From page to screen to stage
An interview with writer/adapter Patrick Barlow
|
Patrick Barlow |
How many writers does it take to adapt The 39 Steps? There’s no punch line.
Just take a look at the title page in this program and you’ll have an idea of how
many minds were involved in the creation of the play you’re about to see.
John Buchan first devised the story in 1914. Buchan went on to write four more
adventure novel’s featuring the stiff-upper-lipped hero of The 39 Steps,
Richard Hannay.
The novel was the basis for a number of film adaptations, notably Alfred Hitchcock’s
original 1935 version. Others came out in 1959 and 1978, and there is a remake in
production now, set to come out in 2011.
In 1995, Nobby Dimon and Simon Corble, two writers with the Midsommer Actors’ Company
in North England, came up with a version of The 39 Steps, which toured with
great success to small venues throughout the U.K. This version was based both on John
Buchan’s book and Hitchcock’s film version, and it featured four actors playing all
of the parts.
Patrick Barlow — best known for his satirical two-man National Theatre of Brent
&mdash was tapped to write the next version. His adaptation premiered in 2005. Below
is an interview with him conducted in 2006 when the production transferred to London’s
West End.
Q: Were you adapting the film or the book in this piece?
Patrick Barlow: It’s the film. That was decided before I’d say yes to doing it.
Definitely the film. It’s the film and me and a tiny bit from the opening of the book.
Q: Do you have any comments to make about genre with regard to the piece?
PB: Well the film is comedy thriller I suppose.
Q: Talk us through the adaptation process from film to stage version.
PB: Well there is no published screenplay so I watched the film lots of times and
scribbled it down. That was a blueprint but I gave myself lots of liberty to change.
So I just took the film and then added things that make me laugh. So the
stockings scene is the same but I added in the sandwich, and the kind of mad
argument between them. Because that relationship fascinated me, between
Pamela and Hannay. The repression of it. Repression is very interesting for a
writer to look at. It’s very like Brief Encounter, it’s that world. The Hitchcock film
treats the relationship quite lightly, so I added a lot to it.
Q: And what are the things you add to make it funny or to make it pastiche?
PB: Well doing things really fast seems to work, so the dialogue in the train with the
underwear salesmen would not be funny at normal pace, but really fast it works.
Q: And is it easier to write from scratch or to adapt?
PB: If it’s just you involved, adapting is a joy. But generally there are others involved,
producers etc., who may differ from you, and that can be miserable. Writing your
own stuff from the heart is a joy, so I guess it is easier. I mean, for anyone who
wants to know about the nightmares for a writer of adaptation, there is a great
book called Adventures in the Screen Trade by William Goldman, which says it all.
Q: So is this pastiche?
PB: It is pastiche, but it is very important that there is a real story going on. It’s
about a man who is lonely and lost in his heart … really a powerful story. And
emotionally there is a journey, otherwise I wouldn’t be interested in doing it. I
mean for Pamela, too, as well as Hannay. She’s very uptight, repressed.
Q: Any comments on linguistic choices you make in the piece... how the
language of the early 20th century differs to our own?
PB: ‘Crumbs’, ’crikey’, ’golly’, ’absolutely beastly’. You had to be really careful... all
the language has to be of the period and of the genre. In fact there is a line
near the end I noticed the other day. Hannay says, “Hang on, this is a hymn
book”… and that ‘hang on’ just isn’t quite right. It’s more recent.
The Q&A was conducted by Dick Johns to support the theatrical productions of The 39
Steps, commissioned and produced by The Mousetrap Foundation. Photo: Patrick Barlow.
