robert-temple-1 One might not think a film made in 1936 could be so relevant today, but this one really is. It starts with the power supply for much of London being cut off by a terrorist bombing of the Chelsea Power Station. I need hardly remind anyone of the many contemporary media warnings of such threats, whether by bombs or by the new means of 'hacking'. The Great Blackout in New York City decades ago, and the huge power cut for much of Canada many years ago, may have been 'dry-runs'. Such threats are more relevant now than in 1936. But the eeriest thing in this film is to see a bus blown up by a bomb in a busy London street, killing its passengers. This really happened in 2005, 69 years after this film was released. Are the Islamic terrorists watching Hitchcock films? Or was Hitchcock just that far ahead of his time in seeing what was coming? This film is far more powerful than THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (1934, see my review), and shows Hitchcock's suspense muscles tightening considerably. The unlikely star of the film is Oscar Homolka, who spent the rest of his career as a steady character actor. Here he is the lead, and he gives a spectacular performance. Hitchcock likes to close in on his face, especially when Homolka is silent, just as he had done two years earlier with the equally expressive face of Peter Lorre when he was also silent. What is it about these Central European actors of that generation who did not need to speak in order to act? Well, of course, they had grown up in the era of silent films, and they knew what a face could say without opening its mouth. As a stage actor in Vienna, which he fled because of the Nazis, Homolka had played Othello, and in this film we see the real stuff he was made of, which is that of a towering talent. This film is loosely based on a Joseph Conrad novel, THE SECRET AGENT (this novel would later be made into a feature film four more times, and in 2016 into a BBC TV series). The female lead in this film is Sylvia Sidney, who was famous for her sad eyes. She was very petite. She is perfect for the part of Homolka's wife, and she too says much without speaking. This is an extremely intense film, where the tension goes on increasing in the usual Hitchcock manner. Homolka lives in London but is in liaison with some terrorists, and considering that his boss has a German accent and this is 1936, we get the message. A character actor who plays one of the 'bad guys' is Peter Bull (uncredited), whom I used to know when he ran an astrology shop in Notting Hill Gate long ago. His heavy protruding lower lip resembled Hitchcock's. We see a great deal of London life in this film, whether on location or on a huge set makes little difference, as it is all thoroughly authentic. Hitchcock loved grocer's shops (his father had been a cabbage dealer) and street markets. The featured area in the film is S.W.5, which is the Earl's Court area, as it may have looked at that time. The editing of this film by Charles Frend is sensational, and greatly adds to the power of the movie. The scenes in the aquarium are suitably weird, and add to the furtive atmosphere of Homolka meeting and receiving instructions from his Nazi handler. This is truly vintage Hitchcock at its best.

Antonius Block In this 1936 film from Alfred Hitchcock, a foreign terrorist group is operating in London, and their agent (Oskar Homolka) operates a movie theater as a cover, along with his unsuspecting wife (Sylvia Sidney) and her teenage brother. Homolka is suitably creepy, glowering behind bushy eyebrows, and the kitten-faced Sidney may remind you of Myrna Loy. Scotland Yard is on to Homolka, and their man (John Loder) spies on him and cozies up to the family in an attempt to learn more. Unfortunately, with the exception of a couple of scenes, the film is rather slow and sedate, and is only of interest because it's one of Hitchcock's early pre-Hollywood efforts.Spoiler alert from here on.Hitchcock does provide tension in the pivotal sequence where, because of police surveillance, Homolka is forced to send the young boy out to deliver a package containing a bomb. He emphasizes the importance of getting to his destination by 1:30, knowing the bomb is set to go off at 1:45, but of course the boy doesn't know that and ends up being delayed on his way (comically being dragged into a demonstration by a peddler of toothpaste and shampoo at one point). While we feel the suspense, Hitchcock as a younger director exercises no restraint at all, melodramatically increasing the volume of the music and showing us the time on clocks repeatedly as it gets closer and closer to 1:45.To Hitchcock's credit (or Joseph Conrad's, the author of the story) the bomb does go off, and it is a little shocking even today. Imagine what the reaction was like in 1936 to have an innocent boy, one moment playing with a puppy on a bus, the next minute gone, along with all of the other passengers. The shock presages other Hitchcock moments, such as the shower scene in Psycho. Unfortunately, in the wake of this, the emotional reaction of the characters doesn't ring true, though it does lead to what I think was the best scene in the movie – the mother thinking her son is running towards her on the street, which for a split second has us somehow believing, as she does, that he's survived.Watch it for the bomb scene and for Sylvia Sidney, but it's certainly not a classic.

mark.waltz There is something almost prophetic about this Hitchcock drama during the early days of the rise of Nazi power (and prior to Hitler's invasion of Europe) that makes this film all the more scarier. A group of foreign agents are involved in terrorism blackouts and bombings in London, and a young wife (Sylvia Sidney) has no idea that her movie theater owner husband (Oscar Homolka) is one of them. Sidney's lovable younger brother (Desmond Tester) lives with them and steps in to unknowingly help out Homolka which leads to tragedy. This film is both political and personal, dealing with the saboteurs (whose alliance is never revealed) and the innocents involved in the initial blackout (where Sidney must pacify a group of theater patrons demanding their money back) and the ultimate explosion that has horrifying results. Some reviewers consider the actual explosion anti-climactic; I think how the film moves up to that point and the results that come after it make the scene quite horrifying, quite stunning considering the events and horrors of the next decade because of the rise of Nazi power in Europe. Homolka gets no sympathy as the husband/Villain, but he does an amazing job showing a slight conscience if not compassion. Sidney, one of the most underrated leading ladies of the 30's (and remembered more as an old lady on screen rather than a long-suffering heroine of pre-code dramas), looks different than almost everybody on screen. She isn't quite beautiful, but she's stunningly real, and gives a very layered performance. The scene after she discovers what has happened is quite tense as she finds herself laughing as whats on the movie screen, realizes what she has to do, and fights the urge to go through with what her grief is demanding her to do. John Loder is adequate as the agent who lets her in on the truth. Tester gives a wonderful performance as the young brother we'd all love to have. I could not find the credit for the lady complaining about the canary she purchased from one of Homolka's conspirators, but the scene she appears in is very amusing. Technically, this film is very well made, and I am thrilled that some excellent prints have surfaced. The scene of London in the blackout has a sort of 3-D effect. I am assuming that the parade sequence Tester attends is the ascension of King Edward (briefly) to the throne after the death of the previous King. That would give a motivation for the saboteurs, and gives the film a historical importance as well in addition to its startling preview of a grim future.

jotix100 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.