So … a comedic take on a 1935 Alfred Hitchcock thriller. Hmm. How would that work?
Turns out, the answer is either (a) wonderfully, or (b) huh?
I loved The 39 Steps. I chuckled, laughed, or guffawed, from the opening moment of two clowns (seriously, those are the character names) emerge from a steamer trunk, set on the front edge of the stage, that clearly couldn’t hold them.
My companion for the evening, on the other hand, reported after the play that she had been totally lost from nearly that same moment. She understood that others “got” the show — I was definitely not the only audience member laughing — but she, clearly, did not. On the other hand, she admitted to having never seen the Hitchcock original, “The 39 Steps,” and is not a particular fan of Monty Python, either.
Say what? Monty Python? What’s that got to do with anything?
Well, in the words of show director, Matt Walker, that’s the whole trick: “It’s best to think of (The 39 Steps) as if Alfred Hitchcock and Monty Python had had a love child that was raised by circus clowns.”
Quite an image, yes?
It gets even more manic: there are four (only four) actors in the show … yet the show includes dozens of different characters and, to again quote Director Walker, “Lightning quick costume, wig, and dialect changes. The spontaneous conjuring of sets from travel trunks, ladders, and whatever else is handy.” At one point, the four characters of the moment traverse the Scottish countryside in a car composed of three suitcase/trunks, two chairs, and a tipped-over podium; their trip grinds to a halt when (stuffed) sheep appear in front of them, shoved one-by-one through a trap door in the stage.
Phew! No wonder Walker reports that, “You don’t direct The 39 Steps so much as just stay out of its way.”
But the fact is, it works — at least for me and a majority of those at Village Theatre’s opening night. I’m definitely in the (a) category, and I’m not even a minor fan of Monty Python. Word is that the cast and crew came to think of the show as “Theatrical Mayhem” (as opposed to comedy or drama), and were delighted in the Author’s note (from playwrite Patrick Barlow) that, “The show has proved an invaluable aid to weight loss.” It shows; the superb quartet of actors clearly enjoy themselves and not a one of them looks at all overweight.
Perhaps a couple of cautions. While the show does loosely follow the plot of Hitchcock’s “The 39 Steps,” do not go into a viewing expecting to see a faithful re-telling of that film. This play is a beast of its own. While it may help to have viewed the film original beforehand — so you have some vague idea of what’s going on in front of you — I can’t say it’s a prerequisite; the show is so entirely manic and references so many Hitchcock classics along the way (“The Birds,” and “North By Northwest,” to name but a pair) that even a complete outsider might find some level of amusement during the show’s two-hour-plus stage time.
Or perhaps not. After all, I do know one person in the (b) category, who left the theatre scratching her head, out of breath, and vaguely disappointed.
Still, to quote Director Walker one final time: “The 39 Steps requires not so much the suspension of disbelief as its obliteration.” Maybe, in the end, that’s the key: some of us leave reality behind more easily than others. If you decide to see this show — a choice of which I heartily approve — check reality at the door when you enter. Bring with you into the theatre only your imagination and your funny bone. Both will be well served.
The 39 Steps at Village Theatre: in Issaquah at the Francis J. Gaudette Theatre, January 19 – February 25; moving to the Everett Performing Arts Center March 3 – 26.