Sabotage (1937)

the audience applauded

Really Surprised!

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Indeed, "Secret Agent" was a disappointment to me and for many reasons. Gielgud wasn't bad, but he wasn't Robert Donat and his flat performance might explain why he and Hitchcock never collaborated again. His companion played by an over-the-top Peter Lorre was too goofy even in his sinister moments to sustain the gravitas of the plot, when there was any. In fact, the thriller went in too many directions, indecisive about its status as straight thriller, character study or fun escapism.But "Sabotage" puts the cards in the table right away. The film, loosely adapted from a Joseph Conrad's novel, takes place in London at a time where America was stricken by the Great Depression and Europe witnessing the rise of fascism and totalitarian regimes, Britain was still a colonial empire and geopolitically, an oasis of relative stability and democracy so that the only potential threat in peacetime was espionage and sabotage. What's a sabotage?Well, the film's opening with the dictionary page inspired me three reactions. First, I was wondering whether that creative license didn't inspire Quentin Tarantino for "Pulp Fiction". Secondly, I thought it was a splendid idea to give a technical definition of what seemed an obvious term, like an iconoclastic 'tell-and-show' move from Hitchcock. And finally, I couldn't help but think how the definition matched today's terrorism. Indeed, one couldn't call the climactic sequence "sabotage".But one can certainly call it one of the most intense and suspenseful ten minutes from any film. My memory might fail me but I remember that scene from a documentary about Scorsese's main inspirations. Never mind where I got it, but I had that mysterious image of a boy carrying a parcel with a bomb for years and years. Speaking of Scorsese, he referred to the dream sequence of "Vertigo" as a mini-film within the film, one can say the same thing about the climax of "Sabotage".Hitchcock's quote about the difference between 'surprise' and 'suspense' is well known by movie lovers. Two men having a conversation and a bomb underneath the table explodes will provide fifteen seconds of surprise but if we know that the bomb will explode at 1 o'clock, their conversation becomes more fascinating and we're literally hung to what happens on the screen, we just want them to get out, then suspense provides fifteen minutes of suspense. Watching this scene created a feeling of uneasiness, for the set-up first. I couldn't believe the cruelty of the villain who risks the life of his wife's little brother (Desmond Tester) for a job he's been assigned to. Oscar Homolka, as the sinister cinema owner Verloc, doesn't look like the murderer type, he expresses at some point his reluctance to cause loss of life. He's basically a goon, a luggage-carrier, not muscle, only a man capable to put sand in London electricity grid to provoke a massive blackout, but when you think about it, such men are capable to be driven to extreme actions when they're trapped.It's generally a comedic device when an inoffensive person is used to for a dangerous delivery so he wouldn't raise any suspicion, but in "Sabotage" the idea comes when Verloc discovers that Scotland Yard has an eye on him and the Detective played by John Loder is having a "talk" with his wife. Verloc is like a cornered rat and can only fight back by resorting to the most desperate measure, asking a child to literally carry death to Piccadily Circus. Hitchcock is no sadistic but he knows our heart is hooked with little Stevie, so he punctuates his path with many events that delays his mission such as a procession or a street vendor using him for painful and humiliating demonstrations. Hitchcock enhances our empathy while providing lighthearted moments that might mislead us about Stevie's fate. Surely after all these annoyances, he'll manage to put the parcel under the cloak room and come back safely. But then the frenetic editing goes, he's still got the parcel and we're a few seconds from 1.45.Could Hitchcock use another victim than a child? No because empathy could only work if he knew one of the victims, much more an innocent one and on that level, I wonder if the bombing sequence in "Battle of Algiers" wasn't inspired by the film. Secondly, the main protagonist, played by Silvia Sidney, needed a motive to kill her husband. Indeed, for a movie that deals with British threats from within, Hitchcock takes one step forward and give it a domestic dimension.Realizing that her husband is responsible for the death of her brother, she stabs him with a knife. The trickiest part is that he's done such a great job maintaining a 'honest citizen' façade, that she's basically a murderer at that point. The film ends with a turn of events that get rid of the two villains and of any evidence incriminating her, two birds with the same stone, as foreshadowed by Verloc. However, right before the "cleansing" explosion, a distraught Mrs. Verloc said her husband was dead. But the explosion came so instantly that the detective wondered later whether it came before or after. A matter of half-a-second wrapped up the plot and provided some comedic relief to end a rather dark movie. I criticized the ending of "Secret Agent" but "Sabotage" ended with the note that proved that Hitchcock was back in shape with a first-rate thriller. The light-hearted "39 Steps" opened with 'Music Hall' letters lighting up, "Sabotage" with a big light-bulb and London's plunged into blackout, maybe announcing his darker masterpieces. My only complaint comes from the fan of Disney's "Who Killed Cock Robin?", where I wished the audience didn't overplay the laughs at the film's start, the funnier parts would come later, but at least when the arrow hits the bird, Sylvia Sydney had the right reaction, the cartoon could be dark indeed, like the film.But it had to be dark, leaving the kid alive would have been cinematic sabotage.

There's no question that Alfred Hitchcock is a master film director, seeing as how a movie this old can hold up decently in 2011. However, "Sabotage" lacks one key element keeping it from really being a classic: context.For a basic plot summary, "Sabotage" sees an English theater owner (Oskar Homolka) and his wife (Sylvia Sidney) get caught up in an espionage plot with shades of terrorism.This movie is classic Hitch through and through. It has the conflicted characters, moments of high tension, and the eventual "MacGuffin" that drives the story forward. For what it does accomplish, the film is quite good. Not overwhelming in any sense, but the tension (at times) is palpable and will hook viewers into wanting to see how it all turns out.The problem, though, is that the characters and events are given absolutely no context whatsoever. This "exposition" phase of the storytelling is skipped altogether. Thus, it is difficult to be 100% engaged in the story when it begins and ends so abruptly.Overall, this is a decent Hitchcock film that is more than worth a viewing from hard-core Hitch fans. It doesn't hold a candle to his later American works, but for what it is it's entertaining.

Except for his first Gaumont UK film, the musical Strauss bio, WALTZES FROM VIENNA, Hitchcock found his niche with the espionage thriller and films two through five are all on this general thematic narrative: THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, THE 39 STEPS, SECRET AGENT, SABOTEUR.The latter is an almost claustrophobic film, compared to the three that precede it, even though it is the one most filled with people. Crowds of people, on streets, in the cinema where it is centrally located, gathering in almost confrontational mobs.Sylvia Sidney's expressive face carries the film. It is her character that must undergo the realization of tragedy, of broken dreams and promises, of betrayal. She does an admirable job. Oskar Homolka as the terrorist husband is perfectly cast in a role originally intended for Peter Lorre. Desmond Tester as younger brother, Stevie, and John Loder as undercover detective, Ted, are merely serviceable.Notable moments include: Homolka visualization of a bomb's effect on a city block superimposed upon an aquarium fish tank; inner workings of a clock and a bomb superimposed upon each other; the incredible suspense of the boy on his way through town carrying the bomb, intercut with clocks he passes; the confrontation of Sidney and Homolka over the dinner table.Controversy met the film over the shock of the bomb's damage. In most suspenseful moments in Hitchcock films, that which we feared was going to happen, is averted at the last moment. Not so here.SABOTAGE echoes Hitch's first sound film, BLACKMAIL. In both a woman commits murder, albeit for good reasons. Her boyfriend is in one a policeman, in the other a detective, who chooses to shield her from being accused. In the one the only other witness to the murder is killed before speaking. In the other, a second bomb obliterates the murder scene. In both the murderess goes free. At least in SABOTAGE justice is done to one of the conspirators.The film moves very quickly and keeps our interest throughout. It is tightly directed by Hitchcock and is both entertaining and thought-provoking. Along with THE LODGER and MURDER!, this makes a half dozen great UK films thus far in his career. He was to make three more before coming to the USA.

Joseph Conrad's novella, "The Secret Agent", served as the basis of Alfred Hitchcock's "Sabotage", during his British period. Since Mr. Hitchcock had already directed another English film, "Secret Agent", the title was changed to "Sabotage", not to be confused with "Saboteur", which the director made in America in 1942, which is not a remake. The achievement of this film is tremendous, even when the viewer knows from the start who the evil character is. Mr. Hitchcock pulled it off in surprising, and simple ways, that paid off handsomely in this thriller, that in spite of having been made more than 74 years ago, still merits a view by fans of the director. Mr. Hitchcock knew how to keep the suspense, as he proved here. The viewer is kept at the edge of his seat as one watches Stevie, the young boy going on to deliver the bomb, that unknown to him, his brother-in-law thought would surely go to its intended target. Because of the parade, and not being able to cross the street by the police barricade, he has no other way to get to Picadilly by taking the bus as time gets closer to the deadline of 1.45pm.The other fantastic sequence involves the killing of Verloc. It is done without any sound, practically, yet, the impact it creates in our minds is nothing short of shocking because, basically, Sylvia Verloc, cannot believe the monster she has married, could be the one responsible for the death of her own brother. The ironic twist at the end comes unexpectedly at the end without even a hint of what is going to happen to the Bijou when all the evil doer is trapped inside the apartment trying to retrieve the bird cages.Sylvia Sidney made a wonderful Mrs. Verloc. She is not the typical blond the director favored, but she brought a great presence to the film. Oskar Homolka underplayed his Verloc to an amazing effect. He is menacing without doing much, which goes to show what good actor he was. John Loder is seen as Ted, the undercover agent assigned to watch what was going on at the theater next door. Diamond Tester added a touch of innocence to the action; we all know he is a good kid who did not deserve his tragic end."Sabotage" is vintage Hitchcock that must be seen by serious fans.