Cheap Under Capricorn (DVD) (Ingrid Bergman, Joseph Cotten, Michael Wilding) (Alfred Hitchcock) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Under Capricorn

Yes, the material might seem appropriate for Hitch given the themes explored but this romantic melodrama was really quite a stretch for him as a director. The experience here certainly made his later works richer (such as Vertigo) but, on the whole, Under Capricorn was clearly a learning experience for Hitch.

The performances are grand and as florid as one might expect given the material. The screenplay by James Bridie (with considerable rewriting by Hume Cronyn)leaves Hitch in a lifeboat without oars; Hitch pretty much goes nowhere over the course of the film's 116 minutes. Unfortunately, this expensive miscalculation would do in Hitch's Transatlantic films (Rope was the first Transatlantic production and, despite some obvious flaws, is a much better film).

Still, despite its considerable flaws, Under Capricorn is a worthy experiment and worth a look from Hitchcock fans. The transfer is solid although not as rich as I expected and the extras are pretty slim (especially compared to Rope and Shadow of a Doubt).

Hitchcock's caution backfired during shooting
The former reviewer is right, of course: UNDER CAPRICORN was not produced by Selznick, as I wrote in my first comment, but by Hitchcock himself. I was led to this error because the sight of Margaret Leighton and Joseph Cotten in those costumes and on those sets reminded me so mucn of GONE WITH THE WIND and DUEL IN THE SUN.

The film is watchable, no question. There is no such thing as an "unwatchable" Hitchcock film. The cinematography (By Jack Cardiff, who also made THE RED SHOES and BLACK NARCISSUS) is attractive and Ingrid Bergman is very moving, especially in the scene where she pulls herself together and makes an attempt to run the household. The kitchen-maids, used to Leighton's strict rule, disobey, and Bergman realizes that she has no authority in her own house. Leighton strides to 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 wanted 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. And he fails with one of the most potent 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 all those years of his (not so selfless) self-sacrifice, if Bergman had refused to meet her part of the deal? Hitchcock answers no questions, and his gingerly approach paralyses the film to such a degree that the potentially most interesting scenes are not even shown: Bergman and Cotten were too grown up to play teenagers, and Hitchcock was unwilling to curtail their precious screen-presence for a flashback with younger actors. So they simply tell their story to the patiently listening Michael Wilding, and instead of psychology, the director resorts to a gunshot to bring the film to a conclusion. And that's it, plotwise.

UNDER CAPRICORN could have had the drama of WUTHERING HEIGHTS or the comedy of THE PRINCESS AND THE SWINEHERD. Hitchcock prevents the story from gliding into parody, but his direcion is 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 the director explored the dark obsessions beneath their apparent phlegm. In Bergman and Cotten he had top actors, but he was too afraid to rely on their talent, and pushed them around like pawns instead. UNDER CAPRICORN 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 standart he set with his best films, and in this context UNDER CAPRICORN is not worth more than a 3/5.

eva25at is ignorant
...First of all this is NOT a Selznic picture. Hitchcock was free from his contract with selznic after "The Paradine Case." Hitchcock produced this under his own Transatlantic Productions.
Selznic didn't have the remotest thing to do with this movie! No this isn't as good as most Hitchcock movies but it is entertaining.