ElMaruecan82 ... as the film really fell under my expectations. "Under Capricorn" is the third Hitchcock's costume drama and the last one. That Hitch never gave a fourth trial says enough, history isn't just his strongest suit.Indeed, Hitchcock is an expert of human emotions and knows more than any director how to convey the most complex and thought-provoking of them in challenging plots, never stingy on twists and surprises, as long as nothing undermines the viewers' attention. Maybe the costumes, the flashy settings all the attention to historical details are too distracting or too time-consuming, maybe people of the 19th century are too exuberant, too solemn or to melodramatic to fit in Hitchcock's universe or to allow him to express his wicked sense of humor and his mastery of suspense. Maybe Hitchcock is too 'modern' for this kind of film.To give you an idea, just look at the positive comments, they all praise the acting, the costumes, the directing, the cinematography… this is not a good sign when a Hitchcock movie is judged on these peripheral and banal elements. Hitchcock movies strike you for two things: action and/or characters and one of them generally makes the film, both in the best ones. When I saw "Gaslight", I immediately came to review my utter disgust toward Gregory Anton, one of the most despicable villains I had ever seen, this is the kind of strong reactions or emotions a film should inspire. But "Under Capricorn" is no "Gaslight".Why do I bring "Gaslight", which isn't even a Hitchcock film, in a review of "Under Capricorn"? I think it's pretty obvious when you saw both movies. "Under Capricorn" had a great potential and a story that promised to be emotionally engaging, no one can endure the sight of poor Bergman being 'gaslighted', not again. Australia wasn't much of an exotic location except for one parameter: the story is built upon the common fact (and not so myth) that many of the first inhabitants were ex-convicts, and after they did their time, they could get back to society and good manners commanded not to ask a man what he's done before. This is a great plot device because from the outsider's standpoint, anyone is suspect.Yet nothing is really made out of that interesting premise. It only serves to hide one secret, the secret of the character we know from the start he's hiding a secret. The exposition takes a long time to present us some characters but their contribution to the plot is so nonexistent you wonder why they were shown to us in the first place. Basically, the film is a seemingly love triangle between Michael Wilding as a young Irish coming to seek fortune, Joseph Cotton as Flusky, a gruff man doing business with him because his past prevents him from buying lands, and his wife Hattie, played by Ingrid Bergman. Unfortunately, none of these three actors can save the film from its long and flat way toward the ending.And I think Hitchcock's fans are intelligent enough to make the difference between drama and thriller, and just from the costumes, they can tell that a film won't be part of Hitchcock's canon. But even by pure dramatic standards, the film doesn't quite work. The main protagonist is an insolent little prick who's so overconfident you want his journey to go through some humility-teaching experiences. None of that, he's as cocky as arrogant in the ending. You expect that the unmasking of the antagonist played by Margaret Leighton will be the result of a suspenseful or at least tense moment; no she is simply caught in the act in the cheapest and most convenient way. I'm not asking for cheap thrills but just action.Drama was the Greek word for action, but "Under Capricorn' might be one of the most talkative movie ever, the plot is only constructed on talks, exchanges and revelations. And the most thrilling moments are immediately canceled off by talking and talking again. This is definitely not a Hitchcock film and while he didn't have a strong reputation when he made "Waltzes of Vienna" and "Jamaica Inn", in 1949, he had so many great movies under his bundle that he couldn't expect "Under Capricorn" to be above people's expectation. Yet the film happened to be ecstatically praised by the Cahier du Cinema French authors, and François Truffaut and Claude Chabrol had the most apologetic words.What did they find in this film? Beats me. But if they're the guys who deemed Clouzot as old-school, you know the closest rival to Hitchcock, it's a wonder how they could blindly adore this film. It is the height of snobbery when you take your adoration to a director as a basis to love whatever he did. Well, Hitchcock who's still one of the greatest directors, was entitled to have a few misfires and this is one of them. You can't praise "Strangers on a Train" and "Rear Window" if you also love "Under Capricorn", it doesn't make sense. Again the film had a great potential, but it was executed as if no one cared to make an impact.And all the costumes and acting in the world can't save a film from dullness; the only interesting thing about it is in the way it makes you wonder how Hitchcock could fail with so many promising elements.

cinemabon Under Capricorn – Directed by Alfred HitchcockThe 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.

SnoopyStyle It's 1831, there's a new governor of Australia. His second cousin Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) accompanies him on his new post. He meets powerful landowner and ex-convict Sam Flusky (Joseph Cotten) who worked hard to get where he is now. Charles is eager to make his own fortune and Sam offers him an opportunity to buy some land. Flusky's wife Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman) is an alcoholic bordering on madness in the face of her cold-hearted husband.Director Alfred Hitchcock is doing long uncut scenes again but this time, it lacks the excitement of something interesting. It's definitely not the crowd pleasing thrillers that he's known for. This is more of a costume drama. There are some interesting camera movements but that's all the audience can hold onto. It's not that the camera movements improve the movie. It's just interesting technically. The movie is a bad costume drama reminiscent of old British translations of stage plays. The lack of cuts make it hard to concentrate. In Rope, there was far fewer characters. This is just an unfocused run-on sentence. The best compliment I can make about this movie is that it's a failed experiment.

TheLittleSongbird None of Alfred Hitchcock's films are terrible, even his weakest film(for me) Jamaica Inn. But that is not to say that Hitchcock, my favourite director, hasn't done any disappointing work, Jamaica Inn, The Paradine Case and this were. Under Capricorn is a very beautifully made film, as with all Hitchcock's films with the cinematography being Under Capricorn's best quality and the costumes and sets are very sumptuous. There are times where the score is not as fitting with the mood as it could have been, but much of it did and the score itself is marvellously orchestrated and overall very effective as a score. Ingrid Bergman is very good in a sensitive and magnetic performance, out of this and Spellbound I felt she was a little better here. Michael Wilding doesn't have much to do but gives his all and is very handsome. Margaret Leighton steals the film, wonderfully vicious she is. Under Capricorn does have its failings though. Hitchcock is one of cinema's greatest, but there isn't much in Under Capricorn to allow him to bring his own style to it, to the extent that like Jamaica Inn it didn't feel like a Hitchcock film. Joseph Cotten for me was miscast, too stiff and too much like a gentleman with not enough of the brooding persona that his character should have been, the latter of which he did successfully bring to Shadow of a Doubt so I don't know what happened here. The script has a lot of talk but a lot of it comes across as corny, emotionally cold and overwrought, while the story, the subject matter of which is actually great, is executed in ponderous and overly melodramatic fashion and seems rather thin also. Complex it is, but this is done with not that much depth. With the cast, the characters could have been interesting but suffered from being underwritten and characterless. In conclusion, well made but lacking and disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox