It is perhaps harsh to criticise an adaption of John Buchan's novel for having too many coincidences. After all, in the original book, Hannay flees to Scotland to hide from the police and just happens to end up in a cottage belonging to one of the enemy. It may also be a little unfair to compare the different film versions for each interpretation should be allowed to speak for itself.
I have no problem accepting the introduction of a love interest that isn't in the original story. I can also turn a blind eye to the historical anachronisms. It is said that the aeroplane that chases Hannay in this film version (a Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a) is using a firing mechanism that wasn't introduced until 1917. But, I have more trouble with glaring holes in the plot. If you were a spy in Scotland and wanted to remain inconspicuous would you have an aeroplane with any kind of machine gun attached sitting outside your castle?
More to the point, we discover towards the end of the film that Victoria works for the secret service and Hannay is told that she was sent to "cover his back". It is odd then that they first meet when she is on the way to a political rally with her brother and Hannay rolls down the hillside landing in the road in front of her car. At this point she is meant to know who he is and it would have been reasonable for her to ask if he was OK and could she offer him a lift to the next town or to her brother's house. Instead, she asks if he is the Liberal spokesman! Bizarre. We are being asked to accept that in order to 'cover his back' she takes him to a political rally where he will have to pretend to be someone he isn't and will be delayed whilst those she is meant to be protecting him from have every opportunity to catch up. In the 1935 and '59 films the political meeting and the talk at the girls' school were much more convincingly introduced.
When they return to recover the hidden notebook it should not have been beyond the wit of someone working for the secret service bureau to suggest they search around for the notebook and for Victoria to then find it without revealing that she had picked his pocket. A particular skill of Victoria's that passes without any further comment! However, as the film tells it, Hannay realises that this means Victoria already knew that he was telling the truth. Instead of following this up the script says the argument can wait until they get to the inn where, of course, the argument never happens.
Rather than papering over holes in the plot the script should have spent more time avoiding putting holes there in the first place. Later when Hannay arranges a private meeting with Sir George there seems to be no convincing reason why it has to happen in some darkened chapel. 'All very hush, hush', as Sir George says. When asked how he knew Sir George wouldn't turn up with the police Hannay responds, "I didn't." Given what has happened to him and given that he believes national security is at risk this is extraordinary. At this stage there is no reason for Hannay to doubt Victoria's loyalty and they have been discussing the codebook together so there should be no reason to exclude Victoria from this meeting. All the script can do is to have Hannay say to Harry that he didn't want to get another lecture on universal suffrage and to Sir George that, "If you brought the police I thought she might cause a scene." Whilst we are at it, in this scene why does Sir George reveal what is going to be discussed at the meeting of the National Committee of Defence. "I've risked my life for this country" hardly seems to be a sufficient justification to embark on such blatant exposition for the sake of the audience.
But then the National Committee of Defence doesn't seem to be up to much. In a film like this we might forgive the fact that Hannay easily escapes from the armed soldiers taking him to the cells at Stirling castle but then having miraculously arrived at the correct door he demands, "In the name of King George V open the door." The film has gone to great lengths to tell us how top secret these plans are so it is a little surprising that Hannay is then invited into the room with all the plans still laid out on the table. Even worse, once they have discovered the invisible message from Scudder the senior people in the secret service say to Hannay "We will follow you". Perhaps they already knew how incompetent the soldiers were at Stirling Castle and felt it best to entrust this most important mission to a civilian.
The ending of the film is, of course, risible.
In any film it is important to be able to suspend ones disbelief but there should be enough coherence in what you are given to make that a relatively easy task. Perhaps I would be more forgiving if the there was some on screen chemistry between the two leads but even this was absent.
It isn't that this film doesn't match the three previous versions, it is more that this is just dull and, on its own merits, a rather poor film.
I have no problem accepting the introduction of a love interest that isn't in the original story. I can also turn a blind eye to the historical anachronisms. It is said that the aeroplane that chases Hannay in this film version (a Royal Aircraft Factory S.E.5a) is using a firing mechanism that wasn't introduced until 1917. But, I have more trouble with glaring holes in the plot. If you were a spy in Scotland and wanted to remain inconspicuous would you have an aeroplane with any kind of machine gun attached sitting outside your castle?
More to the point, we discover towards the end of the film that Victoria works for the secret service and Hannay is told that she was sent to "cover his back". It is odd then that they first meet when she is on the way to a political rally with her brother and Hannay rolls down the hillside landing in the road in front of her car. At this point she is meant to know who he is and it would have been reasonable for her to ask if he was OK and could she offer him a lift to the next town or to her brother's house. Instead, she asks if he is the Liberal spokesman! Bizarre. We are being asked to accept that in order to 'cover his back' she takes him to a political rally where he will have to pretend to be someone he isn't and will be delayed whilst those she is meant to be protecting him from have every opportunity to catch up. In the 1935 and '59 films the political meeting and the talk at the girls' school were much more convincingly introduced.
When they return to recover the hidden notebook it should not have been beyond the wit of someone working for the secret service bureau to suggest they search around for the notebook and for Victoria to then find it without revealing that she had picked his pocket. A particular skill of Victoria's that passes without any further comment! However, as the film tells it, Hannay realises that this means Victoria already knew that he was telling the truth. Instead of following this up the script says the argument can wait until they get to the inn where, of course, the argument never happens.
Rather than papering over holes in the plot the script should have spent more time avoiding putting holes there in the first place. Later when Hannay arranges a private meeting with Sir George there seems to be no convincing reason why it has to happen in some darkened chapel. 'All very hush, hush', as Sir George says. When asked how he knew Sir George wouldn't turn up with the police Hannay responds, "I didn't." Given what has happened to him and given that he believes national security is at risk this is extraordinary. At this stage there is no reason for Hannay to doubt Victoria's loyalty and they have been discussing the codebook together so there should be no reason to exclude Victoria from this meeting. All the script can do is to have Hannay say to Harry that he didn't want to get another lecture on universal suffrage and to Sir George that, "If you brought the police I thought she might cause a scene." Whilst we are at it, in this scene why does Sir George reveal what is going to be discussed at the meeting of the National Committee of Defence. "I've risked my life for this country" hardly seems to be a sufficient justification to embark on such blatant exposition for the sake of the audience.
But then the National Committee of Defence doesn't seem to be up to much. In a film like this we might forgive the fact that Hannay easily escapes from the armed soldiers taking him to the cells at Stirling castle but then having miraculously arrived at the correct door he demands, "In the name of King George V open the door." The film has gone to great lengths to tell us how top secret these plans are so it is a little surprising that Hannay is then invited into the room with all the plans still laid out on the table. Even worse, once they have discovered the invisible message from Scudder the senior people in the secret service say to Hannay "We will follow you". Perhaps they already knew how incompetent the soldiers were at Stirling Castle and felt it best to entrust this most important mission to a civilian.
The ending of the film is, of course, risible.
In any film it is important to be able to suspend ones disbelief but there should be enough coherence in what you are given to make that a relatively easy task. Perhaps I would be more forgiving if the there was some on screen chemistry between the two leads but even this was absent.
It isn't that this film doesn't match the three previous versions, it is more that this is just dull and, on its own merits, a rather poor film.