In his famous interview with Truffaut, Hitchcock considered part of SABOTAGE to be one of his greatest mistakes, but it lives as a film that truly shows the explosive nature of film. Released in the years leading to WWII, the film deals with a terrorist ring operating in London. The police investigation closes in on a cinema run by a man, his wife, and her young brother. Both political and contemplative of cinema itself, SABOTAGE shows Hitchcock at the top of his powers in Britain before his move to Hollywood in 1940. The film stars Sylvia Sidney, a star of great beauty and depth, and Oskar Homolka as one of Hitchcock's more complex villians. You can see SABOTAGE featured in Tarantino's INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009) and Sidney in BETTLE JUICE (1988) [she is one of Tim Burton's favorite actresses].
Suggested Supplemental Screenings: Anything by Hitchcock and SCREAM 2 (Craven, 1997)
.jpg)
I really enjoyed today’s screening of Sabotage. It wasn’t Hitchcock’s greatest work but it was pretty good. There weren’t any mind-blowing twists and turns as there are in some of this other films but it was entertaining. The use of suspenseful music definitely added to films tone. Mr. Verloc played by Oscar Homolka was the perfect villain with his foreign accent and shady activities. Silvia Sidney’s performance was pretty good but she wasn’t my favorite Hitchcock girl. She seemed kind of ditsy and dumb when I came to dealing with her husband and the undercover agent. Sabotage contained classic Hitchcock themes and plot devises such as the use of birds, the MacGuffin, the ordinary person, staircases and violence in a theater. The use of birds in sabotage was about creating a disguise for Mr. Verloc’s mysterious character. In the film “the time the birds sing” was a metaphor of when the bomb was supposes to go off. The MacGuffin in the story was the undercover agent trying to crack down on Mr.Verloc and his band of saboteurs. The ordinary person in the film was Mrs.Verloc’s brother Steve who got caught in the middle the saboteurs’ plans as he was killed in the bus explosion. The staircase in the cinema led up to house of Mr.Verloc where all of the shady activity went down, for instance the delivery of the bomb in the birdcage and the death of Mr.Verloc himself. The violence in the theater was blatantly obvious as a bomb blew up the cinema at the end of the film. The saddest part of the movie was when the bus blew up and the cute little dog died.
ReplyDeleteBeing a Hitchcock fan, I enjoyed today’s screening. I really liked the underexposed look of the film; I thought the use of dark shadows/images gave the movie a perfectly eerie, suspenseful feel right off the bat. While he did not implore his usual techniques to create the suspense he has become known for, I enjoyed the way the movie’s beginning didn’t waste any time- it got right into the story, consequently putting me, as the viewer, in a place of interest. Many movies from the same time period had long, drawn out beginning scenes as well as just a generally slower pace throughout. SABOTAGE seemed to break this trend as it jumped right into the plot from the beginning and continued to keep up a fast pace. Hitchcock’s film unfolded one event after the other, none of which were mundane or boring at all. From the very beginning, we, as the audience, are primed to view Mr. Verloc as suspect. We later find out that there is good reason to view Mr. Verloc in this light, as he is in fact the man behind the terrorist attack rather than the innocent cinema owner he so claims to be. He is portrayed as creepily untrustworthy via darker light whenever he is around, and through the shots of his seemingly shifty eyes. Immediately we see Ted the grocer become suspicious of him, as do we.
ReplyDeleteI couldn’t help but wondering why this, of all Hitchcock movies was chosen as it didn’t have the characteristic style of his other films. Dubbed the master of suspense, Hitchcock had a distinct style from which he created said suspense. A style that can be described as nothing else besides ‘Hitchcock.’ Interestingly, in SABOTAGE he disregarded his own style and patterns. Typically, instead of just letting the audience know something the character doesn’t to create buildup and suspense, Hitchcock makes sure to relieve the audience of the build up. He likes to bring his viewers up and down and finally relieving them of the suspense. He considers his fatal error in the making of SABOTAGE to be that he let the bomb in the bomb scene go off rather than having it be thrown off the bus at the last minute. In any other Hitchcock film, the audience would be certain that the bomb was about to go off and just when they couldn’t bear to watch anymore, Hitchcock would turn everything around by making it so the bomb instead did not go off.
I didn’t really enjoy this film; I don’t know where to start. Hitchcock’s SABOTAGE was dry. I feel like we receded back to watching these horrible films like we were doing in the beginning of the semester. The story line was boring; I fought to stay up. The pace of the film was slow. The editing was weak, the special effects were awful. When the little brother died on the bus, the film kept cutting back and forth between him, the package and the clock. It was trying to build up suspense but did not succeed in doing that. Then when the bus actually blew up, it looked so unbelievable. The film cut too quickly to the outside of the bus and it just suddenly exploded; it was too artificial. Oskar Homolka’s performance was okay. He didn’t show enough emotions on screen; he barely gave anything to the audience. I definitely was not terrified of whom his character was; he didn’t appear dangerous. I especially didn’t like his character after he brushed it off like nothing that he had just “accidentally” killed his wife’s brother. Sylvia Sidney’s was better than Homolka’s but she was just okay. I didn’t connect with her character at all. When she cried over killing her husband, I actually laughed because it was way too dramatic and over the top. The little brother’s performance was the best out of all of the other actors. I connected with him and felt horrible when he died. I liked his innocence when he had to run next door to pick out some food from the neighbor, who just happened to be an undercover cop. This film had a lot of harsh lighting and lots of shadows. I felt this was one of Hitchcock’s worse film noirs. He had this one shot of Homolka where the camera was low looking up at Homolka to make him appear as this big, bad, scary villain. I understood the effect he was trying to go for but it just didn’t work. It was more towards the end and he was telling Sidney not to worry about her dead brother. In that moment there was nothing scary about him; I guess Hitchcock wanted to portray him as this horrible monster but that was about all that I could justify for that shot. This film was just an epic failure for me.
ReplyDelete“Sabotage”
ReplyDeleteAlfred Hitchcock
Sarah Garcia
Honestly, the only Hitchcock film I had seen before this one was “The Birds”, which was made in 1963. I was impressed with Hitchcock when I watched “The Birds”, but with “Sabotage” I was not impressed. It may be because “Sabotage” was made in 1936, and Hitchcock was able to develop more as a director by the time he made “The Birds” in 1963, but comparing those two films there are significant differences in quality. Seeing “The Birds” first made me have Hitchcock on this level and I was disappointed with this film. The thing that I would say mostly was that I had a hard time staying awake through out the entire film. Hitchcock was unable to grab my attention and intrigue me. Instead I was looking at the clock and waiting for the film to end, which I hate doing during a film. I was unable to enter the reality that Hitchcock was trying to create, and because of this disconnect I could not be entertained.
Most films I watch I am able to feel as if I have entered this world as if I am a part of the character’s lives but in this film I just could not get in there. It could have been because I was just not in the mood to watch a film, and I may try to watch this film again, but this time I really was unimpressed by the character development and the build up to the end scene. Not to mention the scene in the end when the detective is saying that he does not remember if she said it before or if she said it after the bomb went off was so stupid and unnecessary to end the film, because even if he did know they would have never been able to prosecute her anyways.
A couple things that I did like about the film were the camera work and the lighting. I thought that the cinematographer made the main woman really look incredible in each close up. Also the gaffer did a great job of creating this world in which the darks and extremely dark and lights are almost blinding. This contrast really made the screen gain dimensionality which is hard to do because it is always going to be a two dimensional surface, but they were able to use the lighting to gain depth in each shot.
I’m not sure why I didn’t feel a huge response to this movie. Maybe it’s just that we’ve watched a lot of comedies recently, or maybe I just wasn't all there, but even though everything in it was “good” (the way it was filmed, the actors, the tension) I really didn't feel much overall. Given that it’s a Hitchcock film I’m sure there’s plenty beneath the surface, or ways to “read” the film that might reveal some interesting things, but even then I’m not sure I care enough to go seek them out.
