Average film, but Listen for Cotten's Disappearing Accent

Set in 19th Century Australia, this neglected Hitchcock film concerns upper-class Ingrid Bergman, who lost her high standing when she married less-than-noble Joseph Cotten. Now she drinks all day and is really quite pathetic, meanwhile Cotten carries on like he's got a pineapple stuck up where the sun don't shine. Michael Wilding turns up as the cousin who is to tend to the ailing, melodramatic Bergman. Cotten encourages this, but may soon regret bringing them together.

Proof that my list of best-to-worst list of Hitchcock films, when I get around to seeing all 54, will be like no other. Considered by many to be his absolute worst, "Under Capricorn" is certainly one of the more forgettable films in his canon, but of the 31 Hitchcock films I've so far seen, this one ranks at number 25, ahead of films like the deadening "Paradine Case" , overrated "Rebecca" and sandwiched between "The Birds" and "Young and Innocent" .

Although the pacing is sluggish and the performances are uneven, what is good about this film is still vastly superior to any of Hitch's worst films, if a bit stuffy. But first, to the bad. Being set in Colonial times means that the wavering accents are relatively acceptable (the characters don't talk like modern day Aussies, not even like a Steve 'Crikey' Irwin, exaggerated Aussie accent), but the wavering performances by Bergman and Cotten are harder to excuse. Bergman gets better as the film moves along, and is altogether fine as the frail wife. The usually dependable Cotten, is a different story, however. He looks positively displeased to be there, not his usual charming self. Some of this is the character, but c'mon, dude, lighten up. Even worse, however, is the amazingly overrated Margaret Leighton, who, as the scheming housekeeper, appears to be (badly) aping Dame Judith Anderson in "Rebecca", Hitch's most overrated film by far. Leighton's histrionics might have worked in a silent film, but not here, she turns the film into high camp, of the most uninteresting kind (Am I the only one who expected whinnying horses to accompany her, ala Frau Blucher?).

The main problem with this film (aside from the fact that, despite being Australian, I HATE Oz history and colonial tales with a passion), however, is that it seems more Selznick than Hitchcock, which is odd given David O. Selznick had absolutely nothing to do with it. Period flicks just aren't Hitch's thing, and truth be told, they're not my thing, either (I couldn't have made it through "Gone With the Wind" were it not for Olivia De Havilland, Leslie Howard, and Hattie McDaniel). Hitch draws everything out here, and at the end of the day, almost anyone could've had their name attached to it as director. It's not at all Hitchcockian and it's too...
damn...long...

On the positive side, Wilding is actually pretty likeable, and any film with Cecil Parker has to be worth seeing at least once, even if it DOES show him taking a bath. Best of all, the colour cinematography by Jack Cardiff, whilst a bit artificial-looking (a Hitchcock trademark) is absolutely gorgeous. And although it's actually pretty awful, Bergman's drunk act at the beginning is very amusing, a lively moment in an adequate but quite lethargic film.