Under Capricorn (1949) User Reviews

Very attractive to watch!

[JohnHowardReid · 7/10 · 2 May 2018]

Filmed on an expansive budget, Under Capricorn has everything going for it except its script - a trite magazine story with soap opera characters indulging in lots of talk and dissension which involves very little action and which all comes to a ridiculously facile conclusion.

Admittedly, it has all the gothic trappings of Rebecca (which is really a costume picture in modern dress), Great Expectations and Gaslight, but unfortunately the result is just plain boring. However, the credits are pretty wonderful. The film is always very attractive to watch with its fluid camera movement, long takes, stunning costumes (by Roger Furse), colorful sets and adroit cinematography (how about that long take in the middle of which Wilding takes off his coat and puts it behind the window-pane to show Bergman her reflection?). And Addinsell's music score shimmers with pleasing atmosphere.

The players are very agreeable too. Michael Wilding with his odd air of hesitant confidence, has always struck me as an amiable and capable actor, and here he has a role well-measured to his talents. Ingrid Bergman is also ideally cast (although she doesn't maintain her Irish accent much past her most effective introductory scene about 30 minutes into the film). In an equally difficult role, Joseph Gotten manages a reasonable conviction and is given solid support by players like Cecil Parker and Dennis O'Dea.

My one complaint against the acting is that Margaret Leighton's portrait of the sinister housekeeper is somewhat exaggerated, lacking the slyness someone like Judith Anderson or Gale Sondergaard would have brought to the part.

Underrated and beautifully photographed

[greazyfingers · 7/10 · 17 March 2005]

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.

A Melodramatic Romance by Alfred Hitchcock

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 3 October 2011]

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 him and invites Charles 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. Sooner Charles discovers that Henrietta is alcoholic and a totally unstable woman controlled by the housekeeper Milly (Margaret Leighton), and Sam was the groom 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 sooner 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 film 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")

An lesser-known and underrated Hitchcock masterpiece!

[George-n-Kansas · 6 May 1999]

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!

If people went to the theater to see a Hitchcock film, they must have thought they were in the wrong theater

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 18 May 2012]

Alfred Hitchcock veered out of his comfort zone several times in his career: "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," "The Trouble with Harry," "Topaz," some others, and it could be argued, the sumptuous "Rebecca." "Under Capricorn" was produced by Hitchcock himself, is lovely to look at thanks to Jack Cardiff's cinematography, is well acted, and leaves one empty. It doesn't trade on Hitchcock's strong points.

The story concerns a young man, Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) who comes from Ireland to Australia in 1831 and becomes involved with a wealthy landowner, Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotten), who wants to do business with him. Invited to dinner at his home, Charles meets Flusky's wife, Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman) whom he knew in Ireland when he was a child. Henrietta is in bad shape. The house is run by a disagreeable servant, Milly (Margaret Leighton), and Henrietta seems to be a big alcoholic. It's obvious that Sam still loves his wife very much, but he's frustrated as to how to help her. Charles feels that their bond from the old country may be able to help him get to her, and Sam allows him to try. Sam doesn't think ahead, and he is unable to realize how insecure and jealous this is going to make him.

You wouldn't think with a cast like this and direction by Hitchcock that this thing could miss, but miss it does. It's pretty slow and boring. I shudder to think what it would have been like without Ingrid Bergman, who has the flashy role and does a beautiful job with it. Joseph Cotten is good, but may be a touch miscast - the role calls for less of a gentleman and more of someone with a tougher edge.

One thing I can't understand is the emphasis here on Irish roots. Michael Wilding is as English as they come, and makes no attempt at an Irish brogue; neither does Ingrid Bergman do anything about her Swedish accent.

This is a character-driven piece that doesn't have a fabulous script; Hitchcock was very plot-driven as a director. This is a bad fit. A noble experiment that lost a lot of money.

Underrated

[pgs-1 · 7/10 · 16 September 2002]

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

Underwhelming "Capricorn"

[marissas75 · 6/10 · 7 February 2007]

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.

To be proper.. a bit of a let down, I'd say.

[ShrinkSteve · 5/10 · 27 March 2004]

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!

Watch it and try not to compare...

[indrasnet · 8/10 · 15 July 2006]

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.

An unusual but fascinating drama from the Master of Suspense

[ackstasis · 7/10 · 9 January 2008]

'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.

Uninspired and dull...

[planktonrules · 4/10 · 28 October 2010]

Soon after this film began, it was obvious why this is one of the least famous of Hitchcock's films of the era. First, there really isn't any mystery or suspense--it's just a costume drama. Second, and I am surprised no one else seemed to pick up on this, but the film looked ugly despite the nice costumes and sets. This is because it looks like everything was shot in a sound stage--even the outdoor shots. In addition, the matte paintings are among the least realistic and ugly I have ever seen. It just too me out of the mood to see sloppy and flat paintings which were supposed to be mansions.

The film is set in 1831 in the colony of Australia. Oddly, the film stars an American (Joseph Cotton), a Swede (Ingrid Bergman) and an Englishman who plays an Irishman (Michael Wilding). Wilding is a poor relative of the new Governor and is looking for a way to earn his fortune in this new land. He meets up with the brooding Cotton--who is immensely wealthy and an ex-convict (of course, MOST of Australia was settled by convicts during this period). But, when he goes to dinner at Cotton's home, he sees that he knows the man's wife (Bergman). Sadly, she is an alcoholic--and a pathetic one at that. So, Wilding makes it his job to help rehabilitate her--and obviously falls for her in the process. Standing in the way is the contemptible Milly--the housekeeper who does a great job of keeping house but also seems to enjoy keeping the mistress of the house drunk and ineffectual. She is a viper--and much like the crazed housekeeper in "Rebecca". In addition, the husband is a deeply screwed up man--and this becomes obvious the more his wife tries to regain normality. In other words, he and the housekeeper both seem to be working very hard to keep her an emotional invalid.

This is a pretty dull and ponderous film from start to finish. While it could have been interesting, oddly it wasn't. Intense music and great twists, signs of Hitchcock, are strangely absent in this slow, slow, slow film. It just lumbers along to its conclusion. Truly a disappointment and indifferently made --and you just can't believe a director as talented as Hitchcock could make such an uninspired film. It's not terrible...just not very good or interesting.

Hitchcocks Greatest?

[desol-2 · 10/10 · 8 September 2000]

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.

Under Capricorn is Below Sea Level **1/2

[edwagreen · 6/10 · 22 January 2012]

To think, Joseph Cotten had to be loaned out to play in this rather drab, moody, boring piece.

It takes place in 1831 Sydney, Australia. Ingrid Bergman plays Henrietta, a woman who married beneath herself. She wed Cotten, a stable hand. In the process, she killed her vicious brother who was out to get Cotten, and Cotten took the blame for the killing.

The two seem to be comfortable now in a lovely home. All is well until the arrival of the new governor along with his cousin, Michael Wilding, rather stilted in this film.

It seems that Wilding knew Henrietta in their childhood as his sister was friendly with her. He sees that Henrietta is depressed and rather drunk. He attempts to get her out of her doldrums.

As Millie, the faithful head servant, Margaret Leighton steals the film. She is vicious and plants the seeds of jealousy in Cotten's head. Towards the end of the picture, it appears that Bergman is going through somewhat of what occurred in 1944's "Gaslight."

Bergman seems to over-act in this picture and Cotten doesn't seem to know where he is at.

Shockingly awful Hitchcock

[Zbigniew_Krycsiwiki · 1/10 · 11 September 2013]

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.

An Odd Misfire From A Great Director

[Snow Leopard · 13 October 2004]

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.

Bad Movie From a Good Story With One Great Performance

[outnaway · 6/10 · 5 October 2012]

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.

Hitchcock's overlong and emotionally intriguing costume drama about family secrets and skeletons in the cupboard

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 12 January 2017]

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 .

Margaret Leighton's performance rivals Judith Anderson's in Rebecca (1940)

[jacobs-greenwood · 6/10 · 6 December 2016]

I think it's a shame that this Alfred Hitchcock film was such a bomb at the box office, and with critics, if only for the reason that few may have seen Margaret Leighton's performance as Milly, the Flusky family's maid. She gives the character an evilness with even more depth that Judith Anderson's "Mrs. Danvers" (recognized as #31 villain by the American Film Institute) in Rebecca (1940). I say this because, as much as I love Anderson's character, the dialogue given Leighton's character is more complex, meaning the actress cannot rely as much on brooding scowls as Anderson did, which may not have been as sinister if that film, like this one, was in color.

By the way, the Technicolor in this one (Hitchcock's second) makes the men's lipstick a bit too apparent. In any case, overall, the film is not a complete disappointment either, even though a costume drama is one of the last genres one would expect the "Master of Suspense" to direct.

Adapted for the screen by actor Hume Cronyn, James Bridie wrote the screenplay from the novel by Helen Simpson, the film contains little intrigue, relative to the director's other more famous films. The central issue seems to be Mrs. Flusky's behavior, and the reasons for it; she's played by Ingrid Bergman (overacting, just a bit). Joseph Cotten (solid, as usual) plays her brooding husband Sam, a successful businessman who was once a convict, sentenced to serve seven years in prison in Australia, where the film is set.

The film takes place many years later, and begins when Charles Adare (Michael Wilding, who seems perfect for the role) follows his uncle (Cecil Parker) to the continent; his uncle has just been appointed the Governor of the British Colony. So, Adare hopes to make his fortune in the "new" land, something virtually every young man with ambition, and a willingness to work hard, has been able to achieve. Unfortunately, Adare doesn't intend to employ the latter method, hence he makes an easy acquaintance of Sam Flusky, who wants to use the penniless Adare to purchase some land, legally if not ethically for his own purposes.

Adare is not quite sure at first where he's heard Flusky's name before, but once he's invited to dinner, and meets his wife, he realizes why. She used to be Lady Henrietta, a woman who left home in scandal, having married her father's groom, Sam, who was convicted for murdering her brother. Henrietta followed him to Australia where she endured a squalid existence waiting for him to serve out his term.

When Adare first meets Henrietta, she's a drunk, kept that way by another convict, now a maid who runs the household, named Milly (Leighton). Evidently, Henrietta suffered quite a bit while Sam was in prison such that Milly, with designs on the head of the household herself, has been able to comfort the Lady with drink such that Henrietta thinks of Milly as her friend. Ignorant of Milly's motivations, Sam believes this to be true as well, as does Adare, at least initially.

Shocked by what he sees of the former Lady, and young enough to remember the beautiful woman that she once was, Adare leaps at the opportunity, provided by Sam, to help Henrietta, in hopes that she can return to her old self. And she does, with Adare's help, make a comeback such that she feels confident enough to run the household and even return to society and social engagements.

It's at this point, however, that Milly, who'd been let go, returns coincidentally to work her magic on her former employer Sam. Using Adare's name and insinuating a relationship which doesn't exist between Henrietta and he, she manipulates Sam into a jealousy that ruins his wife's, and his, relationship with the Governor at a social event. Adare had forged an invitation for them (his uncle had "disowned" him per his relationship with the ex-con Sam) and had just succeeded in a Cinderella-like reception for the "restored" Lady Henrietta when Sam arrives in somewhat of a rage.

Subsequently, the truth of Sam's relationship with Henrietta comes out, and the drama's final third feels a bit "trumped up" to lengthen the story (even though it's during this that we learn the full extent of Milly's evil deeds).

Extravagant Failure

[LeonLouisRicci · 4/10 · 4 July 2013]

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.

Lovely Movie

[shonayss · 8/10 · 18 October 2016]

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.

The Unexpected Hitchcock

[JamesHitchcock · 6/10 · 13 December 2012]

"Under Capricorn" holds an unusual place among the works of Alfred Hitchcock. It is one of his very few costume dramas; the only other one which is at all well known is "Jamaica Inn" from 1939, although he did make some others during his early British period such as "Waltzes from Vienna", about the life of Johann Strauss. And it is one of the very few films he made after his move to Hollywood which is not a suspense thriller. (The comedy "Mr and Mrs Smith" is another example). This was Hitchcock's second film in Technicolor, after "Rope" from the previous year. The director again makes use of the "ten-minute take" technique, although less extensively than he had done in "Rope". Unlike that film, the action in "Under Capricorn" does not take place in real time, nor does Hitchcock observe the unities of place and time.

The title has no astrological significance. It relates to the country where the action takes place- Australia, south of the Tropic of Capricorn. The story is set in Sydney in the year 1831. Charles Adare, a young Irish aristocrat and a cousin of the newly-appointed Governor of New South Wales, arrives in the city hoping to make his fortune. He is befriended by Sam Flusky, who arrived in the colony as a transported convict but is now a prosperous landowner, and meets Sam's wife, Lady Henrietta, who was a neighbour of his in Ireland. The marriage has not been a happy one, and Henrietta, who is hiding a guilty secret of her own, has become an alcoholic. She and Charles gradually fall in love.

