Under Capricorn (1949)

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

From my favorite movies..

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Strangely unexciting yet charming movie. Definitely not Hitchcock's best, one can even say that 'Under Capricorn' might belong in great master's few lesser films. Maybe that is the problem - most people probably went into the film expecting typical Hitchcock suspense, but there was very little of that. Even with saying that, 'Under Capricorn' still manages to be entertaining enough and almost two hour run time didn't feel like suffering (by that I mean, at least I didn't force to sit myself through - the film was entertaining). Costume dramas and Victorian soap operas are not Hitch's trademark, and that particular film is only recommended to those who feel the need to see every Hitchcock film, or fans of particular type of melodramatic period pieces.The casting, although all wonderful actors, is off. It needs to have suspense of disbelief to buy the characters as Irish - Wilding sounded like genuine Englishman, Cotten sounded like American, and magnificent Ingrid Bergman sounded like Swede. To put that aside the performances were little above 'just hamming it out' category thus making the film more tolerable.

The main problem with this film is that it is quite dull. At this time the master was into some sustained images carrying things. The camera scans and moves across the screen with few cuts or inserted images. Granted, there are some nice images, with Australia an interesting locale for this film. The problem is the casting, the pace, and the plot itself. We are never engaged in the confusing plot. Hitchcock was about suspense and there is little here. It's as if he needed to make a mainstream film. Ingrid Bergman, one of my favorite all time actresses, is really miscast here. Joseph Cotten, a staple in the Hitchcock films does a decent job but is swimming upstream the whole time. If you want to see this as a curiosity, it keeps one engaged, but it's too bad he didn't find another project.

It describes the aristocratic Irish lass Lady Henrietta Flusky (Ingrid Bergman miscasting as Irish girl)'s disastrous marriage to rakish stable-hand , an ex-inmate called Flusky (Joseph Cotten) banished Australia . When it takes place a tragic event , she follows her convict hubby out to 1830s Australia . Then , she turns to drink , becoming alcoholic , perhaps because of his neglect husband . When the governor's (Cecil Parker) nephew Hon. Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) visits them , he meets her on a bad situation , but he suspects she is being poisoned .This is an ineffably romantic picture adapted from the Helen Simpson novel with echoes of ¨Rebecca¨ and ¨Suspicion¨ ; it packs tension , thrills , suspense , plot twists involving family skeleton and intense drama . This is an unexciting Hitch film in which Alfred even had the star of those two big Forties successes , ¨Spellbound¨ and ¨Notorious¨ , the great actress Ingrid Bergman playing with him again . The poignant romanticism that includes the suspenseful screenplay contains such surefire Alfred elements as the dominant housekeeper similarly to ¨Judith Anderson's Rebecca¨ , the skeleton in the cupboard and the confession of guilt towards the final . Here Alfred cast around in vain for another major success ; however , it was a real flop at box office . The movie , nevertheless , maintains a certain brightness , brilliance and elegance thanks to sweeping and overlong takes . Passable interpretation from the protagonist trio , such as Ingrid Bergman as the unsettling lady , Joseph Cotten as a lower-class man convicted of murder who is deported Australia where he makes fortune and Michael Wilding as an impulsive young becomes involved with the strange marriage . But Margaret Leighton took the acting honor to play the astute housekeeper . The film also displays expensive gowns , nice production design and glimmer cinematography in Technicolor by Jack Cardiff . It was remade in 1982 ¨Under Capricorn¨ an Autralian remake by Rod Hardy with Lisa Harrow , Julia Blake , Catherine Lynch .After ¨39 steps¨ and ¨Jamaica Inn¨ Hitchcock was encouraged to go to America and promptly shot his first work in Hollywood hired by the great producer David O'Selznick , as he won Oscar to best picture for his first film there , titled ¨Rebeca¨ , being Hitchcock's first great American success in a classic story with a love story and suspense . Later , R.K.O , Radio Pictures Inc offered him the direction of ¨Suspicion¨ with Gary Grant and Joan Fontaine . Subsequently , he made ¨Notorious¨ and this slow-moving ¨Under Capricorn¨ , but , as he even admitted himself , basic mistakes were made in the preparation of the film . The motion picture is indispensable watching for Hithcock lovers , though it is definitely a lesser Alfred film as well as mite predictable , and rather verbose ; achieving a mediocre impact on his audience .

"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.