ReplyDeleteI was also surprised with the rather amateurish execution of audio. This project may have been rushed to finish (or just not filmed in an easily controlled environment compared to all the big studio projections we’ve seen so far) but there were plenty of moments where audio either cuts out completely, cuts abruptly, or fades in late. I was surprised by the ending however, didn’t expect things to resolve in such a cleverly convenient way, though I still think the under-cover grocer’s infatuation and willingness to abandon everything for this woman came out of nowhere, it felt like.
I feel like this may be one of the first cases of more style than substance (in terms of character or realism). And perhaps it’s better to look at this as an action film, which tend to be more emotionally distant.
-Gabe
Hitchcock’s Sabotage was entertaining and suspenseful. I wouldn’t consider as one Hitchcock’s best, but I appreciated the techniques utilized in order to build suspense and carry out the plot.
ReplyDeleteThe scene that stood out the most for me was the one involving the little brother taking the bomb in the film canister. It was the most suspenseful scene in the film. The audience knows, unlike the boy, that it is actually a bomb that is being delivered. By revealing this to the audience, the moments when the boy is being delayed by the man doing the teeth-cleaning demonstration and by the police officer have a greater affect. The editing was also crucial to this scene. The film would cut to a clock, showing the advancement of time, and at one point it cuts to the note, which reminds the audience that something will happen at 1:45.
Also, I noticed how sound was used in order to show space. I remember there being points in the film where sound was lowered to express how one character experiences the sound in the film’s world. There are also times when there is complete silence and all that can be heard are the sounds the characters make. For instance, when the little brother was whistling at the bird, only his whistling is heard and the noises from the streets and apartment are muted.
I’m not too sure what it was that left me slightly unimpressed by this film. My overall feeling after the film ended was that I wanted more out of the experience. Perhaps, it was lacking in more dynamic and more developed characters. It is one of Hitchcock’s earlier films and I believe it shows how he developed his technique and used what he learned in order to become such an iconic and influential director.
This film was interesting to watch. Hitchcock maneuvers the in a way that truly puts the viewer in the middle of the action. The acting was incredible, but the story moved a little slowly. I feel that a lot could have been done to make this story more interesting without giving the immense amount (or what seemed like it) of backstory. I absolutely love Hitchcock, but I definitely think this wasn't his best work.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of cinematography, this film was amazing. The lighting captures the core of the characters perfectly. One specific scene comes to mind--the terrorist's wife is deciding whether or not to kill him (which is brilliantly executed by the grabbing and dropping of the knife) and he slowly looks up at her, as if everything is clicking. I absolutely loved that scene! There was so much emotion that was captured by the camera that it tensed me up. Another scene I enjoyed was when the man's wife is on the street and she had just found out her brother had died in the bus bombing. Using trick shots, Hitchcock planted the brother in scenes and then made him disappear in order to convey the character's emotions.
As far as the plot, however, I was expecting some incredible twist that Hitchcock is known for. Some sort of Twilight movie moment. I saw everything coming, it progressed very normaly, which is unlike Hitchcock to do. However, overall I enjoyed watching this film, as I enjoy watching most of his films. I believe he's directed better films but it is eye opening to see the way he has developed.
Nathalie Fernandez
Finally a Hitchcock film!!! I was so happy when I found out that the class was going to watch a Hitchcock film. I could not wait to get home and upload the film, SABOTAGE, was a film that I was looking forward to, I hoped that it would have everything that Hitchcock is known for, like the Hitchcock blonde and the lighting that he uses in all of his films. When I saw SABOTAGE I was taken back, I really liked it but it was not one of my favorite Hitchcock films. Some of the things I did like, had to be … THE HICTHCOCK BLONED and the Noir lighting. I love the actress in this film, she was really good at first I thought that the little boy was her son at first I had to re watch the film to understand that was her brother and not her son. I also love the way that the lighting came out in the film, It had a really Noir feeling and it was really nicely done everything from the way the room looked to the way that it made the movie feel, I also love the way the light fell on the bad guys face it made me know that he was bad from the start. What I did not like was that the film made the poor little boy die and it took so long that I found myself yelling to the TV screen tell the little poor boy “stop! Don’t go! Drop the box!!” I love/hate the way it took the little boy so long and he did not even know that he was going to get killed =( what I hated was the bad guy, he send the little boy out with the box, he send him out to get killed. I wish that the little poor boy did not have to die; I wish that the bad guy would have gotten killed, but I guess that is what happened when you make a film over seas and not in the US, with their rules. If it would have been made in the US the bad guy would have to die. So in conclusion, I feel that we should watch more Hitchcock films, he has inspired so many film makers. I love his work, and I am sure that everyone in class likes his work or at least I hope they do.
ReplyDeleteI was very excited to watch this film, as I am a big Hitchcock fan, but had never seen Sabotage before. In the beginning of the film, I had a hard time staying awake. I was very bored and thought that the film was moving at a very slow pace, but the film got better as time went by. The overexposed look of the film added to the suspense and eeriness of the film. It was also interesting to see yet another film that displayed cinema within the film.
ReplyDeleteOne of the favorite scenes was when Verloc was in the aquarium. I really liked how Hitchcock displayed Verlocs vision and paranoia through the glass of the aquarium; transforming the tank of fish into buildings and a bomb exploding, destroying London.
Then there was the scene when he was sending little Stevie off with the bomb, poor Stevie was grooming himself before leaving the house and Verloc yelled at him to hurry up, and then quickly changed his tone and pretended to say it in a more gentle way.
I was in shock that Verloc sent Stevie off with the bomb, not thinking that he could possibly get killed. It was a tense moment, and also an interesting juxtaposition of having innocent Stevie petting the dog, while also unknowingly transporting the bomb. After Stevie died, I thought Slyvia did not react enough to her brother’s death, even though she ended up killing Verloc, she did not display much grief.
Then in the end, after an explosion goes off in the cinema, the evidence of her crime (stabbing Verloc) is destroyed and the policeman could not remember if she stated that her husband is dead before or after the explosion.
All in all, the film was good, but definitely was not one of Hitchcock’s best
While there were obviously innovative or eye-catching filming techniques in the British Alfred Hitchcock film, Sabotage, there was simply something missing. A certain “je nes se quois” was absent, that would have bumped the film into a more engaging and memorable picture. Perhaps it was the narrative that was missing a certain level of emotion. It was difficult to gather at first that Karl Verloc was the husband of the young Mrs. Verloc… Their marriage seemed to be lacking in affection and at first I was under the assumption he was her boss or father. The audience could immediately gather from the first time he suspiciously showed himself on screen that he was a shady character and an antagonist. There was no twist and no suspense when it came to Karl Verloc being up to no good. The ending was much more Hitchcock-esque in how each little detail came together to cover up Mrs. Verloc stabbing her husband. The love triangle also seemed to be missing some sizzle…the lack of chemistry was a touch irritating. Rather than surprise, I thought the film did a better job at building suspense in the viewer. An example of suspense would be the sequence of shots that took place with the little boy, Stevie (the little brother of Mrs. Verloc), en route with the film canisters. The montage of shots gets shorter and shorter making his fate seem like it is coming faster and faster and we are constantly aware of the passing time with inserts of clocks. The package is shown from various angles and gradually gets closer with Stevie’s hands in view adding a human element. The combination of an innocent puppy and sweet elderly lady were intended to pull at our heart strings and raise the stakes. An insert shot of the note that came with the package reminds the viewer of the cruel intentions are underway. The film had obvious influences from German Expressionism and soviet montage. One of the most unique shots took place in the aquarium. Not only was it probably not as common a location at the time, but featuring the characters from behind foreshadowed their nefarious deeds. The melting aquarium glass, which transformed and distorted into a cityscape added an eerie surreal quality. While the film offered some interesting moments (the point of view shot with Mrs. Verloc shining a flashlight upon Mr. Verloc for example), it was perhaps lacking some character chemistry and development necessary for an overall engaging quality.
ReplyDelete--Brianne McKay
’ve seen a fair number of Hitchcock films but most of which were from the 50’s and 60’s (with the exception of the 39 steps, which actually came out before Sabotage) so looking at this movie was really interesting. Even though, by then, he was already established as a big time director, I felt like I was judging the film as sort of the early work of the guy who would one day become HITCHCOCK. Far from my favorite film I’ve seen from him (there are probably 5 or 6 in front of it), it was still interesting and enjoyable to watch because it was like I was watching “My Best Friend’s Birthday” by Tarantino or looking at a finger-painting by Picasso when he was in kindergarten. They don’t have their techniques mastered and fully mapped out yet but you get to see some of their key characteristics and some of the motivation that drives them. So there’s always that. In this one, there is sort of no mystery to the villain at all. He is in plain sight the whole time, and while he is a complex character, all of his complexities are made explicit. What we do get in this film, however, is Hitchcock’s desire to constantly do something with the camera that other people just aren’t doing. In the aquarium, he super imposes the image of buildings collapsing. Pretty damn cool, if you ask me. You still get a Hitchcock blonde and low-key lighting (always kind of throwing in some German expressionism influence, especially when featuring the villain). Oh… One thing that Hitchcock chooses to expel from his toolbox for his later films was the practice of blowing up kids. I don’t know if that was for better or worse but it was definitely a conscious decision. Having seen a bunch of his films.. was not expecting that one to go through. Thought something would intervene. It did not. He had some kids pecked and harassed by birds later in his career.. in The Birds… duh… but you don’t see any of them get swept up by a flock and dropped from a thousand feet or anything like that. Anyway, I’m glad you showed us this lesser known Hitchcock film rather than something like Vertigo or Psycho because it was definitely a first showing for many more people than it would’ve been (myself included).
ReplyDeleteI had an overall mixed reaction to this week’s screening of Hitchcock’s “Sabotage.” On the one hand, I can recognize that the film is extraordinarily well-made. With subtle precision, Hitchcock crafts another intriguing thriller which he allows to delicately unravel. His ability to present the story through a linear narrative and still manage to successfully involve the audience is refreshing. Likewise, he’s able to do so without “dumbing-down” the plot and all the while centering on a very humane story that carries strong sociopolitical undertones. Today, I feel that finding a thriller that demonstrates these qualities is a rarity. However, I entered the screenings with rather high expectations considering I’ve seen several Hitchcock films from the 50’s. I hadn’t seen much early Hitchcock except for “Lifeboat,” which I really enjoyed. I had also seen “Rebecca” and, although I could definitely appreciate the film’s accomplishments, I cannot say that I’m an adamant fan of it. But, I heard that was an O’Selznick problem. And finally, I really loved the clip we say from “Blackmail.” Those few minutes were enough to make it one of my favorite early-sound films we’ve seen this semester. So, after I saw “Sabotage,” I felt a little underwhelmed.
ReplyDeleteTechnically speaking, I did find this film to be at the top of our screening list. Aside from Vertov’s “Man with a Movie Camera,” I thought “Sabotage” to be the best edited film we had seen this semester. I remember the editing from the bus scene was particularly memorable. I thought the opening of the film was also really strong, immersing the audience in the scene right away. Hitchcock’s opening scene – the close-up of the light blinking on and off – was especially unsettling, building immediate tension and providing for a thematic motif throughout. I was also very excited to see a cinema play out in the film. I remember thinking that the Walt Disney cartoon and that scene as a whole was an incredible statement of innocence lost in the film, not just for Sylvia but for the audience who just witnessed Stevie’s death. Lastly, though I didn’t like Homolka at all, I thought Sylvia Sydney’s cherub like face was a perfect match for her character. There is something childlike and innocent about her presence in the film. It allows those moments in which she encounters fear, desperation, or regret to resonate deeply with the audience.
I really enjoyed Sabotage. I thought it was a lot of fun. It was a short 76 minutes which kept everything moving at a break neck pace, which I rather enjoyed.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how the movie viewed its audience. It was set in a movie theater and a lot of things happened in this setting, and yet the audience in the theater is so transfixed that they do not notice any of it. They don't notice the woman who enters from the back crying, the police activity, the bad guy looking figures or the man and boy talking and the noise it must have made when the inspector was pulled into the next room. In fact the only time when the audience noticed was when the power went off, which stopped the movie, and when the policeman told them that there was a bomb in the building and they should get out. This must be a comment on the movie going public and how oblivious they are to the world around them. In fact, it gives the movie a lot more tension because it makes you realize that these things could be happening in your movie theater, but you probably wouldn't notice if you were swept up in the film. This was also a comment about the british people at this time not being aware of the changing political climate.
I also really liked how dark this movie was. I mean its one thing to kill a kid, something movies tend to shy away from, but Hitchcock BLEW HIM UP and ADDED A PUPPY. Wow, he couldn't have made the loss of innocence any more heavily symbolized. It is a really intense scene and shocking because most people probably think, “well the kid is going to get away,” but then he doesn't and, I can't stress this enough, he takes this cute baby puppy with him into the flames and burning wreckage of a burning bus.
The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the ending. It had the chance to be really bleak and then it sorta copped out (no pun intended). She accidentally kills a man after seeing a cartoon where the happy little singing bird dies. Then she walks out and just sits on a chair in the hallway. All this was a great performance and it was really powerful. Then, as the plot would have it, the bomb guy blows himself up and all the evidence against our main character. Well isn't that convenient? Sure there is the last little bit of intensity when the policeman remembers that she said that he was dead before the explosion, but then he can't remember and she lives happily ever after with the good guy and her deep psychological torment.
All in all, I really liked Sabotage. It was technically brilliant, never slow, great performances, and just a good piece of entertainment.
Sabotage, a British thriller directed by Alfred Hitchcock was not one of my favorite films. Most of the times I was distracted and could not wait for the movie to end. I felt like the movie-lacked suspense. Something that really impressed me was how Hitchcock seemed to highlight the evilness of the film, for example when killing the kid the puppy also dies with him. In the end the fact that she accidentally kills a man after seeing a cartoon where the happy little singing bird dies was not the best ending the movie could had have. I noticed that the montage of shots get shorter as time pass as seen with the insert of clocks. Another scene of horrible death was when Mrs. Verloc squares off with her husband at the dinner table. In this scene there is a quick editing of faces and hands, which really amazed me, holding a carving knife created anxiety and made the scene and intense murder scene without the use of dialogue. I thought Sabotage is a little prophetic with its “ unfriendly acts.” What definitely called most my attention of the film was the time bomb sequence in which the city bus is destroyed.
ReplyDeleteOn Monday we say Hitchcock’s Sabotage. The film tells the story of a cinema owner who is also part of a criminal gang. He has a son and wife, who befriends a man later to be revealed as a detective working undercover. His gang is responsible for several bombings in the city of London, the problem being, Hitchcock never mentions what their intentions are, or why they’re doing it. That remains a mystery. By the end of the film and climax of the story, the owner of the cinema gives his son a package to deliver by 1:45pm, but doesn’t tell him it contains a bomb that will go off by the same time. He himself is unable to deliver it, because the detective was inside his theater watching him, waiting for a move.
