"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
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