Under Capricorn (1949)

Its hardly surprising that a director with the stature of Alfred Hitchcock would have his own production company in his day. What is surprising however, is the fact that said production company would only last for two films. Hitchcock, along with British business mogul Baron Sidney Bernstein formed Transatlantic Pictures in 1945. The two had previously collaborated on a holocaust documentary that was ultimately shelved before finally seeing the light of day in 1985 entitled Memory of the Camps. The first film Hitchcock would helm under his Transatlantic banner was Rope (1948), now famous for its revolutionary long take shooting technique, with the cuts slyly disguised to give the impression that the entire film was taking place in real time. As brilliant as Rope was, the film proved to be controversial with its fairly blatant homosexual overtones (the film was based on the infamous Leopold and Loeb murder case) and didn't do great business in the US. For a follow-up, Hitchcock would once again fly the Transatlantic flag and would shoot the project in a similar long take fashion but he took an interesting left turn with the material. The result was 1949's Under Capricorn, a lush period melodrama that would unfortunately fly over a lot of audiences heads at the time but stands as yet another film often considered to be “lesser” Hitchcock that is in fact an extraordinary piece of work.

Not long after arriving in Australia in hopes of making his fortune, Charles Adare, an Irishman and cousin of the new governor, quickly befriends Samson Flusky (Joseph Cotten), a rich man with a shady criminal past. Much to the chagrin of his cousin, Charles has dinner at Flusky's house where he meets Flusky's wife Henrietta (Ingrid Bergman), a former childhood friend of Charles' sister in Ireland who's now an alcoholic, spending most of her days perpetually drunk in her bedroom. After making a scene, Charles kindly helps Henrietta back to her room, prompting Flusky to plead with Charles to help get Henrietta back to her old self. Charles agrees, though in the process invoking the jealousy of Flusky's nefarious housekeeper Millie and in turn Flusky himself which shines new light on an old scandal involving Flusky and Henrietta's past.

On paper, Under Capricorn might not seem very Hitchcockian but the film gradually reveals itself to be rife with many of Hitchcock's key obsessions. What separates it from other Hitchcock films is the way in which said obsessions reveal themselves, the manner employed by Hitchcock being rather sly. The idea of a high society scandal is one of the more obvious Hitchcock themes to make itself known fairly quickly, but as the story progresses and it becomes known that a murder has been hanging over the heads of certain characters for several years, perhaps Hitchcock's favorite theme of all comes into play, that being a wrong man scenario and again, Hitchcock explores the familiar idea in a different way then audiences at the time were used to. There is also of course the character of Millie, who, although not as overtly sinister as Mrs. Danvers in Hitchcock's Rebecca (1940), the most infamous of all evil housekeepers, she is nevertheless cut from the same cloth and makes for a wonderful antagonist. The central story of Henrietta's plight carries a lot of emotional weight thanks to Bergman's sympathetic performance and the story poses an interesting question in regards to how much self-sacrifice is the idea of love worth. Hitchcock's technical brilliance is on full display with the long takes and despite being set in Australia, the films visuals share many qualities of an American southern gothic aesthetic and the film even tips over into full-on horror territory thanks to the starling appearances of shrunken heads.

Along with not being very popular with audiences and critics at the time who were both expecting a typical Hitchcock thriller, the film was even maligned by its creators with Hitchcock believing it to have been a “disaster” and Joseph Cotten referring to it as “Under Corny Crap” in his autobiography Vanity Will Get You Somewhere. French critics however loved the film as was par for the course when it came to many of Hitchcock films that were underrated elsewhere, particularly in America upon their initial releases. Cahiers du Cinema even named Under Capricorn one of the greatest films of all time in 1958. Despite the box office failure of Under Capricorn and Rope before it, Hitchcock did intend to keep Transatlantic going, with Hitchcock follow-up Stage Fright (1950) originally intended to be a Transatlantic production, the company eventually dissolving after a plethora of issues got in the way of what was to be an adaptation of The Bramble Bush, a novel by American writer David Duncan, with several of Hitchcock subsequent films being released by Warner Bros. Despite having virtually everything working against it and with respect to Hitchcock and Cotten's opinions of the film, Under Capricorn is certainly a film Hitchcock enthusiasts who've yet to make its acquaintance would be wise to sit down with and an interesting look at Hitchcock taking a different approach to some of his favorite topics.

