On 'Rebecca' and 'Foreign Correspondent,' Hitchcock's 1940 double-shot at Oscar glory
Hitch probably never came closer to victory than his first time at bat
Alfred Hitchcock and his "Rebecca" leading lady, Joan Fontaine.
Are you a fan of In Contention?
Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.
You needn't have been following the Oscars for long to know that -- the usual inseparability of the Best Picture and Best Director awards notwithstanding -- Academy voters aren't particularly auteurist-minded.
That's not a comment on the films and filmmakers they've chosen to reward over the years, though the winners list would look somewhat different if they were. Rather, it alludes simply to the practical consideration that their top prize is still awarded to a film's producer, not the director -- a tradition inherited from the days when producers often wielded more creative control in Hollywood than the helmers they hired to shepherd their projects to fruition. (Not coincidentally, the Academy was happier to split the Picture and Director awards back then.) If the Academy worked more along the lines of film festival juries, the director would claim, or at least share, credit for the year's best film -- and Alfred Hitchcock would have one competitive Oscar to his name.
It's telling that in the 1966 volume of interviews between Hitchcock and François Truffaut, a founding father of auteur theory if ever there was one, Truffaut is under the impression that Hitchcock won the 1940 Best Picture Oscar taken by his neo-Gothic romantic thriller "Rebecca." Hitchcock rather tersely corrects him that the award was given to Hollywood super-producer David O. Selznick, and that he's never won a statuette; Truffaut swiftly changes the subject.
Given how routinely Hitchcock's name crops up on lists of artists most shabbily treated by the Academy -- see Kris's recent review of his strike rate with the voters -- those less well-versed in Oscar history may be surprised to learn that the great man did, in fact, direct a Best Picture winner, and not a negligible one, either. When the Academy splits its two top awards, the losing director is usually not a name held in the very highest regard: a John Madden, say, or a Hugh Hudson. But the club also includes such notables as Ridley Scott and Francis Ford Coppola, and Hitchcock is at the top of that rewarded-and-yet-unrewarded pile.
Related
-
On Alfred Hitchcock's ups and downs at the Oscars
From 'Foreign Correspondent' to 'The Birds' and everything in between
Hitchcock almost certainly never came closer to winning Best Director than he did with "Rebecca": for one thing, only one of his other four nominations, for "Spellbound" five years later, was attached to a Best Picture nod. But while general Oscar logic dictates that a repeat nominee gains momentum with each successive bid, this nearest of misses came not just at Hitchcock's first nomination, but for his very first American film. Had "Rebecca" been made a further few years into his career, by which time the British director would have been less of a stranger to the Hollywood crowd, things might well have gone differently.
As it stands, Hitchcock was the most illustrious casualty of what was surely one of the most evenly matched and tightly contested fields in Oscar history. The opposition in the 1940 Best Picture race included not just substantial works from John Ford, George Cukor, Charlie Chaplin and William Wyler, but another of Hitchcock's own films. Yes, both his maiden US efforts -- "Rebecca" and pulpy WWII potboiler "Foreign Correspondent" -- made the grade, notching up 17 nominations between them, though the director himself was only cited for the former.
In a more contemporary Oscar race, directing two of the year's top nominees would launch a filmmaker to the front of the Best Director pack -- particularly if he were only nominated for one of them. Coppola reaped the benefits of double-dipping with "The Godfather Part II" and "The Conversation" in 1974; more recently, Steven Soderbergh overcame the risk of splitting his own vote when he was nominated for both "Erin Brockovich" and "Traffic," ultimately winning for the latter.
In 1940, however, when directors moved far more quickly between projects under the studio system, that wasn't nearly such a noteworthy achievement. Several names had already managed to steer two Best Picture nominees in a single year: most impressively, Michael Curtiz, who in 1938 even copped an extra lone-director nomination for a third film. Hitchcock wasn't even alone in the achievement that year: John Ford ("The Grapes of Wrath," "The Long Voyage Home") and Sam Wood ("Kitty Foyle," "Our Town") also boasted a brace of 1940 Best Picture nominees. By passing over Hitchcock and handing the Best Director prize to Ford for "Wrath," the Academy effectively split the difference between the year's two most commendable over-achievers.
Viewed in isolation, however, Hitchcock's two 1940 nominees make an interesting pair: even as they contrast completely in tone, "Rebecca" and "Foreign Correspondent" both show the director assembling the stylistic building blocks of his future genre work in Hollywood, while hanging onto stray elements of his earlier British output.
2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Original Screenplay
Best Cinematography
Best Costume Design
Best Film Editing
Best Makeup And Hairstyling
Best Original Score
Best Original Song
Best Production Design
Best Sound Editing
Best Sound Mixing
Best Visual Effects
Best Animated Feature Film
Best Documentary Feature
Best Foreign Language Film
Latest Posts
-
What's good and what's bad directly from the PalaisWednesday, May 22, 2013
-
Zal Batmanglij's latest hits theaters May 31Tuesday, May 21, 2013
-
Michael Douglas and Matt Damon excel in Soderbergh's witty Liberace biopicTuesday, May 21, 2013
-
The actor-director gets all the best close-ups in his Faulkner adaptationMonday, May 20, 2013





Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login SignupEl Hanso
November 22, 2012 at 9:40AM EST Reply to CommentWhat a treat, Guy! Lovely written. I don't know how much Hitch himself cared for an Oscar, but it's really a shame that he never won (a competetive) one.
And I love, love, love "Rebecca". It constantly fights for being my #1 Hitchcock film against "Vertigo" and "Rear Window".
Edward L.
November 22, 2012 at 9:58AM EST Reply to CommentYes, a terrific article, Guy - even by your usual standards. Loved it!
I've seen the year's big three (Rebecca, Grapes, Philadelphia Story) but am now resolved to see Foreign Correspondernt a.s.a.p.
SJG
November 22, 2012 at 11:09AM EST Reply to CommentRebecca is a grossly under-appreciated gem, these days. I'm so glad to see the high praise it gets here. Considering how widely watched many of Hitchcock's movies still are even by the general population, I've never understood why this film doesn't seem to have the appeal of a North by Northwest or a Psycho.
Kristopher Tapley
November 22, 2012 at 11:41AM EST Reply to CommentNicely done, Guy. I watched Rebecca for the first time in a while for Tuesday's piece and it holds up beautifully, particularly the first three quarters.
evelyn garver Thank you. REBECCA is perhaps my favorite film. It's our daughter's middle name. I include it in my film class each year. Students are amazed at how complex and dark it is.
November 22, 2012 at 3:10PM ESTwryjamie Very true. As much I enjoy the first three-quarters of the film, the last quarter loses the tension and atmosphere so carefully developed in the rest of the film.
November 22, 2012 at 11:41PM ESTKristopher Tapley More a sign of the times than anything else. The actual content of that last act is key to the narrative but it seems to lose its grip on things from Olivier's explanation of what actually happened through the end. That monologue just stops things in their tracks.
November 23, 2012 at 11:22AM ESTJLPatt
November 22, 2012 at 3:14PM EST Reply to Comment"Rebecca" is very good, but it's surely at least 20 minutes too long. Hitchcock often has trouble with his third acts, but this one in particular becomes a rather clumsy and convoluted affair, explaining crucial plot points away with contrived necessity rather than an organic progression.
Guesto
November 22, 2012 at 11:02PM EST Reply to CommentI suspect that one of the reasons Hitchcock never won a Best Director Oscar was because of his reliance on storyboards. Hitchcock had his films mapped out prior to filming and stayed pretty close to his storyboards. This could be a limitation in certain ways because even though his dramatic sense was strong, it was mostly cerebral and conceptual and didn't allow for as much wiggle room on the set.
He took pride in how closely he matched what was on the screen to his storyboards but this mechanical approach, that doesn’t account much for peculiarities and possibilities of an actual set makes what unfolds on the screen more rigid.
He directed shots and not scenes and at any given point seemed most interested in an interesting angle needed for a particular moment without as much care given to the overall flow of a film.
Don't get me wrong, many times his films flow very well but they don't necessarily breathe – that’s the key word - in the same way as un-storyboarded films do. And when he doesn't have as much to chew on, they drag.
The flip side of that, is when Hitchcock was able to come up with a shot that resonated, it became a well remembered classic. That is one of his strengths.
This may be one the reasons why Hitchcock was routinely attracted to, if not gimmicky, than high-level premises, is because he wanted to have that leverage and have something to grab on to and spin, thematically.
His talent was ability to deconstruct scenes into a series of key moments and not improvisation on set. As the result his films, even the best ones, look more staged than, say choreographed.
Interestingly enough, this may, in some ways, have hurt directors like Scorsese and Kubrick, too. I remember reading that Scorsese was hesitant to actually direct a fight scene from Gangs of New York – a scene he already thoroughly storyboarded - on the set so he let his assistant director handle the duties.
Few directors are able to scrap an approach to a scene completely. Some are forced to experiment when they are forced to change something that doesn’t work.
Steve G
November 22, 2012 at 11:13PM EST Reply to CommentTerrific article. Beautifully written and thoroughly researched. Thanks Guy.
wryjamie
November 22, 2012 at 11:48PM EST Reply to CommentI really enjoyed reading this. I know that 1939 is pretty much universally regarded as the greatest year in film, but I've always felt that 1940 came pretty damn close to it. The studio system was working at full steam and its zenith, and then with Pearl Harbor in 1941, the film-making focus had to switch and the heights of 1939 -1941 were never reached again in the studio system era. People often forget about the number of outstanding films and performances of 1940, many of which didn't even make the Oscar cut (Cary Grant, Rosalind Russell, and His Girl Friday; Vivien Leigh and Waterloo Bridge; James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan and The Shop Around The Corner just to name a few). Thanks for looking at it, Guy.