Haven’t we seen this situation in a Hitchcock movie before? Image: NYC in Film
When you consider the obstacles filmmakers face, it’s a wonder movies get made at all.
Look at Alfred Hitchcock’s Saboteur (1942), a wartime thriller about a California munitions worker wrongly accused of domestic terrorism. He races across the United States in a desperate attempt to (A) prove his innocence, and (B) catch the Bad Guy.
We like to think filmmaking is purely a storytelling means, but it’s also a process of problem solving. Look at the limitations Hitchcock had to face while making Saboteur.
In the early 1940s, when he first came to Hollywood, Hitchcock signed a contract with independent producer, David O. Selznick. However, he managed to sneak over to Universal Studios to make two films, Saboteur (1942) and Shadow of a Doubt (1943).
Universal, at the time, was a thrifty studio, which meant Hitchcock would be afforded no Luxuries, and he immediately Got to Work. He and the Universal team completed the script and principal photography of Saboteur in 15 weeks.
About the script: Hitchcock lost his trusted scriptwriter/assistant, Joan Harrison, when she left for Greener Pastures. In order to keep costs down, he agreed to hire (and train) a young Universal contract writer. As a favour, Universal splurged and brought in The Dorothy Parker to Liven Up the script.
Ultimately, Hitchcock felt the script was flawed, but the proximity of World War II helped immensely. Because wartime America was worried about sabotage by foreign agents, the real-life anxiety created an extra layer of dread that current audiences may not feel when watching the film.
Hitchcock also “ripped” items from the headlines. For example, in the early 1940s, a French ocean liner, the SS Normandie, was appropriated by the US Navy to be retrofitted as a troop ship. Unfortunately, in 1942, the liner caught fire in a New York shipyard.¹ Hitchcock used this fire as a Plot Device, as in: The saboteurs are at it again!
Then there were casting Inconveniences. Hitchcock wanted Henry Fonda or Joel McCrea as the lead character. Alas, neither actor was available. Hitchcock reluctantly cast Robert Cummings, who, Hitch said, was more suited to romantic comedies, not a thriller. “[H]is features don’t convey anguish,” Hitchcock said.2
As for the female lead – the woman Roped into the manic cross-country chase – Hitchcock tried to woo Barbara Stanwyck and Margaret Sullavan, but was again unsuccessful. He was left with Priscilla Lane, who, he said later, was “imposed” on him because she was more “affordable.”3
Happily, he did hire the fabulous Norman Lloyd as a Nazi minion, and Lloyd delivers the oily creepiness you would expect from a fifth columnist.
But there was Otto Kruger, who was cast as the evil mastermind. Hitchcock biographer, Patrick McGilligan, says Hitchcock was uhhappy with Kruger’s performance because he wasn’t what was envisioned for the main villain.
“The director believed he could solve any acting problem with camera work,” McGilligan writes, “and his solutions were often ingenious – as when he filmed the villain’s lengthy soliloquy with Kruger seated on a sofa and the camera fixed an eerie distance from the actor across the room.”4
Otto Kruger (in striped robe), hates America but likes the lifestyle. Image: IMDb
Saboteur is not at all bad film, and Cummings and Lane have wonderful chemistry. Hitchcock playfully introduces elements of paranoia in the cross-country trip, and, in true Hitchcockian fashion, we’re not really sure who, at first, we can trust.
There are also amusing lines. For example, when Priscilla Lane arrives at her uncle’s home, she’s frantic with news of a dangerous saboteur Loose in the Area. Her uncle dismisses her concern.
Lane: “But [the police] said this man is really dangerous.” Uncle: “I’m sure they did, my dear. How could they be heroes if he were harmless?”
There’s also a terrific scene, the best in the film, in our opinion, that takes place on the Statue of Liberty. Hitchcock, who famously recycled his own ideas, used a similar situation in North by Northwest (1957):
The Statue of Liberty in Saboteur (1942).Mt. Rushmore in North by Northwest (1959).
Some critics were lukewarm towards Saboteur, although it did Brisk Business at the box office. The London Sunday Times noted, “This is Hitchcock at his most Hitchcock, which doesn’t necessarily mean at his best.”5
Bosley Crowther, of the New York Times, had mixed feelings: “[S]o abundant [are] the breathless events that one might forget, in the hubbub, that there is no logic in this wild-goose chase.”6
Saboteur is regarded as a “lesser” Hitchcock film, which is a shame because it has interesting characters and a story that doesn’t appear to have a thin budget. You’d never know the headaches it caused the director.
It also proves Hitchcock was a master at reducing, reusing, and recycling.
Sources
¹Wikipedia. (Retrieved January 21, 2023.) SS Normandie. 2Patrick McGilligan. (2003) Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light. New York, NY: Regan Books, p. 301. 3Ibid, p. 301. 4Ibid, p. 305. 5Luff, Leonard J. (1987) Hitchcock & Selznick: The Rich and Strange Collaboration of Alfred Hitchcock and David O. Selznick in Hollywood. New York, NY: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. 6Wikipedia. (Retrieved January 25, 2023.) Saboteur (film).
Saboteur: starring Priscilla Lane, Robert Cummings, Otto Kruger. Directed by Alfred Hitchcock. Written by Peter Viertel, Joan Harrison, Dorothy Parker. Universal Pictures, B&W, 1942, 109 mins.
I think Method actors, like Montgomery Clift, found him difficult to work with because Hitchcock knew what he wanted to see on film, and wasn’t concerned with an actor’s motivation. Yet, I think he and James Stewart had a good working relationship.
This is my favorite “lesser” Hitchcock film, and by coincidence, it’s on the short list of movies we’ll be watching when some relatives come out to visit in a couple of weeks. Bob Cummings is a great every man, and the use of the Statue of Liberty at the climax is inspired.
Saboteur is one of the few Hitchcock films I haven’t seen yet, but have heard quite a few good things about. I know it got Norman Lloyd’s career as a character actor jump started and was constantly working after making the film. The MGM short series Crime Does Not Pay dealt with the subject of sabotage by foreign agents too, but Hitchcock took it to a whole other level. Lately I’ve had mixed feelings with “Hitch” because it suddenly dawned on me he was a style over substance filmmaker, and while I can’t lie that he never fails to keep the audience riveted, there were some films he made where character and plot motivation was necessary and that he wouldn’t go into it had me feeling like he automatically assumed people didn’t care what was going on and encouraged lazy writing.
I hate to admit it, but I think you’ve made some excellent points. I can think of at least one film where a character’s motivation wasn’t satisfactorily explained, and it dimishes my enjoyment of that film.
This and Sabotage (which I always get confused) are two Hitchcock films that I’ve never seen. I enjoyed reading about the behind-the-scenes info. I will have to check this one out — I like both Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane, and I’m always up for a Norman Lloyd performance!
Silver Screenings 
I think I saw it years ago, but I don’t really remember it. Was Hitchcock an easy director to work for, or difficult, or somewhere in between?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think Method actors, like Montgomery Clift, found him difficult to work with because Hitchcock knew what he wanted to see on film, and wasn’t concerned with an actor’s motivation. Yet, I think he and James Stewart had a good working relationship.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is my favorite “lesser” Hitchcock film, and by coincidence, it’s on the short list of movies we’ll be watching when some relatives come out to visit in a couple of weeks. Bob Cummings is a great every man, and the use of the Statue of Liberty at the climax is inspired.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yay! I’m glad Saboteur made the short list. I love that scene with the Statue of Liberty. The film should be more well known for that scene alone!
LikeLike
I didn’t think much of this one for years but it’s grown on me quite a bit. The finale on the Statue Of Liberty makes it worth the watch.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed. That final scene alone is worth the price of admission.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Saboteur is one of the few Hitchcock films I haven’t seen yet, but have heard quite a few good things about. I know it got Norman Lloyd’s career as a character actor jump started and was constantly working after making the film. The MGM short series Crime Does Not Pay dealt with the subject of sabotage by foreign agents too, but Hitchcock took it to a whole other level. Lately I’ve had mixed feelings with “Hitch” because it suddenly dawned on me he was a style over substance filmmaker, and while I can’t lie that he never fails to keep the audience riveted, there were some films he made where character and plot motivation was necessary and that he wouldn’t go into it had me feeling like he automatically assumed people didn’t care what was going on and encouraged lazy writing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I hate to admit it, but I think you’ve made some excellent points. I can think of at least one film where a character’s motivation wasn’t satisfactorily explained, and it dimishes my enjoyment of that film.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This and Sabotage (which I always get confused) are two Hitchcock films that I’ve never seen. I enjoyed reading about the behind-the-scenes info. I will have to check this one out — I like both Robert Cummings and Priscilla Lane, and I’m always up for a Norman Lloyd performance!
LikeLiked by 2 people
The casting works here, despite what Hitchcock thought – although Norman Lloyd is criminally underused. He is Perfect in this role.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I did a course on Hitchcock and this was probably the one film we didn’t study, lol. But was Hitchcock ever really happy with anything?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s an excellent point. I can’t think of an instance when he crowed about a film he made.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He was so dour!
LikeLiked by 1 person
It sounds like the behind the scenes drama would make this Hitchcock gem even more interesting to watch!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think it does, although it’s a pretty good movie by itself. I hope you get the chance to see it!
LikeLike
This movie is absolutely on my wish list, although I can’t imagine Cummings in this role. It looks so good, though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Robert Cummings isn’t a bad choice for this role because he has a down-to-earth Everyman vibe. I hope you get a chance to see it!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s very true–he’s cool. And yes, I hope so, too. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great analysis…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! There’s a lot to admire in this film, especially the scene at the end.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow 😮 it’s marvelous what goes on behind the scenes of a movie 🎬
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is, isn’t it? Sometimes the behind-the-scenes story would be just as interesting as the film itself!
LikeLike