The Skin Game (1931)

One of the greatest ironies regarding the filmography of Alfred Hitchcock is that thanks to the copyright laws of the United States, so many of Hitchcock's early British films have been widely available for years, often grouped together in budget DVD sets, yet so many of the films are still under-discussed. Of Hitchcock's silent features, of course The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog (1927) is the clear standout, rightfully considered one of Hitchcock's finest and most important films but other silent titles like The Ring (1927), Downhill (1927), The Farmer's Wife (1928), Easy Virtue (1928), Champagne (1928) and The Manxman (1929), while obviously never going to be viewed with the same esteem as the likes of Vertigo (1958) or Psycho (1960), are nevertheless interesting watches as they present of the mediums greatest talents gradually honing his craft. The same could be said of Hitchcock's early sound films, with several going on to prominence like The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934), The 39 Steps (1936) and The Lady Vanishes (1938) while some other, more obscure films get lost in the cracks. One such early Hitchcock talkie to get lost in the shuffle is 1931's The Skin Game, a curious little film that, while different from a lot of the films Hitchcock was doing at the time, would actually show a few signs of things to come from Hitchcock in the future.

Mr. Hornblower, a formally working class, now rich entrepreneur, evicts the Jackman's, an elderly couple of tenant farmers from his land, much to the chagrin of Jack Hillcrist, the head of an aristocratic family whom sold Hornblower the land under the condition that no tenants would be evicted after the land was sold. Brushing off Hillcrist's protests, Hornblower reveals his plans to purchase a large area of land near the Hillcrist's property to build more factories, the prospect of which disgusts the Hillcrist's. After a plan to outbid Hornblower for the land goes array, Mrs. Hillcrist discovers a scandalous secret about the past of Hornblower's daughter-in-law Chloe, a revelation that takes the two feuding families rivalry into disastrous territory.

The Skin Game is the type of film that would lead many to classify it as an “atypical” Hitchcock film which would be unfair for a few reasons. While the film was a bit of a departure from the types of films Hitchcock had made leading up to it, he really hadn't quite become synonymous with the types of suspense thrillers that would eventually become his calling card and again, the film does contain numerous things that Hitchcock would gradually refine in future films. On its own, The Skin Game is a great early example of Hitchcock's approach to melodrama with an engaging family feud at its core. What's most interesting regarding the story is the way Hitchcock's presents both families, and in a brilliant early example of Hitchcock mastery of audience manipulation, the way Hitchcock constantly seems to be shifting sympathies, with both the Hornblower's and the Hillcrist's eventually coming across as just as bad as the other, and with the story eventually heading into almost Shakespearean tragedy territory near its conclusion, its clear that in Hitchcock's view, in this skin game, there are no winners. The film also makes for a fascinating time capsule with the scandal involving Hornblower's daughter-in-law being very much a product of its day, and the idea of a scandal threatening to bring social harm to an upper class family is a theme that Hitchcock would return to again in another film often seen as atypical, Under Capricorn (1949), which also touches upon the idea of class.

Another example of the film showing signs of things to come, the film does feature some early, slightly primitive though nonetheless effective “floating head” optical effects that are reminiscent of some of the more surreal imagery that would feature in Spellbound (1945) and Vertigo. It's also worth noting that the film was based on a play written by English writer John Galsworthy in 1920. As was often the case when it came to writers, Hitchcock and Galsworthy often butted heads over the script, although during the films pre-production stages Hitchcock and Galsworthy got along swimmingly with Hitchcock already being a big fan of Galsworthy's. Hitchcock considered Galsworthy one of the most cultured individuals he'd ever conversed with, the dinners at Galsworthy's house being some of Hitchcock's favorites, Hitchcock describing Galsworthy acting as “a chivalrous feudal lord mandating every new topic of conversation” and ultimately Galsworthy had to give his final approval of everything in the script. Again, due to the strange world that is copyright law, The Skin Game, like the majority of Hitchcock's early output has floated around in the public domain in America resulting in several home video editions either on its own or in a set with other early Hitchcock's so its a very easily attainable film and while its not likely to be considered an “essential” title, The Skin Game is very much worth seeing for any Hitchcock enthusiast.