Les amants du Capricorne

This is one of Hitchcock's very best films.

1831: Irishman Charles Adare arrives in Australia to make his fortune, and soon hooks up with Sam Flusky, a wealthy landowner with a shady past and a business proposition. Ignoring the orders of his cousin, a local Governor, Charles continues to associate with Flusky and his alcoholic wife Henrietta, who was a friend of Charles' sister many years ago back in Ireland.

The long takes the film is composed of are often masterful. Whereas his previous film Rope felt like a gimmicky experiment (albeit a successful one), here the technique is perfected, and actually serves a purpose. It widens the scope to allow the actors room to deliver fine performances, and to exploit the lavish sets. It also serves to narrow the scope, either to focus attention or withhold crucial information until the last moment (it's especially effective at these two). This focusing/concealing also adds to the sense of Bergman's isolation and entrapment in her environment, and allows for some of the film's best shots.

I'm not a fan of Jack Cardiff, but his colour cinematography is considerably less jarring here than in his Powell-Pressburger outings, and although it does take a while to adjust the eyes, it's perfectly suited to the mood and setting.

Ingrid Bergman delivers what I consider to be her best performance. Henrietta is frail and very vulnerable - a pathetic creature. Yet the strength and dignity that she once possessed is glimpsed at the outset, and gradually comes to the fore without ever completely displacing that vulnerability.

Joseph Cotten likewise does an excellent job. His crippling inferiority complex dictates everything he does, and it's where the film gleans much of its drama. In his own way he's equally as pathetic as Henrietta; trapped in a different kind of mental prison. Sometimes he's unaware of his cruelty, believing himself to be doing the right thing; at others it's as if he can't help himself. He's a man who constantly tries to do good things, yet at every turn he's thwarted either by his own secret past, or his fear of that past. For a man so ostensibly powerful he's easy to knock down, and his reaction to these setbacks just reinforces his own negative perception of himself. This conflict is written on his every gesture and expression.

Michael Wilding's performance as Charles is less technically brilliant, but as the carefree, opportunistic cad who sees in Henrietta the chance to do an act of great kindness he's wonderful. There is great humanity in all three leads, but it's most overt and infectious in Wilding.

It is 1831 and Irishman Charles Adare travels to the forming country of Australia with his cousin who is taking up the position of Governor. Seeking his fortune, Adare settles with "bad company" when he meets the former criminal-made-good, Flusky and accepts an invitation to his home. When Adare meets Flusky's wife he remembers her as a child growing up in Ireland. However it appears that "Lady" Flusky is disliked an avoided by her peers because she is an alcoholic and her own house is run by maid Milly while she hides in the corners. Adare's attempts to get Henrietta to return to her former self causes tensions and buried secrets to be unearthed.

I leave the debate over whether this is Hitchcock's worst film to those that debate such things and try to list everything – comparing apples and potatoes seemingly for the sake of it. As surprising as it may be, I'm not one of those but I can understand why this film has been labelled such by others because it is surprisingly run-of-the-mill for that great director. The story is soapy etc on the surface but it had great dark potential with so many threads and emotions floating around. It is surprising then that none of them are made more of and the film just sticks with the genre by becoming nothing more than an acceptable period melodrama. There is still just about enough about it to make you remember that this was from Hitchcock but I was disappointed by how straight-down-the-line it actually was in the end. The direction is still good though, with nice camera movements and shots, and the sets are colourful enough to fit the genre (if not the spirit of birthing Australia).

The cast try hard but nobody can lift the material all by themselves. To his credit, Cotton tries hard with a brooding and dark performance but he can't do it alone. Bergman is good and could have done wonders with a much more complex character, in the end what she has to deliver is nothing special and just melodrama. I didn't care for Wilding; his performance wasn't up to much and I dn't think he eld his own that well alongside Cotton and Bergman. Support from Parker and Leighton is solid but they aren't given that much to do.

Overall then this is a serviceable enough melodrama but it is easy to see why fans of Hitchcock would be forgiven for expecting more to have been made of it. The cast is good and the potential is there in the story but, aside from a steady hand and a few interesting touches, this is really just a genre melodrama that could have been more than it was.

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.

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.

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.