Title: Sabotage
Year: 1936
Country: UK
Language: English
Genre: Thriller
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Writers:
Charles Bennett
Ian Hay
Helen Simpson
based on Joseph Conrad’s novel THE SECRET AGENT
Music:
Hubert Bath
Jack Beaver
Louis Levy
Cinematography: Bernard Knowles
Cast:
Sylvia Sidney
Oskar Homolka
John Loder
Desmond Tester
William Dewhurst
Austin Trevor
Peter Bull
Martita Hunt
Torin Thatcher
Rating: 6.6/10
A Hitchcock thriller made in his UK years, SABOTAGE opens with its own definition in a dictionary, but there is little to be said apropos of the motivation behind the anarchists. It is an usual London night, all the razzle-dazzle is in full bloom, suddenly a blackout causes some commotion on the street and in the centre stage there is Bijou cinema, where patrons are baying for refund of their tickets, at the same time, its owner Mr. Verloc (Homolka) furtively sneaks back to his apartment upstairs, and pretends that he has never gone out when his wife (Sidney) surprisingly finds him on the bed.
So it seems that this time Mr. Hitchcock doesn’t play either the whodunit or the why-do-it card and clocking in a condensed 76-minute, the film even waive the possibility of a McGuffin to compel audience into the puzzle. Admittedly, there is no puzzle at all, Mr. Verloc is the said saboteur, whose blackout sabotage doesn’t quite hit the mark (even being pilloried by the media)and he is tasked to up the antes, it doesn’t take much persuasion for him to forgo his no-casualties-causing vow to collude with a professor (Dewhurst) who is excel at making“fireworks”. In a straightforward manner, the story also sidetracks in the incipient attractions between Ms. Verloc and Ted (Loder), who works in the greengrocery next to the cinema, but his real identity is an undercover sergeant of Scotland Yard, and secretly stakes out Mr. Verloc.
Ms. Verloc has no inking of her hubby’s insidious deal, time and again she tells Ted that Mr. Verloc has the most kind-hearted soul she has ever met, which is a farcically self-defeating statement because whoever has eyes can palpably detect something amiss inOskar Homolka’s hammy affectation with all those mannered scowls and insincere oratory, one might seriously wonder how dumb a woman could be if she fails to sense that from the man she shares a bed every night, that’s a disservice to Hitchcock’s heroine, beautiful but dumb, yet, she still deserves a miracle in the end.
Then there is that infamous“boy with a bomb” set piece, the story is a no-brainer, but the suspense never goes to seed under Hitchcock’s rein. One must admit it is a left-field coup-de-théâtre (through a string of heightened montages) a first-time spectator barely can see it coming, Mr. Hitchcock really dares to corroborate that nothing is impossible on the silver screen, although in retrospect this only materializes as a flash in the pan because when he veers into the Hollywood thoroughfare, he will be inured to adhere to a more morally rigorous precept. A minor Hitchcock film can still be engaging, only its aftertaste tends to be a shade astringent.
referential points: Hitchcock’s THE LADY VANISHES (1938, 7.9/10), FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT (1940, 7.1/10), SHADOW OF A DOUBT (1943, 7.3/10).
这怕是希区柯克最残缺的影片了吧。也许再多一个小时,再让警察和女主相处时间更久一些,接吻看似也不那么唐突。
在餐桌上女主刺杀丈夫的那场戏中,摄影剪辑完美。希区柯克通过鸟笼及空着的座位再次提示了女主的弟弟已经不复存在。女主拿起又放下的刀叉体现女主想杀了丈夫的踌躇。两个人的特写镜头表情错愕,眼睛瞳孔放大,这一镜给予了整部戏的惊人效果。
4.5; A suspenseful, realistic thriller filled with the hallmark elements that make Hitchcock's later films admirable; his taste and artistry relish this conspiracy story with debonair charm and little redundancy.
补记。除了教科书式的公交车爆炸和餐桌谋杀,还有一个值得瞩目的场面:4′34″希胖标志性的旋转的眩晕水涡意象已出现。
胶片易燃,不能带到车上!
勉强三星,希区柯克自认为本片有两大失误即小男孩被炸死以及影院老板真被女主杀死。但其实这两点完全打破了套路,在意料之外制造了惊奇的氛围,反倒难能可贵。真正无聊的是希式爱情,性格骄纵的女主要找英俊果敢的男主征服,像本片这样一直处在煎熬中的女主还要找英俊果敢的男主解放,怪不得希区柯克产量这么高一一这剧本确实好写。作为监视影院老板的男主,就这么毫无铺垫的爱上了女主,最后俩人还想直接私奔,与前文铺垫的精明能干的形象背道而驰。希区柯克说到底还是一个拍黑色电影的,他的声名也只是建立在类型片之上顺带一提,女主在弟弟去世后看的那部动画片是前一年的《谁杀害了知更鸟先生?》此片是黑色幽默地嘲讽了审判与公理
公车爆炸和厨房杀夫两段营造悬疑气氛的镜头调度是真棒,一看就是席胖的手笔。片尾警官对女主爱的表白实在是过于突然和烂俗。结尾很黑色很宿命。
感觉被制片方剪辑拉跨了,视听上自然体现出那个年代英国特有的默片时代残存特点,但是这个非典型希胖的剧本真的是又见教科书级别的好。你很少能在希胖的片里看到那么多生动的写实形象甚至人文关怀。
先是炸弹是否爆炸的悬念,再是妻子罪行是否被揭露的悬念,这部影片注重人物情绪心理的刻画,另外影片也有点黑色电影的味道。炸弹看似应该是麦格芬,结果却成真,熟悉希区柯克后期作品的观众反倒会大吃一惊呢。
特写、运镜、转场、配乐、音效,各种手法运用得非常精彩,教科书般。在一系列技巧引发的虽显而易见但依然让人无法自拔的越来越紧张的情绪下,可想而知小男孩真的被炸死后观众该多么的frustrated——竟然没有反转——幸好还在企图为自己辩解的凶手得到了应有下场,大快人心。女人可以亲手杀死自己的丈夫为弟弟报仇,这才是希区柯克式女主角。据说希胖自认失误的两点,今天看来都恰恰是重点,既给观众造成了心理冲击,彻底宣判凶手万劫不复不可饶恕,又令其得到了最大的惩罚——在法律之外被审判,杀死他的人却免除法律追究。片尾“她是预言家吗?她在爆炸前就说他死了……还是爆炸后说的?不,是爆炸前说的……还是之后说的?我想不起来了。”(笑cry)戛然而止为第三个悬念画上句号,在幽默中让观众情绪得到最大释放。我们并不一定要反转。
真的,不知道小说设置的背景的话,是会有些不理解罪犯们的犯罪动机,会被影片淡化的时代背景给弄得稀里糊涂。影片对夫妻关系的交代也非常有限。丈夫和同伙们的关系这么关键也是鲜有线索。巴士爆炸和妻子在餐桌旁捅死丈夫那几组镜头很经典。
小孩和小狗都被炸死了,希区最残忍的电影
7分:我发现在电影里放上在电影院里发生的故事,都会让我对影片产生好感。片中那个水族馆的玻璃变成透视街道的窗口的镜头,让我惊讶于希区柯克如此超前的创新能力。来龙去脉虽然一开始就交代差不多,但是悬念能一直保持着,算是够好。
同为希胖的两大失误之一:小男孩被炸弹炸死,其错失的彩蛋更是精彩,即影史津津乐道的妻子刺杀丈夫一段。丈夫正是因为害死了妻弟(被炸死的小男孩)而孳生了罪恶感和愧疚感,在夺刀自卫和被杀赎罪的矛盾心理下,整个刺杀过程更像是他在夺刀的伪装姿态下扑在了刀上。【7】
《房客》是部坏电影;希胖“悬念”与“惊奇”理论的最好论证,赠送0.5
桌下炸弹是一个解释紧张与惊吓区别的成功比喻却不是优质的实景构思(阴谋破坏)。因为爆炸这件事将叙述者逼入死角无法闪展腾挪:不让炸就什么都没发生,观众受到愚弄;炸了就什么都终结,观众没法满足。显然不如箱内尸体、漫天飞鸟、船中纳粹和柜子上的四百美元……观众也会紧张,但不知后面发生什么!http://www.douban.com/people/hitchitsch/status/1796346543/
由此可见,鉴于希胖早期对先锋派手法的戏仿经验,其作品序列中种种表现派自不必多说,而pov镜头责备具有主观视点的正反打所取代,而这样的方式甚至比表现派陪伴希胖更长远。低落的结尾中依旧带着希胖那总让人会心一笑的小心机。
改编自康拉德《秘密特工》,伦敦被描述为“世界之光的残酷吞噬者”;炸弹爆炸一段遭到评论痛斥。
改编自一部20世纪初的短篇小说。2016年加拿大视觉艺术家Stan Douglas将其重新演绎为一个六块银幕的装置艺术并在伦敦Victoria Miro展出。其间从Black Box到Whtie Cube的流动值得玩味。
伦敦频频遭到无政府主义者的破坏,元凶是巴沙电影院的老板维洛克,电影院对面的水果店里有位新苏格兰场派来专门监视维洛克的侦探特德……
希区柯克标志性的恐怖活动题材。观众先于剧中人物知道危险人物、危险事件的发生时间和地点。吊足胃口,制造紧张感。无辜的小男孩抱着炸药惨死,让人揪心,引发争议。女主的心理变化也借助声画光影刻画得很好。男主的角色过于单薄了。
后面精彩点。。。没找到希胖。。。