Under Capricorn (1949)

When we think of Alfred Hitchcock, we think of suspense: murders in showers, avian attacks, etc. "Under Capricorn" is a different turn for the Sultan of Suspense. Focusing on a love triangle in 1800s Australia, the emphasis is on the relationships between the characters, especially between a new arrival (Michael Wilding) from Ireland and the unhappy wife (Ingrid Bergman) of a businessman (Joseph Cotten). The plot does have a hint of "The Postman Always Rings Twice" but goes in its own direction. While watching the movie I didn't catch Hitch's cameo, which turned out to be more subtle than his more famous ones.The movie's strength lies in Bergman's and Cotten's characters. They play their roles forcefully enough to shock the audience, even though there's minimal suspense. There's a scene with a shrunken head that looks to me as if it may have inspired the notorious horse scene in "The Godfather". In the end I wouldn't call this one of Hitch's greatest movies, but still worth a watch.

"Under Capricorn", a 1949 costume drama by Alfred Hitchcock, stars Michael Wilding as Charles Adare, a penniless Irishman who arrives in 1830s Australia. Here he fraternises with various noblemen, and mingles with Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotton), an ex-convict who now heads a small business empire. Flusky's wife, Lady Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman), hails from a prestigious family. She's also an alcoholic, chronically poisoned by her maid Milly (Margaret Leighton), a woman who secretly pines for Flusky.Alfred Hitchcock's films often hinge on incredible emotional violence. In "Under Capricorn", we see a complex web of love, hate, guilt and class based insecurity. Sam's ashamed of his lowly social position, as is his maid, whilst Charles and Henrietta embody a aristocratic class who sacrifice wealth, land and even romance, for the betterment of those few they love.Slow, overly verbose and repetitive, "Under Capricorn" was a box-office flop. It would be mauled by critics, though several would hail it as a masterpiece. It's not, but Hitchcock nevertheless sketches a number of interesting moments. Sam's homestead, for example, is portrayed as a Gothic nightmare, complete with vampiric figures, creepy witches and shadowy conspiracies. Hitchcock also utilises a number of incredibly complex long-takes, some of which would require sets to open up and roll away, mid shot. Other sequences required all lighting equipment and cables to be quickly concealed and repositioned mid-shot, as Hitchcock's camera would often spin around and double back on itself. Such camera work is commonplace today, but in Hitchcock's era, an era of massive, bulky cameras, constituted a logistical nightmare. Bizarrely, this preoccupation with elaborate camera-work may be exactly what ruins "Under Capricorn"; Hitch pays little attention to dialogue, plot, pacing and seems oblivious to his film's unfolding drama."Under Capricorn" resembles several other Hitch flicks. It strongly recalls "Rebecca" and "Suspicion", whilst its tale of poisoning resembles a key subplot in Hitchcock's "Notorious". "Capricorn's" domineering housekeepers, and women who degrade themselves for their lovers, are also traits found in a number of other Hitchcock films. "Under Capricorn" was based on a comedic novel by Helen Simpson. There's no comedy in Hitchcock's film, though, which plays things as a straight, Gothic psychodrama.5/10 – Worth one viewing.

a meritorious film for its cast. and for its place in Hitchcock filmography, a romance isle in a large ocean of thriller/crime. the story is far to be new and that is its basic virtue , remembering the others stories. the acting is only correct. Ingrid Bergman gives vulnerability nuances to her character who can be another Paula Alquist and Ilsa Lund in same package. Joseph Cotten is the best choice for the outsider and Michael Wilding creates a splendid ingredient for a story with many common ingredients of romantic film. far to be a bad movie, it is only ordinary, stage for its actors to remember the nuances of each of them art. soft, nice, charming. a piece from a very long chain.

None of Alfred Hitchcock's films are terrible, even his weakest film(for me) Jamaica Inn. But that is not to say that Hitchcock, my favourite director, hasn't done any disappointing work, Jamaica Inn, The Paradine Case and this were. Under Capricorn is a very beautifully made film, as with all Hitchcock's films with the cinematography being Under Capricorn's best quality and the costumes and sets are very sumptuous. There are times where the score is not as fitting with the mood as it could have been, but much of it did and the score itself is marvellously orchestrated and overall very effective as a score. Ingrid Bergman is very good in a sensitive and magnetic performance, out of this and Spellbound I felt she was a little better here. Michael Wilding doesn't have much to do but gives his all and is very handsome. Margaret Leighton steals the film, wonderfully vicious she is. Under Capricorn does have its failings though. Hitchcock is one of cinema's greatest, but there isn't much in Under Capricorn to allow him to bring his own style to it, to the extent that like Jamaica Inn it didn't feel like a Hitchcock film. Joseph Cotten for me was miscast, too stiff and too much like a gentleman with not enough of the brooding persona that his character should have been, the latter of which he did successfully bring to Shadow of a Doubt so I don't know what happened here. The script has a lot of talk but a lot of it comes across as corny, emotionally cold and overwrought, while the story, the subject matter of which is actually great, is executed in ponderous and overly melodramatic fashion and seems rather thin also. Complex it is, but this is done with not that much depth. With the cast, the characters could have been interesting but suffered from being underwritten and characterless. In conclusion, well made but lacking and disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox