i was only because it was a child delivering the bomb, now granted the child had no idea there was a bomb in there. just wandering what everyone thinks
works for me
[deleted]
i think it was on this site somewhere i heard that Hitchcock later regretted that scene
works for me
I was surprised, only because I assumed there was some sort of code back then that did not allow for children to come to a nasty end.
But if Art is supposed to imitate Life - in the real world children get killed as well as adults.
Love is never having to say you're sober.
[deleted]
Not at all, because the constant reminders of 'the birds sing at 1:45', and the constant checking of the time by the boy without a watch never allowed for any other thoughts. The film has a good story, but I must say that I was disappointed in Hitchcock's direction, this time around. It all appears a bit rushed and too contrived. The only true Hitchcockian moment is when Mrs. Vercol gets off Scot-free for murder when the 2nd bomb goes off. I wouldn't rate this one high, + or 3 or good only. FuturePrimitive666.
"*bleep* it all and *bleep*ing no regrets!"
I admit Hitch rushed this one; it's barely over an hour long, and yet it covers quite a lot of sensitive political, social, and emotional territory. A tribute to his genius that he could pull it off so effortlessly; a tribute to his sadism that he could skim over the more human implications.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2BU8-7kQLI
It was a shocker the child and innocent people died. I gave a rat's *ss about the puppy, but I suppose it was put in for added effect.
shareI'm planning a bit of a Hitchcock marathon for my senior citizen (most female) movie group, but am deciding against showing SABOTAGE because of the boy's death. The fact that Hitchcock made it such an excellant suspense sequence as you start fearing the boy's not going to deliver the bomb without being blown up, using humor along the way, actually caused me to feel that the scene would be overly depressing to older women. Oh well, I still have four good ones including YOUNG AND INNOCENT, THE LADY VANISHES, NOTORIOUS, and THE PARADINE CASE to show.
I'm the kind of guy, when I move - watch my smoke. But I'm gonna need some good clothes though.
Shocking yes, but enjoyable (not because the kid & puppy died) because the film tells the truth about terrorists and how innocent people get hurt all the time.
Films made in Europe were always able to tell stories that pushed the limit as far as subjects that most Americans feel are too risky and unviewable. Such as the German film M.
I don't think "enjoyable" is a word I'd use to describe that scene. Powerful, yes, but "enjoyable"? Nope.
Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.
I must admit I kept thinking the longer he leaves it the more difficult it's going to seem convincing when he finally ditches/loses the bomb...of course he didn't. Excellent, not because a child and puppy die but the fact it shows quite simply what terrorism does.
The scene reminded me somewhat of the bus chase scene toward the end of Torn Curtain and how in the latter we somehow know all is gong to be well (I mean it's got Julie Andrews in it, surely they wouldn't [dare] harm her!) and all the suspense meant to be in that scene is lost.
In Sabotage time rushes forward at an alarming rate, how is he going to get rid of the bomb? Answer, he doesn't. Suspense isn't just the build up of escaping something, it can also be the build up to the inevitable, as shown so well here.
Just to add, the scene where she murders her husband and then walks away to sit down: True Hitchcock; wonderfully shot, simple, effective & powerful.
The film may seem rushed at times, but that's because a lot is happening, one climax after another (True Hitchcock again).
Hitchock afterward reported he regretted that he didn't change the storyline where the boy is killed. I'm so glad he didn't and wished he had made the same decision for his later film Suspicion.
I wouldn't say I think outside the box - I've never been in it
I was delighted!
But the sequence is a joke. It doesn't build at all and it ends at a totally abritrary location that could have come three or four minutes earlier, for how little it adds to the movie.
The follow-through of the event is also atrocious. The kid is "dead" and the German saboteur is saying "Be reasonable. You've got to live for tomorrow. He had no more sense than... etc." ha ha ha.
i still say that it was groundbreaking for Hitchock to do that,, and he said in an interview before he died,, that he got alot of flack over that particular scene,, but i feel that it made the movie that much more powerful and effective.
are you going to bark all day little doggie,, or are you going to bite
I was shocked when the boy was blown up, but I agree that the scene was uncompromising re the effects of terrorism. I was actually more irritated by Oscar Homolka's frequent advice (to Sylvia Sidney about the death of her brother) 'Pull yourself together, etc'. I thought it was a bit clunky and unrealistic amid otherwise terrific dialogue.
shareI was surprised. I didn't expect that in that day they would find killing a child by bomb acceptable on screen. After I saw it for the first time and it was over, however, I read that apparently I was right. Hitchcock was severely criticized over it.
It worked well for me too and took me by surprise, so Hitchcock's plan worked. Genius!