Talk:Foreign Correspondent (film)

Untitled
A reporter called Humphrey Haverstock goes to Europe to cover the outbreak of the WWII.

He witnesses an assassination, chases spies, gets shot down by a German battleship, files a scoop and wins the most gorgeous woman in the movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 05:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:266794.1010.A.jpg
Image:266794.1010.A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit to Reception paragraph on article on Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent.
The first paragraph of this section ends, By the time the film opened in London (on October 11) the regular bombing of British cities had tapered off, and was almost finished.

This simply isn't true. Bombers were coming over London every night at the time of the opening, and would continue to do so for another month. Coventry was almost destroyed on 14/15 November, and two of the most damaging London raids of the Blitz, those of December 29th and May 10/11 1941, had yet to happen.

According to many historians, including Charles Messenger, compiler of hte Chronological Atlas of World War Two, German bombing of English cities did not taper off until the spring of 1941, when German aircraft began repositioning for Barbarossa, the invasion of Russia. In addition, the Wikipedia article on the Blitz begins, The Blitz was the sustained bombing of Britain by Nazi Germany between 7 September 1940 and 10 May 1941...

If no one objects, the sentence will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.167.90 (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the sentence. However, the whole first paragraph in the "Reception" section could use a citation. Do you know of any references we could use? Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 20:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for removing That Which Was Not.

The release dates check out on IMDB. As for the battle dates given, both for the Alderangriff and the bombing of London, they are in almost all sources, notably Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is from our perspective an almost contemporary source, as well as Charles Messenger's much more recent Chronological Atlas of World War Two.

In addition, one will find the date for the beginning of the Alderangriff in Chronik des Zweiten Weltkriegs published by the Chronik Verlag in Wissen Media Verlag, GmbH (Guttersloh/Munchen, 2004), Buch-Nr. 10808; but, perhaps not so surprisingly, not many other details about the bombing of England.

Insofar as checked, these dates also agree with the existing Wikipedia articles on the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, so the sources cited in those articles (if any) may be suitable.

In fact, the story of the first appreciable bombing of London on August 24th, and its immediate ramifications, was not so long ago an almost universally known and accepted version of how the German strategy to cow England into submission through air superiority failed.

One certainly heard about it from one's parants, uncles, etc. whenever a teevee show or movie or anniversary story on the news brought the subject up, back in the days when almost all adults remembered the war; but this is of course anecdotal and unverifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.176.9.169 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Borovian", not German
According to http://www.alfredhitchcockgeek.com/2010/04/foreign-correspondent-masterpiece-of.html and http://books.google.com/books?id=T_Yryky_eA4C&lpg=PA114&ots=rv2v2G_T0r&dq=foreign%20correspondent%20hitchcock%20borovian&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q=foreign%20correspondent%20hitchcock%20borovian&f=false, Germany was not the enemy in this film; the bad guys were "Borovian". This is a big change in the plot summary, and warrants a new section on the effect of the American Neutrality Act. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, in the "Original Research" department, I just watched the DVD of Foreign Correspondent, and they did mention Germany two or three times in places which made it clear that they were the aggressor, which contradicts the above sources (although when the nasties were talking they indeed weren't talking German, but some other (perhaps fake) language as the sources claimed). My guess (not supported in any way) is that the DVD (and perhaps all current releases) were lightly re-edited after America joined the war to remove "Borovia" and put in "Germany". The challenge now is to back this up with valid references. (BTW, another interesting reference is http://olli.illinois.edu/courses/2013_Spring/Hosier/Hitchcock%20and%20War.pdf ). -- Dan Griscom (talk) 21:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Another interesting take in the New Yorker, where an article asks if Hollywood collaborated with the Nazis: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2013/09/16/130916crbo_books_denby?currentPage=all . To be clear, this article doesn't mention Foreign Correspondent, but the critique is apropos. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The 8th-billed actor is credited as Eduardo Ciannelli in the opening credits and as Eduardo Cianelli in the closing credits
It may be noted that, although he was most frequently credited as Eduardo Ciannelli, his alternative billing, in several films, was Eduardo Cianelli, Edward Cianelli or Edward Ciannelli. Below is a reproduction of the form in which the cast members are listed in the on-screen opening credits:

The on-screen closing credits, appended to the article, depict names of 24 cast members, with the first 10 listed in the same order as in the opening credits. Then, 14 additional cast members are listed 11th through 24th. As indicated in the section header, Ciannelli is billed as Eduardo Cianelli in the closing credits. A similar occurrence, but referencing the given name, rather than the surname, occurs in the credits of 1965's The Satan Bug, with the billing in opening credits depicting the name Ed Asner and in the closing credits depicting Edward Asner. Below, for the record, is the cast crawl in the closing credits:

Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The false Van Meer's actor
IMDb claims in its Full Cast & Crew list that an uncredited actor called Samuel Adams appeared in the role of Van Meer's Impersonator. If this is true, then the actor appearing in File:Foreign Correspondent trailer 20 Basserman.jpg would be Adams and not Albert Bassermann because it's a screenshot from a scene in which Van Meer has been replaced by the impostor. But it seems unlikely that that would not be Bassermann. Does anyone know more about this? Is IMDb wrong or did this Adams only play the character in one shot or something?--Risukarhi (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Explaining revert re: ffolliott
I've reverted your edit. ffolliott is supposed to be lower case in this movie. It's listed that way at AFI, but more importantly, the issue is discussed and explained in the movie itself. You don't have to watch the movie to confirm this, the dialog about this issue in the movie is reprinted at Talk:George Sanders in the section titled "ffolliott". -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Had to revert again. --  Pete Best Beatles (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)