Indeed, "Secret Agent" was a disappointment to me and for many reasons. Gielgud wasn't bad, but he wasn't Robert Donat and his flat performance might explain why he and Hitchcock never collaborated again. His companion played by an over-the-top Peter Lorre was too goofy even in his sinister moments to sustain the gravitas of the plot, when there was any. In fact, the thriller went in too many directions, indecisive about its status as straight thriller, character study or fun escapism.But "Sabotage" puts the cards in the table right away. The film, loosely adapted from a Joseph Conrad's novel, takes place in London at a time where America was stricken by the Great Depression and Europe witnessing the rise of fascism and totalitarian regimes, Britain was still a colonial empire and geopolitically, an oasis of relative stability and democracy so that the only potential threat in peacetime was espionage and sabotage. What's a sabotage?Well, the film's opening with the dictionary page inspired me three reactions. First, I was wondering whether that creative license didn't inspire Quentin Tarantino for "Pulp Fiction". Secondly, I thought it was a splendid idea to give a technical definition of what seemed an obvious term, like an iconoclastic 'tell-and-show' move from Hitchcock. And finally, I couldn't help but think how the definition matched today's terrorism. Indeed, one couldn't call the climactic sequence "sabotage".But one can certainly call it one of the most intense and suspenseful ten minutes from any film. My memory might fail me but I remember that scene from a documentary about Scorsese's main inspirations. Never mind where I got it, but I had that mysterious image of a boy carrying a parcel with a bomb for years and years. Speaking of Scorsese, he referred to the dream sequence of "Vertigo" as a mini-film within the film, one can say the same thing about the climax of "Sabotage".Hitchcock's quote about the difference between 'surprise' and 'suspense' is well known by movie lovers. Two men having a conversation and a bomb underneath the table explodes will provide fifteen seconds of surprise but if we know that the bomb will explode at 1 o'clock, their conversation becomes more fascinating and we're literally hung to what happens on the screen, we just want them to get out, then suspense provides fifteen minutes of suspense. Watching this scene created a feeling of uneasiness, for the set-up first. I couldn't believe the cruelty of the villain who risks the life of his wife's little brother (Desmond Tester) for a job he's been assigned to. Oscar Homolka, as the sinister cinema owner Verloc, doesn't look like the murderer type, he expresses at some point his reluctance to cause loss of life. He's basically a goon, a luggage-carrier, not muscle, only a man capable to put sand in London electricity grid to provoke a massive blackout, but when you think about it, such men are capable to be driven to extreme actions when they're trapped.It's generally a comedic device when an inoffensive person is used to for a dangerous delivery so he wouldn't raise any suspicion, but in "Sabotage" the idea comes when Verloc discovers that Scotland Yard has an eye on him and the Detective played by John Loder is having a "talk" with his wife. Verloc is like a cornered rat and can only fight back by resorting to the most desperate measure, asking a child to literally carry death to Piccadily Circus. Hitchcock is no sadistic but he knows our heart is hooked with little Stevie, so he punctuates his path with many events that delays his mission such as a procession or a street vendor using him for painful and humiliating demonstrations. Hitchcock enhances our empathy while providing lighthearted moments that might mislead us about Stevie's fate. Surely after all these annoyances, he'll manage to put the parcel under the cloak room and come back safely. But then the frenetic editing goes, he's still got the parcel and we're a few seconds from 1.45.Could Hitchcock use another victim than a child? No because empathy could only work if he knew one of the victims, much more an innocent one and on that level, I wonder if the bombing sequence in "Battle of Algiers" wasn't inspired by the film. Secondly, the main protagonist, played by Silvia Sidney, needed a motive to kill her husband. Indeed, for a movie that deals with British threats from within, Hitchcock takes one step forward and give it a domestic dimension.Realizing that her husband is responsible for the death of her brother, she stabs him with a knife. The trickiest part is that he's done such a great job maintaining a 'honest citizen' façade, that she's basically a murderer at that point. The film ends with a turn of events that get rid of the two villains and of any evidence incriminating her, two birds with the same stone, as foreshadowed by Verloc. However, right before the "cleansing" explosion, a distraught Mrs. Verloc said her husband was dead. But the explosion came so instantly that the detective wondered later whether it came before or after. A matter of half-a-second wrapped up the plot and provided some comedic relief to end a rather dark movie. I criticized the ending of "Secret Agent" but "Sabotage" ended with the note that proved that Hitchcock was back in shape with a first-rate thriller. The light-hearted "39 Steps" opened with 'Music Hall' letters lighting up, "Sabotage" with a big light-bulb and London's plunged into blackout, maybe announcing his darker masterpieces. My only complaint comes from the fan of Disney's "Who Killed Cock Robin?", where I wished the audience didn't overplay the laughs at the film's start, the funnier parts would come later, but at least when the arrow hits the bird, Sylvia Sydney had the right reaction, the cartoon could be dark indeed, like the film.But it had to be dark, leaving the kid alive would have been cinematic sabotage.

Except for his first Gaumont UK film, the musical Strauss bio, WALTZES FROM VIENNA, Hitchcock found his niche with the espionage thriller and films two through five are all on this general thematic narrative: THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH, THE 39 STEPS, SECRET AGENT, SABOTEUR.The latter is an almost claustrophobic film, compared to the three that precede it, even though it is the one most filled with people. Crowds of people, on streets, in the cinema where it is centrally located, gathering in almost confrontational mobs.Sylvia Sidney's expressive face carries the film. It is her character that must undergo the realization of tragedy, of broken dreams and promises, of betrayal. She does an admirable job. Oskar Homolka as the terrorist husband is perfectly cast in a role originally intended for Peter Lorre. Desmond Tester as younger brother, Stevie, and John Loder as undercover detective, Ted, are merely serviceable.Notable moments include: Homolka visualization of a bomb's effect on a city block superimposed upon an aquarium fish tank; inner workings of a clock and a bomb superimposed upon each other; the incredible suspense of the boy on his way through town carrying the bomb, intercut with clocks he passes; the confrontation of Sidney and Homolka over the dinner table.Controversy met the film over the shock of the bomb's damage. In most suspenseful moments in Hitchcock films, that which we feared was going to happen, is averted at the last moment. Not so here.SABOTAGE echoes Hitch's first sound film, BLACKMAIL. In both a woman commits murder, albeit for good reasons. Her boyfriend is in one a policeman, in the other a detective, who chooses to shield her from being accused. In the one the only other witness to the murder is killed before speaking. In the other, a second bomb obliterates the murder scene. In both the murderess goes free. At least in SABOTAGE justice is done to one of the conspirators.The film moves very quickly and keeps our interest throughout. It is tightly directed by Hitchcock and is both entertaining and thought-provoking. Along with THE LODGER and MURDER!, this makes a half dozen great UK films thus far in his career. He was to make three more before coming to the USA.

Oskar Homolka is fantastic in this one as Adolf Verloc. Mr. Verloc seems to be a loving husband but there is something hidden from his wife's view - something that is beyond belief: Sabotage! The police are hot on his trail but they don't have they proof they need to arrest him it's Mr. Verloc's strange activity has the police suspicions aroused and following him, watching him like a hawk. One of the best sequences in the film is when Mrs. Verloc's younger brother (played by Desmond Tester) is asked to deliver a package (unknowingly a bomb) for Adolf Verloc. Time is running out for "The bird sings at 1:45" while Mr. Verloc tries to smooth things over/plays innocent with the police superintendent. This is definitely one of Hitchcock's finest films. A great crime thriller! 9/10

It's Hitchcock at his grimmest. Just count the number of smiles. Also, the only happy person is unceremoniously killed half-way through! This is not a movie the director could have made in Hollywood—the Hayes office would never have allowed it. What with the killing of a central character, an innocent kid, plus an unpunished murder by another central character, there's no way the film could have originated stateside. Nonetheless, it's one of Hitch's most interesting since it raises a number of complex moral issues attaching to both guilt and innocence. Most saliently, should Mrs. Verloc (Sydney) be allowed to walk away from killing her husband unpunished, and if so, why?Also, there's the issue of terrorism, not dealt with by many films of the time, but which seems very topical in our own day. Apparently, the terrorist killing of the boy (Tester) has been a controversial part of the film over the years, since it's so wrenching and goes against unwritten movie-making norms. Nonetheless, I think it's an important part of the story since it calls attention to the death of innocents caused by terrorist acts, whether the bombs are planted or come from the sky. I'm glad Hitch had the gumption to include it.Anyway, it's not a movie to see if you're depressed. The lighting is dark, the mood somber, with a doleful Sydney, a sour-faced Homolka, and a conflicted Loder. Still, it's good to see so many Londoners going to the movies in those days, even if they do want their money back. In my view, it's one of Hitch's most daring movies, British or American.