As enormously respected as he may have been, Alfred Hitchcock seemed to be driven by the concept of quantity over quality, especially earlier in his career. It was not unheard of for the esteemed filmmaker to produce more than one film in a given year, which mercifully became less common as he grew in stature and was able to pursue projects that interested him, rather than being very little more than a director-for-hire, which was mostly the case during the 1920s and 1930s, where he was still developing his voice, albeit in a more controlled atmosphere, as mandated by the studios. However, this doesn’t disqualify these films from being exceptional in their own way, and one of his most interesting projects from this era is Sabotage, in which he adapts the novel The Secret Agent by Joseph Conrad, which focuses on a terrorist organization working within Europe and hoping to stir panic amongst the continent’s population, as well as the detective who is assigned to investigate the case, discovering the many unexpected twists and turns that accompany his journey. Adapted by one of the director’s regular collaborators, Charles Bennett, whose screenplay is sharp, concise and very witty, and masterfully directed by Hitchcock, who crafts a tight, tense thriller that runs at a mere 76 minutes (the absolutely perfect length for such a film), Sabotage is a terrific work that may not stand as one of the director’s very best films, but rather one that shows his gifts were present right from the start, showcasing his developing voice within a genre that he was soon about to master, becoming the proverbial Master of Suspense that came to define his entire generation of filmmakers and influence countless others, who not only looked at his major landmark achievements but also at his smaller, more intimate work, from which just as much inspiration can be drawn. 

Any conversation about a Hitchcock film made before the 1940s (with Rebecca being universally agreed as the moment he gained the respect he needed to step away from the director-for-hire label, even if he was demonstrating strengths as an auteur in a few previous films) will undoubtedly bring up the fact that, even in his early works, there were traits of his distinct style and authorial voice, which can make these films so incredibly fascinating, even when they may pale in comparison to his later work. It’s clear that Hitchcock had talent from the start – even his early silent films had a level of complexity and nuance that differentiated them from many others, making them seem so much more modern in their sensibility than we may initially imagine – and considering all these films were made when he was comparatively quite a young man only makes it more impressive, since his work is constantly evolving, but yet his talents remain extremely distinct, so much that they pierce through the relatively straightforward narrative usually placed on these films. Sabotage falls into a category that Hitchcock clearly adored – tense thrillers that combine social commentary and political satire, showing them interacting in unexpected ways, and leading to twisted stories that are entirely unpredictable, whether in the broad plot developments or intricate details. The suspense and terror that would fuel later works have their origins here, with the simple but effective story exploring these themes with an intensity that makes them feel so much more compelling and intriguing than anyone may initially expect. It is certainly not perfect in any sense, but its ideas are very strong, and for those dedicated to Hitchcock and his evolution in style and substance, Sabotage is extremely insightful and never anything less than thoroughly entertaining, which is always something that the director strived to achieve, even in the more challenging works he made throughout his career.

However, Hitchcock would be the first to consider Sabotage something of a failure, and while this does seem like an invitation to dismiss it as a minor work, it is important to note that his own comments refer to some aspects that could have been improved to bolster the impact made by the film, rather than suggesting that the entire film itself is lacking. One of the biggest scenes in the film, or at least the one that is most well-remembered (whether positively or negatively) is the climactic moment when the younger brother of one of the main characters is killed in an explosion after the package he was carrying was revealed to contain a bomb. We see the explosion, which is one of the most disturbing moments in a Hitchcock film, and one that has received an abundance of criticism, including from the director himself. There are a number of scenes in Sabotage where Hitchcock makes the mistake of thinking an event can only have resonance if it is shown on screen, which he soon discovered was not the case – the implication is not only equally as impactful, it can also be a terrific artistic choice, since it creates an element of suspense, and makes the overall experience all the more engaging since we grow curious about what we cannot see, which adds layers of nuance that can often create a more compelling atmosphere. There are certainly flaws embedded right at the heart of Sabotage, but it is not at all a bad film, but rather a work in which Hitchcock was still developing his voice, and in the process of experimenting with style, he found certain elements that work on screen and others that are not quite as effective, but which at least set the foundation for future films that developed on these ideas and turned them into defining moments in Hitchcock’s iconic body of work.

At the very least, Hitchcock manages to cast this film quite well. No one in Sabotage is giving career-best performances, but they are all universally solid and turn in strong work, which is important to the overall identity of the film. Sylvia Sidney (at the peak of her fame, and someone more adept at genre work than some of her contemporaries) plays the American expatriate who acts as one of the two protagonists of the film, and the person who is perhaps the most sympathetic, while John Loder is the other protagonist, playing the part of the daring detective who seeks to solve a mystery and bring the culprits to justice before they can do more harm. It’s a challenging role and one that doesn’t always lend itself to much in terms of character development, but he does the best he can with the role. At this point, Hitchcock was more focused on the concept than he was on the characters that populated these stories, which some may see as a sign of weakness, when in reality it is par for the course for this kind of film. One person who does seem to be given enough attention to stand out on his own is Oskar Homolka, who plays a character who functions as a curious blend of villain and comic relief, being the snarling but anxious terrorist who hides behind a veneer of everyman charm. Perhaps Homolka is not the first actor one thinks about when imagining such a character, but his performance is strong, and he is by far the most memorable aspect of the film, perhaps because he is the one with the most substance, which seems to be accurate with much of Hitchcock’s work, where the villains are often the most developed characters, likely a result of the director being fascinated by the concept of moral turpitude and how it impacts the stories he frequently told.

Sabotage is a film that will be best appreciated by those who are already well-versed in Hitchcock’s work, since its most effective quality is acting as something of a dress rehearsal for some of the director’s later films, many of his distinctive traits being explored here, albeit in a way that is not nearly as effective as they would be when he has established himself as a reliable filmmaker. However, this is not to say this film lacks merit on its own, but rather that it plays by the rules so closely, that there isn’t much to discuss outside of noting that it is very well-constructed – it isn’t always easy to find aspects to discuss with a film like this, since it is a well-made but relatively straightforward thriller, the kind that plays off the paranoia that existed in the interwar period (and which would only become more intense as time progressed), and which delivers the appropriate amount of shocking moments in between genre-blurring expressions of melodramatic romance and darkly wry humour. These elements all work together well in the construction of this film, which has many moments of excellence, but still feels like it is being made by a gifted director who was on the precipice of reaching his full potential. Luckily, we know that Hitchcock would soon have a meteoric rise in fame and acclaim, so a film like Sabotage exists primarily to be a firm reminder of why he became one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation, with his ability to take a relatively conventional work and turn it into something so compelling being a gift that could never go entirely unrewarded.