I have seen "The 39 Steps," and I think it does have a sly sense of humor like many other Hitchcock films. There is some tension between the male and female leads, who have to stumble along handcuffed together and disliking each other, with wittily hostile banter (until they, of course, fall in love). But it would never occur to me to call "The 39 steps" a screwball comedy.
I'm not very clear about the formal definition of "screwball comedy" (and should read your thread about that topic), but I tend to equate such films with movies in which the stakes for the players are not terribly high (at most, maybe a love affair). In "The 39 steps," characters are being chased by dangerous people who want to kill them, and whether the leads succeed in their mission has potential impact on the lives of thousands or millions of people. (It's a spy thriller based on an Eric Ambler novel.) I just can't reconcile such high stakes with the frothiness of what I consider classic screwball comedies.
One thing I learned when researching the genre, which I discuss in the other thread, is that there is no clear-cut definition, just a rough time period and certain conventions/arctypes common to the genre. It's certainly possible for films to belong to more than one genre, and I think the openness is why that one particular scholar included THE 39 STEPS.
That makes sense, thanks. I will eventually go back and read posts in the other thread, but I'm curious about the rough time period usually specified for "classic screwball comedies." Can you fill me in on that? It must include the 1930s and 1940s, but I'm not sure about earlier and later decades. The Doris Day-Rock Hudson style comedies extend into the 1960s, so if those count as screwball, the 1960s must count as well. Or perhaps not?
If you don't mind and have time, I'd appreciate a quick answer, but, if not, I 'll just read through the Screwball comedy thread eventually.
from what i could gather, the period starts in the mid-30's and runs through the mid-40's, with Preston Sturgess killing off the genre. One critic considered the Doris Day films "contemporary screwball."
Thanks, an excellent terse answer. Since I am a huge Preston Sturges fan, I prefer to think that, instead of killing off the genre, he brought it to its highest level, leading to consensus that further screwball comedy would be a letdown, so nothing more was done along those lines. ;0 The Palm Beach Story is one of the few movies I can watch over and over with enjoyment.
The Palm Beach Story is one of the few movies I can watch over and over with enjoyment.
I kept missing this movie over the years whenever it played on TV. I saw it the first time at a popular L.A. revival house that was sold out to the rafters with sophisticated movie-goers.
Rudy Vallee and the Ale and Quail Club took that audience apart bone by bone. Every gag that Sturges planned triggered a laugh. As far as viewer-reaction is concerned, I've never seen a more successful comedy in a movie theater.
There is a strange stage import that played in NY for the past several months (I think closed now) called The 39 Steps, which is a parody of the classic film. It certainly was full of pratfalls, but didn't really work for me. The film has the same unrestrained, dizzying quality of screwball comedy.
Two I'm sure on...."Gone with the Wind" and "The Sound of Music" (so shoot me). Those opening shots in "Sound of Music" must have been beautiful on a big screen.
I've seen Citizen Kane, Casablanca, GWTW and Vertigo on the big screen... all were well worth it, but of course are great on the small screen, too.
Two movies that really, really, gained something on the big screen were Jaws and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. I know a lot of people are down on Temple, but seeing it on the big screen... wow.
Next up for me is The Godfather, which I saw in the theater about 10 years ago on the 25th anniversary re-release and The Godfather, Part II on New Year's Eve and a Marx Brothers marathon New Year's Day.