Just so...so bad

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

When one thinks of Alfred Hitchcock, the "period drama" genre does not immediately come to mind. Unfortunately, "Under Capricorn" does nothing to sway that perception, as (despite some decent character development) it can best be described as ponderous and too full of bloated dialogue.For a basic plot summary, "Under Capricorn" sees Lady Henrietta Flusky (Ingrid Bergman) of Australia struggling to maintain the household of husband Sam (Joseph Cotten). When childhood friend Charles Adare (Michael Wilding) comes for an unexpected visit, however, Henrietta begins to perk up and clash with current housekeeper Milly (Margaret Leighton). Along the way, a great deal of past history among all parties is drudged up.The trouble with "Under Capricorn" is simple: there is absolutely no action/suspense whatsoever. The character development is actually decent, but none of the typical Hitchcock suspense or thrilling sequences are present in this movie. Just too much talking and not enough "doing", in essence.The only redeeming factor for this film whatsoever is some great acting from Cotten, who truly carries this film. Bergman may be a great actress, but her character in this one just isn't all that intriguing. It is Cotten who is a joy to watch scene in and scene out.Put simply, "Under Capricorn" is a slow-moving Hitch effort that just fails to captivate. It isn't terrible, per se, but there is very little excitement involved in the process. Unless you are a huge fan of Victorian-style love stories, or are (like me) making your way through the Hitch collection, I would say you can skip this one.

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.

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.

Dear Alfred Hitchcock, My god man! I never thought you could make such tedious melodramatic crap. Ingrid Bergman hams it up as Lady Henrietta Flusky. I have never wished for the quick death of such a beautiful actress. Even a strong cast comprising Joseph Cotten and Michael Wilding cannot save this one. The plot is so convoluted, it should have stayed a play and never been made into a film. This is by far your worst film.If it wasn't for the beautiful and painting like quality of some of the visuals, I would have rated this a 1 on 10. And Joseph Cotten does put in a decent performance.Best Regards, Pimpin.