"Foreign Correspondent"

This was paper I wrote about Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 film "Foreign Correspondent" in an Alfred Hitchcock course I took in the Fall of 2013.  In this paper I discussed how Hitchcock was able to make a pro Allies film within a spy-thriller film.

Hitchcock’s 1940 film “Foreign Correspondent” was nominated for Best Picture at the 13th Annual Academy Awards along with his film “Rebecca”.  The film takes place during the time right before Great Britain is about to declare war on Germany at the outset of WWII.  It contains a pro Allies message, but is told through method of  Hitchcock spy thriller.  It is also used as a message to the countries outside Europe that are neutral, specifically the United States, to rally to the Allies‘ side against the Axis Powers. 

As an American viewer you are aware of the war right from the beginning of the film.  The first scene of the film begin with the head of an American newspaper receiving a message from one of its foreign correspondents in Europe.  The message directly mentions the war in Europe.  He is frustrated with the lack of information that it contained, he decides he wants a reporter to go there and discover information, specifically someone one with an objective perspective.  The viewers’ introduction to the main protagonist shows, John Jones, is that of the everyman. Having John Jones being portrayed as the everyman it gives the viewers someone whom they can relate to. In this case probably an American viewership putting themselves in his shoes of the American protagonist at the outbreak of WWII. 

There are two scenes in the film that I believe are directed towards the viewers of the time to support the Allied cause.  The first is the scene that I find to be the most memorable, it is the scene where Mr. Van Meer is confined to a bed and Mr. Fisher is trying to get him to say what clause twenty-seven is.  But, Van Meer comes to the realization that Fisher is working with the enemy and delivers a powerful monologue saying, “I see now. There's no help. No help for the whole poor suffering world. Oh! You cry peace, Fisher. Peace. And there was no peace. Only war and death. You're... You're a liar, Fisher. A cruel, cruel liar. You can do what you want with me. That's not important. But you'll never conquer them, Fisher. Little people everywhere who give crumbs to birds. Lie to them, drive them, whip them, force them into war. When the beasts like you will devour each other, then the world will belong to the little people.” It seems to be a message to those who think war is avoidable but the reality is that war and death is inevitable. He also says that regardless of what they do to him, they will never conquer them. The ‘Them” I believe he is referring to is the Allied nations.  He describes them as little people who give crumbs to birds, they will be sent into war. The little people he refers to will ultimately live on while the beasts will kill each other off. A powerful message of good vs evil from Van Meer to the viewers. 

The second scene is the very last scene of the the film where Jones is giving a radio message to America while London is being bombed.  He forgoes fleeing to a bomb shelter to deliver a message to the American people saying,  “Keep those lights burning, cover them with steel, ring them with guns, build a canopy of battleships and bombing planes around them. Hello, America, hang on to your lights: they're the only lights left in the world!” It is a message to the United States to get involved in the war.  Hitchcock is using Jones‘ speech as a way to convey Britain’s message for help from the United States by appealing to the film viewers.  At the time the film was made the U.S. was neutral, even though history shows they were sending supplies to Great Britain, they would technically remain neutral until the attack on Pearl harbor in 1941. Coincidentally Hitchcock was working on “Saboteur” during that attack, another anti-nazi film.

While “Foreign Correspondent” can be viewed as a pro Allies propaganda film, it is also contains elements of a Hitchcock spy thriller.  Similar to the thrillers that preceded it and those that would come after it, “Foreign Correspondent’ contains a leading man who starts as an ordinary everyman, who then gets involved in events that are much larger than himself.  Along the way he develops a romantic relationship with a leading woman, in this case Laraine Day portraying Carol Fisher. Their relationship begins as an antagonistic one when Jones dismisses her father’s peace organization because it is made up of well meaning amateurs who can not go up against pro war organization members.  She takes particular offense to his remarks and proceeds to chide him in her speech.  But, I found it interesting that while giving her speech she seemed to become flustered by his notes and the way he gazed at her from the crowd. It seems that his forward romantic advances towards her caught her off guard. 

In typical Hitchcock fashion the main antagonist is someone who is wealthy.  A respectable person in society is someone that would be least expected to be a villainous Nazi spy.  His public persona is a facade for him to be able to mask his malevolent dealings.  Van Meer even calls him out as cruel liar because he talks about peace but in actuality he wants war.  The antagonists in Hitchcock’s thriller films seem to all be powerful wealthy public figures who fool the masses.  Van Meer calls Fisher his friend when in actuality he is his enemy. i also find it interesting in the end Fisher ends up as hero in sacrificing himself to put less weight on the wing they were latching onto.  But I think as a viewer you have to ask was he doing it unselfishly or did he just not want to be caught and humiliated by being put on trial? Hitchcock enjoys creating those questions in the viewers’ mind.

It would not be a Hitchcock thriller without its moments of suspense.  There are several sequences of suspense in the film.  One such sequence is that at the windmill where jones discovers than Van Meer is really alive and his assassination was staged.  As Hitchcock did so well throughout his career he uses the art of editing to create suspense. During the scene it cuts back and forth from the kidnappers tending to a drugged up Van Meer to Jones hiding from them. From time to time Van Meer will look up at a spot Jones is hiding but when the camera moves there Jones is not there.  There is a wonderful birds eye view shot of Jones hanging on the outside of the windmill that gives the viewers a good look at the dangerous position he is in.  

Another scene that contains suspense is the scene atop the Cathedral tower when a bodyguard named Rowley, portrayed by Edmund Gwenn,  hired by Fisher is really a hit man who is suppose to get rid of Jones.  As viewers we know what his intentions are but jones does not.  During the scene the Rowley glances towards the elevator to see if everyone leaves and makes sure to keep Jones occupied near the ledge. When he moves in to push Jones off, the camera angle is that directly facing the viewers as if he was walking right at them and pushing them off the ledge. That was a great sequence where Hitchcock played with the viewers by using a point of view camera shot.  What is also great is that all we see is man’s body fall but we do not know who until the next scene. For a brief moment the viewers could possibly think that Jones is dead. Yet another way Hitchcock plays with the audiences emotions.

I must also comment on the final climactic event of the film and that is the plane crash scene.  i though it was absolutely brilliant how Hitchcock was able to capture the chaos of a plane crash landing in the ocean. What I failed to mention before is that while he uses editing to create suspense he also uses the score very effectively in those scenes.  But in this scene he decides to not use any score but let the sounds of the scene speak for itself.  The only time a score comes in is at the end of the sequence, specifically when it swells up with Fisher sacrificing himself. It is remarkable to look at the entire sequence and realize that it was done on a studio set.  The sound effects, the water, the wind, everything was placed into the scene perfectly to capture the fear of the moment.  There is also a sense  of unpredictability for the viewers. The chaos of the moment can lead to one or perhaps all the characters dying. 

      

For as serious a subject that the film deals with, Hitchcock lightens the mood with humorous dialogue throughout.  Most of the humor comes from secondary characters like Stebbins who sarcastically remarks about his jitters due to alcohol consumption. Or Ffolliott, portrayed by the great George Sanders, who comes up with some of the best humorous lines.  The humorous lines come so quick that they are easy to miss and contain that dry sense of British humor.  For example there is the scene right after Rowley has attempted to kill Jones and Ffolliott is revealed to have an inclination as to what is going on.  His dialogue is so matter of fact, the way he humorously states all the facts he knows including that war will be declared tomorrow weather permitting as if it were a sports game I find funny.

“Foreign Correspondent” successfully blends pro Allied propaganda and Hitchcockian thriller into one film.  Through his artistry as a film maker Hitchcock was able to deliver a propaganda message through one of his films, something he would also do In “Saboteur”.  i think that one of the big questions is was how affective was his propaganda message. As I said earlier that the U.S. would not officially enter WWII until late 1941 and a western front would not be established until D-Day, June 6, 1941. Of course having the U.S. enter the war was a big game changing moment. But I guess one of the questions that are probably pondered by Historians even today is what would have happened if the U.S. entered the war earlier than they did? Would a film like “Foreign Correspondent” even have been made? I for one am happy that it did because we get yet another solid Hitchcock film that can be viewed today and it actually holds up very well.  

   

The Hitchcockian Legacy

This was an essay I wrote about Alfred Hitchcock's Legacy in a Alfred Hitchcock course I took in the Fall of 2013. I analyzed the first thirty minutes of Brian De Palma's 1973 film "Sisters" and also a piece written by Richard Allen titled "Hitchcock's Legacy".

As long as their are those who love film, Hitchcock’s legacy as a film maker will live on. As long as their are those who want to create their own films, his legacy will also live on.  Occasionally those two types of people are the same person, like myself and countless others of my generation and past generations.  In several interviews I have seen with William Friedkin, director of “The French Connection” and “The Exorcist”, he has numerous times said that he learned the craft not through formal film school but by watching the films of great directors like Hitchcock and implored others to do the same.  His influence has impacted not only American cinema but foreign cinema as well.

In the reading, “Hitchcock’s Legacy” by Richard Allen, he writes that the young french film makers of the 1950s and 1960s were highly influenced by Alfred Hitchcock and revered him as a great Auteur.  Young French film makers like François Truffaut, Claude Chabrol, Eric Rohmer, and Jean-Luc Godard viewed Hitchcock’s films became a model for classical art cinema.  According to Allen, Claude Chabrol explored the shadow world that lurks beneath the veneer of bourgeois values. Like Hitchcock he used the duality of delivering a story on the surface but providing hidden meaning through depth.  For Francois Truffaut, Hitchcock appealed to him because of his cinematic technique.  He was interested in how Hitchcock would frame a scene.  Allen says that Truffaut concentrated on the plot surface and not quite as deep as Chabrol.  He is also responsible for the fantastic interview he did with Hitchcock in the early 1960s.  At first glance Godard seems like the antithesis of Hitchcock because his films seem so disjointed while Hitchcock contains such straight structure.  But, Godard is similar to Hitchcock in the sense that he is on a different level of auteur than Hitchcock but took him as a base.  Allen mentions that Rohmer’s films, while considered Hitchcockian, are cerebral, realist, lack drama, and suspense. So in a way they are the antithesis of Hitchcock.

American film makers, like the foreign ones mentioned above, also were influenced by Hitchcock.  My favorite decade of American film is the 1970s. I view it as a period of American film renaissance.  New young film makers arrived in Hollywood and provided a shot of new energy to American film that was desperately needed.  well known film makers like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Brian De Palma, William Friedkin, and several others. While they all did not make Hitchockian films they all started out as film fans watching and learning from Hitchcock films.  My favorite living Director is Martin Scorsese and while he is mostly known for his gangster films, his 1991 film “Cape Fear” is his Hitchcockian film.  It is a remake of a 1962 with the same title and even uses the same wonderful Bernard Hermann musical score. He also uses the great Saul Bass to create one of his great title designs, like he did with Hitchcock on Vertigo, North by Northwest, and Psycho.  The character of Max Cady, although from the original film, is presented like a character straight out of a dark Hitchcockian nightmare in his relentless almost demonic presents on screen. He is frightening in the way that Norman Bates was frightening, on the surface a calm demeanor, but you get the feeling underneath lies something grotesque. While we get small glimpse through cracks in Bates‘ psyche in “Psycho”, we are treated to the frightening evil that is Max Cady.

It is interesting that Pat Hitchcock would say that Spielberg is the true heir of Hitchcock.  I must admit that it has only been over the last year that I have been able to look upon Spielberg as a serious film maker.  I used to think that he was too commercially successful and that he panders to a larger audience for financial success. Then I began to learn more about Hitchcock and how he was able to mesh both financial success and artistic film making into one.  Spielberg has been able to do the same throughout his career.  His first big success was “Jaws” a Hitchcockian film in the sense that it used its musical score by John Williams to create tension throughout the film. Also the use of implication throughout the the film was very Hitchcockian.  Throughout the the film you never get a glimpse as to what the shark looks like until the later sequences. All that is shown the viewer is the victims being taken underwater by the shark and their screams. It gets to the point that beach goers in the film are so psychologically afraid of the shark that even a mention of the word could have people running out of the water. It is said that Hitchcock made people afraid to take a shower after “Psycho”, with “Jaws” Spielberg made people afraid to go into the ocean.

Now someone who took the most from Hitchcock is Brian De Palma.  His early films in his filmography especially, like “Sisters”, “Carrie”, “Dressed to Kill”, and “Blow Out” all can be said as having Hitchcockian elements to them.  The first thirty minutes of his 1973 film “Sisters” contains several Hitchcockian elements.  Right from the opening credit sequence there is a Hitchcockian nature to the film with a Bernard Hermann score. The score is not only in the credit sequence but permeate throughout the film.  The first scene features Margot Kidder as blind woman entering a locker room where she begins to undress with an on looker in the room.  De Palma is showing someone who is being a voyeur, like Hitchcock did with Jimmy Stewart in “Rear Window”.  As she is undressing there is a freeze frame in which it is revealed that it is part of a “reality” game show called peeping tom, further displaying the voyeurism theme. De Palma also uses Hitchcockian camera movement in the film.  The scene at the restaurant opens up on a closeup of a statue of a monkey and then pans slightly out then dolly shots over the restaurant to the table where Danielle and Phillip are sitting.  It appears he uses a crane shot in the scene where Danielle and Phillip are lying on the couch kissing each other. The shot starts overhead and then slowly pans down to Danielle’s thigh to reveal a nasty scar, while an ominous Hermann score sends a message to the audience that this is something important. Another Hitchcockian element is the idea that Danielle has split personality between her and her sister Dominique, similar to Norman Bates from Psycho.  Although it is not revealed within the first thirty minutes, I could deduce that based on how heavily the film is relying on Hitchockian elements.  The murder scene seems like an homage to the shower scene in “Psycho”. The murderer even uses a knife similar to the one used in “Psycho” but in this case because it is the 1970s the scene can be much more violent on screen than in “Psycho”.  The obsessive ex-husband reminds me of Jimmy Stewart’s character in “Vertigo” in the way he seems to be infatuated with Danielle.

The Perfect Crime

This was an essay I wrote on the third episode of the third season of the television series Alfred Hitchcock Presents titled "The Perfect Crime" starring Vincent Price. I originally wrote this essay in an Alfred Hitchcock course I took in the Fall of 2013. Since I referenced the events of the episode a lot,  I also included a link to the episode from Hulu.com.

A common thread that is spread throughout most of Hitchcock’s directorial filmography is that of death and/or murder.  Spanning six decades, from the 1920s to the 1970s, Alfred Hitchcock made films that featured death as a common theme.  In several of those films death was a result of murder.  The theme of murder would be one of many themes that would become part of his legacy as a film maker.  Along with certain themes, a specific style in which he would make his films would comprise what is known today as Hitchcockian.  His television series, Hitchcock Presents, would also use the Hitchcockian style in its episodes, especially those Directed by Alfred Hitchcock himself.  For example, the season three episode three “The Perfect Crime” , aired on October 20, 1957 was Directed by Alfred Hitchcock.

In Nicholas Haeffner’s book on Alfred Hitchcock he mentions how affective he was at selling his persona and his films to an audience.  By the late 1950s Hitchcock was a very popular and well known Director amongst audiences not only on the big screen but also the small screen.  In the television series Hitchcock would appear on screen and talk with the viewers.  This episode, “The Perfect Crime”, starts off in the usual way with the iconic Hitchcock silhouette and accompanying theme music.  The camera pans over to Hitchcock sitting in a chair wearing a hat and smoking a pipe, looking very similar to Sherlock Holmes.  Although he does not mention who he is emulating, he hints at it by saying “Good evening lady and gentlemen and Dr. Watson wherever you are.”  To make a reference to one of the most famous fictional private detectives of all time right before the episode that has a murder mystery storyline in it is a smart tactic by Hitchcock and his writer’s.  Chances are they are most of the viewers are already familiar with Sherlock Holmes, so Hitchcock uses that to his advantage and also adds his own comedic charm to it.  The exorbitant amount of bubbles coming out of the pipe and him frantically swatting to pop them while commenting on the perils of bringing a pipe to bed is a nice light comedic moment before we get into a story about murder.  Something he did throughout his filmography was have the ability to switch from comedy to drama and sometimes mesh the two together.

