MovieChat Forums > Saboteur (1942) Discussion > Weird stuff in this movie!

Weird stuff in this movie!

posted 20 years ago by imdb-484
22 replies | jump to latest

Would anyone like to share their views as to why the heroine, Pat, had to pay her captor for her ice-cream soda, whilst imprisoned in the skyscraper (and did so quite willingly!)? It just seems bizarre, and might have been some sort of 'in joke' or satirical comment (or whatever) that is not as obvious today as it might have been to audiences back in 1942??

And what's the deal with her suddenly appearing at the Rockerfeller Center after that...like evidently she had been magically rescued, and for reasons I certainly can't fathom, she ended up there - at precisely the right time...

And how come the saboteur evidently filled a fire extinguisher with gasoline...like, er, torching the base wasn't enough? (I have no idea how he would be able to fill a fire extinguisher with *anything*, let alone gasoline...)

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DwightFry 20 years ago

The offscreen reason is, of course, the McGuffin. The onscreen reason is, I think, a way to blame the act of sabotage on the person who uses it, so the real saboteur avoids being a suspect.

Non vos riades, que o conto é triste.

[–] kpoff2887 20 years ago

It seems to me that it would be highly unlikely to be able to determine that the fire extinguisher contained gasoline. Especially considering the magnitude of the blaze and all of the flamables that must have been in the factory. That's the only thing that bothered me about this movie, but it was the basis for placing the blame.

[–] AlexanderSebastian 20 years ago

<It seems to me that it would be highly unlikely to be able to determine that the fire extinguisher contained gasoline.<
The injured witness reported that it was like all hell comes up after the one guy gave the extinguisher to the other and as it was used to fight the fire. Probably the half-filled extinguisher was even found and investigated afterwards.

<Would anyone like to share their views as to why the heroine, Pat, had to pay her captor for her ice-cream soda<
The gang probably didnt have ice cream in the rooms so Pat ordered them to buy some.

<And what's the deal with her suddenly appearing at the Rockerfeller Center after that...like evidently she had been magically rescued<
she was rescued after she threw her message down which was found by the police, they then rushed into the gangs room. Barry then told her to follow Fry by Taxi.

<The extended "talking killer" sequence inside the rich lady's house with the society ball, for instance. Why didn't the "organization" simply kill off the meddling Barry and Pat and be done with it?<
Mr Tobin is a well respected american that wanted to leave the country and to return back in case the political momentum was turning around. A murder would leave no chance of return to him. The longer sequence of the ball and the boss talking is to describe that in american society the rich have to wake up and that some of the intellectuals are villains while all of the simple grounded people are described sympathic.

<how about the circus train sequence with the so-called freaks? <
who called them freaks ? its people working in a circus and it suggests that various types of people work in a circus

<I had to wonder why the audience in the movie theater sequence could be heard laughing hysterically at a movie that appeared to be a drama, not a comedy.<
In a way its a patriotic film, America entered WW2 right as the production was done. The movie tried to show that life and the point of time is no fun anymore as people might have tended to laugh even about a murdering scene unless they realize that illusion becomes truth and real crime is underway. Hitchcock filmed the same without a real killer in his british movie "Sabotage" as an actually sad scene was shown in a cinema and people were laughing. However i wouldnt think this was shown as a wakeup-call even in the earlier british film that was done in 1936 because there wasnt a real threat by the Nazis yet in that year.

[–] mdalden2005 20 years ago

Home with a cold and saw the movie today on TCM. I wondered about the ice cream soda scene as well, and the convenient appearances of the heroes of the story in different parts of NYC were also odd and poorly handled.

But boy...I wondered about a lot of things in this movie. The extended "talking killer" sequence inside the rich lady's house with the society ball, for instance. Why didn't the "organization" simply kill off the meddling Barry and Pat and be done with it? The guests at the party wouldn't have been the wiser. Didn't it seem odd that the "organization" had a curious lack of ruthlessness considerng the stakes involved?

OK - how about the circus train sequence with the so-called freaks? The "human skeleton" guy looked pretty normal to me, just a lanky guy - while the "human mountain" lady looked merely rotund. I've seen much heavier people and certainly wouldn't think of the "human mountain" lady as a freak.

Last but not least, I had to wonder why the audience in the movie theater sequence could be heard laughing hysterically at a movie that appeared to be a drama, not a comedy. Perhaps I missed something that explains this. At first I thought the audience was laughing at the man standing in front of the screen with the gun, but in actuality, the audience could be heard laughing BEFORE the man's silhouette appeared in front of the movie screen. Hmmm....were they laughing because the movie they were watching was so hokey?

Someone else mentioned the abrupt ending to this film. I thought it was too abrupt as well. Especially after dragging on for so long in the society house ball sequence. The editing of the suspense sequences was masterful, too bad the same can't be said of many other parts of the film.

Having said all of that, I still like a lot of things about this movie and it did pull me in despite the flaws.
The b&w cinematography was striking. The dated screenplay can be enjoyed for its camp factor.
And fellas....c'mon.....wasn't Priscilla Lane kinda cute?

[–] billymarr25-1 20 years ago

Thats a great point about the scene in the Cinema. i didnt understand the laughing either. What was interesting to me was just how long ago they had used this trick of using cinenma and the sound from a film to cover a storyline in the film you are watching.

Also I agree, somehow I was drawn in to watching the whole film too. Mind you, that might have been because for 20 minutes I was trying to think which other films I had seen Priscilla Lane in before I realised it was the Roaring Twenties" . I think the other points that kept me watching were the political aspect due to its wartime release date and also because i find the difference in acting style of the actors between now and then interesting.

[–] Citizen_Braaaains 20 years ago

I'm pretty sure that the Cinema scene was supposed to be humorous. Hitchcock had a very dark sense of humor (one that I share). I think Hitch probably just thought it would funny to see a crowd laughing hysterically at a movie where people keep getting shot. And it was pretty funny.

That scene alone is enough to watch the movie. Back then that kind of thing wasn't really heard of. Nowadays however we get Quentin Tarantino movies.

[–] ancientnut 18 years ago

Regarding the abrupt ending, this was a device Hitchcock used frequently and to great effect. North by Northwest and Vertigo are two other examples that come to mind.

[–] tim-bateman 18 years ago

North by Northwest's last seconds are virtually a repeat of this film's.

[–] ericolsen1953 17 years ago

The circus freaks were kind of second-rate, so they were in a second-rate circus.

[–] c-stock 20 years ago

things that I didn't quite get:

In the version I saw, Pat was actually freed. However, when Barry is captured, he sets off the fire alarm/sprinkler system. He's still locked in the room, but then suddenly is free. Is there a scene missing from the version I watched?

Just before Fry drop to his death, he tells Barry "I clear you" (at least that's what I understood). This then explains why Barry tries to save him - he's still the main suspect (and the previous scene with the police tells the viewers that indeed the police is not quite believing his story yet). If this is the case, the movie ending is indeed quite abrupt, but I guess, for the cinematic story it doesn't really matters if Barry goes to jail or not.

I didn't quite get the boat sabotage either. Apparently, Fry has to press the button at the right moment, otherwise the boat will be unharmed. It looks like, Fry presses the button too late (he's kept from pressing the button during the fight, and the boat is past the bomb when he finally hits the button). But then, we see the ship on the side later on anyway?!?

[–] AlexanderSebastian 19 years ago

<He's still locked in the room, but then suddenly is free.<
Right, however he tries to hide behind the door to overpower any servant who probably might enter the room or to escape if anyone opens the door.

<This then explains why Barry tries to save him - he's still the main suspect<
Looking at Barrys character i believe he even would have tried to save him if the police would have already thought he`s innocent, for humanitarian reason and for his mission to clear up more about the organization. However the fact on its own that he is allowed to go up and spot the suspected is rather unrealistic :)

<it doesn't really matter if Barry goes to jail or not<
the head of office already believed barry + pat in the previous scene. probably they already interviewed the rest of the gang and found the terrorists van in the basement.

<But then, we see the ship on the side later on anyway<
obviously the ship wasnt damaged but the planks that are about to put it to sea are destroyed so that the ship is lead on side within the explosion. shortly after the explosion there is a picture of one second that shows the ship actually going smoothly into the sea but it probably still was lead on the planks that are about to burst.

[–] wildwing-1 19 years ago

It's clear that this movie had some odd editing. As you show in your post, you can THINK of reasons for things happening, but they're not shown. One more:

How does Priscilla get from Soda City back to the sheriff? Didn't the bad guys have the only car? Hmn. She did a lot of walkin' in those high heels is my guess!

[–] AlexanderSebastian 19 years ago

Right, watch Pat running behind the circus wagon in the previous scene. A documentary isnt Hitch`s goal but entertainment. In that its unnecessary to show some things happening that people can think of in front or those that arent essential to the story like showing Pat walking to the street for 2 miles and somehow being carried to town some hours later though the sheriff unfortunately is part of the organization, showing Pat going back to the blind man with one more discussion about Barrys innocence, calling the sherrif again to announce her flight schedule, showing her drive to the airport and her flight and how the organization kidnaps her after arrival. The guy with glasses sums up that whole story in their place in New York and Tobin clears up Barrys role to his people and to Pat. Pats way from the haunted town to New York couldnt really be dramatized so this way 20 minutes are saved and people can focus on what is central. Its already overloaded by ideas and a large ensemble of personalities by which is tried to show the difference between the simple, helpful and sympathic americans and the incautious, sarcastic and cynical people in New York.

[–] hughmar 18 years ago

The ship lying on its side was a different ship, The Normandie, which had burned and sank on 9 February 1942 at its West 48th Street pier (Manhattan, not Brooklyn). The cause was a careless welder, one of the workers who were engaged in converting Normandie to a troopship, not sabotage. He ignited a pile of life-jackets.

Those were newsreel shots, which were as recognizable for Saboteur's audiences as, say, the World Trade Center images are for us today.

[–] Gator_MacReady 19 years ago

What's the deal with the telescope pointing to the dam?

[–] AlexanderSebastian 19 years ago

the telescope was pointed by the terrorists to study the dam and on how they could destroy it

[–] morrigan_scream 18 years ago

"Terrorists"!? They weren't terrorists - if so then their only goal would be to inflict "terror" and chaos on a nation for political or idealistic reasons. These guys were saboteurs - they were smashing things up for financial reasons - in order to make it difficult for the allies to win the war. As Tobin explains, there's more money to be made under a dictatorship.

[–] rudeboy8080 18 years ago

I like that scene where Bones tells The Bearded Lady, "To you, everything is sex. Take your eyes out of the mud and look at the stars!" I find that line amusing, for some reason.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JAMessick 17 years ago

It could be that the "smaller" thugs were taken in by Pat's looks, and were willing to do a favor for her. Hitchcock was known for mixing in some humor during a climactic build-up. So the idea of a Nazi sympathizer willing to do a favor for a woman who is probably going to be killed later shows something of an ironic twist.

Remember that earlier she had thrown out the message, which was found by either cabbies or the police. Probably for the sake of time (it already runs 2 hours), it is implied that she has been rescued and told her story.

I think the fire extinguisher with gasoline is just another way to add terror and paranoia in the public's mind. Now, you can't even trust the fire extinguisher on the wall.

Fire extinguishers prior to the 1960's were refillable by anybody. I don't think they even used propellant, and you would just hand pump water out of the tank.

Oh, and it wasn't a base; it was an aircraft factory, of which Los Angeles used to have a lot.