free counter with statistics Foreign Correspondent | Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

foreign_cor4.jpg

Pajiba’s Underappreciated Gems

Gary Cooper’s Big Regret

Foreign Correspondent / Ranylt Richildis

Underappreciated Gems | May 16, 2008 | Comments (16)


It may seem strange to call a Hitchcock film underappreciated, given the fact that Alfred Hitchcock is arguably the most famous movie director ever to pace a set. And, to be fair, Foreign Correspondent was a hit with audiences when it was released in 1940 and earned several Oscar nominations, including one for Best Picture. But when it comes to Hitchcock conversations and recommendations and favorites, these days, people usually crow about Vertigo, Rear Window, Psycho and other films made after his Stateside arrival. Critics tend to cite two reasons for the movie’s sub rosa status among film lovers: it boasts no major stars, and its propaganda taint made it unfashionable once the aftershocks of World War II subsided. But the propaganda makes Foreign Correspondent all the more interesting, if you ask me, and it certainly can’t detract from the movie’s technical achievements and entertainment value. It may not be a masterpiece like [insert your favorite big-name Hitchcock film here], but take it from someone who’s seen over forty of the man’s movies: Foreign Correspondent ranks in the top dozen or so and, as such, deserves more press than it gets these days. If you love North by Northwest or any other Hitchcock espionage film — and if you haven’t yet had the pleasure — throw this one in your rental queue immediately, because Hitch’s been holding out on you.

Depending on which film historian you ask, Foreign Correspondent is sometimes regarded as Hitchcock’s first truly American film. Though the story is set in Europe, it was shot primarily on Hollywood reconstructions of British and Dutch landmarks; and though the subject is the outbreak of World War II, the film’s hero is an American everyman reporter, and the film’s purpose was to whip complacent American viewers into contributing to the war effort on a distant continent. The movie opens in the offices of the New York Globe. The newspaper’s editor, Mr. Powers (Harry Davenport), wants to convince the public that war is about to break out overseas, in a time when many people are still in denial. By August of 1939, the economists and historians haven’t failed to spot the signs, but Powers wants a “fresh, unused mind” rather than an expert to report on goings-on abroad, because the man on the street (plus ça change) mistrusts the experts but might heed one of their own. He summons Johnny Jones (Joel McCrae) from newsdesk obscurity, anoints him with an alias of distinction (“Huntley Haverstock”), and sends him to London to learn more about a Dutch/Belgian treaty and the Universal Peace Party, a League of Nations-like association of uppercrust do-gooders ostensibly trying to halt the war with luncheons and diplomacy. High on the list of Peace Party VIPs is Stephen Fisher (played by Herbert Marshall, a James Mason doppelganger whose quiet yet superb rendering of a tormented, paradoxical kind of man has my respect). Fisher advises Haverstock to contact a Dutch gentleman named Van Meer (Albert Bassermann), who has inside information about the treaty and might know something about a mysterious section of the pact called Clause 27.

Don’t let the bureaucratic jelly in the above paragraph turn you off the film; by the half hour mark, Hitchcock’s well-oiled gears of suspense are spinning, and they spin gorgeously in four outstanding scenes over the course of the movie. As the film’s MacGuffin, the cryptic Clause 27 throws reporters, spies, assassins and officials into the kind of frenzy that can only be assuaged with shootings, car chases, mistaken identities, and frantic escapes by way of hotel ledges. And here sits my dilemma; one of the reasons I so loved this film on first viewing it was because (unlike some Hitchcock movies whose highlights are part of our cultural dialogue) I didn’t know what was coming and could watch with eyes about as fresh as those of its original 1940 audience, riding a tide of successive surprises (sub rosa films are great for that effect). I almost hate to mention the movie’s key moments because they’re major spoils, but I know discerning Pajibans can’t be wooed any other way. This is a Hitchcock film, after all, and some readers might be curious about just how this is a Hitchcock film and why it deserves a slot in our Gems catalogue (if you covet the fresh-eyes approach, skip the next paragraph).

Foreign Correspondent is hailed as a taut espionage picture thanks in part to those four scenes that scream vintage Hitchcock: an assassination and chase sequence amid a sea of black umbrellas knit together by a heavy rain; Haverstock’s sneaking around the gyrating insides of a windmill, always just out of view of the killers he’s spying on; a comic/tense sequence involving a would-be assassin posing as a bodyguard who lures Haverstock to the top of a cathedral spire and waits for an opportunity to throw him over; and an astonishing plane crash into the Atlantic, shot in a studio tank with 1940s effects technology but surprisingly convincing and suspenseful. The windmill and plane crash scenes stand out thanks to the sheer confidence it must have taken on Hitchcock’s part to set them up; few directors would have had the clout to insist that his producers build him a full-scale windmill complete with moveable guts, or the imagination to shoot an ocean crash from the perspective of the pilots and passengers in the days before such things were commonly done. The camera angles and editing in the windmill sequence are as masterful as anything Hitchcock’s ever put together, and the movie’s suffusion of film noir atmosphere is helped along by a black and white palette that makes the choppy ocean waves in the crash scene look cruel and cold. There’s no shortage of pristine chiaroscuro production design in Foreign Correspondent — she’s a looker on an aesthetic level alone, with very clean, deliberate lines and stainless composition, and you can almost feel the warmth of Hitchcock’s and art director Alexander Golitzen’s pride as you watch what they constructed out of a staircase, a reporter’s camera, and a shifting herd of wet umbrellas.

Woven into this thick rug of pure Hitchcockian yarn is a romance as light and airy as any found in the studio system days, complete with slingshot banter. Soon after arriving in London, Haverstock is smitten by Fisher’s activist daughter Carol (Laraine Day), and suspense is inevitably melded with love as Haverstock jousts with foreign operatives with his girl at his side. The fledgling lovebirds are joined by Scott ffolliott (George Sanders), a salad-days flâneur who steals his scenes with Wildean languor and epigrams — not to mention winning competence in the face of any challenge. While McCrae (who won his part when Gary Cooper turned it down) is irreplaceable as Haverstock, and while Day brims with bright smarts and charm as Carol, it’s Sanders’ ffolliott and Marshall’s Fisher that are hailed as the movie’s most arresting performances. Bassermann may have been nominated for an Oscar for his role as Van Meer, but Sanders and Marshall are memorable as much for performance as for character. ffolliott (his spelling) provides both the comic relief and the dash, but there’s a gigantic heart beating under his double-breasted suit and double-consonant surname — a certain thrum of genuine good-naturedness that’s mighty appealing to viewers, and that represents (along with Van Meer) the Friendly European Face pleading for sympathy as Hitler’s army closes in both onscreen and off (England was bombed mere weeks after the film opened in the US).

Foreign Correspondent has all the art direction and suspense we demand in a good Hitchcock flick, but its status as an in media res historical relic gives it a whole other layer of intrigue. The most interesting war pictures are sometimes the ones made in the very midst of things, when outcomes are uncertain and when key events that have since defined the tone of most post-war art have yet to take place. Here’s a movie made about the outbreak of total war just as total war was swallowing Europe and Asia whole. America may be featured in the image, via the emblematic Johnny Jones, but America was still two real-world years away from Pearl Harbor in 1940. It all makes for a slightly surreal, palimpsest viewing experience — particularly when today’s America is embroiled in a shiny new war of a different stripe entirely, and when the concept of war journalism has never been so polluted. Johnny Jones/Huntley Haverstock is almost a fantasy imp of a reporter that can’t possibly exist now and maybe never did, but his appeal is enough to grease the cogs of the film’s political message, and he’s the perfect voice for the movie’s closing call to arms to Americans. As Haverstock pleads to his countrymen through a microphone in a London radio booth, fictional bombs fall in anticipation of real historical events. The curtain closes on the image of a bald eagle and the strains of “The Star Spangled Banner.” Stomachs turn, admittedly, and eyes can’t help but roll, but this is what makes Foreign Correspondent such an interesting Hitchcock film — and Hitchcock’s cinematic signature is what makes Foreign Correspondent one of the best-looking and most entertaining propaganda pictures in our archives. It ultimately fared better as a piece of cinema than as an inspiration to join the war, but — gee-whiz closing speech and bald eagle aside — it deserves the attention of the director’s admirers.

Ranylt Richildis lives in Ottawa, Canada. She can usually be found sneezing in college libraries or dropping chalk in lecture halls, but she’s somehow managed to squeeze in a film or two a day for the last decade.









Eloquent Eloquence 05/16/08 | Pajiba Love 05/16/08


Comments

Having completely ignored the article, I'd like to point out that the flashgun on the camera in the picture (the metal tube on the left with a reflector and bulp stuck in the top) is the same one that was, with a few rubber grips added, used as Luke Skywalker's lightsaber in Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.

Yeah, I don't know how I have a significant other either, guys...

Posted by: VeganMike at May 16, 2008 2:04 PM

I don't know how I missed this one.

Posted by: BWeaves at May 16, 2008 2:18 PM

And this one goes right onto the 'flix queue. In fact, Ranylt, I seem to be working my way through your recommendations new & old. (Yesterday I watched "Highway 61".) Thanks!

Posted by: digger at May 16, 2008 2:27 PM

Another great review, Ranylt. I love this film.

Posted by: thejodester at May 16, 2008 3:05 PM

It's Spytech week all up in the Pajiba Underappreciated Gembox!

I treat Hitchcock and Kurosawa like Shakespeare: while a lot the works aren't as well known or well-beloved as the others, they all merit at least a gander. Consider it added, madame. Fine work.

Posted by: insertclevernamehere at May 16, 2008 3:20 PM

One of my secret shames is my neglect of Hitchcock films. I have no excuse, really. So perhaps I'll begin to rectify that, starting with this. As always, splendiferous review, RR.

Posted by: TK at May 16, 2008 5:49 PM

When my daughter was 10, her introduction/indoctrination into classic film began with Double Indemnity and Foreign Correspondent. We still watch it whenever it's on TMC. There's no better way to teach someone how to watch movies than by showing them something like this.

Sanders is brilliant; his history of playing suave bad guys makes ffolliot a true wild card. It's a great, scene-stealing performance.

