Foreign Correspondent

The Film Noir Odyssey

Writer: Charles Bennett and Joan Harrison, with additional dialogue by James Hilton and Robert Benchley

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Cast: Joel McCrea, Laraine Day, Herbert Marshall, George Sanders, Albert Bassermann

Cinematography: Rudolph Mate

Music: Alfred Newman

Studio: United Artists

Release: August 16, 1940

“Foreign Correspondent” is a hodgepodge of different genres which don’t go together, baffling tonal shifts, gigantic plot holes and it has the wrong character as its protagonist. That said, it’s a pretty good movie.

Though he has no real knowledge of the politics of Europe, reporter John Jones (Joel McCrea) is assigned to cover the oncoming war overseas. He heads there and immediately finds himself in the midst of conspiracies within conspiracies – a friendly diplomat named Van Meer (Albert Bassermann) is seemingly shot to death on the steps of the embassy but that was a body double – the real Van Meer is being held hostage until he reveals certain government secrets. Also wrapped up in the madness is the woman John falls in love with named Carol (Laraine Day), her father Stephen (Herbert Marshall) who is the head of the Universal Peace Party, and the incredible reporter Scott ffolliott (George Sanders), whose last name is not misspelled, I promise.

Unlike other thrillers by director Alfred Hitchcock, this film was crafted partially as entertainment but partially as a propaganda piece by producer Walter Wanger in order to rally support within America against the rise of fascism overseas. To the film’s credit, it rarely feels that way while you are watching it until the final epilogue. That said, when you step back and think about a bunch of the creative decisions in play, you can see it more clearly.

The biggest example of this is the choice to make John the lead instead of Scott. The film goes to lengths to underline that John knows nothing about what’s going on overseas before sending him into the action, almost as if the filmmakers are shaking viewers while screaming “He’s just like you! Identify with him!” Once in Europe, John makes one or two smart decisions (most notably noticing the windmill spinning in the wrong direction), but in general is an idiot who argues against every smart decision made by other characters. He’s not the stupidest Hitchcock hero (that would be Ingrid Bergman’s character in “Spellbound”), but he’s pretty damn close. Also… frankly… he’s kinda boring. McCrea is a good actor, but the role gives him nothing to do, to the point where the character subtly breaks the fourth wall at a certain point to comment that his romance has happened super fast with no chance to build the relationship.

The filmmakers seem to realize this, and once the second act begins, John disappears from the movie for giant stretches of time – sometimes 20 minutes – even though he’s the hero of the movie. Even they seem bored with John. In his place, the film leans into Scott’s character, who is smarter, wittier, wilder, cooler and just better than John in every way. Sanders seems to be having a ball playing the character, and his enthusiasm is infectious – the moment he jumps out of a sixth story window, lands on an awning and tears his way through, straightening his suit upon landing on the ground, is some kind of perfect.

Scott is the better character, but apparently John was the better way for the audience to get into the story. This imbalance between the characters underlines the issues with the script, which shifts wildly from screwball comedy to brutal horror… sometimes within the same scene. Those tonal shifts are partially a leftover from Hitchcock’s British thrillers, where the tone would often vary, though never this much. But I suspect it is also partially a symptom of the multitude of writers who penned the film – there are two credited screenwriters and another two credited for the dialogue, but apparently another three are uncredited but did major work. Knowing that and knowing Wanger rushed the movie into production, it’s easy to see why it flip flops like it does.

I know that I’ve been knocking on the film for a bunch of paragraphs now, but I also need to underline that (though these are major problems), the movie is actually a lot of fun. Once it gets moving during the rainsoaked assassination setpiece, which is one of the best sequences Hitchcock ever filmed, things remain fast-paced and enjoyable. It’s hard to complain about the problems when things are moving so quickly that your issues are already in the rear-view by the time you process them. The climactic plane crash is also incredible and features incredible special effects for 1940 – the sequence is shockingly harrowing and emotionally resonates more than you’d expect.

