This afternoon we saw a production of “39 Steps” at the Criterion in London. I had enjoyed the other required play that we had attended (“Merry Wives of Windsor”), but having been in Shakespearean dialogue there were a few things I did not pick up on in the humor of the production. Not to say the story was excellent and the acting even better, it just didn’t have my sides splitting like I had expected. Today was a bit different. I saw things today that I have seen in many aspects of American comedy that I appreciate: raunchy jokes, innapropriate references, slapstick humor, and the ability to laugh at oneself extensively. The play was incredibly engaging; I thought the use of the stage was executed to a T. There were all kinds of props flying in and out in a chaotic yet entertaining manner. My two favorite examples of use of stage had to have been the lamppost/window interaction with Henney and the two “police officers”, as well as the villain’s character looking for a place to sit and having an easy chair whisked onto the stage without warning.
The thing that I want to comment about mostly in terms of comparing this production to British culture is the sheer goofyness of the performance. It seems like for the most part, Brits are wildly proud of their ability to put on an epic classic play (think Les Miserables or Romeo and Juliet). Of course there is a decent amount of humor embedded in these plays but not as much goofy physical comedy or simple joking about concerning the very idea of the play. I came away from the play practically thinking I had watched the twisted offspring of Seinfeld and Dumb & Dumber rolled into one. In a freshly written script, 39 steps took on a classic Hitchcock film, with a few tweaks. Ridden with slapstick humor, absurd accents, and quick witted naughty dialogue, 39 Steps appeared to break what the norms of British comedy appear to be. The actors had the ability to laugh at themselves and the very idea which they were portraying. Several times in the play, actors would jokingly pause (as written, I’m sure) and correct what was going on around them, chastising the other players for something they didn’t like or something that was seemingly not a part of the production.
Overall, I heard some classmates utter comments like “I don’t want to be snobby, but it was a bit lacking”. I feel like you have to understand what you are getting into and go in with an open mind when you see a play like this. I haven’t had much experience with the theater, I admit, but I have to say this play left me both rolling on the floor and very satisfied with the way it was portrayed visually. For me, this spoke a lot to me about the nature of theater. You don’t have to put on a 3 hour long, epic performance to please the audience. I have a brief background in writing comedic stories and brief film screenplays and I know that a joke can kill moreso than a great dramatic performance in some cases. Just because it’s a small scale production that does not pose some kind of grand theory on life does not mean it was bad. Take it for what it is: The Superbad of theater.
image from: http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/39%2520STEPS%2520POSTER.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.artsjournal.com/aboutlastnight/2008/01/&usg=__mErr-YlHCSPMp19L0HxD_gjzT2g=&h=430&w=305&sz=50&hl=en&start=0&sig2=2VM3v22hun95IRCuJoqICg&zoom=1&tbnid=ar-TOtjAu96bmM:&tbnh=123&tbnw=86&ei=uPePTPbrKsaD4Qat9YGzDQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3D39%2Bsteps%2Bposter%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1200%26bih%3D620%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=227&vpy=174&dur=922&hovh=198&hovw=140&tx=98&ty=78&oei=uPePTPbrKsaD4Qat9YGzDQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=29&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0
