IMDb user comments for
Under Capricorn (1949)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Index

24 comments in total

---

20 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
An lesser-known and underrated Hitchcock masterpiece!, 6 May 1999
Author: George-n-Kansas from Topeka, KS

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!

---

14 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Hitchcocks Greatest?, 8 September 2000

Author: desol-2 from London,England

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.

---

9 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Underrated, 16 September 2002

Author: pgs-1 from DK

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

---

10 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
An Odd Misfire From A Great Director, 13 October 2004
Author: Snow Leopard from Ohio

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.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Underrated and beautifully photographed, 17 March 2005

Author: greazyfingers from United States

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.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Hitchcocks caution backfired during shooting., 15 July 2003

Author: eva25at from Vienna, Austria

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

(Possible spoilers)

UNDER CAPRICORN was of course not produced by Selznick, as I wrote in my first comment, but by Hitchcock himself. I was led to this error by the fact that Margaret Leighton and Joseph Cotten in those costumes and on those sets reminded me so much of GONE WITH THE WIND and DUEL IN THE SON.

It is certainly watchable. There is no such a thing as an "unwatchable" Hitckcock film. The cinematography (by Jack Cardiff, who also made BLACK NARCISSUS and THE RED SHOES) Is superlative and Ingrid Bergman's performance is moving, especially in the scene where she pulls herself together and makes an attempt to run the household. The kitchen-maids, used to Leightons strict rule disobey, and Bergman realizes that she has no authority in her own house. Leighton strides in Bergman's bedroom and systematically exposes her and her bottles in front of her guests. But this is probably the only good scene in the entire film.

The fact that Hitchcock produced it himself explains much of the film's shortcomings: He tried to play it safe, because his own money was at stake. UNDER CAPRICORN must have looked terrific on paper, but his caution during shooting robbed the story of everything that must have attracted him in the first place: Fact is that he failed with one of the most promising subjects: mesalliance. A society lady marries her stable-boy, suffers under the loss of her social position and drowns her sorrows in the bottle. An interesting premise, but Hitchcock fails completely to elucidate their complex relationship. Hasn't Cotten every reason to be depressed since his wife considers him so obviously as her punishment? And what would have happened after his years of (not entirely selfless) self-sacrifice, if Bergman had refused to meet her part of the deal? Hitchcock gives no answers, and his gingerly approach paralyses the film to such a degree that the most interesting scenes are not even shown: Bergman and Cotten were to grown up to play teenagers, and Hitchock was unwilling to curtail their precious screen-presence for a flashback with younger actors. They simply tell their story to the patiently listening Michael Wilding, and instead of psychology he resorts to a gunshot to bring the film to a conclusion. That's it, plotwise.

UNDER CAPRICORN could have had the drama of WUTHERING HEIGHTS or the humor of THE PRINCESS AND THE SWINEHERD. Hitchcock keeps the film from gliding into parody, but his direction seems heavy-handed and maladroit. The film lacks dynamism. Other stars in Hitchcock films, like James Stewart, or Anthony Perkins were not exactly hyperactive, either, but he explored the dark obsessions beneath their apparent phlegm. Here, her misses every opportunity. With Bergman and Cotten he had top actors - and then he was afraid to rely on their talent and pushed them around like pawns instead. The film may look like a masterpiece when compared with all those "Hitchcockian" thrillers made by the master's clones. But the director of VERTIGO & co deserves to be measured by the high standard he set with his best films. And in this context, UNDER CAPRICORN is not worth more than a 6/10.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Watch it and try not to compare..., 15 July 2006

Author: indrasnet from Here and Now

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.

---

6 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
To be proper.. a bit of a let down, I'd say., 27 March 2004

Author: ShrinkSteve from Hurricane, WV

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!

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Actually Good Hitchcock but a Victim of Bad Timing, 12 December 2007

Author: theowinthrop from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

UNDER CAPRICORN is one of the late 1940s Hitchcock films that are pointed at as being second-rate. The general comment is that Hitchcock was bad at historical films. This is not true about UNDER CAPRICORN - it is light-years better than JAMAICA INN was. The actors, led by Joseph Cotten, Ingrid Bergman, Michael Wilding, Margaret Leighton, and Cecil Parker do very nicely in their roles. Bergman's Irish accent comes and goes, but when it comes she has the cadence of the lilt correct (it is just hard to maintain it). That is really the worst to be said about her performance as Lady Henrietta Flusky.

It is with Bergman that the real disaster occurred - but not her talent. Hitchcock used her in other films like NOTORIOUS and she worked well with him. But her personal life now destroyed the film's box office appeal. At the time the film was released, the Bergman - Rosellini Scandal had broken out and she had been condemned on the floor of Congress as an adulteress. Many people who though of her as a "nice" screen personality now thought of her as a hussy. They stayed away from her latest film and it was soon withdrawn from circulation.

I suspect had it been made in 1948 it would have been a success, and frequently revived. It shows much influence from other Hitchcock films, and most of this is to the good. Hitch is looking at the peculiar world of early Australia as a penal colony. It is a weird situation where the British class consciousness is now expanded by the fact that most of the population is made of convicts. It is 1831, and Sir Richard (Cecil Parker) the new Governor has arrived. We see from the start what he has to get used to. He is shown in military redcoat and cocked hat upon arrival - and for all the pageantry, it is cut-rate pageantry at best, and Sir Richard is aware of some people in the crowd being "rowdy" (shouting disrespectful comments). That's one of the problems if you make a population of have-nots: they grow stronger in number and confront the haves, which is why Australia has rarely been as loyal to Britain's policies as it's neighboring fellow Commonwealth member New Zealand.

