Skip to main content

He’s the quietest, most harmless, home-loving person.

Sabotage
aka The Woman Alone
(1936)

(SPOILERS) Hitchcock adapts Joseph Conrad (The Secret Agent) in another fruitful collaboration with playwright and screenwriter Charles Bennett. The result is shorn of any overt political leanings – Oscar Homolka’s cinema owner is acting for an unknown foreign power with undefined goals – thus making all the more room for the director to crank up Sabotage's suspense of suspicion, concealed identity and, in the shocking centrepiece, whether and where and when a bomb will go off.

Hitch claimed to be dissatisfied with the result, although one might argue he was prepped to be negative by Truffaut’s dislike for the film. Contrarily, Pauline Kael suggested it “may be just about the best of his English thrillers”. It isn’t quite that, for several reasons relating to plot, motivation and character, but neither are its failings necessarily those admitted to by Hitch.

He and Truffaut made a big thing of the (mis) casting of John Loder as heroic detective sergeant Ted Spencer; Robert Donat wasn’t available and Loder “simply wasn’t the right man for the part”. I’d agree in as much Loder is rather stolid and undistinguished when called upon to deliver the straight romantic and heroic moves, but early on, when he’s posing as a grocer in order to spy on the Verlocs (Homolka’s Karl and Sylvia Sidney’s Mrs), he’s really quite winning in a chipper, patter-spinning way (trying to convince disgruntled patrons they have no right to a refund, delivering bad puns at lunch: “Poached egg here at Simpson’s? Why, that’s enough to make the roast beef swim in its gravy”). It doesn’t help his overall prospects either that Ted isn’t such a great detective, easily getting fingered by Verloc’s co-conspirators when he’s snooping (namely by Peter Bull, later the Russian Ambassador in Dr. Strangelove).

I don’t think this failing of character/casting is any greater than the one of attempting to locate just how it came to be that gorgeous Sidney (latterly memorable as post-deceased care worker Juno in Beetlejuice) came to be married to plodding hulk Homolka (perhaps best known as Colonel Stok in the two 60s Harry Palmer sequels). Sidney is never short of our sympathy, and Karl’s remoteness and indifference mean there is little tension in respect of her (daring) attraction to Ted. Verloc is curiously established, and one can’t help feel there was a missed opportunity here. Hitch has created suspense in other pictures whereby, even though we don’t want them to succeed, we’re pulled along with the villain in their scheming (Norman Bates and the car in the bog, for example). Here, it seems he would actually have gone even further in distancing us from Verloc’s humanity.

Early on, the character professes to draw the line at the loss of life when he meets the contact who refuses to pay him (his power cut “made London laugh. When one sets out to put the fear of death into people, it is not helpful to make them laugh. We are not comedians”). Yet we don’t hear another word on the subject once he is proceeding as instructed. Indeed, his reaction to the death of Sidney’s kid brother Stevie – Desmond Tester, a kind of precocious proto Rupert Grint; you can see the ginger bleeding through the monochrome – is about as indifferent as it gets, and ruthlessly practical to boot. “What would it have been if you had lost me?” he pleads, before falling on blaming Ted (Verloc sent Stevie with the parcel-wrapped bomb because the detective was snooping in the vicinity).

And then, when dinner is served, he grouches about it (“I don’t think I want any cabbage”) while Sylvia sobs. No wonder she stabs him! Hitch was concerned that, played wrong, this scene would fail to elicit audience sympathy; if it did not appear accidental, they would not be with her. I don’t know that this is entirely true. I think he underestimates the effect of the death of Stevie and the audience disposition against Verloc at this point (the actual danger would have been playing up her attraction to Ted).

The death of Stevie is a masterclass sequence, as the boy, also delivering reels of Bartholomew the Strangler – the cinema element of Sabotage gives the director the opportunity to include some nicely meta elements – is continually distracted, and we know a clock is ticking. Thus, the tension isn’t on whether Verloc will succeed, but whether Stevie will survive. That he doesn’t makes for an audacious shock (I know it’s consistent with the novel, but we’re talking movie conventions here). Hitch considered he’d made a mistake: “The boy was involved in a situation that got him too much sympathy from the audience, so that when the bomb exploded and he was killed, the public was resentful”. That assessment is highly instructive on how the director made his decisions, but as with his previous picture Secret Agent (where he had problems with Gielgud’s character’s motivation), I’d argue it’s the idiosyncrasies of his choices that don’t fit the usual template that make some of these earlier pictures that much more interesting.

Hitch claims he should have dealt with the problem by having Verloc kill the boy deliberately “but without showing that on the screen” and then having Sidney take revenge. Which feels like a much more rote option. Apart from anything else, it would rob the picture of that superlative set piece, the one that succeeds in making Sabotage memorable (not that it doesn’t have many fine other features). Another strong sequence is the one in which Sidney, having elicited a confession from her husband, stumbles into a cinema seat as a Disney short’s sickly refrain of Who Killed Cock Robin? rings in her ears, to peals of children’s laughter.

Curiously, given how self-critical he could be, Hitch didn’t voice any concerns over the ending, which makes for a spate of rather desperate contrivances. Ted attempts to persuade Mrs Verloc not to go to the police and instead run away to the continent with him (his inability to suppress his feelings in the face of her grief suggests he is only so much better a proposition than Verloc). Fortunately, salvation is at hand in the form of bomb-maker pet-shop owner the Professor (William Dewhurst). Who notes of his granddaughter, when Verloc asks if her father is dead, “I don’t know? Might be. Nobody knows. My daughter would like to know as well. We all have our crosses to bear”. Which is rather in keeping with Sabotage’s vague moral valuations. The Professor conveniently (but not for him) left the birdcage that transported the bomb at Verloc’s; he’s required to remember this and return to the scene. Where he obligingly triggers a bomber-coat and “kills” Verloc, so saving a confession from Sidney.

It’s rather an ungainly ending, even with the attending Plod self-editing her cry of “He’s dead!” to the moment after the bomb goes off rather than before. Hitch had reservations about Sidney (he was “not entirely” satisfied, but she had “nice understatement”), but to the extent that the picture works, it’s down to the emotional weight she carries. Sabotage is superior to Hitch’s “somewhat sabotaged!” verdict, but he’s right that it’s “a little messy”.

Also of note: while Charles Hawtrey may have finished his career with the peak team of Gerald Thomas and Pete Rogers, this was an era when he got to slum it with the likes of Pressburger and, yes, Hitch. “The bivalve’s rate of fertility is extremely high. After laying a million eggs, the female oyster changes her sex” his “studious youth” tells his date, who replies “Humph! I don’t blame her”. 










Popular posts from this blog

Ziggy smokes a lot of weed.

Moonfall (2022) (SPOILERS) For a while there, it looked as if Moonfall , the latest and least-welcomed – so it seems – piece of apocalyptic programming from Roland Emmerich, might be sending mixed messages. Fortunately, we need not have feared, as it turns out to be the same pedigree of disaster porn we’ve come to expect from the director, one of the Elite’s most dutiful mass-entertainment stooges, even if his lustre has rather dimmed since the glory days of 2012.

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

All I saw was an old man with a funky hand, that’s all I saw.

The Blob (1988) (SPOILERS) The 1980s effects-laden remake of a ’50s B-movie that couldn’t. That is, couldn’t persuade an audience to see it and couldn’t muster critical acclaim. The Fly was a hit. The Thing wasn’t, but its reputation has since soared. Like Invaders from Mars , no such fate awaited The Blob , despite effects that, in many respects, are comparable in quality to the John Carpenter classic – and are certainly indebted to Rob Bottin for bodily grue – and surehanded direction from Chuck Russell. I suspect the reason is simply this: it lacks that extra layer that would ensure longevity.

Are you telling me that I should take my daughter to a witch doctor?

The Exorcist (1973) (SPOILERS) Vast swathes have been written on The Exorcist , duly reflective of its cultural impact. In a significant respect, it’s the first blockbuster – forget Jaws – and also the first of a new kind of special-effects movie. It provoked controversy across all levels of the socio-political spectrum, for explicit content and religious content, both hailed and denounced for the same. William Friedkin, director of William Peter Blatty’s screenplay based on Blatty’s 1971 novel, would have us believe The Exorcist is “ a film about the mystery of faith ”, but it’s evidently much more – and less – than that. There’s a strong argument to be made that movies having the kind of seismic shock on the landscape this one did aren’t simply designed to provoke rumination (or exultation); they’re there to profoundly influence society, even if largely by osmosis, and when one looks at this picture’s architects, such an assessment only gains in credibility.

I work for the guys that pay me to watch the guys that pay you. And then there are, I imagine, some guys that are paid to watch me.

The Day of the Dolphin (1973) (SPOILERS) Perhaps the most bizarre thing out of all the bizarre things about The Day of the Dolphin is that one of its posters scrupulously sets out its entire dastardly plot, something the movie itself doesn’t outline until fifteen minutes before the end. Mike Nichols reputedly made this – formerly earmarked for Roman Polanski, Jack Nicholson and Sharon Tate, although I’m dubious a specific link can be construed between its conspiracy content and the Manson murders - to fulfil a contract with The Graduate producer Joseph Levine. It would explain the, for him, atypical science-fiction element, something he seems as comfortable with as having a hairy Jack leaping about the place in Wolf .

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Part I (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

That, my lad, was a dragon.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) (SPOILERS) It’s alarming how quickly Peter Jackson sabotaged all the goodwill he amassed in the wake of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. A guy who started out directing deliciously deranged homemade horror movies ended up taking home the Oscar for a fantasy movie, of all genres. And then he blew it. He went from a filmmaker whose naysayers were the exception to one whose remaining cheerleaders are considered slightly maladjusted. The Desolation of Smaug recovers some of the territory Jackson has lost over the last decade, but he may be too far-gone to ever regain his crown. Perhaps in years to come The Lord of the Rings trilogy will be seen as an aberration in his filmography. There’s a cartoonishness to the gleeful, twisted anarchy on display in his earlierr work that may be more attuned to the less verimilitudinous aspects of King Kong and The Hobbit s. The exceptions are his female-centric character dramas, Heavenly Creat

Gizmo caca!

Gremlins (1984) I didn’t get to see Gremlins at the cinema. I wanted to, as I had worked myself into a state of great anticipation. There was a six-month gap between its (unseasonal) US release and arrival in the UK, so I had plenty of time to devour clips of cute Gizmo on Film ’84 (the only reason ever to catch Barry Norman was a tantalising glimpse of a much awaited movie, rather than his drab, colourless, reviews) and Gremlins trading cards that came with bubble gum attached (or was it the other way round?). But Gremlins ’ immediate fate for many an eager youngster in Britain was sealed when, after much deliberation, the BBFC granted it a 15 certificate. I had just turned 12, and at that time an attempt to sneak in to see it wouldn’t even have crossed my mind. I’d just have to wait for the video. I didn’t realise it then (because I didn’t know who he was as a filmmaker), but Joe Dante’s irrepressible anarchic wit would have a far stronger effect on me than the un