Under Capricorn (1949)

Synopsis:

In the 1800s, a peniless Irish gentleman, Charles Adare (Michael Wilding, The Glass Slipper), arrives in Australia looking for a fresh start. After befriending a wealthy landowner, Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotten, Shadow of a Doubt), Adare immediately becomes smitten with Flusky’s troubled wife (Ingrid Bergman, Notorious).

Reaction & Thoughts:

“So many things have happened to us. So many things we don’t dare to talk about.”

Derided upon its initial release, Under Capricorn is often cited as one of Alfred Hitchcock’s dullest movies. To be honest, I was one of those people who never missed a chance to badmouth it. The film has, however, gown on me as I began to recognize its skillful handling of complex themes such as guilt, and romantic obsession.

I must first warn prospective viewers: despite Hitch’s reputation as the indisputable Master of Suspense, this isn’t really a thriller, this is a gothic romantic melodrama. The screenplay by renowned Scottish playwright James Bridie was based on the 1937 historical novel by Helen de Guerry Simpson. While Bridie’s script is unnecessarily wordy at times, it’s very good at exploring the ethos of the Hitchcock-verse.

As I stated before, Under Capricorn examines in depth things like crippling guilt and obsessive love, all common themes of Hitchcock films. And, as usual, the director expounds the distressing idea that love hurts. But by the same token, the movie suggests that love can heal almost anything. In the end, love is presented as both a disease and a medicine. It’s a provocative idea that can spark stimulating conversations.

However, for better or worse, discussions about the movie are often centered around its technical elements. The film features amazingly complicated long takes, as in Hitchcock’s previous film, Rope (1948). I’m sure most people are going to disagree with me, but I thought the unbroken takes worked much better here than on Rope, a movie that has always struck me as being nothing but a peculiar technical stunt.

Here Hitchcock saves the long takes for very specific moments, therefore the technique, in my opinion, felt organic. For example, I liked how Hitch shot Ingrid Bergman’s pivotal monologue, one of the actor’s finest moments on the screen. It’s a powerful, gut-wrenching sequence precisely because Hitchcock doesn’t break the scene into little pieces. You experience Bergman’s mental deterioration in real time.

Despite Hitch’s best efforts, Under Capricorn does have plenty of flaws. First, as beautiful as Jack Cardiff’s (Black Narcissus) color cinematography is, I thought the movie would have worked much better in black and white. It’s a gloomy, depressing story, and the gorgeous Technicolor hues clash with the gothic atmosphere.

In addition to that, I had a hard time accepting Swedish Bergman and American Joseph Cotten as an Irish couple. I would have hired James Mason (Hitchcock wanted Burt Lancaster, Elmer Gantry) and Deborah Kerr (The King and I). But Michael Wilding is perfect as a destitute Irish gentleman, and Margaret Leighton (John Ford’s Seven Women) nearly steals the show as Cotten’s conniving housekeeper.

Conclusions & Final Thoughts:

Under Capricorn is still one of Alfred Hitchcock’s most polarizing movies decades after its release. Filmmakers Peter Bogdanovich (The Last Picture Show) and François Truffaut (The 400 Blows) praised the movie to high heavens. Joe Walsh, a British critic and journalist, went even further and called it his favorite Hitchcock movie. Truth be told, I don’t know a single person who loves the movie. Personally, I think Under Capricorn has as many flaws (it’s talky, it’s slow as molasses) as it has virtues (amazing tracking shots, good performances). On a second look, I have concluded that the good outweighs the not-so-good. It’s a divisive movie, alright. Color, 117 minutes, Not Rated.

Hitch’s cameo

Theatrical Trailer: