阴谋破坏

电影《怠工》（片名叫“阴谋破坏”更适合）根据波兰政治小说《秘密特工》改编，拍摄于法西斯主义盛嚣尘上的1936年，故事讲的是电影院老板卡尔阴谋在伦敦搞恐怖活动，最后活动失败，错炸死了自己老婆的弟弟stevie，自己最后也死在老婆刀下的故事。电影里，卡尔恐怖活动的动机并没有在里面明确披露，但这种恐怖主义的气氛与当时的欧洲大环境不谋而合，原著小说里对应电影院老板这个身份的姓名，并不是电影里的“卡尔”，而正好与第三帝国的领袖Adolf一致，希区柯克或许为了避免露骨，或许为了避嫌，而把Adolf换了另一个普遍的德国名字Karl——不过这一更改，反倒不免激起人们对“国家社会主义”与“共产主义”的无限遐想。不管这部电影有没有对当时时政的指涉，希区柯克对这样一个犯罪题材的“模糊动机”的处理与同时期的电影，以及与希区柯克的其他电影来说，都是很鲜见的。当然，电影的出色之处并不在于这方面，而是希区柯克一贯善长的惊悚场面的营造和处理。Stevie在公交车上被炸死，这段高潮从酝酿到爆发的处理令人印象深刻，恰到好处的酝酿长度，以及突如其来的意外爆发，让人对小Stevie的惨死深感痛惜。除此之外，卡尔的老婆在得知自己丈夫的真面目，以及自己的弟弟被丈夫害死的真相之后的心理变化，心理斗争，及最后用刀捅死自己丈夫的整个过程，也处理得简短有力，被人称道。回头再仔细看看，会发现希区柯克仅仅是穿插了对卡尔老婆对弟弟的幻想，以及运用一些暗示镜头就充分的达到了想要的效果——卡尔的老婆在吃饭过程中对刀的注视（镜头对刀的暗示性特写）和她企图摘结婚戒指的这些细微动作都巧妙有力的给观众传达了“关系破裂”和之后可能发生悲剧的信息。这一暗示，让人想起《惊魂记》开头不久时，Marion收拾东西准备“卷钱跑路”的经典暗示。不过，电影在卧底警官TED看到卡尔被杀之后，尤其在卡尔的老婆一直希望去自首的情况下，TED还一直希望帮她逃脱制裁，甚至愿意和她一起私奔美国这一情节上，让人感觉有点突兀，TED的转变和下决心的前期“造势”不够，TED这个人物和其他角色相比略显苍白。不过，总的来说，这片子是希区柯克在离开英国赴美（1939年）前还算不错的片子之一。

Title: SabotageYear: 1936Country: UKLanguage: EnglishGenre: ThrillerDirector: Alfred HitchcockWriters:Charles BennettIan HayHelen Simpsonbased on Joseph Conrad’s novel THE SECRET AGENTMusic:Hubert BathJack BeaverLouis LevyCinematography: Bernard KnowlesCast:Sylvia SidneyOskar HomolkaJohn LoderDesmond TesterWilliam DewhurstAustin TrevorPeter BullMartita HuntTorin ThatcherRating: 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-théâtre (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).

从一场电影院的爆炸开始？不，希区柯克在《阴谋破坏》里根本没让我们看到爆炸，直到最后一刻。那枚炸弹被藏在电影胶片盒里，小男孩不知情地拎着它穿越大半个伦敦。观众早知道炸弹的存在，却只能眼睁睁看着时间流逝——这就是希区柯克的“定时炸弹”理论，比《电话谋杀案》早了二十年。豆瓣7.0分，不高不低。但这个分数其实暴露了希区柯克早期作品的尴尬：技巧已经成熟，但内核还在摸索。但《阴谋破坏》更让我着迷的是维洛克太太（西尔维娅·西德尼 饰）的困境。她丈夫是无政府主义者，她却在不知不觉中成了帮凶。当她最后用刀刺死丈夫时，那种冷静的疯狂——不是正义，不是解脱，而是被恐惧压垮后的爆发。观众反馈提到“结尾反转对人性的刻画超出预期”。没错，那个刺杀场景没有任何配乐，没有特写，只有西德尼面无表情地拿起刀，一下，两下。希区柯克后来在《惊魂记》里用了同样的手法，但这次更冷。因为受害者不是陌生人，是丈夫。她为什么要杀他？因为小男孩死了？还是因为她终于看清了这个男人的真实面目？希区柯克没给答案，只是让镜头停留在她空洞的眼睛上。不过，这部电影的节奏确实有硬伤。前半段太慢，水果店里的监视戏码几乎像舞台剧，全靠对话推进。放在今天，观众可能早就快进了。但这就是1936年的英式悬疑，你得忍受，才能等到最后十分钟的爆发。还有那个扮演小男孩的德斯蒙德·特斯特，演技生硬得让人出戏，但希区柯克偏偏给了他最关键的炸弹携带任务——也许这正是导演的恶意：让一个你不关心的角色去死，你才会意识到死亡的不公。《阴谋破坏》不是希区柯克最好的作品，但它是一面镜子，照出了他后来那些伟大电影的雏形。比如“麦高芬”：那卷胶片到底是炸弹还是电影？其实都不重要，重要的是它移动的过程。比如无辜者的卷入：维洛克太太不就是《迷魂记》里那个被冤枉的茱蒂吗？希区柯克对女性的虐待癖好在这里已经露出苗头。最后，说回那个炸弹。当它在公交车上爆炸时，希区柯克只给了一个远景，甚至没有爆炸声？不，我记得有声音，但很闷，像一声叹息。然后车辆继续前进，乘客尖叫。这种克制的激烈对抗，比任何强烈视觉冲击画面都让人后怕。7.0分，我猜扣的分都扣在节奏上了。但如果你喜欢希区柯克，这部片必须看——哪怕只为了最后那两刀。