Saboteur (1942) User Reviews (189)

His American "39 Steps"

[JAMessick · 8/10 · 19 September 2004]

Hitchcock made at least 11 films about the ordinary man, wrongly accused, on the run (sometimes really running, sometimes not) to prove his innocence in a situation beyond his control, the first one being "The 39 Steps", which really made him popular in Great Britain. It really is his signature theme.

Others include "Young and Innocent", "Saboteur", "Spellbound", "Stage Fright", "Strangers on a Train", "I Confess", "To Catch a Thief", "The Wrong Man", "North by Northwest", and finally "Frenzy". "Saboteur" starts Robert Cummings as Barry Kane, a wartime aircraft plant worker during wartime accused of murdering his co-worker and best friend during an act of sabotage on the plant. He meets up with model Patricia Martin, played by actress Priscilla Lane, during his run from the law, and later, of course, the various Nazi/Fascist sympathizers along the way.

"Saboteur" is mainly like "The 39 Steps", even including similar plot devices such as handcuffs, the blonde who doesn't trust the main character in the beginning, a race across the country (in one case London to Scotland, and in the other California to New York), and meeting the "colorful" locals along the way. And so, just like "The Man Who Knew Too Much", I believe this is an American remake of one of Hitchcock's earlier works.

I think Robert Cummings was chosen because he comes across as a very ordinary American, sort of an "everyman" with whom the audience can identify. I like Priscilla Lane because her character is a more involved in the action than Madeline Carroll in "The 39 Steps" and Ruth Roman in "Strangers on a Train". As mentioned elsewhere, though, Otto Kruger steals the show as the villain. I also liked Vaughan Glaser's performance as the blind uncle; his lines are great. There are some funny touches all along the way for some comic relief, such as road signs featuring Priscilla Lane's character on them, and circus sideshow performers, and the truck driver, Murray Alper. Contrary to other opinions here, there aren't too many characters who believe Barry Kane's innocence immediately.

There are some slow parts, mainly when the action first moves to New York, but it picks up quickly when the last planned act of the fifth columnists gets underway.

It's one of my favorite films from Hitchcock (I put it in my top 5), especially in these days of the new war on terrorism. I think it hits home.

It makes you think, "Could my coworker be involved in something evil?" In fact, one of the movie posters for "Saboteur" proclaimed "Watch Out for the Man behind your back!" Imagine how that played in the mind of adults during the Second World War.

A Caravan Full of Freaks - One of the master's forgotten Gems

[CWessonSpeaks · 7/10 · 23 May 2002]

NO SPOILERS!!

After Hitchcock's successful first American film, Rebecca based upon Daphne DuMarier's lush novel of gothic romance and intrigue, he returned to some of the more familiar themes of his early British period - mistaken identity and espionage. As the U.S. settled into World War II and the large scale 'war effort' of civilians building planes, weaponry and other necessary militia, the booming film entertainment business began turning out paranoid and often jingoistic thrillers with war time themes. These thrillers often involved networks of deceptive and skilled operators at work in the shadows among the good, law abiding citizens. Knowing the director was at home in this espionage genre, producer Jack Skirball approached Hitchcock about directing a property he owned that dealt with corruption, war-time sabotage and a helpless hero thrust into a vortex of coincidence and mistaken identity. The darker elements of the narrative and the sharp wit of literary maven Dorothy Parker (during her brief stint in Hollywood before returning to her bohemian roots in NYC) who co-authored the script were a perfect match for Hitchcock's sensibilities.

This often neglected film tells the story of the unfortunate 25 year old Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) who, while at work at a Los Angeles Airplane Factory, meets new employee Frank Frye (Norman Lloydd) and moments later is framed for committing sabotage. Fleeing the authorities who don't believe his far-fetched story he meets several characters on his way to Soda City Utah and finally New York City. These memorable characters include a circus caravan with a car full of helpful 'freaks' and a popular billboard model Patricia Martin (Priscilla Lane) who, during the worst crisis of his life as well as national security, he falls madly in love with! Of course in the land of Hitchcock, Patricia, kidnapped by the supposed saboteur Barry, falls for her captor thus adding romantic tension to the mix.

In good form for this outing, Hitchcock brews a national network of demure old ladies, average Joes, and respectable businessmen who double as secret agent terrorists that harbor criminals, pull guns and detonate bombs to keep things moving. It's a terrific plot that takes its time moving forward and once ignited, culminates in one of Hitchcock's more memorable finales. Look for incredibly life like NYC tourist attractions (all of which were recreated by art directors in Hollywood due to the war-time 'shooting ban' on public attractions). While Saboteur may not be one of Hitchcock's most well known films, it's a popular b-movie that is certainly solid and engaging with plenty of clever plot twists and as usual - terrific Hitchcock villains. Remember to look for Hitchcock's cameo appearance outside a drug store in the second half of the film. Hitchcock's original cameo idea that was shot (him fighting in sign language with his 'deaf' wife) was axed by the Bureau of Standards and Practices who were afraid of offending the deaf!

