Mr Cosmo

I remember being pleasantly surprised by the 1959 version. No classic but I like the colour photography of the Highlands and they could have lost the rather stupid sub plot innuendo with Reginald Beckwith - but the main thing is you get Kenneth More playing Kenneth More which is very reassuring. The thing I remember from seeing it first time around on TV was that it featured Andrew Cruickshank (Dr Cameron) in a small role - and also Bill Simpson (Dr Finlay) as a bridegroom boarding the train in Edinburgh.

By the way for UK viewers - the Robert Powell version is on BBC2 on Sunday afternoon (18th March).

Redstar

Is the Robert Powell version available on DVD?

Nick Dando

All three film versions are available on DVD. Try searches for "39 Steps" and "Thirty Nine Steps" on Find-DVD.co.uk for the best prices. Or you could try eBay for second-hand copies.

Nick

Lord Brett

I saw this at West Yorkshire Playhouse when it was touring prior to transferring to the West End and it was absolutely brilliant.

Productions of this kind seem to be in vogue currently. I saw a version of The Importance of Being Earnest with only two actors (Wilde played for slapstick - not good) and a very good comedy version of The Hound of the Baskervilles with three actors which is touring as we speak.

Lord Brett

Being closer to the book isn't necesarily a good thing. John Buchan was good with adventure, but (IMHO) couldn't write a coherent plot to save his life, which is why the explanation for what the Thirty-Nine Steps actually are changes every time there is a new film version.

I recall the Robert Powell version being in the news at the time as it was the last ever Rank Films presentation.

Jim

Me too! KM can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned. In fact, I love all 3 versions!!

Good morning boys.

tvden

I like the Robert Donat one the best with the Kenneth Moore version in second place

Redstar

The Robert Powell version of 39 steps is on BBC 2 this afternoon at 2.25pm

Bilmo

If anyone is interested, the 1978 version (with John Mills) is on BBC2 UK at 2.25 this afternoon (18/3/07).

smudger

I actually grew up thinking the 39 Steps was a film starring Kenneth More. It was the only one that was on the telly in the 70s.

The qualities of Hitchcock's film are deeper, in that the story is better told - it's sexier, and it's funnier - but Kenneth More stayed with me, a bit like Jon Pertwee did before I knew there'd been a Patrick Troughton ...:

Andrew

batman

i saw the world premiere of marber's play '39 steps' at southwold little theatre in the late 90s. my wife and i went expecting a straightforward thriller, we weren't expecting one of the most entertaining plays i have ever seen. absolutely fantastic .... whichever film version is your favourite do go and see this .... it's brilliant .... i am going to see it again very soon

ChristineCB

How do you 'excuse' the Marber play's "entertainment value" to you when you were expecting something different? You were aware of the film versions and you, and others in this thread, have commented in an almost Viva La Difference! attitude.

Is the play's performance levels so different? Is the story line so different? What methods do they employ to 'get you past' any expectations so that you give the play such a welcome recommendation? Is this mostly based on your history of Plays vs Film variations? Or is there something else?

batman

without wishing to spoil the play for anyone, it is like nothing you will have seen before .... from start to finish all parts are played by 4 actors with minimal sets and incorporates elements from the book and the film versions .... the actors have to display great comic timing and extreme energy to get through to the end .... for the first ten minutes i didn't have clue what was going on but once i realised what it was i was watching i was hooked .... if you ever get to see it just remember the matchbox and the buckets of water .... you heard it hear first !!!

ChristineCB

So the audience that enjoys it must invest some effort of their own into it, and probably those that don't enjoy it never made that investment.

It's curious that I enjoy the '50s monster movies so much - bad stories, limited acting, awful effects - but if I invest in suspending those criticisms and 'go with the flow' - I have a great time. But for modern films that have far better effects, acting, etc, the need for me to invest in a willingness to suspend belief or criticisms must come too late. I find myself almost saying, "Sorry, you made this too real and when it came time for me to suspend belief for unreal issues, well, too late-!"

Thanks for that. I've enjoyed many productions with limited actors, often just two or three, playing myriad roles with minimal if any sets. Or just playing the basic elemental story. Good is good.

11 Retsof

Although I think the Robert Donat 39 Steps is the best (I once attended a special showing of it for the re-opening of an old cinema and everyone stood up and cheered Hannay on!) the Kenneth More one is rather endearing. I think it's one of More's better outings, the role suits him, there are some nice exchanges although I'm not sure for female viewers whether he quite smoulders in the way Donat does? I find Robert Powell's Steps to be so different from the other two that comparisons are tricky. Each film adds a little something. Isn't it about time for another one?