ReplyDeleteThe son takes his time in delivering the package because unbeknownst to him, there is a bomb inside a film reel case. In a carefully crafted scene, Hitchcock delivers his seal of suspense when the boy goes inside a bus with a few minutes left for the bomb to explode. Bad luck for him, and what Hitchcock says was his worst mistake, he kills the boy. Later, both the detective and the mother find out the boy died in the bus bombing because they find the film print he was carrying.
Overall the movie was disappointing. Except for a few good scenes the movie was not a good movie. It was far from being good Hitchcock; you can be the master of suspense and have a mastery of film technique, but you also need content, a good screenplay would have done the job.
As a film major this is going to look bad, but I’ve actually never seen any films by Hitchcock before this screening of Sabotage. After watching the film I can definitely see the appeal and draw to him as a director – my Netflix queue had quite a lot of his films after seeing it. Compared to other films we have watched throughout our screenings this film brought something completely different to the table. The actual suspense of the story and the techniques Hitchcock used to convey that to the audience was a very unique experience and one I was not expecting. I thought that the story itself was very entertaining and engaging. It took the image and idea of a bad guy and put him in a different setting and light with a very unique kind of crime. It allowed the film to remain a little more sedentary throughout, letting the tension and clues gain momentum in the stillness of the characters. Today’s films move so quickly that it is tough to get into and develop the same psychological progress and state as the characters in Sabotage. Given that praise, I did think there was an element that distanced me from the film, and was probably due to my lack of real connection with any of the characters. I didn’t really understand any of their motives or backgrounds throughout the entirety of the film and that made it tough for me to connect with some of the actions and emotional moments in the film.
ReplyDeleteThere were several scenes that stood out to me. The first was the scene in the aquarium. It was the first time the audience connected Verloc as the villain and the some of the techniques used were great to watch. Hitchcock had the two characters conversing with their back towards the cameras shrouding them in mystery, and the effect of the aquarium behind them in the frame seemed to cloak them even more. Later in the scene the aquarium seamlessly melted into the image of a city burnt to the ground, which I thought was a great effect within the film.
The other scene that did stand out was when the little boy was blown up with the bomb. I knew it would happen, but was still somewhat surprised given the time period of the film. The suspense and editing leading up to the explosion was very well played out as the audience kept watching obstacles prevent the boy from reaching his destination.
The scene that had me most engaged was the final scene in the dining room, where Mrs. Verloc stabs her husband. Hitchcock empowered the knife on film and really connected the audience to Mrs. Verloc’s state of mind – the first time I really felt that in the film. The audience sympathized with her pain and loss, and actually understood the desire and conflict she was having with herself. Verloc apparently felt that as well as the knife brought a steady realization to him that he would not be forgiven.
I like the film because it was a lot different than the films we have seen in class. This film did remind me a lot of the red scare by the way the husband was very mysterious with his group of friends. The detective was trying to find out what he was into. At the beginning of the movie he was involved in the accident with all the city lights shutting down. I liked it how Hitchcock made it very mysterious. M was just annoying that it took the whole film to arrest the killer. I enjoyed sabotage because we knew the husband was up to no good but I wanted to know what he was into plus I wasn’t sure what he was capable of. It was a quick film because you find out quick that the employee of the supermarket next door was a detective. I really like the wife’s attitude because she seemed really nice and naïve. She trusted her husband a lot and had no idea of what he was into. Her relationship with her little brother got us to like them and understand why she was so naïve with her husband. Since the film wasn’t so suspenseful, I didn’t see the husband as a true villain but, when he made the boy take the package, I started to dislike him. Having the bus explode with the kid in it was very disturbing. I didn’t think Hitchcock would do that but it was actually good because it shows that not all movies have a happy ending. That showed that it could happen in real life. At first I thought the boy was going to come out alive but, it was a good decision Hitchcock made. The fil wasn’t one of my favorites but I liked it because it wasn’t boring at all. I actually thought it was too short. I would’ve wanted to see more of what the husband motives were but it was good for the year the film was made. I’ve never seen a Hitchcock film before but now I want to see all the movies he made because you can actually see that a lot of modern films get ideas from his films. It has a good plot and it is something that can happen in real life, Other films we have seen in class have been funny and some have been boring, but this was definitely nice to watch and learn from.
