Rating: 
Summary: eva25at is ignorant
Review: ...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.
Rating:
Summary: Solid, But Flawed
Review: A Hitchcock film that I'd never seen. Many of them I've viewed a dozen or more times so I'm no stranger or newcomer to his films. DVD transfer is quite good and the color very saturated. It certainly held my attention and has some wonderful performances. Standouts are Bergman and Leighton as the strange housekeeper, ala Mrs. Danvers. I thought Joseph Cotton and Michael Wilding were very good, too.
Next is the camerawork that is astonishing at times. Considering this was made decades before the Stedicam, this film is remarkable for the dolly and tracking shots. Amusing and at times beautiful are the process shots of early Sydney in the opening sequence. Either glass paintings or mattes were used but the shot when Adare first arrives at the Flusky mansion was clearly a painting that must've been laughable when seen projected on the big screen. The matching of color and mood of the painting during the transition to the set was done very well. A later shot of that same painting of the mansion with some fluttering leaves on the trees in the foreground make it much more believable. Previous reviewers here remark on the budget and cheapness of Hitchcock on this film since it was an independent production and it shows clearly at times. Bergman is stunning in many of the scenes. Hitch was clearly smitten with her during the production.
It's quite set-bound with very few real exterior shots that I could find which gives it a very theatrical look. An artificiality that can be found in many of his films right up until the last ones. Overall, well worth seeing.
Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock stretches with mixed success
Review: A period piece directed by Hitchcock? Yes, it is a surprise. It wasn't the first though It must have surprised Hitch as well. While produced by his own company (Transatlantic Pictures), Under Capricorn would seem a natural choice for David O Selznick as producer but all wrong for Hitchcock as director. While Under Capricorn is flawed, it's got a number of strengths chiefly the performance by Ingrid Bergman and the unusual experiment begun in Rope with long takes. Under Capricorn doesn't rely on as many gimmicks as Rope did and, while Joseph Cotton may seem odd for his role (Burt Lancaster was Hitchcock's original choice), he does a solid job in the role. Although the Irish accent perpetually eludes the three principal actors, it's no worse than watching a film set in, say, Germany with actors attempting German accents while speaking English.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).
Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock stretches with mixed success
Review: A period piece directed by Hitchcock? Yes, it is a surprise. It wasn't the first though It must have surprised Hitch as well. While produced by his own company (Transatlantic Pictures), Under Capricorn would seem a natural choice for David O Selznick as producer but all wrong for Hitchcock as director. While Under Capricorn is flawed, it's got a number of strengths chiefly the performance by Ingrid Bergman and the unusual experiment begun in Rope with long takes. Under Capricorn doesn't rely on as many gimmicks as Rope did and, while Joseph Cotton may seem odd for his role (Burt Lancaster was Hitchcock's original choice), he does a solid job in the role. Although the Irish accent perpetually eludes the three principal actors, it's no worse than watching a film set in, say, Germany with actors attempting German accents while speaking English. 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).
Rating:
Summary: eva25at is ignorant
Review: First off my thanks to Image for bringing this little seen Hitchcock film to DVD. I haven't seen the DVD yet so I don't know how the color hues of this late 40's film have held up. Image was a high quality Laserdisc producer and they have carried on with DVD. They have produced fifty titles for Universal and many more both for other studios and on their own. While light on extras the price, at least lately, is always fair for the product offered. Something I can't say of every DVD producer out there. "Under Capricorn" was Ingrid Bergman's last film for Hitchcock. Shot in color it does feature a Hitchcock cameo appearance in a crowd. While it does not have the flash of some of his later films, it has some moody and creepy moments as Bergman is being haunted by a jealous housekeeper. Also notable is Joseph Cotten who gives his usual excellent performance along with a nice turn by Michael Wilding. As the 1993 Sterling Video VHS release has been out of print for some time I can't wait to see this DVD. Thanks, CAL
Rating: 
Summary: A forgotten gem comes to DVD!!
Review: First off my thanks to Image for bringing this little seen Hitchcock film to DVD. I haven't seen the DVD yet so I don't know how the color hues of this late 40's film have held up. Image was a high quality Laserdisc producer and they have carried on with DVD. They have produced fifty titles for Universal and many more both for other studios and on their own. While light on extras the price, at least lately, is always fair for the product offered. Something I can't say of every DVD producer out there. "Under Capricorn" was Ingrid Bergman's last film for Hitchcock. Shot in color it does feature a Hitchcock cameo appearance in a crowd. While it does not have the flash of some of his later films, it has some moody and creepy moments as Bergman is being haunted by a jealous housekeeper. Also notable is Joseph Cotten who gives his usual excellent performance along with a nice turn by Michael Wilding. As the 1993 Sterling Video VHS release has been out of print for some time I can't wait to see this DVD. Thanks, CAL
Rating: 
Summary: Did These Other Reviewers Watch The Same Film?
Review: Here's the deal...If you liked "Rebecca", "Jamaica Inn" or "Rope" you are going to LOVE "Under Capricorn". I mention those three films because it has elements of all of them. Ingrid Bergman gives one of her best performances (and she has had quite a few great ones) and Joseph Cotten delivers in a difficult and in many ways subtlely demanding role. Michael Wilding's performance is quite interesting when you compare it to the one he gave in Hitchcock's "Stage Fright". I really loved this film. The score is beautiful and effective, the color magnificent (Criterion really should get on the ball and do a treatment of this - only real complaint i had was with the dvd iteself and it not having the greatest menu in the world or any extra features) and the cinematography is honestly some of the best of Hitchcock's career with incredible dolly and crane shots that will blow your mind. It also does have suspense. Not "Psycho" or "Vertigo" suspense mind you but it isn't that kind of story and it is unfair and inappropriate to expect that from a film of this type. One reviewer mentioned that this film is rather "talkie"...Granted it is but in a good way...I don't mind a lot of dialogue if it is good dialogue and Hume Cronyn (Cocoon and husband of Jessica Tandy) did a tremendous job adapting the source material. Keep in mind this is a period romance film with bits of psychological mystery thrown in for good measure...But it is above all a love story and a very good one in my mind. The plot itself also has engaging things to say about the conflicts that many people of Irish descent had to face in those days. Recently I have seen basically every Hitchcock film ever made that has been released on either vhs or dvd and I have got to say in my humble opinion it is indeed one of his absolute best.
Rating:
Summary: Hitchcock's caution backfired during shooting
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: The story is miserable but the photography is wonderful
Review: There's nothing actually wrong with this film. The acting is good, the sets are good, the script is good, but it's so miserable. It's a story of a young man who comes willingly to Australia in the days of transportation of criminals, befriends another man and his wife, and falls in love with the wife. There is a tragic element to this story and the happy ending of the last five minutes seems bolted on. This might appeal to fans of a certain type of melodrama popular in the 1940s and 1950s. The four lead actors acquit themselves well, and Margaret Leighton shines as a housekeeper with delusions of grandeur. Michael Wilding is perhaps too fey to be a passionate suitor. Hitchcock's direction is not as stylised as it would later become, but is more than competent. Jack Cardiff's cinematography highlights colourful costumes and sets and makes everything a visual treat, and is perhaps the best aspect of this film.
Rating:
Summary: Doomed to failure.
Review: This film is doomed from the start. Quality actors Cecil Parker and Michael Wilding appear and their very presence guarantees that the film will never sink below the level of well-groomed britsh film-making. Neither will it rise above. Superior workmanship. Tasteful performances. No risks taken. No surprises. Unless you are surprised to find crime in a Hitchcock film. The crime, in this case fratricide, is committed by society lady Ingrid Bergman. Joseph Cotten, her stableman bears her blame, spends seven years in a penal colony (in chains) and marries her. His housekeeper (Margaret Leighton) supplies Bergman with booze and frightens her with shrunken heads in order to drive her to insanity and become lady of the house. Michael Wilding has a crush on Bergman, a fact that drives Cotten to violent jealousy. Soon Wilding has a bullet in his stomach and this may cost Cotten his head... Producer David O. Selznick's obsession to repeat the success of GONE WITH THE WIND presents us with expensive sets, a waste of money, since most of the action takes place inside the house. Did no one involved with this film have the idea of putting some kangaroos ih the garden? Cotten's "australian" farm looks like Tara, even Vivien Leigh is here - no it's her carbon copy Margaret Leighton who gives us a cross between Scarlett O'Hara, Mrs. Danvers and Charles Boyer in GASLIGHT. Ingrid Bergman looks beautiful and gives a credible performance as tired alcoholic. No hysterics, just desperate passivity. She should have played in LONG DAY'S JOURNEY INTO NIGHT instead of Katharine Hepburn. What a career Joseph Cotten had in the forties! CITIZEN KANE, SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THE THIRD MAN! Then he gave himself in King Vidor's deadly embrace and made DUEL IN THE SUN and BEYOND THE FOREST. Vidor himself could have saved UNDER CAPRICORN. He would have sexed things up a bit and given the story the high-camp treatment it deserved. With tasteful Hitch at the helm the film never rises above average. Attempt at resuscitation failed!
|
