Cannes Film Festival 2013

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

<p>Alfred Hitchcock and his "Rebecca" leading lady, Joan Fontaine. </p>

Alfred Hitchcock and his "Rebecca" leading lady, Joan Fontaine. 

Credit: AMPAS

Are you a fan of In Contention?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

Released in August 1940, four months after "Rebecca," "Foreign Correspondent" was a moderate box-office success, though it didn't quite recoup its substantial budget. So it was more likely its politics than its popularity that impressed the voters enough to net it six Oscar nominations; Hitchcock may have thought it a fantasy, but voters evidently took it rather more seriously. We still annually talk about contenders succeeding in the Oscar race by capturing the zeitgeist: this is as direct an example as you can find of that phenomenon. Together with Chaplin's "The Great Dictator," moreover, it also marks the starting point of the Academy's enduring fascination with WWII stories.

Still, "Foreign Correspondent" entered the 1940 Best Picture race as an also-ran. With war grimly brewing outside the cinemas, the escapist allure of Hitchcock's other film was strong for audiences and voters alike: adult fairy-tale that it was, "Rebecca" delivered another smash hit for Selznick, winding up as the fourth-highest grosser of 1940 (on a list unsurprisingly led by animated fantasies "Pinocchio" and "Fantasia") and nabbing a field-leading haul of 11 nominations.

So the stage was set for Selznick's production to sweep the Oscars again, just as "Gone With the Wind" had the year before. But whether it was down to the strength of the competition or outside-world events, voters found themselves torn between romance and reality -- the latter most strongly represented by "The Grapes of Wrath." Ford's superb adaptation of another recent bestseller, John Steinbeck's rich evocation of 1930s Dust Bowl desperation, had ruled with the New York Film Critics and National Board of Review -- back then, believe it or not, the only Oscar precursors to speak of. (The Globes and the Guilds would only get their act together later in the decade.)

Related

Want More...

Academy Awards?
  • Oscar-statues-outside-the-82nd-academy-awards-at-the-kodak-theater-in-hollywood-ca
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

Ford was already an Academy insider -- he'd won in 1935 for "The Informer" -- and his film was too plainly important to let slide: the American director took his second Oscar, while Jane Darwell's heartbreaking turn as Ma Joad bested Judith Anderson in what I hope was a close Supporting Actress race. "Rebecca," meanwhile, took only one award -- for George Barnes's lustrous black-and-white lensing -- on its way to taking Best Picture: it remains the last film to win the top honor without at least one accompanying above-the-line prize.

Joan Fontaine can be considered unlucky not to have won Best Actress; she lost out to a surge of insider support for musical star Ginger Rogers in an against-type dramatic role in "Kitty Foyle" -- also the only reward for Sam Wood's aforementioned Best Picture pair. Only a year later, the Academy evidently felt some remorse, handing Fontaine the award for less memorable work in another Hitchcock suspenser, "Suspicion." It would be, as Kris noted yesterday, the only Oscar-winning performance Hitch ever directed.

Finally, further splintering the Best Picture race was Cukor's "The Philadelphia Story": still one of the tartest and most buoyant of all Hollywood romantic comedies, it frothed up the competition enough to beat both "The Grapes of Wrath" and "Rebecca" to Best Screenplay and Best Actor for James Stewart, himself being compensated for his "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" loss the previous year. (Olivier would get his due for "Hamlet" eight years later.) 1939 is generally regarded as the unimprovable gold standard for the Best Picture category, but its immediate successor doesn't get enough credit. A group that includes "The Grapes of Wrath," "The Philadelphia Story," "The Great Dictator" and "The Letter" -- plus one great Hitchcock film and one good one -- has to count among the Academy's finer hours.

Hitch didn't attend attend the ceremony: it is said that he nervously stayed at home and listened to the radio broadcast, instructing his wife Alma to switch it on again and off again, until his defeat was confirmed. Exasperated, Alma allegedly cried, "For heaven's sake, these are the people who gave an award to Luise Rainer. Twice!" Her husband wasn't too hard done by on this first occasion, but perhaps she knew worse was to come.

Prev 1 2 3 Next
Guy-lodge-sm
Guy Lodge
Critic
Guy Lodge is a South African-born critic and sometime screenwriter. In addition to his work at In Contention, he is a freelance contributor to Variety, Time Out, Empire and The Guardian. He lives well beyond his means in London.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    El Hanso

    What 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".

    November 22, 2012 at 9:40AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Edward L.

    Yes, 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.

    November 22, 2012 at 9:58AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    SJG

    Rebecca 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.

    November 22, 2012 at 11:09AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Krispic3_talkback_profile

    Kristopher Tapley

    Nicely 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.

    November 22, 2012 at 11:41AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      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 EST
    • Default-avatar

      wryjamie 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 EST
    • Krispic3_talkback_profile

      Kristopher 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 EST
  • Default-avatar

    JLPatt

    "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.

    November 22, 2012 at 3:14PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Guesto

    I 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.

    November 22, 2012 at 11:02PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Steve G

    Terrific article. Beautifully written and thoroughly researched. Thanks Guy.

    November 22, 2012 at 11:13PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    wryjamie

    I 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.

    November 22, 2012 at 11:48PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on In Contention

2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS

oscarside.jpg

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
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook