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

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

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.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

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

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .