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.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.