The episode stars Vincent Price as a very successful detective named Charles Courtney and James Gregory as an unsuccessful defense lawyer named John Gregory. Gregory confronts Courtney about a case involving a murder by a man named Harrington of a man named Ernest West. But, before he brings up such a case they have a very casual conversation about murder.  Specifically, Courtney’s trophy case of mementos from his victorious cases and an empty spot awaiting the perfect crime, or how he puts it the perfect murder.  This casual chatting about murder reminds me of the discussion that Charlie’s father and his friend have in “Shadow of a Doubt” when they were discussing how one would commit murder and get away with it.  Their conversation is more comedic but what the two conversations have in common is the casualness in which such a serious subject is discussed.

Through this casual conversation Courtney seems to exhibit some of the characteristics a of a classic Hitchcock antagonist.  He is a wealthy egotistical individual who seems to have gained a lot of wealth and positive standing in the public’s eye.  He remarks that his trophies represent perfect memories of imperfect crimes.  Although he says that they are not monuments to his brilliance but tombstones to the stupidity of criminals regards, one can not help but think he is merely being modest as to not appear to be egotistical. But, then he goes onto to say that he can not find a real challenge hence why he holds out hope for the perfect crime. He seems bored by all the  trophies, as if they were all the cases were to easy.  His biggest fault and ultimately the biggest fault of any of Hitchcock’s antagonists is their ego. They think they are perfect or at least present themselves in that way.  In this instance the fault in Courtney’s perfection is revealed to the audience in one Hitchcock’s famous plot twists.

About midway through the episode after Courtney has smugly explained how easy it was for him to discover Harrington as the killer of West, Gregory reveals that Harrington was not the killers and he can prove it.  Courtney dramatically rises to his feet, with the camera shot just neck high revealing the look of disbelief on his face. Then there is a great cut to the Hitchcock silhouette as a dramatic score plays.  The silhouette seems like a silent message by Hitchcock to the audience reminding them that it is the Hitchcockian twist that they familiar seeing in his work.  Courtney of course must dismiss his claim as false because in his mind he can never be wrong, especially a case that has already resulted in the execution of the man he found to be the murderer.  But in true Hitchcockian fashion the truth is revealed by Gregory not only to Courtney but to the viewers as well. Not only does Gregory reveal the truth but he has monologue within his revelation that is a direct strike at who Courtney is.  He exclaims that at last those like Courtney will know the taste of defeat and humiliation, brought down to some level of the ordinary. Then I think he makes the grave mistake of trying to hold this truth over Courtney in the form of blackmail.  He literally goes nose to nose with Courtney and his ego and as he says his reputation does not allow mistakes. So Gregory pays the ultimate price for his confrontation in what I perceive as a second Hitchcockian twist.

After their brief heated confrontation, Courtney seems to retreat for another drink off camera. The camera holds on Gregory who turns his back to take what he assumes is a victory drink and then from off screen the arms of Courtney move around his neck, then fade to black.  The quickness by which the arms of death position themselves around the neck of Gregory must have given the viewer a jolting fright.  That quick action is the second Hitchcockian twist in the episode.  The next scene begins with the press taking pictures of Courtney as he shows them around his home. He has the same calm exterior that he had earlier in the episode.  I find the moment when he describes how efficient his oven is that he uses for ceramics to be great. The way he utters the word “efficient” twice and looks down at his wrist indicates that it is significant.  Also the way he describes the vases as being made with a “special” kind of clay.  Hitchcock was a master of using implication in his films.  The oven and the clay pot imply that Gregory was killed and his body was disposed of in the oven. But of course given the time it was made that can not be shown on screen.

Hitchcock arrives at the end of the episode to provide an epilogue.  He enters the room in which the episode took place but all the furniture have sheets placed over them as if no one lives there any longer, implying that Courtney has been caught. He points to the spot that the vase was in and explains that Courtney had been caught when a woman knocked it over and when it broke it revealed pieces of Gregory, like his gold filling. Hitchcock even makes a joke using the Humpty Dumpty nursery rhyme in reference to fragments of Gregory. A flash of his dark humor shows through. Coincidentally the woman who knocked over the case is now a darling of the press like Courtney was.  Hitchcock also ends the episode with another joke that cleaning women all over the world have been trying to knock over vases so they too can become famous.  Leave it to Hitchcock to end an episode that revolved around death and murder with not one but two jokes.