Under Capricorn (1949)

Director:

Alfred Hitchcock

Writers:

John Colton (play) and
Margaret Linden (play) ...

Release Date:

8 October 1949 (USA)

Genre:

Crime | Romance

Tagline:

Mystery, murder and passion from the master of suspense!

Plot:

In 1831, Irishman Charles Adare travels to Australia to start a new life with the help of his cousin who has just been appointed governor...

Plot Keywords:

Ex Convict | Governor | Shooting | Housekeeper | Fortune

Cast

Ingrid Bergman	...	Lady Henrietta Flusky
Joseph Cotten	...	Sam Flusky
Michael Wilding	...	Hon. Charles Adare
Margaret Leighton	...	Milly
Cecil Parker	...	The Governor
Denis O'Dea	...	Mr. Corrigan
Jack Watling	...	Winter
Harcourt Williams	...	The Coachman
John Ruddock	...	Mr. Potter
Bill Shine	...	Mr. Banks
Victor Lucas	...	The Rev. Smiley
Ronald Adam	...	Mr. Riggs
Francis De Wolff	...	Major Wilkins (as Francis de Wolff)
G.H. Mulcaster	...	Dr. Macallister
Olive Sloane	...	Sal

Runtime:

117 min

Country:

UK

Language:

English

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (Western Electric Sound System)

Certification:

UK:A (original rating) (1949) | UK:PG (re-rating) (2006) | Argentina:13 | Chile:14 | Finland:K-12 | Germany:12 | Spain:13 | Peru:14

Filming Locations:

England, UK

Company:

Transatlantic Pictures

Trivia:

According to Michael Wilding's autobiography "The Wilding Way", on one occasion while Ingrid Bergman and Michael Wilding were in the middle of a passionate love scene Hitchcock let out a howl of pain, then in the most gentle tone said "Please move the camera a little to the right. You have just run over my foot." The X-ray revealed later that the camera's weight had broken Hitchcock's big toe.

Goofs:

Revealing mistakes: As the characters gather for the dinner party, fairly early on in the film, the camera tracks backwards across the dining room. The table has been pushed into the path of the camera by the time it comes into view, but the candlesticks are still shaking severely from the jerking appearance of the table (their shaking lessens as the take continues).

Movie Connections:

Referenced in 'Topaz': An Appreciation by Film Critic/Historian Leonard Maltin (2001) (V)

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

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!