While we all recognize his extraordinary gifts as a filmmaker across many different genres, we don’t often appreciate Alfred Hitchcock’s prowess as a wartime filmmaker, a fact that has been surprisingly erased from a lot of celebratory praises that have been heaped on him in his capacity as possibly the finest director in the history of English-language cinema. For the most part, these concerns are normally levelled against the few films he made during the Second World War, which were primarily propaganda films (although no one at the time would have admitted to it, since there has always been a very negative connotation attached to such films, and understandably so, especially during that specific era), and a few of his other productions contained some degree of commentary surrounding the war, whether those set around the Second World War, or the later ones that focused on conflicts surrounding the Cold War. This isn’t to disparage Hitchcock or suggest that he had ulterior motives – instead, its commentary on the fact that he always had a firm grasp on contemporary issues, usually taking advantage of a wide range of concepts in his frequent pursuit of deeper themes, which are then interspersed between some thrilling and entertaining plot details that make all of his film so engrossing and captivating, even when they are slightly scattered in some of their overall ideas. Foreign Correspondent is an interesting case – it was Hitchcock’s second Hollywood-produced film and thus represents some a transition from different periods in his career, where he finally emerged from the status of a director-for-hire to a fully-fledged authorial voice, even if he still had yet to gain the control he would later demand as part of his vision.

Foreign Correspondent knows how to handle its material in a way that is meaningful and intriguing, rather than just being a run-of-the-mill espionage thriller. This is the key element that single-handedly differentiates this film from all the others that have appeared alongside it in terms of similar stories – Hitchcock’s perspective depended on the director giving the audience the benefit of the doubt, and allowing us to partake in these adventures, rather than watching from a distance. It takes place in a very distinct period in world history, between the start of the Second World War, and just before the United States was drawn into the conflict, which would occur the year after this film was released. As a result, the concept of neutrality is central to the film, and considering it was made long before we knew the true scope of this conflict, as well as the part American influence, would have on its development, Hitchcock had quite a challenge ahead of him, since all he had to work from was the idea of foreign correspondents who dedicate their lives to entering war-torn zones (many of them going there purely for the sake of journalism, rather than because they have any active involvement in the matters) and put their lives in danger for the sake of reporting back on very important issues. In this regard, Foreign Correspondent is surprisingly quite poetic, being an endearing tribute to journalists, who work laboriously to ensure that the world is kept up-to-date on the most important issues, often getting nothing but a byline in the daily newspapers (at least at the time – the development of journalists into massively successful public figures has been a more recent development), and when placed in the creative hands of Hitchcock, who could make even the most banal subjects intriguing and engaging, its hardly surprising that Foreign Correspondent is a very entertaining film, one with a clear point of view and a deep appreciation for a range of themes.

The element that has made Hitchcock’s work so profoundly captivating and allowed it to stand the test of time is how they were rarely anything less than thoroughly and completely entertaining – even his most serious and dour productions contain components that make them entrancing on a level that few directors were ever able to achieve. Here we have a director whose entire brand has been focused on his ability to build suspense – but what many don’t notice is how there is often an undercurrent of humour, even if it wasn’t there in the source material. His work seems to inherently lend itself to a lighter tone at times, which is not an indication that he wasn’t capable of seriousness, but rather that he could effectively (and with seemingly very little difficulty) construct stories that feel authentic in how they explore certain subjects, but still feel very much drawn from a place of intending to entertain the audience. Foreign Correspondent borders on whimsical, with the rapidly-paced storyline and abundance of eccentric characters giving the film a very unique tone, one that is unexpected but feels undeniably earned. This kind of story would have been even nearly as interesting had it not had a slightly more upbeat tone, and while a lot of this humour manifests as punctuation at the end of very dramatic moments (rather than being driven by the more lighthearted tone), there’s an undeniable sense of dark humour that interacts with the bleak realities of the subject being depicted and elevates it to a position where it can cast an extraordinarily wide net over the real-world matters that it is interrogating, which still providing a succinct and meaningful narrative that is both enthralling and thought-provoking, which is quite unexpected for a film that focuses on the early stages of an earth-shattering war.

At a certain point in his career, not only was Hitchcock able to get any actor he desired to star in his films, but there were several who actively sought out starring roles in one of his projects, since not only did he draw out some of his actors’ best work, he gave them a level of exposure that few other directors were able to provide, since audiences were simply always going to flock to see the newest work of suspenseful brilliance that he had put together. However, this wasn’t always the case, and earlier in his career, he had to make do with the actors the studio thought was most appropriate for the roles, which meant that while some of these roles were written for certain actors, others ultimately took on the parts – but this does not preclude the film from having some genuinely great performances, made even more effective considering the scope in which that these actors had to work, and how a few of them were playing against type. Joel McCrea was a great actor who simply never achieved as much success as his contemporaries, mostly because he was more adept at playing earthier, less-polished characters, which certainly work for films like Sullivan’s Travels and The Palm Beach Story, but don’t always translate to massive stardom. However, he’s a fantastic lead, playing the journalist thrust into a position of complete psychological despair as a result of growing tensions surrounding his character on what was supposed to be a routine assignment, but turns into a life-or-death situation. George Sanders is a scene-stealer as the oddly named “foliot”, while Laraine Day is charming in her role as the love interest who develops into an oddly endearing character, someone with nuance and grit, rather than just a mindless paramour for the main character. There is also a small but impactful set of performances by Herbert Marshall, Albert Basserman and Eduardo Ciannelli, who bring old-guard sensibilities to a film that feels fresh vibrant, and profoundly youthful. It’s a great cast that helps define this film and make it something quite special, and Hitchcock draws terrific performances out of all of them.

At this point, it’s very difficult to ever be surprised at anything made by Foreign Correspondent (with the only unexpected moments coming when we discover that there were a few mediocre films peppered in between his career), so there’s very little need to even begin describing the experience of finding yet another one of his films entertaining and well-made. He was a master of his craft, and even earlier in his career, he demonstrated a profound and steadfast attention to detail that is both engaging and revolutionary in its way. Simply no one made films like Hitchcock, and as this reverse chronological analysis of his work nears a new stage, we can start to see the roots of brilliance, from which Hitchcock’s best work was constructed. Endearing, complex and always rivetting, Foreign Correspondent is one of his most intriguing works. It is a film that combines the rugged masculinity of his wartime projects, with the charming and intriguing sense of suspense that he would perfect later in his career. Foreign Correspondent is a terrific film and a worthwhile entry into the director’s expansive career, and while it is technically a minor work (and anyone arguing that this is his masterpiece is either a contrarian or sees something very different in this otherwise charming but slight film), it never stops being massively entertaining, carrying a significance, the likes of which ultimately grew into the elements that we love and appreciate when it comes to discussing Hitchcock. Action-packed, suspenseful and often very funny, it’s a tremendously good time at the movies, and yet another example of Hitchcock’s remarkable prowess when it comes to more challenging subject matter.