Lame de fond

Ann Hamilton (Katharine Hepburn) is a homebody who helps her chemist father (Edmund Gwenn) with his inventions and experiments. He sells his latest invention to a company owned by Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor). He and Ann have a whirlwind courtship, have a small quick wedding at her home, and then he whisks her away to his home in Washington.

But this is where this film picks up this haunted Mrs. Danvers vibe. Alan becomes quite disturbed and angry at even the mention of his brother Michael's name. Alan says Michael robbed his first company blind and put it under but always had this smooth cultured veneer that fooled people and made him feel like an also ran. He says Mike fought in WWII and he hasn't heard from him since he joined the army and has no idea where he is. Alan has no other living relatives, so Ann has to accept this explanation. Alan is so disturbed by the thought of Michael that he has removed all pictures with either Mike or his mother - Mike was her favorite - from his home, his office, everywhere.

But Ann becomes obsessed with learning about Mike, and more than that, what became of him. Because she is beginning to wonder if her new husband murdered Mike. Complications ensue.

Maybe an individual might make the headstrong decision to marry in haste, but Ann's dad and his housekeeper (Marjorie Main) were encouraging her and even cheering her on. Was Ann eating them out of house and home or was it just the convention of that time that even a marriage with a troubled person was better than never having been married at all? I guess if I'm going to watch the films of the 1940s I should be prepared to deal with the social mores of the 1940s.

These were good roles for both Robert Taylor and Katharine Hepburn as it let them stretch their acting wings and break out of the material that MGM normally put them in.

I can't be unbiased. This is the film that brought me into classic film - the first full film I ever saw on TCM. It means more to me than the favored classics. It gave me the greatest gift.

Undercurrent (1946)

Melodrama with Katherine Hepburn instead of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford?

Yes. And it works, though differently. Hepburn rules the movie, for sure, and she covers some range from sweet daughter of a scientist to a rich man's wife losing her innocence to someone who rises up on her own two feet. She's still the classy (or stiff) Hepburn (depending who you ask). I like her, and I liked her in this film a lot.

The plot uses a whole range of clichés but uses them well. The slight twists to what you expect are never shocking, but they keep you guessing. The second big star, seemingly, is Robert Mitchum, but if you are a fan of his, don't see the movie for his role. It's exceedingly minor. A very strange contract arrangement on that one. When he is there, it's undramatic, though he's in command, of course. The other male lead, Robert Taylor, is his usual reasonable, appropriate self--carefully chosen words to avoid saying a little starchy and ordinaire. One bit part is predictably colorful, Marjorie Main with her earthy comebacks.

Director Vincente Minnelli is in good form here, actually, and if the movie seems routine, it's the story that holds it back. He has some great photography behind it all (Karl Freund), and the score is unusually effective and beautiful (Herbert Stothart). I wouldn't call it a film noir, though it has shadings of the style and it's from that post war dark period. Instead, it's a noir melodrama. Worth seeing, absolutely, if you like those kinds of films.

The first time I saw undercurrent, I was as disturbed as everyone else by the soporific pacing.

Having just seen it for the second time, I have to say that there is much detail to enjoy. As in most Minnelli pictures, I enjoyed the awkward party scenes, in which elegant extras enjoy themselves while the principals cringe.

Katharine Hepburn is in her "insecure" mode, like in Summertime, and she is very good. The role would have been more natural for, say, Jeanne Crain.

Most enjoyable is Jayne Meadows, as a cold fish you can't quite figure out. She is incredibly beautiful in the ladies'lounge scene. Both her scenes with Hepbburn crackle with 1940s psychological intensity.

"Undercurrent" is a surprisingly effective mystery/"chick flick," given elements that could have sunk a lesser effort. For example:

o Dr. Bangs gives away one of the movie's secrets VERY early in the plot (Before Hepburn marries Taylor) o The behavior of some of the supporting players (for example, Mr. Warmly's first scene) aren't really consistent with the denouement o Katherine Hepburn, at 39, is not an altogether convincing object of desire for her younger costars o While Robert Taylor gives a great performance, the first hints of his instability come too early in the film o Third billed Robert Mitchum has about five minutes screen time and his character has no part of the physical action.

Perhaps, if it were not for the tremendous skill with which "Undercurrent" has been acted and directed, these apparent shortcomings might have mattered more. Certainly, casting Taylor and Mitchum against type was a stroke of genius. Further, the more one watches Katherine Hepburn's brilliant performance, the more one realizes "Undercurrent" would have been far less successful using a more "age appropriate" actress, unless she were equally skilled (Olivia De Havilland? Joan Bennett?). However, in addition to brilliant acting, Hepburn carries a cool, self-assured demeanor as part of her persona; which makes her apparent helplessness later in the film much more suspenseful, if not downright terrifying. Given that Hepburn is in virtually every scene, it's really Hepburn's movie and she doesn't disappoint.

I give "Undercurrent" a "7".