ReplyDeleteSabotage is easily identified as a Hitchcock film in its style and storyline. I have only seen a few of his famous thrillers, but this film rings that same Hitchcockian tone as the ones I've seen, including The Birds, Vertigo, and Psycho. From the hailed murder sequence (by butcher knife), to the blonde leading actress. Other than his film motifs, the only negative thing I've found in Hitchcock films is his lengthy story setups. Although it is expected for films of the 1930's and 40's to have extended shots, it seems like Hitchcock's films take 3/4 of the film in dialogue and only a 1/4 of action and suspense. It is generally worth the wait to watch his exciting heinous scenes, like that of the shower scene in Psycho or when the flock birds attack a children's school in The Birds, however, I have found myself nodding off when the dialogue drags on.
ReplyDeleteThe dry British humor of this film definitely requires attentive ears, but I was having trouble maintaining interest when the dialogue dragged on, and I may have missed out on the underlying key points that made it a masterpiece. I do enjoy Hitchcock's films, however this one was fairly anti-climactic compared to how well his films developed over the following years.
In our class discussion about Hitchcock, my perspective of his strange casting in films were finally clarified. It was the fact that his blonde actresses didn't quite fit the characters in the story since he hired them based on idealized looks (or female actresses he was obsessed about) rather than hire the actresses most befitting to the role. Even though his intentions were strange, the wooden acting of some of his blond actresses just added on to his Hitchcock signature.
-Allison Basham
Sabotage is the archetypical Hitchcock film, brimming with suspense and moments of surprise. I had seen an interview with Hitchcock where he spoke about suspense and how to utilize suspense as a narrative tool. In his explanation, he speaks of a bomb that the audience is aware of, but that the characters in the scene are not. This type of scenario uses dramatic irony to heighten our suspicions and also provides us with a compelling scenario. Hitchcock speaks of the importance in never letting the bomb go off--explode. Because of this, I was amazed in the film when the bomb actually went off. I am speaking of the scene where the bus explodes. Perhaps it was from this trial that Hitchcock would later formulate his view on the bomb. The bomb going off was not grotesque or visually disturbing, but it seemed out of place within the context of the film. Viscerally, it betrayed my expectations as an audience member.
ReplyDeleteHitchcock's humor was ever-present in the film. So many of his films have an odd humor to them, especially considering the subject matter usually dealt with.
Overall I enjoyed Hitchcock's Sabotage. Others I like more: I, confess, saboteur, etc, but overall another good film. It was also quite a departure from the other films we have seen recently and I was happy to see an older Hitchcock film.
I’d actually never heard of Sabotage until this class, was never aware of its existence in Hitchcock’s catalog. I can see why, I guess. Sabotage didn’t exactly reflect what I’ve come to know Hitchcock for. I mean, there were some classic Hitchcockian things – birds, staircases, MacGuffin etc. But his usual suspenseful nature was missing; not that it really made the film any worse, but as much as I liked it, I still felt extremely distant to it.
ReplyDeleteI expect a little empathy from myself to the characters on screen, but this was really hard to get into. I could only recognize its technical merit, but other than that, it was nearly impossible for me to care about these people. I wanted to feel that exhilaration that I felt the first time I watched North by Northwest, and I just didn’t. I didn’t care about the woman or her brother. Not to mention the fact that her husband was so non-chalant with her brother’s life – that distanced me even more. Still, I did enjoy looking at very early Hitchcock. Sylvia Sidney is like a little pixie, but very talented.
Maybe if I didn’t go in with such high expectations, I might have enjoyed it even more. But I don’t think I can blame myself considering it is Hitchcock and the man basically set his own standards. Unfortunately, the suspense was lacking, to the point where I couldn’t believe I was watching Hitchcock. He did have a few more years to go before he 'became' Hitchcock, I suppose.