versions). So it could also be a series.
The thing against it is that Rogue Male is another project with a "man in the run" genre/type. They'll start saying he always plays the same character.
I don't know why, if Edward Berger is free to direct this series he isn't working on Rio. Rio, by the way, was more or less the same kind of story?
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Feb 21, 2021 0:31:04 GMT
I think there will always be complaints about BC playing the same character. Arrogant, smart, oddball... they obviously have poor discernment skills. I mean, yes, he’s never played a hayseed or a truly stupid person, but all his characterizations are highly unique and fully realized. I’m not going to let those shallow views bother me anymore. This one looks great and I’m looking forward to it!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 21, 2021 0:52:58 GMT
I am reading the book right now but I mainly know the Hitchcock's film. I have watched it many times! I read a summary of the other adaptations (I remember to have watched at least a few scenes of I guess the 2008 version. It was recent but it seemed a copy of Hitchcock's) and apparently there is not a romantic interest in the novel! So the spy isn't female and there is not a pretty innocent girl that accidentally meets the hero! WTF?! Lol I'm wondering now if Mr. Memory is really a character in the book! EDITED I'm laughing right now! Of course, Mr. Memory isn't in the book. It was a Hitchcock fabrication and people moaned to the scriptwriter in 2008 when she didn't include him in her adaptation!!! LOL www.theguardian.com/film/2008/nov/30/hitchcock-bbc-39-steps
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 21, 2021 3:57:00 GMT
QZ: "he’s never played a hayseed or a truly stupid person"
Maybe... Martin Crieff? He wasn't a truly stupid person, but he could maybe be described as a bit of a "hayseed"?
I adore him completely, but he could be terribly naive on many occasions, he did have an incredibly difficult time passing his pilot's examination and Douglas continually got the better of him in almost every game they played. He wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Feb 21, 2021 4:34:26 GMT
Yeah, okay, Martin wasn’t terribly bright, lol. However, he had memorized the entire flight manual. 😂 But I think Little Charles from August Osage County was stupider. But still not horribly stupid. Just sort of average intelligence.
And so what if he’s got a niche playing super smart people? What’s wrong with that? He’s got enough acting chops to pull it off incredibly well, and we all know Ben’s no slouch in the brains department himself. I don’t understand what the complaint is. 🤷🏻♀️
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Feb 21, 2021 13:53:39 GMT
I found funny those guys saying that he was playing another "aristocrat" just because he was wearing a top hat on that Louis Wain photo. They clearly doesn't not what aristocracy means nor who was Louis Wain. The same with the British idiot who tried (and failed) to be sarcastic about BC's so called "poshness" also based in the silly photo with the silly top hat.
So even without actually watching the movie nor knowing the actual subject of it nor why the filmmakers used those visuals motifs (maybe, I don't know, he is wearing a silly hat and looking like a cliche "English gentleman" because they are alluring Louis Wain's satirical playful style?), stupid randoms would claim stupid prejudiced things just because they are stupid.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 21, 2021 13:58:55 GMT
Little Charles was next on my list. 🤗
Actually you are entirely correct! I don't see any problem with him playing any number of clever people. He can pull it of beautifully because I think he exudes a natural intelligence.
That's why I think that even when he plays less than brilliant characters he still gives off an aura of "something" going on under all that naivete or lack of sophistication.
And as far as being stuck in a rut with clever characters... there are sooooo many ways to play that!
I find it just lazy thinking to go with the "he's playing another genius" whinge. BC can bring such depth to his roles, no two are just carbon copies some kind of "Cumberbatch prototype genius"! When I first watched The Fifth Estate and Star Trek into Darkness (before I was totally under the Cumberbatch spell) I was floored that it was the same actor playing Julian Assange and Khan! Sure both were supposed to be brilliant, but they were absolutely NOTHING alike in every possible way!
|
|
|
Post by MagdaFR on Feb 21, 2021 15:18:17 GMT
I was thinking more in relation to the plot.
|
|