Skip to main content

I get it. Little Miss Liberty, carrying the torch.

Saboteur
(1942)

(SPOILERS) Hitch criticised the screenplay, which is fair enough. However, the biggest impediment to Saboteur’s effectiveness is – as Hitch also acknowledged – the leads. The movie is often painted as proto-North by Northwest, a dry run for bigger and more elaborate things with handpicked stars, and that’s fair to a degree; all the elements are there for Saboteur being great, but the only consistent one is its director’s technical prowess.

Certainly, he delivers a series of top-notch set pieces in this tale of aircraft factory worker Barry Kane (Robert Cummings, much better used more than a decade later as Ray Milland’s would-be patsy in Dial M for Murder) going on the run to prove his innocence – and bring the guilty parties to justice – after being falsely accused of sabotaging his place of work and killing his best pal. The setup is clean and economical, identifying true culprit Fry (Norman Lloyd, also Spellbound and Dead Poets Society, and bearing a passing resemblance to Harpo Marx) and showing the before and after of the incident that kills Kane’s friend Mason (Virgil Summers). A number of tense sequences follow, as Kane, embarking on a breadcrumb trail, eludes the police at Mason’s mother’s house, dodges traffic cops and uses villain Tobin’s toddler granddaughter as a human shield in order to escape. Later, he desperately attempts to rid himself of his handcuffs in a fan belt before Pat (Priscilla Lane) can wave down a passing car and so get rescued.

Hitch apparently didn’t want Otto Kruger as Tobin but was unable to secure Harry Carey. I found him very good in his early scenes, milking the charming villain guise that would later work wonders for James Mason; less effective later on, when his true steel needs to emerge. Alan Baxter, as an extra polite, bespectacled henchman, ironically named Freeman, is strong throughout, armed with sinister sexual undertones: waxing lyrical about not cutting his boy’s hair while commenting wistfully “When I was a child, I had long golden curls”.

But after the initial Tobin sequence (during which the director comes his closest to making a western in the form of a very brief horseback chase), Saboteur’s episodic structure begins to become a hindrance rather than a virtue. Hitch said “it was too cluttered with too many ideas… I think we covered too much ground” but the problem might be more that you start to notice the convenience and unpolished nature of the structure due to the shortcomings of the leads. It casts a shadow on them, rather than they on it.

Added to which, the suffocatingly patriotic preaching paraded at every possible interval becomes more and more off-putting as the picture progresses. Even with Dorothy Parker receiving a co-writer’s credit – with Peter Viertel and Joan Harrison (the latter Hitch’s former secretary, and the last of five features on which she gets a nod) – there’s little to alleviate the insufferable virtuousness being voiced. Told there’s no way a man like him can last in a country like the US, Tobin scoffs “Very pretty speech! Youthful, passionate. Idealistic”.

More frequently, there’s nothing to counterpoint the pretty speechifying, though. I actually rather like the scene with blind Uncle Phillip, an undisguised echo of Frankenstein, in which it’s revealed he was aware Barry is wearing handcuffs as soon as he walked in, and yet “It is my duty as an American citizen to believe a man innocent until he’s been proven guilty”, along with his own ideas about his duties as a citizen, which “sometimes involve breaking the law”. Unfortunately, once the very sub-Tod Browning circus freaks are called upon to offer another rousing rallying cry to democracy, my patience was beginning to wear thin (Hitch testified to some of Parker’s more amusing touches during this episode, but it fell a bit flat for me).

Also a problem is Lane’s Patricia Martin. Initially at loggerheads with Kane (Phillip is her uncle and she tries to turn Kane in), she never gets a chance to come into her own, the victim of plotting that casts her unsympathetically towards the hero or lacking resourcefulness. She has a decent scene at the top of the Statue of Liberty with Fry, preceding the grand climax, but it isn’t really enough.

Still, there’s a well-devised sequence at wealthy New York socialite Mrs Sutton’s (Alma Kruger) party, in which Kane and Pat are unable to escape and none of the guests will listen to their protests; with anyone else, the hero desperately improvising an auction of Mrs Sutton’s jewellery would be a classic, but it ends up merely adequate. A scene in a movie theatre gets all meta, with action also occurring on screen, just like its near namesake Sabotage (and includes another innocent victim; an audience member killed in the crossfire rather than a small boy). The near miss on the blowing up the launching ship is dramatically staged too. And the climax on top of the Statue of Liberty remains a prime example of the director’s visual and technical prowess (as well as being transparently influential on North by Northwest’s Mount Rushmore sequence). Barry attempts to save the villain, putting his own life in peril, as the seams on Fry’s sleeve slowly come apart.

But possibly Saboteur's best moment, and a sure illustration of Hitch’s sadistic streak, finds Barry surrendering to Tobin at the party (he yawns at Barry’s earnestness with a “I think we’ve discussed the Rights of Man stuff”). Butler Robert (Ian Wolfe) coshes Barry, then coshes him again. By that point, Barry has gone down, but the butler has his arm raised for another go: “That’s enough, Robert” instructs Tobin.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.