We're excited to present a great new set of boards to classic movie fans with tons of new features, stability, and performance.

If you’re new to the message boards, please “Register” to get started. If you want to learn more about the new boards, visit our FAQ.

Register

If you're a returning member, start by resetting your password to claim your old display name using your email address.

Re-Register

Thanks for your continued support of the TCM Message Boards.

X

Kyle Kersten was a true friend of TCM. One of the first and most active participants of the Message Boards, “Kyle in Hollywood” (aka, hlywdkjk) demonstrated a depth of knowledge and largesse of spirit that made him one of the most popular and respected voices in these forums. This thread is a living memorial to his life and love of movies, which remain with us still.

X

Jump to content


Photo

Undercurrent (1946)


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 TopBilled

TopBilled

    Film Writing and Selected Journalism

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34,095 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 08:26 PM

Thanks. I saw that film once, probably about 11 or 12 years ago, and I barely remember it. I hope to find it somewhere so that I can watch it again. It's a fine film.

 

TCM airs RAW DEAL about once or twice a year, so keep an eye on the schedules.


"The truth? What good is the truth if it destroys us all..?" -- Mady Christians in ALL MY SONS (1948).


#2 kjrwe

kjrwe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 06 March 2017 - 08:03 PM

Yes it does.    The character Trevor played is the one that really got the raw deal.

 

Thanks. I saw that film once, probably about 11 or 12 years ago, and I barely remember it. I hope to find it somewhere so that I can watch it again. It's a fine film.



#3 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,447 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 06 March 2017 - 06:55 PM

Doesn't Raw Deal (1948) have the voice over narration from Claire Trevor?

 

Yes it does.    The character Trevor played is the one that really got the raw deal.


  • TopBilled likes this

#4 cigarjoe

cigarjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,900 posts
  • LocationNY

Posted 06 March 2017 - 06:48 PM

One of the things I really like about this movie is that it's told mostly from the point of view of the female lead.

 

I can't think of many noirs which are like that. Let's see...

 

Undercurrent: Katharine Hepburn

 

Lured: Lucille Ball

 

The House on Telegraph Hill: Valentina Cortesa

 

Sorry Wrong Number: Barbara Stanwyck

 

There are some which alternate the points of view, like The Strange Love of Martha Ivers and In a Lonely Place.

 

However, seems to me that most other noirs are from the male point of view. Nothing wrong with that, because in a lot of noir, it's the main character who meets the femme fatale, etc. Still, it's a nice change to see some noir which takes a different point of view.

Doesn't Raw Deal (1948) have the voice over narration from Claire Trevor?



#5 kjrwe

kjrwe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 11:28 PM

Agree, not a fave of mine either.

 

One of the things I really like about this movie is that it's told mostly from the point of view of the female lead.

 

I can't think of many noirs which are like that. Let's see...

 

Undercurrent: Katharine Hepburn

 

Lured: Lucille Ball

 

The House on Telegraph Hill: Valentina Cortesa

 

Sorry Wrong Number: Barbara Stanwyck

 

There are some which alternate the points of view, like The Strange Love of Martha Ivers and In a Lonely Place.

 

However, seems to me that most other noirs are from the male point of view. Nothing wrong with that, because in a lot of noir, it's the main character who meets the femme fatale, etc. Still, it's a nice change to see some noir which takes a different point of view.


  • TopBilled likes this

#6 cigarjoe

cigarjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,900 posts
  • LocationNY

Posted 03 March 2017 - 07:56 AM

Can't say I'm a fan of this film,  mainly because the Mitchum persona isn't used to its noir potential.    Of course in 1946 the director didn't know that decades later Mitchum would become a noir icon.

Agree, not a fave of mine either.



#7 kjrwe

kjrwe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 03 March 2017 - 04:40 AM

Can't say I'm a fan of this film,  mainly because the Mitchum persona isn't used to its noir potential.    Of course in 1946 the director didn't know that decades later Mitchum would become a noir icon.

 

True about Mitchum, but I'm not sure why it really matters in this story.

 

I think he did a good job in this movie, but I'm surprised that they didn't cast a lesser-known actor to play the part of Michael Garroway. This character was supposed to be mysterious, etc. and a lot of that mystery is taken away by casting an actor who was already quite famous by the time 1946 rolled around. Okay, I realize that Hepburn's character is the one who is curious about her husband's mysterious brother, but the mystery might have been more effective for the viewers if the part had gone to some new actor.

 

No complaints about Mitchum's work here, though.



#8 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,447 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 02 March 2017 - 09:15 PM

I like this film. I felt that Katharine Hepburn didn't overact like she sometimes did in some other movies. Interesting storyline because it's from the point of view of a woman (not many other noirs like it).

 

The only thing: I felt that the character of Sylvia Burton (the one whom the psycho had wanted to marry initially) was unnecessary. For one thing, I didn't see much of a similarity (physical or otherwise) between her and the main character. Also, I found it hard to believe that this mean-spirited woman wouldn't have wanted the psycho, but would have chosen the psycho's brother instead. This minor character should have been left out completely.

 

Can't say I'm a fan of this film,  mainly because the Mitchum persona isn't used to its noir potential.    Of course in 1946 the director didn't know that decades later Mitchum would become a noir icon.



#9 kjrwe

kjrwe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts

Posted 02 March 2017 - 09:12 PM

I like this film. I felt that Katharine Hepburn didn't overact like she sometimes did in some other movies. Interesting storyline because it's from the point of view of a woman (not many other noirs like it).