A factory worker wrongfully accused of sabotaging is pursued by police and a criminal organization

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 7 September 2011]

This is a thrilling Hitch movie about a high-class rebellious group plotting to blow up major factories , installations , dams and ships . A factory worker ( Robert Cummings ) wrongfully framed of sabotage at a munitions plant set off on pursuit the traitor ( Norman Lloyd still today acting ) who accused him . He is forced to take on the lam and attempts to elude police while tries to find the real culprit . Our hero flees from the web of circumstance evidence threatening to entrap him . At the beginning a gorgeous model ( Priscilla Lane ) suspects Cummings might be the terrorist planting bombs around factories , but later on , being helped by the personable heroine until a groundbreaking climax finale .

Top-notch and top form Hitchcock movie about a WWII worker turned fugitive who tries to unmask the true saboteur . This exciting story is briskly paced and has a brooding , doom-laden atmosphere , including habitual crop of memorable sequences . Hitch uses impressive locations as Boulder Dam , Radio City Music Hall and the Statue of Liberty to intensify the suspense . Some overwhelming set pieces and breathtaking ending on the Statue of Liberty with incredible special effects by the craftsman John P Fulton who has a long career as FX designer . It contains usual Hitch touches constantly boost the action . Interesting screenplay by Joan Harrison -Hitchcock's usual- , Dorothy Parker and Peter Viertel , Deborah Kerr's husband . Atmospheric cinematography in white and black by Joseph Valentine and suspenseful musical score by the classic Frank Skinner . The picture bears certain remembrance to ¨Sabotage(1936)¨ with Silvia Sidney and Oscar Homolka who Hitchcock directed during his first British period . The story deals with ordinary Hitchcock theme as ¨ Wrong guilty¨ such as ¨ Thirty nine steps¨ , ¨Foreign correspondent¨ , ¨Wrong man¨ , ¨North by Northwest¨ and ¨To catch a thief¨ . Rating : Above average for its numerous quirky touches of the Master of suspense and beginning and finishing memorably . Worthwhile watching and indispensable and essential seeing for Hitchcock fans .

It may not be top shelf Hitchcock but 'Saboteur' is still a very entertaining thriller.

[Infofreak · 17 August 2003]

'Saboteur' isn't one of Hitchcock's best known movies but it shouldn't be completely dismissed for that reason. It's a very entertaining "innocent man on the run" thriller, a theme he had previously used to great success in 'The 39 Steps', and would later recycle in one of his most popular movies 'North By Northwest' (and one which still gets used time and time again by Hollywood - see 'The Fugitive', 'Enemy Of The State', 'Minority Report' and countless others). Some people slam Robert Cummings (who later appeared in Hitchcock's 'Dial M For Murder') as being a bit lightweight, but I think he's actually pretty good as a leading man, and Priscilla Lane ('Arsenic And Old Lace') is also not bad, and the two do show some on screen chemistry. Of course with more charismatic leads 'Saboteur' would have been greatly improved, but as it is it's good enough. One actor in the cast I think is really terrific is Otto Kruger ('Murder, My Sweet') who plays Tobin, one of Hitchcock's best ever villains. 'Saboteur' is action packed and keeps things interesting. There's a good sequence with a traveling circus, memorable bit parts from a truck driver and a blind man, and the climax is great stuff and vintage Hitch. If you are new to Hitchcock I could name at least a dozen of his movies to watch before this one, but if you've seen his "greatest hits" try 'Saboteur', it's lots of fun.

Lots of Hitchcock features

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 21 July 2020]

Saboteur doesn't get the attention it deserves for one major reason. Hitchcock wanted Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck. Imagine what a "big" film it would have been perceived as with them as the stars.

Instead, he got Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane, both very good, but signalling that somehow this wasn't a major motion picture.

Saboteur has all the Hitchcock elements, some reminiscent of the 39 Steps - the wrong man accused and on the run, a blonde, handcuffs, and pre-North by Northwest, a scene at a landmark, with similar action taking place.

The story concerns a worker, Barry Kane (Cummings) accused of setting fire to a munitions factory and killing his best friend. In fact, Kane saw the terrorist - a man named Frye, who posed as an employee. He sets out to clear his name.

There are some interesting scenes and colorful characters, and the end is exciting - also a bit abrupt, as if Hitchcock ran out of money. Still very enjoyable and worth seeing.

Tons Of Holes, But Entertaining

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 25 January 2010]

Overall, this is entertaining and odd film. Don't try to make sense of it. There are more holes in the story than a computer could keep up with, but Robert Cummings and a cast of minor characters are mostly fun to watch in this "Fugitive"-like story.

Unlike the popular TV show and then 1993 movie, this fugitive isn't looking for a one-armed man, but a two-armed Nazi saboteur by the the name of "Frank Fry." Cummings ("Barry Kane") gets blamed when a defense plant blows up in Los Angeles and goes on the lam looking for the man who did it (Fry) to clear his name.

The first 40 minutes or so are very tense and interesting. Then Priscilla Lane ("Pat Martin") enters the story, and it starts to bog down a bit with some sappy dialog. Director Alfred Hitchcock often did that with his female characters, to the point I wonder if he had a clue how woman talked. Lane's character here was a little lame.

Actually, the villains played by Otto Kruger ("Charles Tobin") and Norman Lloyd ("Frank Fry") were the best, in my opinion......just fascinating. Kruger's acting and dialog was especially good.

If you haven't seen this film but saw Hitchcock's well-known "North By Northwest," you'll chuckle at the ending and really enjoy it. Instead of a climactic scene at Mount Rushmore, here we have a memorable last 10 minutes at the State Of Liberty. As usual, Hitchcock camera angles are great and fun to view.

Hitchcock's running men

[petra_ste · 7/10 · 6 May 2016]

Saboteur belongs to the group I call "middle Hitch" - neither among his timeless masterpieces (Psycho, Rear Window, Vertigo...) nor among his very good movies (To Catch a Thief, Suspicion...), but still better than his rare weak efforts (Jamaica Inn, Frenzy...).

The "middle Hitch" includes breezy, fun genre movies (The Lady Vanishes, Young and Innocent...), with flashes of genius here and there. Saboteur follows the "innocent man on the run" template which the director had been tackling since The 39 Steps and which will peak decades later with North by Northwest.

Leads Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane are lightweight but likable; the story of a young man wrongly accused of sabotage who must escape the police and find the real culprit is entertaining, although Hitchcock's own assessment (in one of his insightful interviews with Truffaut) that the script lacks discipline and is cluttered with too many ideas seems accurate.

7/10

On the Road

[telegonus · 9/10 · 19 November 2001]

Alfred Hitchcock's Saboteur is not one of his best-regarded films; made between two vastly more popular and critically praised pictures, Suspicion and Shadow Of a Doubt, it's generally regarded as a lesser effort. I agree that the later film is groundbreaking, drawing Hitchcock wholly into the American mainstream for the first time, but Saboteur is in its way at least as lively as Suspicion; its chief flaw being its less than charismatic star players, Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane.

In Saboteur we find Hitchcock feeling his way around America, literally, as its lead character travels from California to New York in search of an arsonist for whose crime he was accused. Cummings is very youthful here, and quite engaging. His boyishness (but not immaturity) perfectly suits the character he is portraying, and seems appropriate, as the director, though middle-aged, was in the process of reinventing himself, and an older, more established star might have thrown things off. Priscilla Lane's spunky heroine, which not a typical type for the director, was very much a common type in American films at the time; and she and Cummings provide an openness and a youth the director needed both in his life and work at this time. I cannot imagine older, more solid types,--Cooper and Stanwyck for instance--doing any better, as they would have, between them, carried, well, too much baggage.

As is the norm in Hitchcock's films, nothing is as it appears. Where Saboteur differs from his better known films is that the audience is let in on the game early. Though Cummings is an accused arsonist, we know that he is innocent. The villains become apparent fairly soon; and the movie hinges more on its plot than its ironies. What pleasures there are are incidental, and here the Master does not disappoint. There is an interesting, Tod Browningish interlude with some circus freaks, who help Cummings elude capture. In another scene, reminiscent of James Whale's Bride of Frankenstein, Cummings spends some time in the cottage of a blind man, who, as it turns out, is Lane's uncle. Was the director perhaps studying key American films of the previous decade? Whatever the case, these and other offbeat and discursive aspects of the movie give it a playfulness and variety, which, when one adds the factor of quite youthful leads, makes the picture seem like the work of a younger man, still learning his craft.

The film's later scenes, in New York, are more suspenseful and typical of the director, as the picture gradually becomes more Hitchockian as it moves along. In the end I find it a satisfying work; and as neither Cummings nor Lane has a dark side as an actor, neither does the movie have one. It is deliberately lightweight, and I suspect semi-experimental; an attempt by Hitchcock to see if he could pull off, in an American setting, the sort of story he had done so well in England. He succeeded admirably. The next logical step: Shadow Of a Doubt, a film in which the main character travels east to west, and with a wholly different set of values and plans.

I liked this much better the first time I saw this.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 11 September 2013]

The film begins at an aircraft plant in America during WWII. Unexpectedly, there's an explosion and the place is destroyed--thanks to deliberate sabotage. Not only did someone start the film but they filled the fire extinguishers with gasoline!! Oddly, the police automatically assume that Barry (Bob Cummings) is guilty since he handed one of the extinguishers to a friend following the initial explosion. But Barry knows that a mysterious man, Mr. Fry, is responsible and he escapes and seeks out this character on a wild cross-country trek.

The very first time I saw "Saboteur", I really, really liked it--but that was almost 30 years ago. Today when I saw it again, I enjoyed it but also now realize that the film really isn't at all original. In many ways, it's a lot like two earlier Alfred Hitchcock films and one later one--"The 39 Steps", "The Girl Was Young" and "North By Northwest". All three have a man on the run from the law who is innocent and all three team up with a girl who is unwillingly pulled into the affair and all three have the woman come to believe in the man's innocence. Because of this, the film automatically loses a couple of points since it just isn't very original. Plus, while the sabotage angle was great for propaganda purposes back in 1942, today it makes the film seem a bit dated. Now don't get me wrong--it IS a good film.

An additional problem with "Saboteur" is that the film relies on a HUGE cliché--strangers who INSTANTLY assume the leading man is an innocent man and who help him escape the police. In real life, this would almost never happen--yet in this film it happens repeatedly.

Because of these serious weaknesses, the film is very uneven. While it is well-crafted by Hitchcock and the acting is nice, the story really is sub-par and poorly written at times. It's hard to score a derivative and clichéd film highly, even if it is well made. Watchable and interesting but flawed...seriously flawed.

Not classic Hitchcock but it has some excellent moments

[Red-Barracuda · 8/10 · 1 March 2012]

Saboteur is a fairly routine Alfred Hitchcock film. It is in many ways an update on the director's first big hit The 39 Steps, with its story of a wronged man on the run. Although it also was a forerunner for the later North by Northwest, which also shared this idea as well as a finale set on a famous monument that represented America. Although Saboteur is not amongst the director's best, it still is a movie with several great sequences. The opening fire is filmed in a very stylish manner with black smoke slowly engulfing the screen; the set-piece with the circus troupe is quirky with memorable characters such as a fascistic dwarf, a highly creepy bearded lady and a human skeleton who is at best slightly thin; there's also a great sequence in a cinema where the characters act out action that is mirrored on the big screen backdrop; but best of all is the final set-piece atop the Statue of Liberty, it's exciting stuff with excellent set design too.

The story itself is fairly derivative. It's about a group of rich 5th columnists who organise activities to sabotage the war effort. An innocent man is accused and is forced to try and clear his name.

It's not the most involving story but decent enough. Main man Robert Cummings is okay but not overly charismatic. There is a typical Hitchcock romantic sub-plot where our hero hooks up with an at-first reluctant ice blonde woman. This girl is introduced by way of a scene where the man on the run is taken in by a kindly blind man who seems to be the only one who doesn't see him as a criminal. It's very similar indeed to the famous sequence in the Bride of Frankenstein where the monster's only friend in an unjudgemental blind hermit.

This is not classic Hitchcock but a stylish thriller none-the-less. Worth a look if you appreciate the older flicks.

A Statue of Liberty Play

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 14 June 2007]

On my VHS box of Saboteur the film was noted as Alfred Hitchcock's first with an all American cast. Thinking about it you can make that claim for it considering the foreign locations of both Rebecca and Foreign Correspondent.

Saboteur involves Robert Cummings as both the pursuer and the pursued. The police think he's a Saboteur who bombed a Los Angeles aircraft factory where he worked. Cummings knows it was Norman Lloyd who did it, a mysterious man named Fry. So Cummings is both evading the cops and looking for the real Saboteur who can clear him.

The chase and pursue theme is one that Hitchcock uses over and over again from The Thirty Nine Steps to North By Northwest. In both of those films it was much better done.

Hitchcock did not pick his leading players in this film. Priscilla Lane had left Warner Brothers and was looking to broaden her appeal. She'd signed with Universal and Hitchcock had to take her. She's good, but she's hardly in the image of classic sophisticated Hitchcock blonds like Grace Kelly, Madeleine Carroll, or Eva Marie Saint. She's just to perky to compete with those ladies.

Bob Cummintgs was a second choice, Hitchcock wanted and couldn't get Joel McCrea. That proved to be a fortunate accident. Cummings is froth with youthful idealism in his performance, he holds his own in confrontational scenes with master fifth columnist Otto Kruger.

In fact the villains here are the most interesting characters. Whether they are from the isolationist mid-west like Otto Kruger or society matrons like Alma Kruger or some nobodies like Clem Bevans, Alan Baxter, or Norman Lloyd, they've drunken in the philosophy of a master race and find it heady stuff indeed. Listen to Otto Kruger's explanation for his treason, his contempt for the easily manipulated voters, his drive for power as well as money. The most frightening part of the film.

More even than that climax at the Statue of Liberty. For years the torch on the statue has been closed so Cummings and Lloyd at the top is maybe even more thrilling for today's audience than at the time the film was released. But Hitchcock himself said he made a mistake, when he did the chase in North By Northwest, better to have the hero than the villain do the dangling.

It's not one of Hitchcock's best films, but Saboteur holds up well for today's audience and in an age of global terror, very relevant.

Hitchcock was Wrong About Being Wrong

[poetcomic1 · 8/10 · 9 October 2017]

There are a handful of sublimely 'Hitchcockian' moments in this 'picaresque' American version of The 39 Steps. A truly sinister moment is the beginning of the aircraft plant fire with jet black smoke coiling and expanding across the back drop of the vast metal doors of the aircraft plant. It is quite beautiful. The shoot out in Radio City Music Hall is a classic set piece, one of Hitch's best. The Nazi agent reminiscing about his beautiful blond curls as a boy is a touch worthy of Bunuel!

Hitch always said it should have been the hero dangling from the Statue of Liberty but I disagree. At that moment of vertiginous terror we are forced to identify with the ferret-faced, fragile, pathetic little monster, Fry whose death is caused by his own cheap suit. Morally it is more complex and satisfying than the reversed role (as in North By Northwest). Norman Lloyd's fall from the statue was one of the truly great special effects of classic cinema and is unforgettable.

Both Bob Cummings and Priscilla Lane are not 'A-list' but they give all they have for Hitch and he appreciated it. He even used Cummings again in Dial M for Murder.

"I'm willing to back my taste with the necessary force"

[Steffi_P · 6/10 · 21 February 2009]

Saboteur is the second of three wartime propaganda thrillers that Hitchcock directed. Espionage adventures like this had made up the bulk of his mid-to-late 30s work in Britain, and Saboteur provides some good examples of the very precise method he had by now developed.

Important to these thrillers was the idea that this could happen to anyone, and it was not enough simply to create an honest John Doe character - he had to show the hero's ordinariness, that he was a random victim. This was before Hitch began using the device of panning over a city before homing in on one window, but he achieves a similar effect here with protagonist Robert Cummings emerging as a face in the crowd of factory workers. For different reasons, it was also important to establish the villain as an apparently non-threatening family man - the last person anyone would suspect. Hence we first see Otto Kruger playing with his granddaughter.

Once he has established that his hero is an average Joe, Hitchcock's aim is to keep us with the character and draw us into his experiences. We of course have plenty of point-of-view shots so we see what he sees, and these are not only used to show us information, but also to reveal his paranoid state - for example with those ironic billboard slogans. A subtler but equally effective trick is to cut to a close reaction shot while another character is talking. This is done for example in the scene where he gets a lift from a truck driver. As the driver prattles away, we see them both framed together, but whenever he says something worth listening to, we cut to a closeup of Cummings. This not only draws your attention to crucial information, it also really focuses you on the character's thoughts.

Finally, to keep us watching Hitchcock needed to keep the action balanced and varied. Each of Cummings' escapes is played for a different effect. When he gives little Suzi a piggy-back to prevent his getting shot at, we are impressed by his cunning. The scene in the river is pure nail-biting action, whereas cutting through the handcuffs is an exercise in race-against-time tension. The episode with the blind man is a neat little reference to Bride of Frankenstein, drawing the parallel between the outcast monster and the innocent fugitive. This sequence also contains some of the picture's few decent gags, and is marred only by the appalling acting of Vaughan Glaser.

Speaking of acting, this is unfortunately one of the blandest casts Hitchcock ever worked with, Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane being ironically very average leads. None of the supporting players really stands out, with one exception: Otto Kruger, who brilliantly manages to capture that blend of decency and villainy. Add to this dull cast a lifeless screenplay, full of patriotic rhetoric - understandable in the circumstances, but still rather clunky and clichéd - and short on wit and sparkle. The score is by Frank Skinner, one in a long line of composers who failed to get Hitchcock's style.

For all the meticulous construction of Hitchcock's Hollywood pictures, he had already made his best espionage adventures in England in the 30s. I think films like The 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes were more effective simply because they were successful at merging comedy and action, with a lively cast that made them fun and breezy. Saboteur has plenty of strong set pieces, but is otherwise fairly flat. Conversely though, Hitch's mastery of his method was beginning to pay dividends in his domestic crime thrillers, as can be seen in his next feature, Shadow of Doubt.

Run-of-the-mill Hitchcock

[vostf · 4/10 · 1 January 2006]

Saboteur was one of the few Hitchcocks I had yet to discover and I was less than half-overwhelmed. The French title "La Cinquième colonne" (i.e. The Fifth Column, a very evocative phrase for underground spying and sabotage organizations) set my expectations quite high as did the images of the finale on top of the Statue of Liberty.

Basically Saboteur is as much light-hearted as were The 39 steps (note this is another evocative phrase, even McGuffin as a title) but it lacks most of the humor (so the characters are rather down to earth) and it's definitely not as fast paced. As a chase movie across the USA from LA to NY Saboteur drags its feet from sequence to sequence. The sequence at the villain's lovely ranch? Lovely ranch, lovely villain but pretty tame on the whole, it doesn't really add up to nothing. The meeting with the blind man, the mixing with Circus people, the Soda City sequence, the NY ball sequence? They fall flat, bringing in more characters with very little added suspense value.

One big problem I can point out is the relationship between the leads Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane which is not building up as with Robert Donat and Madeleine Caroll in The 39 steps. Hence the whole narrative structure is floating, depending on the addition of new scenes. And new scenes only bring us nearer the end since it's not clear if the hook is the hero's escape from the police, from the villains or his action to stop the plotted sabotages. In The 39 steps it was clearly scripted as 1/escaping from the police (so you know the hero can't just go to the police) then 2/running for his life and after the villains to prove his innocence.

If you want a better Hitchcock from the 40s wartime propaganda I would advise you to chose Foreign Correspondant over Saboteur. They are both chase movies with a catchy finale, well really a gripping one and not just sightseeing in Foreign Correspondant as well as beautifully efficient scenes (the umbrella crowd, the tulip fields, the strange mills...).

Streamlined, ergonomic

[rmax304823 · 29 May 2004]

The story is spelled out elsewhere -- Cummings being mistaken for a saboteur and getting mixed up with a real gang -- so I'll pretty much skip it and just add a few comments.

First, it's identifiably Hitchcock, but is an example of his lighthearted thrillers not his more ambitious dramas. Think of it as being in the same class as, say, "The Lady Vanishes" or "North by Northwest." Aside from a speech Robert Cummings makes to the Nazis at the mansion -- about "you and your kind" -- none of this is meant to be taken very seriously.

This is also the first use Hitchcock makes of an American landmark or even an identifiable American landscape in his films. It isn't his first use of landmarks as setting for a chase, since he earlier used the British Museum. He does better here with his mockup of the Statue of Liberty, which also carries a (rather heavy) symbolic weight.

The score is kind of sweet and musically a little tricky, but there is no music at all while Cummings is holding the villain Norman Loyd by the sleeve at the top of the statue. The scene cries out for explosive dramatic suspenseful collossal stupendous orchestration -- and Hitchcock keeps it silent except for a few whispered words from Loyd.

The plot has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese but it doesn't matter much. "The FBI arrived at my ranch," says the suave Otto Krueger. "Luckily I was just leaving." The mother of the victim at the beginning seems to believe that Cummings, the victim's best friend, may have deliberately murdered him. A hole has been drilled in the wall of a deserted shack so that Cummings can find a telescope and look through the hole and see what appears to be Boulder Dam and cotton to what's going on. Oh, well.