Thanks, RR, for an appreciation of a truly entertaining (on all levels) movie.

Posted by: alone in the dark at May 16, 2008 7:23 PM

Who says that Joel McRae wasn't a major star?

Posted by: Arkansan at May 16, 2008 8:00 PM

i despise ranylt.

Posted by: i hate it at May 16, 2008 8:33 PM

Wow, I hate it, picking on Ranylt for...what you perceive as pretension? Having an adult vocabulary? Being able to incisively analyze a movie without resorting to cell-phone speak? What an astute and completely original comment, you asshole.*

*This is wine talking, but I fucking MEANT IT.

Posted by: Julie at May 16, 2008 9:23 PM

Well, I'll say that actually it's original in its terseness. Who knows exactly why? Many enemies are much more illustrative.

Mysterious!

Maybe for the reasons you've listed, but I didn't read the review so I don't know if the usual hot buttons are present.

Posted by: Jay at May 16, 2008 9:29 PM

A smart and insightful review on a film that is overlooked too often. And, as a bonus, I learnt another great new word - flâneur.

The set pieces are astonishing, especially for their time, but my main abiding memory of this is George Sanders.

As with so many other movies, he stole the show - thanks to his effortless urbanity.

Posted by: Simon B at May 17, 2008 3:34 PM

Like TK, I too must admit a level of ignorance regarding Hitchcock's output. As much as I enjoyed your review of 'Correspondent' (and I do indeed love you, Ranylt, and all of your writing, make no mistake of this), I've always felt somehwat 'off-the-mark' when it comes to a true appreciation of a Hitchcock film: the ideas are brilliant, the execution of those ideas equally impressive, or disastrously off-key depending on the viewer, and this is just one of a host of reasons why I keep my proverbial distance from Hitch's films (I've read more books about Hitch than films I've seen), along with ensuing discussions- either I'm really missing out, or these 'landmarks' that he's most famous for ('Psycho', 'The Birds') are just so lost on me when I first experience them that I don't bother to ruminate on the ultimately disappointing impressions they leave behind.
C'mon, let's look at some of the highlights..
Jim Stewart in 'Rear Window' , with a gorgeous Grace Kelly - a nice, mildly supensful diversion.
Cary Grant in 'To Catch A Thief', with a gorgeous Grace Kelly- a mildly nice and somewhat suspensful experience; 'Vertigo' (with a "oooh, I'm so afraid of heights," Jimmy Stewart)- the fat guy really knew how to exploit his leading men & ladies (maybe like a Kubrick in his heyday?) but doesn't that director's list go on and on? (props to Roman Polanski & the like). But to be truely honest with you, and all my fellow Pajabinates, you could have selected a film more relatable to our current, undeniably sick US situation rather than writing an otherwise excellent review on a film capturing events from a couple of generations ago, that we have no way to connect with.
Take 'A Face In the Crowd', for instance, a truly underappreciated gem if there ever was one-how relevant is that film to our current society, as opposed to 'Foreign Correspondent'? The former is a true historical film masterpiece that resonates with truly American sensibilities of fame and who we choose to bestow it upon, most times to our own ignorance and deference to who should be "liked" or "not liked"; whilst 'Correspondent' deals with a time of American history that is (unfortunately) too far removed from our present situation as a nation.
If I am to understand at least one of your concepts in this most-entertaining review, can you not deny that this very film, and the subject it pertains to, is really not the best choice to be presenting to the current Pajiba readership??
I'm just sayin'
Thanx for the read, I'll go to bed now & check in later, like a scared little child, to see if anyone responded harshly to my spontaneous post.
What else is an alcoholic to do at 7:15pm, less than an hour before his bedtime?
So you know what I'm talkin' bout, right??

Posted by: TMax at May 17, 2008 7:29 PM

Very nice review. One of the best I have read on here in weeks. Thank you.

Posted by: EricD at May 18, 2008 2:01 AM

Pajiba's done it again! Foreign correspondent happens to be one of my all-time favorite Hitchcock movies...I'm so glad that it is now getting the appreciation that it deserves!

**added bonus of this movie: George Sanders plays a character who's NOT his typical slime-ball (see Rebecca, All About Eve, The Ghost of Mrs. Muir, etc.)...and though I love his usual bit more than life, he's AMAZING in this movie :)

Posted by: jules at May 18, 2008 12:34 PM

TMax,

You have a valid point (for a sleepy drunk). But come on let's face it. A good story is a good story. It is timeless. I mean I will never be a drug dealer or a princess or a crooked politician but I love being lost in those lives for approximately 2 hours in a dark theatre. Being forced into a world far removed from mine is what it's all about. Oh, and no offense taken on the "current readership" comment. I'll just pretend you were referring to the Perez Hilton people who wander over here by mistake 'cause surely you wern't insinuating that the current pajibans wouldn't be mature or intelligent enough to "get" an older movie that isn't about space travel or zombies or anything, right.

Nice review, I watched this movie with my mom as a young girl. It was a nice bonding experience.

Posted by: Phat girl at May 19, 2008 3:24 PM



searchthesite.jpg