Also Santa Claus himself, Edmund Gwenn, plays a ruthless assassin… so that’s awesome.

Hitchcock was working with ace cinematographer Rudolph Mate, who would lens classic noir “Gilda” before becoming a director himself and making movies like “D.O.A.” and “The Dark Past.” I give him a lot of credit for helping the narrative hiccups by making the film visually smooth throughout. There are a couple scenes between Scott and Stephen in shadowed rooms where the Dracula filter is used on their eyes that are sublime to watch.

I like “Foreign Correspondent,” and suspect as time passes the problems will drift from my memory while the great set pieces and Sanders’ aces performance will remain. It’s a delightful marriage between the British Hitchcock and what would become his American aesthetic… just try not to pay too much attention to the film’s hero.

Score: ****

Awards: The film was nominated for six Oscars and lost all of them. For Best Picture (also nominated was “The Letter”) it lost to fellow noir “Rebecca.” Bassermann lost Best Supporting Actor (also nominated was James Stephenson for “The Letter”) to Walter Brennan for “The Westerner.” It lost Best Original Screenplay to “The Great McGinty.” It lost Best Black-and-White Art Direction (also nominated was “Rebecca”) to “Pride and Prejudice” and Best Black-and-White Cinematography (also nominated was “The Letter”) to “Rebecca.” Finally, it lost Best Special Effects (along with “Rebecca”) to “Thief of Bagdad.”

Rebecca

The Film Noir Odyssey

Writer: Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison

Based on the novel by Daphne Du Maurier

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Cast: Joan Fontaine, Laurence Olivier, Judith Anderson

Cinematography: George Barnes

Music: Franz Waxman

Studio: Selznick International Pictures/United Artists

Release: March 21, 1940

As things have progressed here, I’ve started to do small mini-Odysseys, like my recent ones focusing on the actors Humphrey Bogart and John Garfield. I can’t wait to get into Barbara Stanwyck and Joan Crawford coming up, but there are directors where I want to make sure I cover all of their major noir work as well. With certain people like Fritz Lang, the list is fairly clear what I need to cover… but as I dive into a mini-Odyssey covering the noir films of Alfred Hitchcock, the question quickly becomes which of his movies are noir, really?

Sure, a few of his works, most of which I’ve already covered like “Strangers on a Train” and “Rope,” are very obviously noir, but there are a large number where they feels like noir, but only if you squint. Hitchcock is a master of mixing genres and tones – “Psycho” (which I will be covering) is as much a noir as it is a slasher film and a dark comedy… three genres that don’t easily co-exist. “Rebecca” is certainly another example of a sorta-kinda-maybe noir. It certainly deals with several thematic ideas often explored in noir, but it also feels more gothic in its shadows and more romantic in its shading. It’s an important film for Hitchcock – his first big American production, his first collaboration with producer David O. Selznick (and, spoiler alert, his only successful one) and his only film to win Best Picture. So it’s important to cover, even though I honestly don’t think I would be focusing on it in this Odyssey had it not been for the Hitchcock connection.

Our hero is a young woman (Joan Fontaine) who is never named in the film, but I’m going to refer to her as Mrs. DeWinter because, before the end of act one, she marries the uber-rich Maxim DeWinter (Laurence Olivier). He’s far above her station in life, but she tells herself that doesn’t matter until she arrives at his palatial home Manderley… and the imposter syndrome begins almost immediately. Not helping matters is the head housekeeper Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), who is obsessed with Maxim’s previous wife, the titular Rebecca, and refuses to allow the new Mrs. DeWinter to step out of Rebecca’s shadow. Worse, Maxim also seems still stuck on his dead wife, who everyone goes to lengths to underline was the most beautiful and charming human being ever to exist in the history of time.

The film is a very good adaptation of an excellent novel by Daphne Du Maurier, which I read in high school. That gothic romance genre is marketed and geared specifically towards older women, which is a shame because the book perfectly speaks to a lot of what anyone is going through in high school. That imposter syndrome theme I mentioned earlier will especially resonate with anyone who is not a raging narcissist. And it’s a joy to see screenwriters Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison (“Foreign Correspondent”) keep that at the forefront of the adaptation – they do such an excellent job of making Mrs. DeWinter a sympathetic heroine, despite being passive throughout the majority of the film. When she finally stands up to Mrs. Danvers, you want to stand up and cheer.

This also underlines that Fontaine’s performance is the soul of “Rebecca” and the reason it works. She may have won the Oscar for the much-less successful “Suspicion,” but her work here ranks among the best in any Hitchcock film. Her eyes and mouth are so expressive that you can always tell what she is thinking, and even in moments where she goes over-the-top into cringing dramatics like she’s a silent movie star… it shockingly works. This is because she makes the viewer believe that her character is unable to hide her emotions, which can be a great strength but is seen as weakness by those who want to exploit it. Fontaine doesn’t have much chemistry with Olivier, but she miraculously manages to make that work to her performance’s advantage, using it to underline her awkwardness and how unsure she is of the tilting world around her.

None of this is to say that the rest of “Rebecca” is not well done, because it is. The filmmakers wisely understand that the heart of the story is not the romance between Mrs. DeWinter and Maxim, but Mrs. DeWinter’s relationship with the deceased Rebecca, brought to life explicitly by Rebecca’s most loyal Mrs. Danvers. The best scene in the film is a simple one, where Mrs. Danvers shows Mrs. DeWinter around Rebecca’s suite, simply showcasing things as she describes the intricacies of Rebecca’s life. The room feels haunted (thanks in no small part thanks to ace cinematographer George Barnes’ (“Spellbound”) work), and it seems as if Rebecca herself will somehow enter the room any second.

Much has been made about the adjustment to the makeshift mystery of what happened to Rebecca – Maxim killed her in the novel and it was accidental in the film… but the mystery doesn’t really matter in any way other than that it extends Rebecca’s shadow over the ensemble for the running time, so it did not bother me at all. But aside from the ending, I do find myself wishing the filmmakers had felt a little freer with their adaptation, because it is slavish in places. Did we really need the full monologue of the opening of the book as we drift through Manderley’s weaving paths?

I think “Rebecca” is wonderful in many ways and I find myself revisiting it quite often, especially in moments where I am feeling like an imposter in my own life. That said, I rewatched “The Letter” last week, which was also released in 1940 and was nominated for Best Picture against “Rebecca.” I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if that film’s director, William Wyler, would have instead directed this, with Hitchcock handling “The Letter.” Part of me thinks that switch would have made both films transcendent. Still, what we have here is a minor classic in Hitchcock’s oeuvre, and it’s more than worth your time.

Score: ****1/2

Awards: “Rebecca” won Best Picture – among the other nominees were films noir “Foreign Correspondent” (also directed by Hitchcock) and “The Letter.” Barnes took home the Oscar for Best Black-and-White Cinematography (also nominated were “Foreign Correspondent” and “The Letter”). Hitchcock was nominated for Best Director (also nominated was “The Letter”) but lost to John Ford for Grapes of Wrath. Olivier was nominated for Best Actor but lost to “The Philadelphia Story” and Fontaine was nominated for Best Actress (along with “The Letter”) but lost to “Kitty Foyle.” Anderson was nominated for Best Supporting Actress but lost to “The Grapes of Wrath.” The film was nominated for Best Screenplay but lost to “The Philadelphia Story” and Best Score but lost to “Pinocchio” (also nominated was “The Letter”). It lost Best Black-and-White Art Direction to “Pride and Prejudice” and Best Editing (also nominated was…wait for it… “The Letter”) to “North West Mounted Police,” which is apparently a movie that exists. Finally, it was nominated for Best Special Effects to “The Thief of Bagdad” (also nominated was “Foreign Correspondent”).