The makeup department should have been penalized (or drafted). In some scenes Cummings is so plastered with makeup that he resembles a silent screen hero like Valentino. And sometimes the delectably cream-fed Priscilla Lane looks almost ordinary.

The best performances are from Otto Krueger, who switched from music to acting, fortunately, and from Alan Baxter as the soft spoken and not entirely unsympathetic heavy. We first see Baxter as he enters the abandoned shack at Soda City with Clem Bevins, brushing the dust fussily from the sleeve of his dark jacket. And he has a truly amazing conversation with Cummings in the back seat of a car while they are being driven to New York. It's a complete non sequitur dealing with Baxter's two young sons. He describes them lovingly and then talks about how much he wanted a girl. He asks Cummings if it would be acceptable to raise a boy nowadays with long hair, adding that when he himself was a child he had beautiful long golden curls. "You might do the kid a favor if you got him a haircut," advises Cummings! It's sometimes easy to make fun of Hitchcock and call him nothing more than a successful commercial hack, but it's almost impossible to imagine scenes like these appearing in another director's work, not with such consistency.

As far as that goes, few other directors would have the imagination to roll the credits against a blank wall and, afterwards, have an ominous black shadow of smoke unfurl itself against that background. But that's only visual flair. Not that it should be dismissed, but that conversation between Cummings and Baxter I think tells us much more about what exercised Hitchcock's interest aside from patterns on a silver screen.

Almost there, but not quite.

[CuriosityKilledShawn · 6/10 · 20 November 2005]

While certainly not one of Hitchcock's better films, Saboteur is an energetic and interesting ride nonetheless. Barry Kane (Robert Cummings) is an average Joe working at an aviation plant. A fire breaks out and his best friend is killed in the blaze. Incompetent Cops finger him as the main suspect and he sets off across the desert wilderness on a mission to clear his name.

Along the way he meets an assortment of eccentric characters including Patricia (Priscilla Lane) a blonde paperweight who initially slows him down but eventually believes he's innocent and decides to help. The story takes some interesting turns and develops a good deal of mystery. But there are some weird moments and plot holes that create confusion.

What is the deal with the telescope in Soda City that points to a dam? Why the fire in the aviation plant in the first place? Why the plot against the launching of the Navy ship? Why is a cinema audience laughing at a serious film with no funny bits happening? Why does Patricia pay her captors for the milk shake they got her? In regards to the first 3 points, these may be conspiracy plots that are part of a much bigger plan that is never really mentioned. But why not? I do hate exposition in movies but even a couple of suggestions here and there about the full story would have made a more satisfying film.

It is one of Hitchcock's many man on the lam/mistaking identity/wrong guy films and works rather well in that regard. But some parts just seems rushed and as a result the films seems a bit incomplete.

"You look like a saboteur. You have a saboteur's disposition."

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 10 December 2014]

When sabotage strikes a wartime aircraft factory, employee Barry Kane (Bob Cummings) falls under suspicion. Kane knows a man named Fry (Norman Lloyd) is the real saboteur but police say Fry doesn't exist. So Kane takes it on the run to search for the mystery man and clear his name. Along the way he is joined, reluctantly at first, by a pretty young woman named Pat Martin (Priscilla Lane). The two wind up tangling with a group of fascists who plot to commit more sabotage on American targets.

One of my favorite "lesser" Hitchcock films. I say lesser because it's never been one of his more celebrated works. Yeah, it's not Hitch's most unique or complex film. It's also similar in some ways to an earlier classic, The 39 Steps. I get that. But it is a very entertaining and exciting wartime espionage picture with a quick pace and some great set pieces. The bridge jump, the movie theater, and the Statue of Liberty climax are all highlights. Love the scenes with the circus caravan and the blind man. Pretty hokey but I liked it. It's also a beautiful film to look at with some of the best black & white photography of any Hitchcock movie. Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane are both likable heroes. Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd make for appropriately slimy villains. Not one of Hitch's best but very good and underrated.

Hooray For Norman Lloyd!!!

[theowinthrop · 6/10 · 14 June 2006]

In 1938 Orson Welles' Mercury Theater Group put on a classic stage production of Shakespeare's JULIUS CAESAR, in which Welles reset the story from the Roman Empire of 44 - 43 B.C. to 1938 Europe. Caesar was now a typical fascist dictator, and Brutus and his fellow conspirators were trying to free their country. The performances were well recalled, in particular two: George Coulouris as Mark Antony (played as a typical Fascist rabble rouser, as only Coulouris could do), and Norman Lloyd as a mediocre poet named Cinna. Cinna is a minor part in the play (it is not even seen in the classic film version of JULIUS CAESAR by Joseph Mankiewicz with Louis Calhern, Marlon Brando, John Guilgud, and James Mason). He is walking home shortly after the "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" speech, and the Roman citizenry is in a mindless anger at the conspirators. One of the conspirators is also named Cinna. When they confront the poet Cinna they jump to a fatally wrong conclusion. The way that Welles directed the scene, a nervous and frightened Lloyd is trying to get out of the confrontation...and quickly. As he has described it on television a year or so ago, the stage became deadly silent for a timed pause, and then the mob jumped him and frightened the audience by the stunning violence of it all.

