twhiteson
Allegedly, director John Ford was once asked by a reporter why the Apaches chasing the eponymous stagecoach in 1939's "Stagecoach" didn't just shoot the stage's horses to stop it. Ford's reply: "Well, that would have ended the movie." I kept thinking of that Ford response while watching Alfred Hitchcock's 1942 film "Saboteur." The plot: Ordinary, average Joe American, "Barry Kane" (Bob Cummings), works in a Los Angeles aircraft plant where a fire breaks-out. Kane and a co-worker friend rush to put out the flames during which they're handed a fire extinguisher by someone whom they think is a fellow co-worker named "Frank Fry" (Norman Lloyd). The extinguisher, though, contains gasoline which accelerates the flames and kills Kane's friend. In the ensuing investigation, suspicion turns on Kane because there was no record of a Frank Fry working in that plant. Thus, Kane is accused of deliberate sabotage and causing the death of his friend. Rather than face the charges, Kane decides that only he can track down the mysterious Fry and clear his name. So, he flees with the authorities hot on his trail. Along the way, he inexplicably picks-up a beautiful blonde model, Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane), who is initially convinced of his guilt, but then starts to believes him. (And also falls in love with him.) Pat's conversion towards Kane's point of view is helped when they stumble upon a whole ring of saboteurs bent on aiding the fascist cause. To the shock of Kane and Pat, these saboteurs are led by a smooth-talking, sophisticated western rancher, "Charles Tobin" (Otto Kruger) and a grand dame of NYC society, "Mrs. Sutton" (Alma Kruger). Kane and Pat experience a host of captures and narrow escapes while trying stop the ring's next plot to destroy a battleship upon its christening launch in the Brooklyn Navy Yard. It all culminates in a chase on the top of Statue of Liberty.As others have noted, "Saboteur" comes across as an American version of Hitchcock's 1935 "The 39 Steps" and a precursor to 1959's "North by Northwest." It features many plot elements that were used in both those films. However, "Saboteur" is not considered a Hitchcock classic like "The 39 Steps" and "North by Northwest." Why "Saboteur" does not get the accolades of those other films is usually based on its cast being inferior due to having lightweight Bob Cummings and pretty singer-turned-actress Priscilla Lane as its leads. However, I think its script is just not as smart or clever.In fact, I thought "Saboteur" was pretty stupid mainly because the supposedly ruthless and sophisticated sabotage ring was so incredibly stupid. They repeatedly capture Kane and Pat. Yet, instead of putting bullets in their brains and then burying them, the ring keeps them alive and puts them unrestrained and unobserved in rooms by themselves from which they quickly escape. As much as I wanted Kane and Pat to succeed, I still found myself saying: "Shoot them!" whenever the sabotage ring had them in their clutches. There was NO REASON whatsoever for the ring to keep these two alive. Yet, the ring kept doing it.I wonder if anyone ever asked Hitchcock why the saboteurs didn't just kill Barry Kane and Pat Martin and if he replied: "Well, that would have ended the movie."
atlasmb
This film is vintage Hitchcock. It contains many of his trademark attributes. But it can best be considered a precursor to his classic film "North by Northwest". Both contain these elements: a plot involving an innocent man on the run, a seemingly benevolent pillar of the community who is the villain, the scenic use of an American landmark, and even the use of an auction as a plot point.Robert Cummings plays Barry--the innocent man. Priscilla Lane plays Pat--the woman who becomes involved in his intrigue. Otto Kruger plays Tobin--the villain who menaces with a smile on his face. It's a solid cast, but Hitchcock himself was disappointed that he could not procure the services of the actors he preferred.This film is very much a product of its time, being released soon after the U.S. entered WWII. With the citizenry of the nation on alert and still in shock after the Pearl Harbor attack, the story of "Saboteur" would seem to be on the mark, but it was a box office failure. Compare that to the performance of "The Major and the Minor", a Billy Wilder comedy starring Ginger Rogers, which was also released in 1942. It was a hit, perhaps because it offered escapism to its audiences.The film is a vehicle for wartime pontificating, including speeches about democracy versus totalitarianism--speeches that were stiff like the slogans on patriotic posters. Hitchcock makes the best of it, but the film lacks the charm of "North by Northwest", which also features the charms of Cary Grant.Hitchcock is masterful in using the element of suspense, particularly the passage of time. But many of his later efforts show his perfection of all cinematic elements, including suspense.
ElMaruecan82
Indeed, after having ventured in the atmosphere of early Hitchcock's movies and an anachronistic oddity titled "Under Capricorn", "Saboteur" provided me the same satisfaction an explorer who trotted over the globe for months would feel when crossing the threshold of his home. I missed the good old Hitchcock format to the point of homesickness and when the spinning Earth of Universal Pictures introduced that opening credits with a weird linear background and the ominous shadow of the titular "Saboteur", I knew I was swimming in familiar water, I enjoyed every moment of the 1942 thriller, and forgave every flaw.Yes, there were flaws, the plots was written by three persons and I suspect they never met to get all their ducks in a row, but the action is so fast-paced and Hitchcock's directing so insolently confident that you savor every bit of this Swiss-cheese-like plot. They say Hitchcock was a Master of Suspense, I think he was hiding a subtler talent under his sleeve: he knew how to make you not notice the flaws. The action sequences, , the uses of ellipses and smash cuts, everything were so efficient that noticing a few weaknesses in the script would make you look nit-picky (not that all his films could got away with it)."Saboteur" opens with a sabotage of spectacular effect, a hatched-face guy named Fry bumped into two aircraft workers, one of them is Barry, played by Robert Cummings (and not Dana Andrews). Barry has enough time to check the name on a postcard. A few minutes later, a fire starts and Fry gives him an extinguisher, Barry's friend wants to take part to the action, ignoring that the extinguisher is filled with gasoline. Hitchcock gratifies with the death of a man literally eaten up by flames and falling like a burnt match. Now, this is an opening. What follows is pure Hitch stuff, Barry is the suspect number one because he handed the fatal extinguisher and naturally, there's no worker named Fry.Mistaken identities is one of Hitchcock's darling and it's handled quite efficiently in "Saboteur" as Barry's identity is often the cause of misleading tricks with both the right and wrong side of the law, and can even be looked at the whole theme of the movie, which is about the fifth columnist threatening the United States' interests during the War. Indeed, "Saboteur" can't be taken outside of its context, the decisive incident happens in the temple of the war effort after all. But the mistaken identity emphasizes the interesting contrast between the good guys and the villains, obviously. Those who trust Barry are all average Joes, down-on-their-luck, from the people, while the bad guys are very unlikely figures, a gentle grandfather played by Otto Kruger and a socialite played by Alma Kruger (no relation).One would think the film has a point to make about American values, and he would be right. During his road trip, Barry meets many archetypes of American society and these are opportunities for some grandiloquent speeches about democracy. Some are pretty well-written and I must say I have drank like little milk the lines delivered by Vaughan Masser, the blind host. Some others, as well-intended as they were, were too preachy. When Barry and Pat (Prscilla Lane) ask the circus troop workers for help, the Skeleton Man proposes a vote, when the midget protests, he's called 'fascist', which was a pretty bold answer. But then again, if the man was so eager to save them, why didn't he just help them? Is it better to make a bad decision democratically than a noble one tyrannically? kind of makes you think.I understand the context forced Hitchcock to inject some inspirational moments in his film, like he did in "Loveboat", but this aspect was almost contradicted by the way the real folks behaved, the agents of FBI, the navy yard guards, all so conveniently incompetent, enough not to spot the bad guys or to arrest the wrong one… so much for democracy. One would rather accept Barry's punchy methods, after all, it's not like he trusted the justice of his country and handed himself to the Law. You're never really sure what Hitch's point is, and maybe this is the film's slight edge over "Lifeboat". The Master gives the villain many shining moments, they sing to Tchaikov' music in a car, the suave villain a speech of his own and talk about "mass morons", and even say bout totalitarian regimes that "they get things done", and ironically, this is what the hero does, getting things done with the villains' methods.Despite these contradictions, the film lets itself being enjoyed, one scene after another, Hitchcock showcases his capability to provide memorable moments, a shootout in a Radio City theater with real shotguns heard in the movies, where the suspense lies on the moment the audience will realize what's going on, a paper with a message for help flying over the sky and last but not least, the Statue of Liberty's climax. What a fitting demise for the villain who sinned by fire to die at the altar of the Liberty torch. Yet even Hitchcock acknowledged a flaw: everyone wanted the villain to die. He wouldn't commit the same mistake in "North by Northwest", but what a satisfying ending.As Fry, Norman Lloyd, without being the most memorable Hitchcok villain is the one whose face leaves the most vivid impact, and this is saying a lot in a film where they're a group of intimidating people. So we have memorable villains, a dark and handsome hero, mistaken for a killer, running afoul of the Law to prove his innocence and meeting in the process a beautiful blonde, car chases, last-minute escapes, bomb explosions, breath suspended as often as disbelief, and a climactic sequence taking place in the most unexpected and spectacular setting. I needed my fix of Hitchcock, and I got it with "Saboteur".
