But on the whole, the color is underwhelming, with the film taking on a washed out and almost pastel look at times. There is also some minor color fringing from what appears to be poor registration, but this is also more than exception than the rule. There are occasional bits of debris and scratches, but these are the exception. On the positive side, the film is generally clean and stable. Under Capricorn is presented in its original theatrical ratio of 1.37:1 (labeled as 1.33:1 on the box art) in what is being billed as a new 4K restoration. Ultimately, the cast did the best they could, but they are underserved by the material. Michael Wilding here is a study in blandness, with his character’s reactions feeling more like a screenwriter’s demands rather than organic developments. Joseph Cotton fares somewhat better as her husband, but he’s given precious little to do other than scowling and appearing grumpy. Ingrid Bergman seems miscast try as she might, it’s difficult to accept her as the Irish girl her character is meant to be. Working with substandard material and uninspired direction, the cast does their best, but are left with little to work with. (One wonders what might have happened had Hitchcock continued to refine the technique in future films.) In Rope, the technique is spellbinding in Under Capricorn, it contributes very little to the finished product. As a result, the film’s pacing seems off as it switches back and forth from more conventional shooting and editing techniques to longer single takes. ![]() With Under Capricorn taking place over a longer period of time and in a variety of locations, Hitchcock doesn’t attempt to give the proceedings the illusion of being captured in a single take. With Under Capricorn, Hitchcock again used long takes, but here the technique is a mismatch for the material. The use of a single set, combined with the illusion of that story unfolding in real time, gives the film a wonderful sense of claustrophobia that gives its characters and story additional credibility. Though Rope was not a major hit upon its original release, it’s a fascinating film that has grown in stature since. In his previous film, Rope, Hitchcock constructed the film with a series of ten-minute long takes designed to blend seamlessly to give the illusion of a real-time experience. If the execution of the story is underwhelming, so is Hitchcock’s use of the camera. The characters keep us at arm’s length for so long that once their secrets are finally revealed, it’s not enough to make up for the distance they’ve kept all through the story. With Under Capricorn, Hitchcock sets up a scenario where the viewer can instantly feel that all must not be as it seems, but by emphasizing the love triangle while hiding the source of Henrietta’s depression and alcoholism, the film makes the audience wait for an explanation that seems like much too little and much too late when it does arrive. But if you let the audience know there’s a bomb ticking before those two people sit down, the audience will be in suspense for the entire sequence and feel connected to the action onscreen. To paraphrase the quote, if you have two people having a mundane conversation at a table where someone has hidden a bomb underneath, if you explode the bomb without first setting it up for the audience, you’ll give them a momentary surprise. The very construction of the film’s story seems to go against Hitchcock’s often quoted explanation of how to lure in an audience. The film has all of the elements in place that could lead to an above-average Hitchcock thriller, but the biggest issue is that the film is played as a straight drama rather than a suspense picture. Meanwhile, a dark secret lurks over Sam and Henrietta’s head, the reason for their relocation to Australia and the cause of Henrietta’s drinking. As Charles helps to bring Henrietta back to health, the two begin to develop feelings for each other. As Sam and Charles plot to expand their fortunes, Charles begins living at Sam’s home, and finds himself drawn to Henrietta. Charles soon realizes that the two men have a connection in the form of Sam’s wife Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman), who was a childhood friend of Charles’ sister but has become a social outcast and alcoholic in her adopted Australian home. ![]() ![]() Hoping to strike it rich, Charles quickly becomes friends with Sam Flusky (played by Joseph Cotton, in a stiff performance), who needs help consummating a land deal. Set in colonial Australia in 1831, the film begins with the new arrival down under of Charles Adare (an adequate but unspectacular Michael Wilding), who is a cousin of the governor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |