Now Over 5500 Reviews and (near) Daily Updates!

WELCOME! Use the search engines on this site (or your own off-site engine of choice) to gain easy access to the complete MAKSQUIBS Archive; more than 5500 posts and counting. (New posts added every day or so.)

You can check on all our titles by typing the Title, Director, Actor or 'Keyword' you're looking for in the Search Engine of your choice (include the phrase MAKSQUIBS) or just use the BLOGSPOT.com Search Box at the top left corner of the page.

Feel free to place comments directly on any of the film posts and to test your film knowledge with the CONTESTS scattered here & there. (Hey! No Googling allowed. They're pretty easy.)

Send E-mails to MAKSQUIBS@yahoo.com . (Let us know if the TRANSLATE WIDGET works!) Or use the Profile Page or Comments link for contact.

Thanks for stopping by.

Saturday, November 20, 2021

UNDER CAPRICORN (1949)

Ingrid Bergman, two flop films past her long-running contract with producer David O. Selznick.  Alfred Hitchcock, one flop film out of his.  Joseph Cotten still under contract.  All three getting together on, what else, imitation Selznick . . . bad imitation Selznick.  A bit like REBECCA’s faux Gothic romance, but with gender-reversed story beats & its very own evil housekeeper in Margaret Leighton’s transparently hissable villain.  Set in a handsome, if matte-painted Australia, Cotten’s self-made man is an ex-convict with a dipsomaniac wife slowly coming out of her shell thanks to scapegrace Old World childhood acquaintance Michael Wilding, her once-and -future supporter.  To his credit, Hitchcock chalked up this failure to personal hubris: triumphant return to the U.K.; nabbing film’s top female star; his new film company; all blinding him to script problems and lack of comfort in period pieces.  He’s not wrong, but underestimates the problem: miscast leads, meandering story, overstuffed production/underdeveloped action (so much happens off screen), endless dialogue, showy ultra-long takes; plenty of blame to go around.  To her credit, Bergman goes all in, a messy, depressed drunk, only giving off the usual radiance in the third-act ball where she ravishes like a portrait by British painter George Romney.*  While Wilding, charmingly effective next year for Hitchcock in STAGE FRIGHT, is weirdly supercilious.  Along with TORN CURTAIN/’66, the rare Hitchcock dud no one’s tried to critically reevaluate into the canon.  (ADDENDUM:  As of 03/27/23 New Yorker’s auteur absolutist film squib man Richard Brody boldly picks up the challenge by offering the usual thematic defense in lieu of decent execution.)

ATTENTION MUST BE PAID: *Typically, Bergman, conforming to an old Hollywood tradition, tended to grow more beautiful the sicker she got.  Under poison in NOTORIOUS; suffering with TB in THE BELLS OF ST. MARY’S/’45.  Not here!  Looking downright rotten when she's ‘under the weather.’

WATCH THIS, NOT THAT/LINK: For Hitchcock & Cotten: SHADOW OF A DOUBT/’43.  For Hitch & Bergman: NOTORIOUS/’46.  And Wilding, as noted, much better in STAGE FRIGHT/’50.  https://maksquibs.blogspot.com/2019/07/notorious-1946.html  https://maksquibs.blogspot.com/2019/07/stage-fright-1950.html

No comments: