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.
"Rebecca" was the more prestigious, awards-targeted production: completed in 1939 but released in the spring of 1940, Selznick had specifically postponed it so it wouldn't be trampled by his own blockbuster "Gone With the Wind" in the Oscar race. Laurence Olivier, then at his most movie-star handsome, was hot off his first Oscar nod for "Wuthering Heights"; 21-year-old ingenue Joan Fontaine had been cast as the film's nameless heroine after a lengthy audition process that, according to Hitchcock, Selznick falsely extended only with the intention of generating equivalent media hype to his search for Scarlett O'Hara.
Daphne du Maurier's National Book Award-winning source novel had been published only two years previously, to vast popular acclaim -- it may have been a contemporary romantic mystery rather than a noble historical tome, but in every other respect, the film was the equivalent of what we currently term Oscar bait, with Selznick as its Weinstein-like mastermind.
So it's all the more impressive that the moody, swoony, genuinely disconcerting film that emerges feels as authentically Hitchcockian a work as his later, less producer-steered works. By editing the film in-camera, Hitchcock cunningly curbed Selznick's capacity for creative interference, and also worked some subtle alterations into a script that the producer had insisted remain as faithful as the Production Code would allow to du Maurier's text. (If you're thinking of sex, think again: the Code prohibited the criminal activity undertaken in the novel by Olivier's Maxim de Winter character.)
Related
-
On Alfred Hitchcock's ups and downs at the Oscars
From 'Foreign Correspondent' to 'The Birds' and everything in between
Hitchcock's most successful innovation concerned the character of housekeeper Mrs Danvers, whose interpretation by British-Australian actress Judith Anderson earned a deserved Best Supporting Actress nod: by making her younger than du Maurier's aged harridan, and bringing sleek lesbian insinuations to her relationship with the deceased title character, Hitchcock and Anderson created one of the screen's greatest, and eeriest, villains.
Hitchcock himself wasn't wildly keen on the story, which he criticized for its lack of humor. (He'd originally signed on to do Titanic-themed film with Selznick, only for the producer to switch projects.) But "Rebecca" holds up beautifully: it's easy to see why Selznick thought this very English story would be a suitable bridging vehicle for Hitchcock's Hollywood career, but while it shares the crisp storytelling of his British-made mysteries, it feels dreamier and more expansive, a blueprint for the obsessive serenity of form he'd later blur and perfect in "Vertigo." Perhaps his unfamiliarity with Hollywood keyed into the protagonist's own sense of being a stranger in her newly adopted home. Either way, it's one of his most emotionally open films -- and one of the best ever to take the Academy's top honor.
By contrast, Hitchcock cheerfully admitted "Foreign Correspondent" was a B-picture: a fast-moving adventure centered around a naive New York crime reporter sent by his editor to Europe to report on the early rumblings of the Second World War, before becoming dangerously entangled in an international spy ring. Hitchcock intended it as a vehicle for Gary Cooper, but had to settle for the lesser star wattage of Joel McCrea. As the director told Truffaut, "In Europe, the thriller, the adventure story, is not looked down upon... in America, it's definitely regarded as second-rate... This attitude was so commonplace when I started to work in Hollywood that I always ended up with the next best."
With none of the lingering subtext or emotional resonance of "Rebecca," "Foreign Correspondent" is simply a well-executed genre exercise. On his second US assignment, Hitchcock seems more casual at the controls, airily pulling off showy set pieces like the playful Dutch windmill charade and a climactic plane crash; if "Rebecca" teases us with the Hitchcock of "Vertigo" and "Marnie," this is very much the work of the man who'd make "North by Northwest," with McCrea an early model of the urbane but out-of-his-depth American Joe who'd later become a recurring presence in the director's work.
Hitchcock understandably demonstrates less conviction in the story's somewhat tacked-on US patriotism (the closing credits feature "The Star-Spangled Banner" over an image of a bald eagle) that at once dates the film and gives it its most enduring historical value. By making a strapping Yank the hero of a tale of Nazi subterfuge in London, the film stands as a defining piece of Hollywood's early WWII propaganda: rumor has it even Joseph Goebbels was a grudging admirer. "The picture was pure fantasy," Hitchcock admitted, "and in my fantasies, plausibility is not allowed to rear its ugly head."
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
-
This one looks poised for an awards runThursday, May 23, 2013
-
Amusing moments outweighed by sour notes in minor-key family dramaThursday, May 23, 2013
-
Patricia Highsmith adaptation marks the director's return to the big screenWednesday, May 22, 2013
-
'Behind the Candelabra' begins the long march through awards seasonWednesday, May 22, 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.