It helped make the career of this multi-talented performer - he has been producer, director, and actor. He is best known to recent audiences as "Dr. Daniel Auschlander" on ST. ELSEWHERE on television. But his first movie role did not pop up until 1942. He played Frank Fry, the real saboteur in Alfred Hitchcock's SABOTEUR.

Hitchcock wanted to do SABOTEUR as a sequel (of sorts) to FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT, where he used Herbert Marshall as representative of suspect English pacifists (possibly "Cliveden" Set types) who were actually agents of Nazism. Being Hitchcock, he made sure that Marshall's character was actually dignified, proud of his real patriotism (even if misguided) to Germany, and eventually heroic to redeem himself for his daughter's sake. In his original plan for SABOTEUR he planned to make Harry Carey the villain - and a type of "American First" leader, like Charles Lindberg (see KEEPER OF THE FLAME). It was a smaller version of the debacle of trying to make Cary Grant a murderer and villain in SUSPICION the previous year: Hitch could not buck RKO and Grant's agent on that one, even though Grant was willing to try it, because of Grant's image. Here it was Carey's following as a popular, father-like, character actor and western star. So Hitch could not do what he really wanted to do.

Robert Cummings gave a decent performance but no more as the suspected saboteur who blew up a factory in the film. He criss-crosses the country trying to find the real saboteur (Lloyd), and running into many interesting "fifth columnist" types (like Clem Bevans, playing a particularly bitter old man who is helping the Axis). The head of the sabotage ring is wealthy Otto Kreuger, who gives a nice performance as a sophisticated villain. His first comment on meeting up with Cummings in his townhouse is to say it reminds him of the title of a novel. He pulls out of a bookcase THE DEATH OF A NOBODY by Jules Romain. Apparently he likes 20th Century French literature.

Cummings is hampered (at first) by Priscilla Lane, but she becomes an ally of his when she slowly realizes he was framed. Together they try to prove his innocence. They are fleeing the police and the enemy agents at the same time (with mixed results). We have seen this situation before. Robert Donat and Madeleine Carroll had gone through the same thing chasing Godfrey Tearle in THE THIRTY-NINE STEPS, set in Great Britain. Unfortunately Donat and Carroll were better performers, and their script was better too.

But Lloyd is properly sinister. And he was to have as memorable a conclusion here as he had on stage in JULIUS CAESAR.

SPOILER COMING UP:

The conclusion of SABOTEUR was one of the best known in the films of Alfred Hitchcock. The Statue of Liberty is the setting when Cummings confronts Lloyd in the torch of the statue. Lloyd falls over the side, and Cummings tries to pull him up or hold until help comes. But the coat Lloyd wears starts ripping, and he falls shortly after clearing Cummings in the hearing of the police. It was a good sequence to conclude the film with. And it was a wonderful way for Lloyd to be introduced into movies.

WWII Hitchcock sheds light on master's tendencies

[Steve-318 · 8/10 · 12 February 2004]

You can't help but marvel at Hitchcock's early work. "Saboteur," for example, is so slick and quick that it's hard to believe he made this film over 60 years ago. There's some propaganda elements but they're woven into the mystery so well that the thing plays beautifully years later. You also get some previews of stuff that Hitchcock would do later--like using a national landmark as a backdrop. This time it's the Statue of Liberty. In "North by Northwest," of course, it's Mt. Rushmore. You'll also recognize things that pop up later in "Rear Window" and "Vertigo" in "Saboteur" but let's not give away the show. Robert Cummings is excellent as is the oh-so-charming Otto Kruger. Look for Hitchcock's mini-western in this one. It happens quickly so don't blink.

Movie Review "Saboteur" History of American Cinema 272 520

[c-stewart-44611 · 7/10 · 11 October 2020]

"Saboteur" was an interesting WWII era film directed by Alfred Hitchcock that takes us on the journey of wrongly accused Barry Kane, played by Robert Cummings. Although there has been many movies about people wrongly accused of crimes, Hitchcock managed to spin this one into a clever story of espionage and suspense. It was interesting that this film highlighted groups that were working against the American cause in the war. Usually everything in that period is pro America and about American patriotism. In the midst of a thriller, Hitchcock weaved a love story into the plot. Patricia Martin, played by Priscilla Lane, was at first trying to turn Barry Kane into the police, became his captive and slowly realized his innocence. I've heard Hitchcock was known for his cutting edge cinematography and there was lots of that in this movie. I think what made this film so good was the big stunts and the artistic use of the camera.

An underrated gem.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 8/10 · 11 September 2023]

Barry Kane is accused of killing a colleague at his place of work, an aircraft factory, innocent of the crime, he goes on the run, and instantly treads in the toes of a criminal organisation.

I was told to approach this one with a degree of caution, if I'm truly honest however, I thoroughly enjoyed it, it definitely seems like one of Hitchcock's more underrated movies.

A film that defies its years, as tense and exciting as when it first landed, it is of course loaded with suspense.

I really enjoyed the story itself, the characters, the pacing, as well as the visuals, very appealing on so many levels. I loved that Pat played such a big part, of course she was gorgeous, but she had an almost heroic part to play.

The scenes at the Cinema looked fantastic, so clever and imaginative, the same can be said for The Statue of Liberty shots.

Arguably there are a couple of plot holes, a couple of moments that will have you scratching your head, but in the scale of things, it's a minor quibble.

Very, very well acted, Robert Cummings is terrific as the leading man, I had no idea what a handsome man he was, true stage presence.

This is one to watch.

8/10.

His Lesser Known Films Are Still Enjoyable.

[Matt_Layden · 7/10 · 20 July 2009]

This is the second Hitchcock film to appear on the list and the second Hitchcock film I've seen in full, the first was Rope, which I really enjoyed. With Saboteur Hitchcock was more room to roam free, whereas Rope took place all in one room. I didn't enjoy this one as much as Rope but that's not saying this is a bad film, it just seems like an average flick that could have been something more.

It seems like a film Hitchcock would make as a break in between his more serious ones. As a thriller, I feel it fails to really get my on the edge of my seat or engaged with the lead character who is running around the States. The climax of the film feels like a miss opportunity to really amp up the tension. The sound design is almost non existent. You can hear their dialogue and a bit of the environment around them, but the important things are missing, the stitches ripping apart from the sleeve, the need of music to amp of the tension, all missing. Intentional no doubt, yet it lacks the emotional punch one would want from such a scene. Then it ends abruptly leaving you empty inside.

The film doesn't feel like it should either, they are almost globe trotting from place to place, yet it feels more confined. The script itself is very average and seems to go about the more obtuse ways to get the plot moving.

The performances are there, but nothing amazing. Everyone plays their parts to scripted words on the page. The relationship between the two leads is weak and needed more work. The one stand out is Otto Kruger, who has that rich, ego, evil persona down pat.

In the end, I wanted more from this one. I understand it's one of Hitchcock's least exciting films, but I did have a good time watching it. I can recommend it, just not enthusiastically.

Flawed, but underrated Hitchcock film

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 9 February 2010]

I am a massive Hitchcock fan, ever since seeing "Rear Window" on television. "Saboteur" is not Hitchcock's best for me though, it is very good but not a masterpiece. It does have its faults, some parts are rather slow moving and as a consequence of it being written off in a hurry the script felt rather incomplete. But Hitchcock's direction is superb, and the performances weren't that bad. While Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane both do a good enough job, Otto Kruger and Norman Lloyd come very close to stealing the show. The story is good, about a wronged man on the run, very similar themes used in "39 Steps" and "North By Northwest", and cleverly provides some much needed escapism. The music score was absolutely outstanding; the music in the opening title sequence was phenomenal, almost like a distorted march, and I liked the digs at Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto and Beethoven's 5th Symphony. The cinematography is also crisp and smooth, the scenery and landscapes almost dazzling and there are also a number of very effective scenes. Namely the Statue of Liberty climax, but the circus troupe encounter and the Radio Music City Hall shoot-out is also on the money. Overall, not Hitchcock's best, but definitely worth the look. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Saboteur (1942)

[c-hendron · 7/10 · 21 October 2020]

The story of a man who is on the run and who must clear his name seems to be a common trope with Hitchcock, but it's because he truly does it best. This one in particular provides a specific brand of paranoia provided by the war time it was released in. The concept of "watch out for the man behind your back!" and the fear of your coworkers being involved in something sinister was a real concern of Americans at this time, which I think makes the story more poignant. While I don't think that Robert Cummings was one of Hitchcocks best leading men, the story of Barry Kane and the people he meets along the way is entertaining all the same. The story does feel a bit slow at points, especially when things start to kick off in New York, but it makes up for itself in other places. It isn't my favorite Hitchcock film, but still worth watching.

At times laughably bad

[cutter-12 · 5/10 · 23 April 2005]

This is one of those films I've always wanted to see but didn't get around to it for years. After buying the DVD on sale and sitting through it, I was hugely disappointed. It's just not good, Hitch fans, when it's not outright bizarre and terrible. Plot holes and absurdities and on the nose dialogue abound. Sure, the Statue of Liberty sequence shows a bit of the director's early genius, as well as a few other signature touches, but for the most part this film is a badly acted, badly structured, and badly written mess.

Nothing in this story unfolds with any believability or credibility, it almost plays like a bad Twilight Zone episode where the hapless protagonist keeps making impossible escapes via doors held open for him by some invisible guardian angel. It's outrageous to watch Robert Cummings get let off the hook time and again on simple faith that he's a noble American defense worker innocent beyond question of sabotage. A real piece of WW2 propagandist pap.

The only other bright spots are a deliciously despicable turn by Otto Kruger as the main villain, and Norman Lloyd, who successfully looks and acts the part of a slimy agent of evil (though he's hardly involved in the plot long enough to be a 3 dimensional character).

As Barry Kane, our righteous hero on the run, Robert Cummings turns in one of the worst leading man performances in the history of Hollywood's golden age. He's even more shrill and wooden than Lew Ayres and Robert Taylor in their worst moments. The only decent speech he delivers is when he confronts Kruger near the end, a speech which resonates particularly well in this era of George W. Bush (Kruger could be playing Dick Cheney). The rest of the time he's overbearingly skittish and meek when he's not chewing the scenery with histrionics.

The interplay between Cummings and Priscilla Lane is completely lifeless and devoid of any romance and humor. This film needed Howard Hawks to oversee that aspect of the film and Hitchcock to handle the suspense.

Not nearly one of Hitchcock's best. A ratings travesty at 7.3