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 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.