bragant Review of Under Capricorn

Under Capricorn (1949)

Perhaps THE most underrated movie of the 20th century!

[9/10 · 6 November 2009]

A critical and commercial disaster, UNDER CAPRICORN remains burdened with the reputation of being the worst film Hitchcock ever directed. Hitchcock didn't help by publicly dismissing the film in his famous interviews with Truffaut, noting that it was such a failure that the money men repossessed the negative. Even the film's own stars had nothing good to say about it - Joseph Cotten nicknamed it "Under Crap-ricorn," while Ingrid Bergman fought with Hitchcock during its production over her character. Furthermore, UC was cursed by bad timing - within days of its premiere, the massive scandal of Ingrid Bergman's relationship with Roberto Rossellini exploded. Bergman was condemned on the floor of the US Congress as an adulteress, and audiences stayed away from her latest release in droves. Even now, most regard UC as a "dud" - a complete misfire and one of Hitchcock's rare failures. I wish to suggest that the majority opinion on this film is totally wrong! UNDER CAPRICORN is in fact one of Hitchcock's richest, most rewarding films, in my opinion one of his very best works, ever - better than PSYCHO, better than glossy baubles like TO CATCH A THIEF or NORTH BY NORTHWEST, and MUCH better than the bloated and fatuous VERTIGO! It is true that UC is unique in Hitchcock -he had never done anything quite like this before, and would never attempt a "straight drama" again. If you are expecting a typical "Hitchcock" picture - this isn't it and you will be badly disappointed. If on the other hand you are ready for a deep emotional experience presented via a cinematic technique so audacious it will take your breath away, then see this film NOW. Set in Australia in the 1830s, the plot revolves around the marriage of former convict Sam Flusky (Cotten) and his wife Lady Henrietta Considine (Bergman). Years earlier, Flusky was a groom on the lavish estate of Lady Henrietta's family. We are told that the pair fell deeply in love and eloped, an action which resulted in Flusky killing Lady Hetty's brother and his subsequent deportation to Australia. Now, Flusky has accumulated a huge fortune, but he cannot find acceptance in local society, not because of his past, but because of his wife. Lady Henrietta is an unstable alcoholic who stays in bed all day and is under the control of her own housekeeper, Milly (Margaret Leighton), a woman with delusions of her own regarding her future with the master of the house, and some very unpleasant intentions towards her mistress...One day, Flusky meets Charles Adare (Michael Wilding), a high-born Irish gentleman and former friend of Lady Henrietta, and enlists his help in curing the suffering woman. With Adare's aid, Lady Henrietta comes out of her depression, but things take a turn for the worse when Adair falls in love with her and triggers Flusky's jealous temper. Yet not all is as it seems in the Flusky house, and Lady Henrietta has a few secrets of her own...Many reviewers complain that this film is "talky," and the plot is largely driven by dialogue and conversation, but the script is so well-written and intelligent that it demands a level of attention from the viewer that most are not willing to provide, either in 1949 or today. Cotten's tormented, insecure Sam Flusky is one of the masterpieces of his career, and Bergman is astounding as Lady Henrietta. I have never seen a Hitchcock film which presented character and human motivation with such depth and insight. There are no shallow emotions, no cliché characters - each is present as a fully realized person. I was moved to tears for the entirety of the last 25 minutes of the film, and never before have I seen a Hitchcock film where the characters were so realistically written and portrayed. On another level, the film is also a critique of British colonialism and the class-system. Finally, I would like to say something about the film's technique. UC was the immediate follow-up to 1948's ROPE, in which Hitchcock used very long takes lasting up to 10 minutes to create the illusion of a story taking place in "real time." UC continues and develops this experiment, bringing the long take to a peak of development. Long takes have never been fashionable in commercial film-making, and are even less so in our current age, where frenzied MTV editing is the rule. UNDER CAPRICORN offers a very different aesthetic - some shots last for as long as 8 minutes, but Hitchcock constantly moves the camera so that the film never seems static. There are some sequences which will literally make you gasp in awe. Yet the technique is never forced or obtrusive - you might not even notice that some scenes are done entirely in one shot because the camera moves so subtly that you find yourself looking at a new composition without being aware that there has been no cut or editing. The technique gives the actors room to breathe and leaves the audience with a sense of emotional immediacy like nothing else I have ever seen - you don't just watch UNDER CAPRICORN - you LIVE it. I wish I had ignored what everybody else said about this movie and watched it for myself YEARS AGO! Don't listen to the bad reviews here - see UNDER CAPRICORN now and decide for yourself!