In his book Hitchcock: The Murderous Gaze, William Rothman includes a fascinating chapter on The Thirty-nine Steps in which he elucidates the identity of the protagonist Richard Hannay. Rothman argues that Hannay is “exempt from having a self” and this lack of identity enables him to “face death without anguish” as he is free of any responsibility. It is his identity as a wanderer without an identity that gives him the freedom to pursue  the mystery of Annabelle’s death and the concurrent plot.

Rothman argues that Hannay’s trip to Scotland is neither a “spiritual journey or a rite of passage.” He asserts that Hannay would not engage in a struggle for selfhood because “he is exempt from having a self.” From the first time the audience is introduced to Hannay in the theatre, he is marked as a n outsider and “outside the rigid system” by which we judge the other members of Mr. Memory’s audience. This transcendence of the limitations by which other characters hold to and are judged places Hannay in a totally different sphere. Rothman argues that this is a place where Hannay is “not a character.” His lack of identification through comparison with others combined with his easy acquiescence to Annabelle and willingness to help leave no way to clearly identify his character, Rothman argues. He is simply “reacting within a situation in which he is no more the author than we.” Hannay is a wandering force who happens to be drawn into this scenario and has the capability to see it through.

William Rothman’s chapter on The Thirty-nine Steps presents a unique perspective on the character of Richard Hannay. Rothman argues that because he has no explicable identity within the film, Hannay has the freedom to run off at a moments notice and defend the secrets of his country. It is only within this construct that his actions can be explained.

In Toby Miller’s book Spyscreen, he includes an entire chapter on the The 39 Steps and examines how the portrayal of Richard Hannay reflects on the position of the film within the genre of spy fiction in the late 1930s.  His analysis not only sheds light on the importance of the character for the film’s release at the time, but also  examines the films attention to everyday life and normality in contrast to many other spy works of the time.

Toby Miller asserts that The 39 Steps is, relative to other spy film works of the time, a “conservative text” due to both it’s  “faith in the ‘talented amateur’ and it’s abhorrence of the crowd” while still portraying very standard, everyday life. This is notable, he argues, at a time when most spy films were centred on the revelation of a secretive, hidden world of espionage. For Hitchcock to portray an everyman is notably different from the more extreme spy films of the era and this makes it, Miller argues, “not a case of spy fiction allegorizing or adequating to the real, but of contributing to it.” In other words, Hitchcock’s choice does not seek to escape any sense of reality, but rather revels in the capability of the everyman working within the confines of everyday life.

Toby Miller, like many critics of Hitchcock’s work, appreciates the role of the everyman in his spy films. Richard Hannay works within the confines of his own abilities and the resources of everyday life to rise to complete a task far above what could be expected of him. This portrayal is a reflection of Hitchcock’s conservative approach to spy films and flaunts the less realistic, overly dramatic spy film options of the time. 

In his book Everything you Always Wanted to Know about Lacan: But Were Afraid to ask Hitchcock, Slavoj Zizek comments on the pre-established harmony between Hannay and Pamela. Zizek argues that English films of the late 1930s (of which The 39 Steps is a member) aimed to fit within the confines of the classic narrative, and consequently that their plot was only useful as a device to bring the protagonist and his female interest to a successful conclusion.

Zizek has found that English films of the late 1930’s seem bound to “Oedipal story of the couple’s initiatory journey,” a classic narrative of two people bound by fate to fall in love with one another. The couples of these films are bound by fate or, in the case of The 39 Steps, a pair of steel handcuffs and mature together through a series of ordeals towards the “fundamental motif of the bourgeois ideology of marriage.” This fundamental motif is played out in The 39 Steps as Pamela and Hannay are first bound together against their will and then, as they overcome obstacles together, become closer to each other. Just as Hitchcock has given us the stereotype of masculinity and painted a picture of the strong, dominant man, so has he shown us the classical ideal of two unwilling people coming together through a period of uncertainly and trials.

Slavoj Zizek’s comments on the stereotype of the relationship between Pamela and Hannay strike a chord next to the classical portrayal of Hannay as a dominant male. In appropriate fashion, the classic man has fallen into the classic, stereotypical “bourgeois ideology of marriage.”

In Robin Wood’s Hitchcock’s Films Revisited, she comments on the Richard Hannay’s “particular version of masculinity” as she illuminates the psychoanalytic subtext in his behaviour. By examing his interactions with ‘the Father,’ the bullet and his pipe, Wood explores the Freudian implications of his props and discusses how they reflect on his masculinity.

In his encounter with the clergyman on the Flying Scotsman, Wood notes that he avoids identification and thus ‘castration’ or the loss of his masculinity. Were the clergyman to identify him, as the audience suspects he may in the film, Hannay would be stripped of his power of shrouded identity, just as he would lose his identity through castration. In the same way, he is saved from the bullet by Margaret’s inadvertent gift of the hymnbook. This reinforces his role as the dominant man who keeps his woman in a helpful, subservient role. His masculinity is reinforced by her, if even inadvertent, subservient help. Wood uses these examples to support the masculinity of Hannay’s actions. She questions, however, his use of the distinctly benign pipe as a gun in order to intimidate Pamela. Because Pamela never sees the pipe, she assumes it as a gun when Hannay presents it as such through his dialogue. To see it through Freud’s eyes, this prop is somewhat phallic and, when it turns out to be an innocuous pipe rather than a powerful gun, it affects the audience’s view of Hannay’s masculinity negatively. The discovery of Hannay’s presentation of the powerless pipe as something more potent is seriously emasculating for the hero.

By examining Hannay’s behaviour in Freudian light, Robin Wood gives us a new and unique perspective on the portrayal of Hannay’s masculinity in The 39 Steps.

In their book After Hitchcock, David Boyd and Barton Palmer write about the “misidentification” of Hitchcock’s protagonist in The 39 Steps. Rather than suggesting that the protagonist is simply randomly suggested to “malevolent forces,” Boyd and Palmer argue that Hannay is misidentified as a spy in order to serve as a “barrier to his romantic fulfilment.” This initial misidentification as an agent or spy leads to his own pursuit towards those who would misidentify him in what Hitchcock terms the ‘double pursuit.’

Before the introduction of Annabelle to his life, Hannay lives as an independent, if transient, being. Through his association with her, his identity becomes misconstrued. Interpreted by her enemies as a spy, this group of malevolent agents threaten his independent lifestyle. Boyd and Palmer argue that Hannay’s quest to retrieve the secrets is really a journey to reclaim the identity that was stolen from him. He must engage in Hitchcock’s ‘double pursuit’ in order to realign the perception of his identity with the reality. They go on to assert that this entire tale of misidentification is further poignant for its function as a barrier to Hannay’s “romantic fulfilment.” This returns to what many authors comment on – his natural fulfilment of stereotypical masculine desires. By misconstruing and, in effect, thieving Hannay’s independent identity, the enemy agents launch him on a quest to regain it which finds him fulfilling his stereotypical identity as the masculine role in a romantic relationship.

Boyd and Palmer present an interesting perspective on the motivation and goal of Hannay’s journey. Rather than a purely masculine quest, Hannay is simply trying to reassert his personal identification and in doing so finds the identity that, by filmic convention, he is destined for.