The film was a failure at the box office, partly because this sort of domestic love triangle was not the sort of thing audiences expected from Hitchcock and partly because, in a striking example of life imitating art, its star, Ingrid Bergman, had become involved in a love triangle of her own when she left her husband for Roberto Rossellini. Bergman was far from being the only movie star to have been unfaithful to a spouse or partner, but for some reason the cinema-going public was particularly scandalised by this relationship, and she was not to make another film in Hollywood until 1956.

And yet, if one sees "Under Capricorn" simply as a film, without preconceptions about what a "Hitchcock film" should be, or without worrying about the sex life of its leading lady, it is not altogether bad. While not in the same class as Bergman's two earlier collaborations with Hitchcock, "Spellbound" and "Notorious", it is certainly far better than "Jamaica Inn", one of the director's least distinguished efforts. It has some good acting contributions, something "Jamaica Inn", with the wooden Maureen O'Hara and the hammy Charles Laughton, notoriously lacks. Bergman's part here has certain similarities with her role in "Anastasia", the first American film she made after returning from her Hollywood exile. In both films her character starts off as an insecure, mentally disturbed young woman and gradually grows in stature throughout the film, ending as someone much more assured and self-confident.

One of the weaknesses of "Anastasia" is the lack of chemistry between Bergman and Yul Brynner, her love interest in that film, but here Joseph Cotten is much better as Sam. One senses that, despite all the tensions in their relationship, there is an underlying sense of loyalty and fidelity between Sam and Henrietta which will enable their marriage to survive. Michael Wilding is a bit lightweight as Charles, but there is another good performance from Margaret Leighton as the hypocritical, scheming housekeeper Milly.

On the debit side, the action does tend to drag at times and the colour is not very good. The unreliability of colour film at this period may be a reason why so many films in the forties were still made in black-and- white, even in genres such as costume drama which, in theory, could have benefited from a touch of colour. Nevertheless, "Under Capricorn" is a relatively good historical drama with a touching love-story at its heart. It is perhaps only the fact that it is so atypical among Hitchcock's other work which prevents it from being better known. 6/10

It's not THAT bad but not good either

[preppy-3 · 5/10 · 22 August 2005]

A costume drama by Alfred Hitchcock (!!!). Henrietta Flusky (Ingrid Bergman) has a cruel husband (Joseph Cotten) and a vicious maid (Margaret Leighton) who verbally tear her apart and make her feel worthless. Handsome Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) is attracted to her but she's married...and might be going crazy...

Hitchcock was NOT the right director for this. He didn't know how to do a costume drama and it shows. But I give him credit for trying and it's really not that bad ("The Trouble With Harry" is his worst film). I was lucky enough to see a vault print in IB Technicolor so that helped. The picture was crystal clear and the colors strong and vibrant. It is (of course) well directed but the acting is all over the place. I've never liked Cotten and this movie doesn't change my mind. He's dreadful-- very stiff and wooden. Wilding is given little to do but stand around looking handsome--which he pulls off. Bergman is very good--but she had done this role before (Anybody remember "Gaslight"?). And Leighton was just great. Cruel and evil and she has a great scene at the end. She should have at least received an Academy Award nomination for this...but she didn't.

So, it's far from great but it's not the disaster everybody says it is.

Very unfairly criticized epic historical melodrama that ranks as one of the best of its type!

[skirner · 8/10 · 7 May 2021]

Just watched the Blu-ray and was pleasantly surprised how good this much maligned Hitchcock film is. Being a historical melodrama it deviates dramatically from Hitchcock's normal suspense mystery genre that he excelled at. In my opinion Hitchcock made a minor masterpiece in this departure from his usual fare.

I found the film very entertaining and engrossing with a good story and intriguing characters well played by an all star cast. I have always liked Michael Wilding in films like "The Glass Slipper" and "The Egyptian" and found him in this film equally likable. Joseph Cotten stared in my favorite film of all time "Portrait of Jennie" and he doesn't disappoint in this film. What can you say about Ingred Bergman one of the greatest stars and actresses of her generation except how delightful to see her in a film I had missed seeing until now.

All in all I find it outrageous that critics have damned this quality film by Hitchcock just because he dared to make a film outside the genre the critics had pidgeon holed him in. I consider this one of Hitch's better films and certainly not one of his worst. I highly recommend it for people who love historical costume melodramas. One of the best films of its type by the great Hitchcock!

A Dandy in Aus Pic

[Lejink · 6/10 · 29 June 2019]

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.

Fatally flawed

[cinemabon · 1/10 · 27 September 2014]

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.