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

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

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

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

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.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.