 

The only thing: I felt that the character of Sylvia Burton (the one whom the psycho had wanted to marry initially) was unnecessary. For one thing, I didn't see much of a similarity (physical or otherwise) between her and the main character. Also, I found it hard to believe that this mean-spirited woman wouldn't have wanted the psycho, but would have chosen the psycho's brother instead. This minor character should have been left out completely.



#10 laffite

laffite

    Oh Johnneeeeee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,138 posts
  • LocationSoCal

Posted 13 January 2014 - 11:41 PM

>It ranks very high on the 'looks good on paper but not on film' category. Hey, that might make an interesting thread.

Why don't you start it! Not a bad idea at all. I've just watched a movie that probably qualifies, but I'll demure for now. I'll wait for your thread :)

#11 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,447 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 11 January 2014 - 08:31 PM

Agree with you on Undercurrent. It ranks very high on the 'looks good on paper but not on film' category. Hey, that might make an interesting thread.

#12 lavenderblue19

lavenderblue19

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 22,425 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 07:20 PM

Completly agree. Over the years on the bds. I've mentioned how weak a film I've always thought *Undercurrent* was. I thought Kate and Mitchum had no chemistry at all. Taylor and Kate didn't do much for me either.I always got the feeling that they didn't really care much for their roles or the film (as if Kate was trying too hard with this one) Not sure if this one was miscast or the material just wasn't all that great so that no matter the cast it still wouldn't be a very good film.

#13 laffite

laffite

    Oh Johnneeeeee

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,138 posts
  • LocationSoCal

Posted 06 January 2014 - 11:14 PM

I recently ordered this from NetF, I?m probably echoing some of the comments already made. I didn?t like the film much. There was something wrong with Kate, she either wasn?t comfortable or this role just wasn?t right for her, she didn?t come across well, even amateurish in some places. Sometimes the director can negatively influence an actor?s performance, I don?t know, but I don?t think this was good Kate. Robert Taylor was okay as the happy husband but the negativity about the brother resulted in the character to go bizarre, yes this was the thing with him, his brother, I understand, there was a complex there to say the least?but I don?t feel that Robert integrated this happier side to the unhappier side for good a character, the adverse reactions to everything having to do with the brother comes across as bizarrely incongruous and erratic (for me). A better performance would have fixed this. And then the brother, someone we don?t see until the end but who dominates the film in the background, turns out to be this bland guy played by Robert Mitchum, an actor who can do so much more than this character required. Not that that is necessarily bad, but I was hoping for something more, more interesting at least, from the brother.

#14 Kid Dabb

Kid Dabb

    Calling Barranca. Calling Barranca.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,839 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 01 November 2013 - 10:23 AM

I'll take Cape Fear, Thunder Road, The Night of the Hunter,
and some buttered popcorn please.

FdX2C0H.gif


#15 DownGoesFrazier

DownGoesFrazier

    Advanced Spinner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57,501 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted 01 November 2013 - 09:02 AM

The role Mitchum was really BORN to play, I believe, was his CAPE FEAR character.

#16 Kid Dabb

Kid Dabb

    Calling Barranca. Calling Barranca.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,839 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 31 October 2013 - 04:41 PM

>But I'm not comfortable with Mitchum's or Taylor's characters either. They're both miscast....I've never been comfortable with Mitchum as a real good guy.

I didn't care for Taylor much in this either - out of place. I do like Mitchum in these types of character roles. Not to disregard his great presence in noir's but.. I like his good guys equally well - Holiday Affair, for instance, though there aren't many of those examples to choose from.

We've all of us here our own unique perspectives on this one. This may also be the result of a poor story-line or casting. Or both. Confirming our views.

Many times I get put off in films from the 40s and 50s that pair 'old Hollywood' actors with the next generation, such as Hepburn and Mitchum.. moreso the combo of Taylor and Mitchum. These give me an uncomfortable feeling. Just me, I guess.

FdX2C0H.gif


#17 DownGoesFrazier

DownGoesFrazier

    Advanced Spinner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57,501 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

Taylor is OK as a bad guy (JOHNNY EAGER, ROGUE COP), but for some reason, this role didn't suit him.

#18 jamesjazzguitar

jamesjazzguitar

    There is nothing as bad as something not so bad

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,447 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 31 October 2013 - 10:52 AM

Swithing the roles for Taylor and Mitchum and replacing Hepburn with a noir gal like Ida Lupino would of improved this film.

#19 DownGoesFrazier

DownGoesFrazier

    Advanced Spinner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 57,501 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted 31 October 2013 - 08:26 AM

gree with you about Hepburn. But I'm not comfortable with Mitchum's or Taylor's characters either. They're both miscast....I've never been comfortable with Mitchum as a real good guy.

Edited by: finance on Oct 31, 2013 9:26 AM

#20 Kid Dabb

Kid Dabb

    Calling Barranca. Calling Barranca.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 16,839 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 30 October 2013 - 07:00 PM

What bothers me about this film is Katharine Hepburn. I like Katharine Hepburn very much, actually in every film except this one. It's not her.. it's her character. Here her character is weak, confused, unsure, afraid, and lacking in any quality that I'm used to seeing in her characters.

There is some resemblance to other films such as Suspicion, Gaslight, and Rebecca. I don't feel Ms. Hepburn pulls this one off so well. It seems every time the camera focuses on her she withers a bit - as if on cue. The only character I feel comfortable with is Michael Garroway (Robert Mitchum).

The ending is nice, if a bit awkward.

FdX2C0H.gif





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users