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-théatre (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).
這怕是希區(qū)柯克最殘缺的影片了吧。也許再多一個小時,再讓警察和女主相處時間更久一些,接吻看似也不那么唐突。
在餐桌上女主刺殺丈夫的那場戲中,攝影剪輯完美。希區(qū)柯克通過鳥籠及空著的座位再次提示了女主的弟弟已經(jīng)不復(fù)存在。女主拿起又放下的刀叉體現(xiàn)女主想殺了丈夫的躊躇。兩個人的特寫鏡頭表情錯愕,眼睛瞳孔放大,這一鏡給予了整部戲的驚人效果。
特寫、運鏡、轉(zhuǎn)場、配樂、音效,各種手法運用得非常精彩,教科書般。在一系列技巧引發(fā)的雖顯而易見但依然讓人無法自拔的越來越緊張的情緒下,可想而知小男孩真的被炸死后觀眾該多么的frustrated——竟然沒有反轉(zhuǎn)——幸好還在企圖為自己辯解的兇手得到了應(yīng)有下場,大快人心。女人可以親手殺死自己的丈夫為弟弟報仇,這才是希區(qū)柯克式女主角。據(jù)說希胖自認(rèn)失誤的兩點,今天看來都恰恰是重點,既給觀眾造成了心理沖擊,徹底宣判兇手萬劫不復(fù)不可饒恕,又令其得到了最大的懲罰——在法律之外被審判,殺死他的人卻免除法律追究。片尾“她是預(yù)言家嗎?她在爆炸前就說他死了……還是爆炸后說的?不,是爆炸前說的……還是之后說的?我想不起來了。”(笑cry)戛然而止為第三個懸念畫上句號,在幽默中讓觀眾情緒得到最大釋放。我們并不一定要反轉(zhuǎn)。
同為希胖的兩大失誤之一:小男孩被炸彈炸死,其錯失的彩蛋更是精彩,即影史津津樂道的妻子刺殺丈夫一段。丈夫正是因為害死了妻弟(被炸死的小男孩)而孳生了罪惡感和愧疚感,在奪刀自衛(wèi)和被殺贖罪的矛盾心理下,整個刺殺過程更像是他在奪刀的偽裝姿態(tài)下?lián)湓诹说渡稀!?】
勉強(qiáng)三星,希區(qū)柯克自認(rèn)為本片有兩大失誤即小男孩被炸死以及影院老板真被女主殺死。但其實這兩點完全打破了套路,在意料之外制造了驚奇的氛圍,反倒難能可貴。真正無聊的是希式愛情,性格驕縱的女主要找英俊果敢的男主征服,像本片這樣一直處在煎熬中的女主還要找英俊果敢的男主解放,怪不得希區(qū)柯克產(chǎn)量這么高一一這劇本確實好寫。作為監(jiān)視影院老板的男主,就這么毫無鋪墊的愛上了女主,最后倆人還想直接私奔,與前文鋪墊的精明能干的形象背道而馳。希區(qū)柯克說到底還是一個拍黑色電影的,他的聲名也只是建立在類型片之上順帶一提,女主在弟弟去世后看的那部動畫片是前一年的《誰殺害了知更鳥先生?》此片是黑色幽默地嘲諷了審判與公理
倫敦頻頻遭到無政府主義者的破壞,元兇是巴沙電影院的老板維洛克,電影院對面的水果店里有位新蘇格蘭場派來專門監(jiān)視維洛克的偵探特德……
感覺被制片方剪輯拉跨了,視聽上自然體現(xiàn)出那個年代英國特有的默片時代殘存特點,但是這個非典型希胖的劇本真的是又見教科書級別的好。你很少能在希胖的片里看到那么多生動的寫實形象甚至人文關(guān)懷。
真的,不知道小說設(shè)置的背景的話,是會有些不理解罪犯們的犯罪動機(jī),會被影片淡化的時代背景給弄得稀里糊涂。影片對夫妻關(guān)系的交代也非常有限。丈夫和同伙們的關(guān)系這么關(guān)鍵也是鮮有線索。巴士爆炸和妻子在餐桌旁捅死丈夫那幾組鏡頭很經(jīng)典。
7分:我發(fā)現(xiàn)在電影里放上在電影院里發(fā)生的故事,都會讓我對影片產(chǎn)生好感。片中那個水族館的玻璃變成透視街道的窗口的鏡頭,讓我驚訝于希區(qū)柯克如此超前的創(chuàng)新能力。來龍去脈雖然一開始就交代差不多,但是懸念能一直保持著,算是夠好。
改編自一部20世紀(jì)初的短篇小說。2016年加拿大視覺藝術(shù)家Stan Douglas將其重新演繹為一個六塊銀幕的裝置藝術(shù)并在倫敦Victoria Miro展出。其間從Black Box到Whtie Cube的流動值得玩味。
膠片易燃,不能帶到車上!
由此可見,鑒于希胖早期對先鋒派手法的戲仿經(jīng)驗,其作品序列中種種表現(xiàn)派自不必多說,而pov鏡頭責(zé)備具有主觀視點的正反打所取代,而這樣的方式甚至比表現(xiàn)派陪伴希胖更長遠(yuǎn)。低落的結(jié)尾中依舊帶著希胖那總讓人會心一笑的小心機(jī)。
先是炸彈是否爆炸的懸念,再是妻子罪行是否被揭露的懸念,這部影片注重人物情緒心理的刻畫,另外影片也有點黑色電影的味道。炸彈看似應(yīng)該是麥格芬,結(jié)果卻成真,熟悉希區(qū)柯克后期作品的觀眾反倒會大吃一驚呢。
小孩和小狗都被炸死了,希區(qū)最殘忍的電影
改編自康拉德《秘密特工》,倫敦被描述為“世界之光的殘酷吞噬者”;炸彈爆炸一段遭到評論痛斥。
桌下炸彈是一個解釋緊張與驚嚇區(qū)別的成功比喻卻不是優(yōu)質(zhì)的實景構(gòu)思(陰謀破壞)。因為爆炸這件事將敘述者逼入死角無法閃展騰挪:不讓炸就什么都沒發(fā)生,觀眾受到愚弄;炸了就什么都終結(jié),觀眾沒法滿足。顯然不如箱內(nèi)尸體、漫天飛鳥、船中納粹和柜子上的四百美元……觀眾也會緊張,但不知后面發(fā)生什么!http://www.douban.com/people/hitchitsch/status/1796346543/
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.
補(bǔ)記。除了教科書式的公交車爆炸和餐桌謀殺,還有一個值得矚目的場面:4′34″希胖標(biāo)志性的旋轉(zhuǎn)的眩暈水渦意象已出現(xiàn)。
希區(qū)柯克標(biāo)志性的恐怖活動題材。觀眾先于劇中人物知道危險人物、危險事件的發(fā)生時間和地點。吊足胃口,制造緊張感。無辜的小男孩抱著炸藥慘死,讓人揪心,引發(fā)爭議。女主的心理變化也借助聲畫光影刻畫得很好。男主的角色過于單薄了。
《房客》是部壞電影;希胖“懸念”與“驚奇”理論的最好論證,贈送0.5
后面精彩點。。。沒找到希胖。。。
公車爆炸和廚房殺夫兩段營造懸疑氣氛的鏡頭調(diào)度是真棒,一看就是席胖的手筆。片尾警官對女主愛的表白實在是過于突然和爛俗。結(jié)尾很黑色很宿命。