Skip to main content

You took part in an unsavoury debauch with the scum of the convict colony!

Under Capricorn
(1949)

(SPOILERS) Under Capricorn remains one of Hitchcock’s most under-the-radar films, particular so considering it comes just before his most feted, populist period. An independent picture and an adaptation of Helen Simpson’s 1937 novel, it became a massive flop; Truffaut suggested that many of Hitch’s admirers regarded it as his very best work, but I think a citation would definitely be needed on that one (apart from Cahier du Cinema voting it one of the ten greatest movies of all time in 1958, suffering no doubt from an especially pseudish malaise). Like many of the directors’ films where you can’t readily identify what attracted him to the material, the results are simply “okay”; Under Capricorn’s a serviceable melodrama most distinguished by the self-imposed technical rules to keep him interested.

As such, it’s little surprise that Hitchcock indicated he probably wouldn’t have made Under Capricorn, if not for his star Ingrid Bergman (their third collaboration; it was also his second with co-star Joseph Cotton). And yet, he noted her presence “made the whole thing so costly that there was no point to it” and readily confessed that getting her went to his head, the act of being able to return to England with the biggest star of the day (“I can only say now that I was being stupid and juvenile”).

Set in 1831 Sydney, Under Capricorn finds Michael Wilding’s Charles Adare – think a David Tennant type, with a similar penchant for flippant frivolity – arriving penniless and without prospects, barring being upper class and having an uncle as governor (Cecil Parker, The Lady Vanishes). The latter forbids his consorting with successful businessman Samson Flusky (Cotton). Flusky’s so successful that he offers Charles money as a means to circumvent land ownership regulations. Adare is more taken with Flusky’s lush wife Lady Henrietta (Bergman), who turns out to be a family friend. He sets himself on improving Henrietta’s health and well-being, initially with Flusky’s approval and the opposition of housekeeper Milly (Margaret Leighton, later to marry Wilding), who does her utmost to put an end to Adare’s influence and suggest something is going on between him and Henrietta.

Which it is, to an extent, although Henrietta is, in the end, devoted to Flusky. The biggest problem with Under Capricorn, which ticks along in a mildly engaging fashion, is that as much as it doesn’t want to offer an outright villain of the piece, by the same token there’s no one really to relate to. Adare has carefree charisma going for him, particularly when it comes to dealing with his overbearing uncle, but he’s too easily capable of underhand behaviour and duplicity; if he was the gentleman Flusky, a commoner with a huge chip on his shoulder, disdains so much, he certainly would not have continued consorting with Henrietta when he was aware of his feelings for her. And his decision to gate-crash his uncle’s ball backfires spectacularly for all concerned, particularly since it leads to him getting shot.

Bergman, meanwhile, is so enormously wet, or soaked, that Henrietta may well have represented an appealing prospect for all the “acting” it promised but her lead is rendered ineffectual and underdeveloped, with none of the agency of Joan Fontaine in Rebecca. Sure, she gets her moment at the ball, and manages to spy out that Milly is trying to poison her, but she’s otherwise a permanently wilting violet. Cotton is fine as a hard-to-like man with a grudge, and manages to telegraph that Flusky is trying to do the right thing in spite of himself, but he never really convinces as someone Bergman would have fallen for; we need to see that in there somewhere for the picture to have any hope of balance and conflicted sympathies. Ironically, for all that she’s written heavy-handedly – the class divide is pertinent, but too broadly signposted – complete with confession of her feelings for Flusky at the end, I found Leighton’s the most interesting performance of the main quartet.

Hitch was critical of his own approach, but also of his choice of writers (actor Hume Cronyn and James Bridie) and the third act, which does somewhat fizzle into nothing; it looks as if Flusky, a former convict, may be sent back to the colony, while Henrietta stands the prospect of a murder charge (for the act that had Flusky transported in the first place). Everything is resolved with a conspicuous lack of tension and drama, however.

As Truffaut noted, there are some strong gothic elements in the mix that echo Rebecca, in particular the domineering housekeeper and the element of a house full of brooding secrets; there’s even a shrunken head in a box for good measure. But Under Capricorn has very little atmosphere, or personality of location. It was shot in England and California, so there’s no real antipodean flavour. And while it’s perhaps most notable for Hitch’s use of long takes (from six to eight minutes), they feel more like a conceit than anything truly justified. I don’t think they actively harm the film – one only really becomes over aware of them sporadically, when they draw attention to themselves – but it’s easy to concur with the director’s feeling that the fluid camera was “probably a mistake, because the easy flow emphasised that the picture wasn’t a thriller”.

Hitch also expressed regret that Under Capricorn lacked a sense of humour (“If I were to make another picture in Australia today, I’d have a policeman hop into the pocket of a kangaroo and yell, ‘Follow that car!’”) To be fair, Wilding’s casual insolence does provoke occasional amusement, and there’s a nice little sequence where three competing convict cooks vie for whose breakfast will result in permanent head of the kitchen duties. It’s true however, that there’s a staid quality that rather underlines that Hitch’s decision to steer clear of period pictures in future was likely a wise one. He finds himself bound by the historical confines, rather than discovering a new arena to explore.






Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.