Saboteur (1942)

When it’s on: Wednesday, 27 June (1.00 pm)
Channel: Channel 4
IMDb Link

This house experienced a brief burst of excitement when Channel 4 teased at screening an unofficial Hitchcock season in its early afternoon slot. Sadly, it turned out to be nothing more than a coincidence of scheduling that two of his films appear on consecutive days. Tomorrow, we get the masterly Shadow of a Doubt. Today, it’s Saboteur, a relatively minor entry that explores similar narrative territory  to The 39 Steps, and would later be polished to perfection for North by Northwest. The story of the ‘wrong man’ having to go on the run both to prove his innocence and catch the real culprit was retold various times by Hitchcock. Saboteur isn’t as good as the two films mentioned above, rather it rubs shoulders with Young and Innocent and Frenzy, which essentially covered the same ground.

Over time, I think I’ve come to prefer Young and Innocent to Saboteur and, in lieu of a critically sound, academic reason I’d suggest it’s because I like the characters more in his light-hearted, British escape thriller. Similarly, the shock value and jet black humour of Frenzy make it, for me, superior. If that makes it sound like I think Saboteur is a poor film, then I don’t. It’s fine. Viewers demanding welters of suspense won’t be disappointed. There are some lovely technical bits of business, fine plot twists and excellent cameo performances. The whole thing moves at breakneck pace, anticipating North by Northwest, and the scale of the trial faced by its hero at times at times feels impossible.

Yet perhaps it’s the identity of the actor playing ‘the wrong man’ who’s the problem. Hitchcock didn’t want Robert Cummings for the role. Gene Kelly, Gary Cooper and Henry Fonda were amongst his preferred choices, whereas Cummings was dismissed as having ‘an amusing face, so that even when he’s in desperate straits, his features don’t convey any anguish.’ It’s a fair point. The actor puts in a reasonable performance, but his natural place was in the realm of light entertainment and, whilst the camera stays with him throughout Saboteur, he gets lost in the thick of the detail and his fellow actors. Priscilla Lane as the girl who first loathes then joins him in his flight fares altogether better. Again, she wasn’t the perfect bit of casting in Hitchcock’s eyes; he wanted Barbara Stanwyck, who may never have come across as credible once the character teams up with Cummings and softens. Otto Kruger plays the main villain, whereas the role of the actual saboteur went to unknown Norman Lloyd, who gets across really well the lazy evil of his ill-intentioned character.

Saboteur could be dismissed as a propaganda piece, and it’s doubtless the film was part fuelled by Hitchcock’s own feelings about the war. Whilst no one refers to the people who are really behind the sabotage as Nazis, it’s clear they’re fascist sympathisers, not to mention a patrician lot with little but disdain for the common man. The traditional American value of freedom is instead writ large in the various diverse characters who help Cummings along his way. There’s the kindly blind uncle of Ms Lane, who offers Cummings some respite and claims, despite his lack of sight that he can see further than she, alluding to Cummings’s innocence. They’re also helped by a troupe of circus performers, adding weight to the sense of America’s less privileged elements believing in freedom and being prepared to uphold it.

It’s nicely done, but the identities of the villains (upper class) and heroes (working class) suggest an obvious liberal sentiment, and Hitchcock’s better than that. The limited budget doesn’t help either. With its wide canvas, Saboteur should have an epic feel, but it was treated from the start as a second rate project by David O Selznick, who doled both the film and its director to Universal in order to get it made. The studio trimmed costs by not allowing Hitchcock to hire the first rate actors he wanted and, whilst letting the production go over its modest $700k budget, wound up with a picture that looks like it has the bottom line in mind.

Still, the eye on cost produces some cool effects, such as the early sabotage scene, for which Hitchcock simply filmed the front of a factory and let black smoke steadily fill the frame from the bottom right, not only effective on a stylistic level but suggesting strongly the looming menace that faced the ‘Free World.’ There are also dialogue-heavy scenes to replace costly moments of action, such as Cummings’s encounters with the blind uncle and the circus performers, which feature the parts of the screenplay penned by Dorothy Parker.

The result is a decent potboiler, and nothing more than that. Saboteur includes some signature moments – the Statue of Liberty climax, for one – but a weightless whole that places it firmly beyond the front row of Hitchcock’s films.

Saboteur: ***

Advertisements

4 Replies to “Saboteur (1942)”

  1. Very nice appraisal Mike. I like Saboteur a lot for what it is. When I did a piece on Foreign Correspondent a few weeks back, this movie was mentioned in the discussion. I think there are some parallels, both in the wartime setting and the transcontinental scope of the story. Both movies have that lightweight quality that tends to see them relegated as lesser Hitchcock, but they’re well made movies with some memorable set pieces.

    Saboteur has an episodic feel, but that leads to some lovely little cameos too – as you mentioned, the bit with the blind uncle and the circus troupe stand out. These sections have a touch of the Capra flavour for me (the nobility and dignity of the marginalized & disadvantaged) and I always get the feeling that Hitchcock had Freaks and Bride of Frankenstein rattling round his brain when he came up with these scenes.

    Cummings is a little bland, although Hitchcock did use him again a decade later in Dial M for Murder, but I don’t mind him in the role. After all, he is supposed to be an everyman figure, an innocent caught up in something far bigger and uglier than he’s ever experienced. His easy-going affability is a nice contrast to the smoothness of the traitors and fifth columnists. I agree he may not have got across a lot of the anxiety of the character yet you still find yourself rooting for him.

    The Statue of Liberty finale is a great piece of work, the stitches on the sleeve popping one by one is a fabulous idea. Still, it’s some of the less grandstanding moments that stick in my mind – the ride with the truck driver, the frantic attempt to sever the cuffs, the odd conversation with the creepy Nazi about his son, and so on.

    1. Yes, I think that’s a fair comment and I really should respond to your excellent piece on Foreign Correspondent (watched it for the first time in ages last year as part of a Hitch viewing marathon and liked it). I really got that bit about the meeting with the blind uncle being reminiscent of the episode from Frankenstein, but I don’t know if it was intended to be – the meeting of two ‘outsiders’ suggests yes, though the encounters end very differently.

      I like your point about Cummings. He does get a bit lost in it, but perhaps it’s a little unfair to compare him with Cary Grant who was the centre of North by Northwest and could hold centre stage effortlessly. He certainly does come across as the innocent trapped in an overwhelming situation, though the list of actors Hitchcock preferred for the role makes the project sound far more mouthwatering.

    1. Thanks vinnieh. It’s certainly good fun, isn’t it, and really suffers from being the lesser partner amongst some much bigger and better known – let alone just better, in my opinion – pictures. But there’s nothing much wrong with it. Perhaps we’d be hailing it as a minor classic if it hadn’t been made by a genius…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s