Lame de fond

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.

Expecting something completely different when I saw the cast-list, this movie took me by surprise. Hepburn discarding more or less her usual screen-persona holds this mystery-thriller together with a strong performance.Robert Taylor returning from service in WW II,takes another step from those pretty boy parts of his early career. Robert Mitchum,still fresh after his breakthrough, is more or less wasted in a supporting role. Clearly patterned after earlier successes like Preminger's "Laura" and Hitchcock's "Rebecca" this movie isn't quite in the same league,but it still better than most.This is another title I hope will arrive on DVD.

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" 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".

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.