Skip to main content

All you’re interested in is having fun with windmills and hotel bathroooms.

Foreign Correspondent
(1940)

(SPOILERS) There are two basic problems with Foreign Correspondent, conspiring to make what could have been a top-flight Hitchcock only second rank. The first is the vague and unconvincing MacGuffin, not simple and graspable enough to put one’s faith in and roll with and thus making the narrative rather obviously deficient between set pieces. The second is Joel McCrea’s lead. McCrea’s likeable enough, and would pair effectively with Preston Sturges a couple of years later, but he manages to inject little sense of urgency into the proceedings. Indeed, during the second half, you’d be forgiven for mistaking a much smoother, more confident, upwardly motivated and action-orientated supporting player for the main protagonist.

Hitchcock explained the MacGuffin to Truffaut, who was doubtless already fully versed in the term, being Scottish, instructing him thus: “The only thing that really matters is that in the picture, the plans, documents, or secrets must seem to be of vital importance to the characters”. He added that “the main thing I’ve learned over the years is that the MacGuffin is nothing. I’m convinced of this, but I find it very difficult to prove it to others”. And I’d generally concur; it matters not at all that it is invariably flimsy and ill-defined. Here, though, perhaps because the film strays into the territory of then current events, with the plot vital to the outbreak of war, that it succeeds in inviting too much scrutiny (so contrasting with the director’s assertion that Foreign Correspondent was “pure fantasy, and, as you know, in my fantasies, plausibility is not allowed to rear its ugly head”).

The plot revolves around the kidnapping of Dutch diplomat Van Meer (Albert Bassermann), subsequent to which, perplexingly, dramatically and ultra-violently, his double is shot in the face on some rain-swept steps. The bad guys want to extract key information from the real Van Meer, which is fine. But the reason is far too convoluted: “He was one of the signatories to a certain treaty. Now the most important clause in that treaty was never written down. It was just memorised by the two people who signed the thing”. The what? But there’s more.

Van Meer mustn’t talk, as the clause “contains a piece of information that will be very useful to the enemy in the war that breaks out tomorrow, weather permitting”. It’s altogether too much MacGuffin, leaving questions dangling. The MacGuffin needs to be tidy, but this one... For instance, how the hell can the clause be valid if it hasn’t been physically signed? And presumably, for the clause to be meaningful in any way, its details need to be relayed to others? Yes, as Hitch says it is “nothing”, but if it also sounds like outright nonsense, then that’s something. Something bad. Foreign Correspondent’s MacGuffin sounds like a parody of a MacGuffin.

Hitch wasn’t overly happy with McCrea. He’d wanted Gary Cooper, who turned him down and, according to Hitch, later regretted the decision. “I would have liked to have bigger star names” he opined, and felt “he was too easy-going”. Which is fair comment. McCrea is the focus of several top-notch set pieces, but you don’t get the feeling he really “feels” them. The first finds him at the scene of the aforementioned assassination of Van Meer’s double in Amsterdam, with McCrea’s journalist/titular John Jones aka Huntley Haverstock chasing the assassin through a sea of umbrellas. Later, there’s a marvellously tense sequence at a windmill, where Jones finds Van Meer but must keep his presence a secret. This is followed by another in which Hitch works the tension of a frustrated villain, as Edmund Gwenn (his third out of four collaborations with the director) attempts to off Jones at the top of Westminster Cathedral.

In any other movie, such sequences would be more than enough to warrant the picture classic status, but such alchemy also needs the right star in place. If that star had been the incredibly capable, witty and relaxed fellow reporter (well, so he says) played by George Sanders, who does most of the heavy lifting in the second half, maybe Foreign Correspondent would have reached such heights. Of course, it would also have defeated the point, which was a rather blunt-edged propaganda tool designed to persuade America to joining the fray (“Hold onto those lights! They’re the only lights left in the world” broadcasts Jones to his countrymen in the closing scene).

Sanders is the astoundingly named ffolliott (he even has a scene explaining the peculiarities of this name). It was his second role for the director in the space of a year (the other being in the Oscar-winning Rebecca), and it’s a shame he didn’t work more with Hitch. As it is here, he’s the effortlessly superior Englishman, not only a step ahead of everyone, but very comfortable in that knowledge. When Jones announces his suspicion of Fisher (Herbert Marshall), the leader of the Universal Peace Party whose daughter Carol (Laraine Day) Jones is smitten with, ffolliott casually responds that he’s been onto him for a year already. Of the suspicious tramp at the windmill (who denied Jones’ claims of treachery afoot), he says he knew he was a wrong ‘un as he “dirtied his hands with some of that nasty Dutch soil”. And when Jones reluctantly takes Carol to the country as part of fake kidnapping ruse, fellow newsman Stebbins (Robert Benchley, who improvised most of his dialogue) comments how lucky it is that Carol came up with the idea of leaving: “Well as a matter of fact, old boy, I suggested it to her on the phone, about half an hour ago”.

Having had his plan to out the location of Van Meer from Fisher scotched – by the return of Carol – ffolliott then cunningly hangs around outside until Fisher leaves, hears the address he gives the driver and heads there himself. Sure, he is captured (“Pardon me, gentlemen. I represent the Jupiter Life Assurance. Can I interest you in a small policy?”) but he’s disarmingly proactive and remarkably relaxed (sitting down and eating an appropriated banana). He manages to alert the confused Van Meer that Fisher is a bad seed, even if he can’t stop him squealing under torture. And then! He gets in a fight with his captors, leaps out of a window, lands in an awning, and barely stops to alert late arrival Jones before legging it after Fisher.

I have to admit, my interest in the actual plot of Foreign Correspondent had waned by the midpoint, however arresting the set pieces were. But then Sanders strolls in and set things right. He’s enviably forthright (“You conceited, stupid numbskull” he berates a Scotland Yard officer) and leaves McCrea in the dust to mop up telegraphed romantic gestures (“I don’t care how he lived. He died like a hero, to save her and the rest of us” Jones says of Fisher, with the estranged Carol listening in and so making everything right).

I can’t say I was familiar with Day, but she’s entirely accomplished as the female lead. It’s Marshall who really gets the runner-up performance honours to Sanders, though, as a sympathetic traitor who loves his daughter and would do anything – well, forswearing a bit espionage for a foreign power excepted – not to have her hurt. There’s a nice scene where Carol walks in on ffolliott blackmailing Fisher and the two, being very English in manners, instantly change conversation (mirroring an earlier scene in which Jones recognises Eduardo Ciannelli’s Krug). He’s very civil generally: “You use the English language with great delicacy” he compliments Krug. And his confession to Carol is really quite touching.

It’s also worth noting the finale, in which Hitch pulls off a dramatic plane crash from the cockpit point of view in a continuous shot (he achieved this via a transparency screen made of paper); it remains highly impressive, as does the “open sea” sequence that follows with the survivors on a wing, large swells behind them. Does the patriotic rallying of the last two minutes let the side down? Not much more than any number of pictures of that era (especially if you’re familiar with the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes). As far as the director’s output that decade (his peak decade?) goes, Foreign Correspondent is relatively undistinguished, but in its own right, it has much to offer.



Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi