उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

While certainly uncharacteristic of Hitchcock's American films this film still has the Master's unmistakable imprint. Joseph Cotton is excellent in his role as a common man who resents the upper class of which he can never be a part. The rest of the actors do a fine job including Ingrid Bergman's turn as Cotton's drunk half mad wife. Perhaps the best and most interesting aspect of the film is the gorgeous Technicolor cinematography by Jack Cardiff. Cardiff who is probably best known for his work with Powell and Pressburger does a great job bringing the rich color of this period piece to the screen. The camera work is also characteristically Hitchcock with many long traveling shots with wonderfully complex compositions. The pace is slow and lacking suspense, but the characters and the situations are interesting and make the film work despite the pacing problems. Certainly not one of Hitchcock's strongest films, but definitely worth watching.

In 1831, the new Governor (Cecil Parker) arrives in Sydney, Australia, with his noble but broken Irish cousin Charles Adare (Michael Wilding). On the next morning, Charles unsuccessfully goes to the local bank expecting to raise money to start a business and he meets the powerful landowner Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotton), an ex-convict that has raised a fortune in the colony. Sam proposes a business with lands with Charles and invites him to have dinner with him at his farm.

Charles learns that Sam is not accepted by the local society but he goes to the dinner party, where he meets Sam's wife Henrietta Flusky (Ingrid Bergman), an old acquaintance of his childhood in Ireland. Soon Charles discovers that Henrietta is alcoholic and a totally unstable woman controlled by the housekeeper Milly (Margaret Leighton), and Sam was the stable boy of her family in Ireland. They had fallen in love with each other and Henrietta elopes with Sam. However, her brother hunts them and Sam kills him and is deported to Australia. Charles stays in Sam's farm to help Henrietta and soon he falls in love with her. Meanwhile Sam is manipulated by Milly and his jealousy gets him into trouble and discloses dark secrets from his past with Henrietta.

"Under Capricorn" is a melodramatic romance by Alfred Hitchcock set in Australia in 1831, in the period of colonization of this great nation by convicts from the United Kingdom. The genre is unusual in the career of the master of suspense, but supported by magnificent cinematography and cast, highlighting Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotton, Michael Wilding and Margaret Leighton in a small but very important role. This film is not among my favorite Hitchcock's films and could be shorter. However, it is worthwhile watching it to see some aspects to the colonization of Australia. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Sob o Signo de Capricórnio" ("Under the Capricorn Sign")

Note: On 30 October 2024, I saw this film again.

It's a real shame (and also rather difficult to believe) that this film is so little-known and difficult to view. Even though it was directed by the famous Alfred Hitchcock (in my opinion, the most brilliant film director who ever lived), it has too often been dismissed as one of his "lesser works." To each his own, I suppose, but _Under Capricorn_ boasts some of the most beautiful photography and eloquent, literate dialogue to be found in any Hitchcock film. Although the plot and structure of the film are familiar (the quintessential love triangle, ala _Wuthering Heights_), Hitchcock's treatment raises it above the ordinary. The costumes and sets are actually quite lavish, and pay particular attention to the unique musical score! Hitchcock's experiments with the "ten-minute take" (with which he experimented in his previous film, _Rope_) also add to the film's interest. The film is not, of course, an artistic triumph for Hitchcock alone. Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotten (to name only two) are stars of the caliber that one just doesn't see anymore, and they give worthy performances. Casting Ingrid Bergman as an Irish noblewoman is, of course, rather bizarre casting against type, but this great actress makes it work. Joseph Cotten possesses the rougher qualities that his part demands, but his performance also elicits sympathy from the viewer (such as the scene where he is going to present his wife with a collar of rubies but then decides to hide his gift when she and Charles Adair comment that it wouldn't go with her gown). The other actors, mostly little-known to American audiences, fill their roles well more than adequately and the very fact that they are unfamiliar makes them easier for the viewer to see as the characters they play rather than as "stars." All in all, _Under Capricorn_ is an underrated masterpiece that is surely one of the best "costume" pictures of the 1940s. It is not for anyone seeking vicarious thrills or shocks, but for discriminating viewers who demand a coherent storyline, color photography that is aesthetically pleasing, literate dialogue and interesting casting, _Under Capricorn_ will fill the bill. I recommend it enthusiastically!

An oddball in Hitchcock's filmography, "Under Capricorn" has inspired scoffing detractors and passionate defenders over the years. Even though it's a melodrama about living with guilt rather than a typical Hitchcock suspense thriller, I was prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. After all, there's nothing inherently foolish about the subject matter, and at least Hitchcock is still exploring guilt, one of his favorite themes. Setting the movie in Australia during the penal-colony era lends a great potential for danger and drama—which it fails to exploit. Instead, "Under Capricorn" is a sedate, weighty "costume piece." Though the acting is good and there are some gorgeous images, these ultimately don't mean much because there isn't enough of a reason to care about the characters and story.

The problems start with the character of Charles Adare (Michael Wilding), a young man who comes to Australia to seek his fortune. He's the type of guy who'd make good comic relief but isn't suited to be the protagonist of a movie: a lazy, cheery, empty-headed aristocrat. Through Charles, we get introduced to some more interesting people: ex-convict Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotten) and his drunken, self-loathing wife Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman). Charles realizes that he knew Henrietta during childhood and tries to rehabilitate her, which causes long-repressed secrets and emotions to come to the surface. But since none of the characters initially engages our sympathy—Sam is brusque, Charles is a lightweight, and Henrietta is a mess—it's difficult to care about any of this.

Hitchcock experimented with long takes in this movie, most notably an unbroken 8-minute- long monologue where Henrietta finally divulges her guilty secret. In one sense, this is the high point of the movie: a chance to marvel at Bergman's talent as she cycles through her emotional range without the camera ever cutting away. But in another sense, this scene displays everything that's wrong with "Under Capricorn." Henrietta's story is full of exciting passion and violence, but none of that emotion shows up during the rest of the movie. And the performers (including Bergman, Cotten, and Margaret Leighton, who plays a sinister maid) are at their best during their long monologues, not when they interact with one another.

"Under Capricorn" is not a horrible movie, just a dull one, so if you're curious about this anomaly in Hitchcock's catalog, there's no harm in spending two hours watching it. But, certainly, this movie would be forgotten today if anyone else had directed it.

'Under Capricorn (1949)' is a film that will no doubt baffle a large proportion of Hitchcock devotees, if only because it discards almost all notions of creating suspense and commits itself to being a costume drama, set in Australia during the early 1800s. Perhaps the most rewarding way to view the film is from a technical standpoint, with Hitchcock recycling a technique he first employed in his 1948 masterpiece 'Rope,' and shooting each scene in one extended, uninterrupted take. While, in the previous film, this style was basically just an experimental gimmick {albeit, a highly effective one}, 'Under Capricorn' makes wonderful use of the technique, with his camera gliding gracefully through the prestigious home of ex-convict Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotten), coasting behind characters and rising above staircases; the amount of organisation that must have been required to plan and execute these complex maneuvers is nothing short of astonishing. The title of the film refers to the story's setting, with much of Australia sitting below the Tropic of Capricorn, one of the five major circles of latitude that mark maps of the Earth.

The 1830s Australian setting proves very appropriate for the material, with the events unfolding in a newly-formed society with a primitive form of law enforcement, occupied by convicts and ex-convicts alike, where one's past is a dark secret of which nothing may be spoken. When an ambitious Irishman, Charles Adare (Michael Wilding), arrives in the Southern Land, the nephew of the new governor (Cecil Parker), he falls into an awkward friendship with the well-respected Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotton), an ex-convict who has made a name for himself on this new continent. Sam's wife, the beautiful Lady Henrietta Flusky (Ingrid Bergman), has suffered a mental breakdown, and, being an old childhood acquaintance, Charles considers it his duty to help this troubled woman to abandon her alcoholism and regain confidence in herself. Sprinkled about this stuffy Gothic melodrama are minor elements of suspense {most notable in the final scene featuring the scheming maid (Margaret Leighton)}, claustrophobia {as in Hitchcock's 'Rebecca (1940),' the old mansion is an character unto itself} and murder.

Though the story of 'Under Capricorn' isn't particularly interesting, and outstays its welcome by about one reel, the film is a fascinating feature from Alfred Hitchcock, and, if nothing else, exists as a testament to the director's technical ingenuity. The picture was Hitchcock's second in Technicolor, and its disastrous box-office performance led to the closure of the short-lived Transatlantic Pictures, which had been formed by himself and associate Sidney Bernstein after World War Two. The acting in the film is solid all around, without being particularly noteworthy, but the characters have enough twists to their personality to keep us watching. Long held as the forgotten black sheep of Hitchcock's output {except by the French, who apparently adored it}, 'Under Capricorn' is a worthy addition to the director's filmography, and stands as must-see viewing for all students of cinema.

As a lover of Hitchcock I couldn't take 2 viewings of this one. The story has potential but the characters are horribly developed. The acting is fine, since the cast was superb. However, I wouldn't have wanted to be an actor in this one. Without spoiling, there is just too much anger without explanation. Too many characters lack character. The utter blindness of the leads to the glaring and painful flaws in the antagonists is almost comical. Finally, the sudden restoration of everyone's honesty and peace in the last scene is intolerable. A story is believable if the characters act like real humans would act. This film is an attempt to fool the viewer into thinking that a leopard can change it's spots in the blink of an eye! It is interesting to note that, even in a melodramatic story driven piece, Hitch still found a place for the falsely accused in the plot. Hitchcock was great, there will never be an equal, but, even he made a dud.. makes me feel better about myself!

If your approach to reviewing this movie is to compare it with Hitchcock's usual style, Under Capricorn will surely not compare. If, however, you can suspend your expectations and view it with an open eye and mind, you might see that, in its own right, it is an excellent film of the type I refer to as the "Victorian soap opera." Being an aficionado of this "genre", perhaps I'm biased; but I enjoyed immensely the leisurely pace, extended dialog (which unlike other reviewers, I found to be intelligent, graceful, and poetic). I found it to be gently suspenseful, never really being sure who would get the girl in the end, or even who might survive to the end.

Joseph Cotton was appealing, even though his character throughout much of the movie seemed to be villainous, and his reasons for being that way were quite apparent by the end of the film. My suspension of disbelief centered around Bergman's casting as an Irish aristocrat: once in awhile she managed to say a word that had an Irish flavor, but mostly she just sounded Swedish. However, that did not detract at all from her usual thoughtful performance. Michael Wilding irritated me a little with his foppish ways, yet even he managed to come off as a human being with faults and virtues...just like the rest of us. Leighton was superb and she, like Cotton, seemed to be a treacherous yet sympathetic character. I think it was the portrayals of complicated people with no one being painted as totally good or bad, the nuanced characterizations that I found so artistic yet real.

If you approach this movie without preconceptions, you might be drawn into it and appreciate Hitchcock's genius in an entirely different way.

UNDER CAPRICORN has always been dismissed, as Hitchcocks failure nr.1. Its not true (none of his film was failures) Hitchcock made a lot of masterpieces, therefore even a good film by him, would be dismissed. UC is a very strange Hitchcock film, but beautiful and interesting. Ingrid Bergman, who was briliant in NOTORIOUS and SPELLBOUND is not good in the leading role (she was said to be unconfortable under the shooting). Cotten is best, a very underrated actor. Its not one of Hitch masterpieces, but less can do it. 7/10

Under Capricorn, is along with Notorious, I Confess and Rear Window Hitchcocks greatest film. Under Capricorn has been greatly under appreciated mainly because it was a commercial failure and because Hitchcock talked the movie down saying that he only made it for Ingrid Bergman. The truth is that he had been working on getting it made for years, would he really put his production company under pressure on it's second project with a $2.5 million budget if he didn't care for it. Maybe part of its mixed reputation is because it's not a thriller, being a character driven movie, at just under two hours long its not you're typical Hitchcock movie. But the story is revealed in a wonderful way, with such a great romantic feeling that I'm amazed that it's not more highly thought off by the general public. If there ever was a more beautifully film movie I've never seen it. Ingrid Bergman is as she always is, brilliant; her 10-minuet scene in which she tells wilding the whole story of what happened is pure magic. Another great moment is when Bergman has locked herself in her room and wilding comes through her window. Joseph Cotton is also on top form. Really all that I've got left to say is if you haven't yet seen this film and you get the chance to don't waste that chance. I wish it would come out on DVD or video I've nearly worn my copy out.

It describes the aristocratic Irish lass Lady Henrietta Flusky (Ingrid Bergman miscasting as Irish girl)'s disastrous marriage to rakish stable-hand , an ex-inmate called Flusky (Joseph Cotten) banished Australia . When it takes place a tragic event , she follows her convict hubby out to 1830s Australia . Then , she turns to drink , becoming alcoholic , perhaps because of his neglect husband . When the governor's (Cecil Parker) nephew Hon. Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) visits them , he meets her on a bad situation , but he suspects she is being poisoned .

This is an ineffably romantic picture adapted from the Helen Simpson novel with echoes of ¨Rebecca¨ and ¨Suspicion¨ ; it packs tension , thrills , suspense , plot twists involving family skeleton and intense drama . This is an unexciting Hitch film in which Alfred even had the star of those two big Forties successes , ¨Spellbound¨ and ¨Notorious¨ , the great actress Ingrid Bergman playing with him again . The poignant romanticism that includes the suspenseful screenplay contains such surefire Alfred elements as the dominant housekeeper similarly to ¨Judith Anderson's Rebecca¨ , the skeleton in the cupboard and the confession of guilt towards the final . Here Alfred cast around in vain for another major success ; however , it was a real flop at box office . The movie , nevertheless , maintains a certain brightness , brilliance and elegance thanks to sweeping and overlong takes . Passable interpretation from the protagonist trio , such as Ingrid Bergman as the unsettling lady , Joseph Cotten as a lower-class man convicted of murder who is deported Australia where he makes fortune and Michael Wilding as an impulsive young becomes involved with the strange marriage . But Margaret Leighton took the acting honor to play the astute housekeeper . The film also displays expensive gowns , nice production design and glimmer cinematography in Technicolor by Jack Cardiff . It was remade in 1982 ¨Under Capricorn¨ an Autralian remake by Rod Hardy with Lisa Harrow , Julia Blake , Catherine Lynch .

After ¨39 steps¨ and ¨Jamaica Inn¨ Hitchcock was encouraged to go to America and promptly shot his first work in Hollywood hired by the great producer David O'Selznick , as he won Oscar to best picture for his first film there , titled ¨Rebeca¨ , being Hitchcock's first great American success in a classic story with a love story and suspense . Later , R.K.O , Radio Pictures Inc offered him the direction of ¨Suspicion¨ with Gary Grant and Joan Fontaine . Subsequently , he made ¨Notorious¨ and this slow-moving ¨Under Capricorn¨ , but , as he even admitted himself , basic mistakes were made in the preparation of the film . The motion picture is indispensable watching for Hithcock lovers , though it is definitely a lesser Alfred film as well as mite predictable , and rather verbose ; achieving a mediocre impact on his audience .

Unusual genre change for Hitchcock, a suspense-less western, crossed with romance and costume drama/ stage play, in the Land Down Under.

Long and lumbering mess of a movie, with Hitchcock more interested in setting up lengthy tracking shots than anything else. In the previous year's Rope, Hitchcock used the same trick to good effect, but here it seems to have no purpose, no relation to the story. In Rope, the long, unedited takes resembled an unblinking, all seeing eye.

Here, it seems like the same unblinking, all-seeing eye refuses to look away, even though it knows it should have looked away long ago.

The long, unedited takes look like master shots, or even just raw footage. It becomes somewhat hypnotic, dulling the senses to the dull screen story. It feels like we are just blankly staring into space, completely unaware of what is happening, but too bored to even look away. (Is that what the cinematographer felt?) It's like we are carrying on a dull conversation with someone, and that someone refuses to break eye contact, like they are waiting for us to suddenly become interested in the proceedings. A few close-ups were needed to bring out more detail, in the settings and performances, but as it is, it seems like the filmmakers couldn't even bother to do much editing.

The set designs and costumes all look good, but that cannot support the entire movie on its own. The film could have benefited (slightly) from on-location photography, but everything was filmed on soundstages in California.

Starts slowly, but then it looks as though it may get going and become interesting, but then it fizzles away, all within its first half hour. It doesn't really even have Hitchcock's usual sense of humour to liven the proceedings. A complete waste. Probably one of the few Hitchcock films that I could not sit through a second time.

With a great director, a good cast, and a relatively interesting premise, it's surprising that this doesn't work better than it does. The Australian setting has potential, as does Joseph Cotten's character and the tangle of relationships in his household. But, despite some good scenes, it never really comes together, and even when things start to happen, it never feels as if it has hit its stride.

There's little fault to be found with the settings, which are convincing enough. Some of the characters never really come to life, but there is still an interesting mix of them. The pace is one area that definitely could have been improved, and the pre-occupation with the long takes certainly doesn't help at all. The technique worked very well in Hitchcock's "Rope", because it meshed with the setting and the subject matter. It doesn't fit so well here in "Under Capricorn", and it often dilutes the suspense rather than increasing it.

By no means is it a total clinker - the story does have some interesting parts, and with a different approach it could have been suspenseful, even memorable. Hitchcock's technical skill is still present in many respects, and even Hitchcock's lesser achievements are still worth seeing.

The movie's overly-polished feel is consistent with the approach that was chosen. It's at least one case where the more familiar, less affected Hitchcock style would have resulted in a much better film.

I gave this movie four stars but feel I need to qualify it. Lets start with what's good about this.

Ingrid Bergman. When we first meet her, she's drunk and barefoot at a party. She plays drunk with a sad charm that still has a touch of the graceful woman she used to be. Coming down the stairs all dressed up But Ingrid combines a school girl's innocence with her more recent insecurity in a low key but beautiful way. Mainly her character is brought to life by remembering the past. We first see that twinge of remembrance when she realizes at the party that she knows Adare from long ago in Ireland. Her drunken whimsy is halted gently by her thinking about the past. Bergman shines when Adare makes an impromptu mirror to show her that she's still beautiful. When the servants play a cruel trick on her and she runs to her room, I felt truly sorry for her. Her final scene is wonderful. She's riveting, haunted by the past yet low key about it. She is the best thing about this movie.

The cinematography. Despite the bad quality of the print, we can see some of the unusual muted tones that mark the technicolor being made in Britain in the late 1940's.

The original story is great but the script, which I'll get to later, is not up to what's implied in the story. It's a story of class, and of role reversals. A high class woman like Henrietta (Bergman) becomes a prostitute and outcast in Australia. The well born gentleman Charles Adare (Wilding) finds himself to be useless in this new world. We even find out that the servant Winter was a gentleman back in Britain. Only the hardworking Flusky (Cotton) becomes successful. In an odd twist, his own working class servant Milly sees him not as the stable boy he was, but as the unreachable gentry that he's now becomes. Characters want to rise but can't while others fall socially yet become rich down under. This is all only spoken about. It's not done emotionally.

The script - first and foremost the problem is the script. Nothing happens. The action is all told in flashback. Now this sort of work had been done and done well - Jane Eyre, Dragonwick and Hitch's own Rebecca and Suspicion. The difference here is the script and the direction.

Low Budget - The costumes are great, and it looks like they spent some money on the set of the house, but that's about all we see in this. We see too much of the house. We see Bergman and Cotton in particular wearing the same clothing day after day.

The Long Takes - The long takes limit the impact of the film without adding much to it. It's an unneeded constraint that prevents the use of close ups and dramatic cuts.

Cotton and Wilding. Neither are any good. Wilding is stagey fop while Cotton doesn't even try other than to growl and simmer a bit. Neither even tries to seem Irish.

Overall a bad movie with one great performance, Bergman.

Viewers who admire Costume Dramas and Stage Plays are likely to give this Hitchcock Film a pass or maybe even apply accolades. But, in truth, this is really a bore and a chore to get through.

It is talky and purposely static in its composition of long takes, for what, who knows. It does pick up somewhat in the final third but by then snoozing Audiences will most likely not notice. It contains stiff performances and has a dull delivery and very slow pacing.