Sir Richard's cousin the Hon. Charles Adair (Wilding), is approached by a local banker to see if he can be of assistance to Charles. The next day, by chance, the banker introduces Charles to a local land tycoon, the Hon. Samson Flusky (Cotton). The name is familiar to Charles as his last name is to Flusky. Flusky offers Charles a chance to buy land temporarily, that Flusky can purchase later back from Charles to Charles profit. Although Sir Richard is opposed to Charles getting to know Flusky, Charles attends a dinner at Flusky's home, and finds that none of the male guests (including the colony's Attorney General Corrigan (Dennis O'Dea)) can get their wives to attend the dinner with them. Then he sees Mrs. Flusky, who he recognizes as Lady Henrietta (Bergman) an aristocratic neighbor from Ireland.

Now Charles recalls the scandal: Flusky was Henrietta's family's groom, and they ran off together to England to marry. When confronted by her brother, Flusky shot and killed him. But the brother was likewise armed, and Flusky was not hung but transported. Lady Henrietta followed and waited for his seven year term to end. Instead when he came out the marriage was strained. It has not recovered, worsened by Henrietta's increasing alcoholism. The household is run by Milly (Margaret Leighton) who keeps it functioning, and apparently keeps Lady Henrietta under control.

Charles (by insisting on continuing the business deal with Flusky) loses his contacts with his cousin as a patron. He moves in with the Fluskys, and slowly revives the dead self-reliant woman who was inside Lady Henrietta originally. But Milly is not happy about this, and keeps throwing up various snags to upset the recovery (which Charles begins to notice, but not Sam). The crisis is when Charles wrangles an invitation to a social event for Sam and Henrietta, but Sam chooses not to attend (but allow Charles to go). It seems headed for success, but Milly manages to make Sam become jealous about the entire situation, and make a scene at the ball. This leads to a further set of problems, that legally mess up the Fluskys and Charles.

The film holds up well, and actually lacks any real "maguffin" trick like other classic Hitchcock films. A secret from the past might be the "maguffin" but it is not centralized in the plot from the start. But other aspects of Hitch's films are there. Milly is a 19th Century variant of Judith Anderson's Mrs. Danvers in REBECCA. The use of camera tricks (noted in other reviews here) shows the influence of ROPE's long takes in several scenes (as well as some long takes on people walking through long hallways). Hitch apparently learned that the audience would only accept about a minute to a minute and a half long take, not the nine minute segments of ROPE. Bergman's long suffering physical decline here is similar to how Claude Rains tries to kill her in NOTORIOUS. I also note that besides Bergman, Cotton and Parker were former Hitchcock alumni (from SHADOW OF A DOUBT and THE LADY VANISHES respectively), and Wilding would return for a second film (STAGESTRUCK). Leighton never did, but she did appear in an episode on Hitchcock's television program.

The story maintains one's interest until the end. It also manages to keep an eye on accuracy, such as the walking on eggshells by ex-convicts who are given early release on good behavior. The slightest suggestion of crime or disorderly conduct means a pink slip and a return to prison. It was a "wonderful" system. And the successes and pitfalls of it are shown in this good film.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Hitchcock in Australia, 1 May 2007

Author: Cherian from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This is another Hitchcock masterpiece. Lots of people don't understand the meaning of the movie. Ingrid Bergman and Joseph Cotten did a good job playing their roles.

But in my opinion, the strongest performances came from Michael Wilding (Charles Adare)and Margaret Leighton (Milly). According to the article "The Dandy and Magdalene: interpreting the long take in interpreting the long take in Hitchcock's Under Capricorn (1949)" by Ed Gallafent, the use of the long take in Under Capricorn relates to 3 elements of film's meaning.

1. Ideas of accessible and inaccessible space as expressed in the Gothic house. 2. The form in which character inhabit their past 3. The divergence or convergence of eyelines – the gaze that cannot, or must meet another's.

All of these three elements can be linked to concepts of Guilt and Shame. According to Ed Gallafent's article, the movie is very related to St. Mary Magdalene. St. Mary Magdalene (the patron saint of penitent sinners) in religious iconography: the bare feet, skull, the flail, the looking glass in which beholder's is not always reflected, the jewels cast down to floor.

All of these are related to Lady Henrietta. And term "Minyago Yugilla" means "Why weepest thou?"

Alexandre Astruc acclaimed Under Capricorn as giving an intelligent and restrained treatment to its theme, which he believed to be "the mystery of the human personality".

And he is right. Under Capricorn focuses on "the mystery of human personality." If we combine all of the meanings together, then we will understand everything.

Every Scene in this film has symbolism in it. Even the closed Window Curtain in Lady Henrietta's bedroom has inner meanings.

I consider this as a masterpiece, because of Hitchcock's amazing direction, Stunning Cinematography by Jack Cardiff, and well written script by Hume Cronyn and James Bridie.

Even today, Under Capricorn is considered by U.S. Critics as a failure. But French Critics consider this film as one of greatest films ever made. Cahiers du Cinéma (French Magazine) once voted this masterpiece as one of the greatest films of all time.

The influences of Past on the Present is one of the major common subjects. The character "Winter" is the past form of Sam Flusky. In the past, We see that Lady Henrietta was a totally different woman. We can see this when Charles Adare changes her by buying her a new dress and a new mirror.

I will give this movie 10 out of 10.

---

---

Page 1 of 3:

[1] [2] [3]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history