Its only appeal is its controversy. Fans of the Director can squabble, and the French gave us their opinion that it is one of the best Films ever made (say what?), and it does have enough curious elements to make it worth one viewing.

But be prepared for a long two hours and to top it off, most prints are faded and the glorious Technicolor that some are seeking remains lost in the Forties. So give it a go if you must, but no matter the talent involved it still remains a rather extravagant failure.

It was an enjoyable movie but I like the non-typical Hitchcock films.

Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotton are wonderful and I really like Michael Wilding (he was great in Stage Fright also).

This film was a little reminiscent of Gaslight (when I was a kid I thought Gaslight was a Hitchcock film) I really don't know why they say typical Hitchcock anyway, his films are really from one end of the spectrum to the other.

It was his only period piece so I was curious to see it I really liked this film and hope more people will give it a try, In my humble opinion his last 2 movies were the worst.

Hobbled for years by lead actor Joseph Cotten's retitling of it in his autobiography to "Under Corny Crap", "Under Capricorn" can be seen now for what it truly is, Hitchcock's parting gift to one of his favourite leading ladies, Ingrid Bergman. The first of only two films made by his newly formed production company, Transatlantic Pictures, ('Stage Fright" was the second), Bergman is very much the pivot around which the admittedly rather slow action revolves.

A period costume melodrama with some dark overtones, set in the early 18th Century colonial outpost of Australia, the film is beautifully shot in luminous colour and features the Master's usual fluid camera-work, occasionally employing the long takes he'd started using in his previous film "Rope". However, the film does for long periods lack real suspense and it's obvious that Hitch isn't completely at home with this very stagy material.

Still, once you get used to the slow pace and rather theatrical acting there are things to enjoy, besides just the camerawork. Bergman, although acting a part she'd played before of a psychologically troubled woman as in "Gaslight" and "Notorious", is radiant as the conflicted lady wife of jumped-up stable boy Cotten's brusque Sam Flusky character, who starts to get her strength and sanity back with the encouragement of her old boyfriend from old Ireland, the dandy-esque Michael Wilding's Charles Adare.

As dark secrets and hidden emotions come to light, involving Flusky's jealous and controlling house-mistress Milly, waspishly played by Margaret Leighton, there's a reasonably tense climax to proceedings before the expected happy denouement.

Ingrid's acting is like her Irish accent throughout the film, in that it comes and goes, Cotten doesn't have to do much other than pace about and look stern but future husband and wife Wilding and Leighton are better in their admittedly slightly meatier roles.

Hitchcock buffs will do the read-across from this film to others in his oeuvre which we always do looking for related themes, characters and scenes and here you'll find echoes of "Rebecca" with its designing housekeeper, "Notorious" with its vulnerable, conflicted female lead and "Rope" with its extended tracking shots.

I think old Joe was a little harsh in his judgement, for while "Under Capricorn" isn't as good as any of the three films I've just mentioned, it's still a stylish and well-made, if uneven movie, just crying out for a bit more grit and action to set it off.

Under Capricorn – Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

The great experiment – hire the best actors and give them long takes to act on sets, just as they would on stage. Their performances should sell tickets. Hitch couldn't understand that this was neither the time nor the place to make that gamble. To understand why this film seems so stilted compared to other Hitchcock films both before and after, you must understand the two acting styles between theater and film. William Wyler and other directors (including Hitch) were the first to recognize that because of film's intimacy with close up lenses, the use of large gestures, voluminous voices, and heavy emphasis on certain phrases tend to over dramatize when the image is expanded to a hundred foot screen.

Stage acting must sustain a performance when the actor is on stage – all the time the actor is on stage. A film actor isn't on stage or even in front of an audience (though sometimes the crew will behave that way to encourage an actor). Film is an intimate medium and is more a directors and editors medium. A shot can be shortened or cut to a differing length no matter how well an actor has performed at its conclusion. Consecutive shots make up the film process, not continuous performances.

The long takes in "Under Capricorn" serve to undermine the filmmaking process and Hitch would learn this lesson the hard way as this film failed with audiences. The movie is more a staged melodrama and less the kind of suspenseful film that cemented Hitchcock's reputations. After World War II, acting styles had changed radically. New York began to churn out actors from the Actor's Studio versus the Stanislavsky method that actors like Bette Davis employed. Instead of shooting what he needed for the plot, Hitchcock decided to let the actors perform. He never made a film this way again. Film is not theater for so many reasons and forcing it to be one makes for poor cinema. How many filmmakers learn that lesson the hard way?

The first day of shooting "Wuthering Heights," William Wyler almost fired Lawrence Olivier. "I don't care where you've acted or what you've done on stage, this is film and you must give me realism or we'll be here all day." Olivier learned to pull back under Wyler's direction. Hitch may have been the master of suspense, but he was no good when it came to evoking spontaneous performances. Once he went back to his formula way of making pictures, he became successful as evidenced in his next film, "Strangers on a train." "Under Capricorn" was an experiment that failed. Every auteur genius is allowed one or two in their career. Kubrick, Spielberg, Wyler – they all had them. Hitch had them, too.

I think this movie is a victim of expectations. Hitchcock was well established as a director of thrillers, and his reputation has long cemented as such. So, he comes along at one of the lowest moments of his Hollywood career (both Rope and The Paradine Case were financial failures and met with, at best, limited critical success) and instead of leaning into what people considered his strengths, he continued his experimental streak with long takes in a drama that had only minimal thriller elements he was known for. It really didn't help that the marketing department of Transatlantic Pictures didn't know how to market it, relying heavily on the small thriller elements that mostly appear in the later parts of the film. Audiences were sold a movie they didn't get, and modern audiences latch onto that original assessment while expecting something more traditionally Hitchcockian. It seems to be a rather unfortunate situation because Under Capricorn is a very effective drama that handles its low stakes very well with well drawn characters and using the long take like in Rope but more effectively.

Charles Adare arrives in Sydney, Australia in the time when the country was still a convict colony. He meets Samson Flusky, a wealthy man with a past no one will speak of (it being bad manners to discuss the past of a former convict). Flusky is no favorite of the elite, represented by the governor, and Adare's attachment to Flusky ends up ruffling some feathers. At Flusky's, Adare meets Flusky's wife, Henrietta, a woman he knew in childhood back in Ireland who has become a drunk and a recluse. Flusky seems uninterested in finding a solution for his wife's issues, but Adare quickly attempts to find ways to make her feel better, the first of which is to fire his gun into her fireplace, humoring her about shooting a rat she is convinced is in the room but without actually being there.

I think some of the criticism arises from the relationship between Adare and Henrietta. There are soft motions towards something like an affair, but it never really moves towards it fully, instead focusing on Adare's friendship towards the beautiful woman he knew in childhood. There are accusations of infidelity coming from Flusky's head maid, Milly, but they never really materialize as some great melodramatic fight. Instead, Flusky allows Adare to spend time with his wife, and the way Adare ends up going too far is by taking Henrietta to a ball (without a proper invitation) that the governor had thrown. Flusky, in frustration and anger, accidentally shoots Adare right after he had to shoot his own mare with a broken leg, sending Flusky into new trouble because of his status as an ex-convict. It's here that the revelations come out about the truth of Flusky's crime and Henrietta's involvement, Flusky's sentence and how Henrietta coped. It changes everything that came before it, casting everything we've seen in a brand new light. Flusky becomes far more sympathetic, his general disdain for Henrietta and her poor condition more understandable. Henrietta becomes more pitiful, and Milly is revealed to be a bit of a villain (something hinted at earlier).

It's the reveals around Milly that contain the thriller elements that Hitchcock was known for, particularly as evidenced by a shrunken head. It's the extra sort of push that helps to define Henrietta's behavior over the film while providing some last minute thrills for the film's climax, the reveal of which provides the final catharsis Henrietta requires to get into her final state.

The filmmaking as evidenced by the long camera takes are really bravura examples, but they also highlight why Hitchcock largely stopped using them. Before the invention of the Steadicam, the long take had to be accomplished through very complex set ups of tracks for the camera to dolly on as well as the ability to manipulate sets to accommodate the camera's placement. It was one thing to do it on the relatively simple set of Rope, but the mansion in Under Capricorn is much more complicated and the camera moves all the more complicated along with it. Hitchcock apparently broke a toe when the camera dolly ran over his shoe during one of the longer takes. The takes themselves work, though, because the focus of them is the characters and their dialogue, often moving from one subject to another and even to those just on the edge of the scene to highlight certain narrative elements. It wasn't showy for the sake of showiness, it was a concentrated technique done to enhance the narrative, and it works to help focus on the drama at play, the drama of two men and the broken woman in between.

I ended up loving this film. The stakes are small, but well-defined. The characters feel alive and imbued with all their own unique motives and personalities. The camera work is great and really does help define the drama. It's evidence of Hitchcock's long history of working as a contract director, able to move from project to project regardless of the type of story, and telling it well.

I had never gotten around to renting this one before. Somehow, it has always slipped under my radar. It came up finally under my Netflix queue and voilà! From 1949, Under Capricorn pairs up two of my favorite screen stars so this is another wonder that I had never seen this one yet. An uncharacteristic historical novel set to the screen for director Alfred Hitchcock, it stars Joseph Cotten and Ingrid Bergman as a married couple in 1830s Australia. You know what they say about Australia being populated by nothing but criminals. That is why Cotten was sent there from his home country of Ireland. Bergman followed him, foolishly in love.

The story starts with some Irish git gentleman that has not a penny in the world and wants to find his stake. He finds Cotten who is now one of the richest men in New South Wales. When he finally meets Bergman, and small world that it is as she was once his sister's best friend, she is drunker than a skunk and can barely stand.

That starts the slight mystery. There is a wicked staff employed by Cotten and some little things to figure out along the way, such as Bergman seeing things that aren't there. I was watching waiting for it to get better.

It was worth watching. I was enthralled at the characters. Cotten and Bergman again did supremely excellent jobs, although I thought Bergman overacting a bit during one emotional scene, making it the same acting job as in her movie GASLIGHT. The actor who played Charles the Irish gentleman, Michael Wilding, was okay, I mean, he played the role well, but I think it needed to be someone bigger, with a greater stage presence and rugged good looks. Maybe that is why I did not see the love triangle as anything but forced because he did not seem suave enough. That might just be my tastes there.

I just don't see why Hitchcock did this one. I will have to research that. He wasn't under his contract with David Selznick anymore. It had the feeling of a very well done made-for-TV movie. The soap opera elements made it interesting to watch. I had to keep watching just to find out how it would all explode.

For the Hitchcock fan, or a Cotten or Bergman fan, it was well worth watching. It is not one of Hitchcock's better movies, but then I am comparing this to some of his really supreme movies out there. Now that I have seen this once, I can check it off my list of Hitchcock movies and leave it at that. I will give it three out of five stars because I was interested in this the first time around, but unlike his other movies, I don't think I will go out of my way to see this one again.

When one thinks of Alfred Hitchcock, the "period drama" genre does not immediately come to mind. Unfortunately, "Under Capricorn" does nothing to sway that perception, as (despite some decent character development) it can best be described as ponderous and too full of bloated dialogue.

For a basic plot summary, "Under Capricorn" sees Lady Henrietta Flusky (Ingrid Bergman) of Australia struggling to maintain the household of husband Sam (Joseph Cotten). When childhood friend Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) comes for an unexpected visit, however, Henrietta begins to perk up and clash with current housekeeper Milly (Margaret Leighton). Along the way, a great deal of past history among all parties is drudged up.

The trouble with "Under Capricorn" is simple: there is absolutely no action/suspense whatsoever. The character development is actually decent, but none of the typical Hitchcock suspense or thrilling sequences are present in this movie. Just too much talking and not enough "doing", in essence.

The only redeeming factor for this film whatsoever is some great acting from Cotten, who truly carries this film. Bergman may be a great actress, but her character in this one just isn't all that intriguing. It is Cotten who is a joy to watch scene in and scene out.

Put simply, "Under Capricorn" is a slow-moving Hitch effort that just fails to captivate. It isn't terrible, per se, but there is very little excitement involved in the process. Unless you are a huge fan of Victorian-style love stories, or are (like me) making your way through the Hitch collection, I would say you can skip this one.