The World of Alfred Hitchcock

konway87 · May 21, 2010

SPOILERS

Here is another interesting information. As you know, Lady Henrietta's request to Sam to let Milly go at the end is an act of forgiveness. Through this noble act by Lady Henrietta, Milly will survive. Although she left the house in pain, still she won't have to face the misery both Sam and Lady Henrietta suffered, because of the injustice.

Milly makes the audience realize certain things that we aren't aware of. Here is an example. When Lady Henrietta says something like this "what kind of love drives you to make such horrible things to do...", after she finds out that Milly tries to kill her. And Lady Henrietta says "when we speak of the love, we don't mean same thing." And she asks Milly "Why did you want to kill me? Do you think he could love a murderess?" And immediately Milly replies "He married one."

I think that's when Milly makes Lady Henrietta and us realize something - Lady Henrietta killed her brother Dermot to save Sam from getting killed. Milly requests Sam to stay with her, because Sam will be done for (if he returns to Ireland with Lady Henrietta). To save his life, Milly tried to kill Lady Henrietta. She makes the decision to kill Lady Henrietta only after Sam makes his mind to go to Ireland with Lady Henrietta. So Milly and Lady Henrietta are so alike. Through forgiving Milly, Lady Henrietta gets her redemption. And through forgiving Sam, Charles Adare gets his redemption. And Sam is also freed.

C.Bogle · May 21, 2010

One person who wasn't very impressed with Under Capricorn was Sir Alfred

himself. He wanted to boost his ego by getting one of the biggest names of the day,

Ingrid Bergman as the star of his independently produced picture. He later admitted

it was a piece of unfortunate vanity that left him much chagrined. He also didn't think

much of the screenplay either. He wisely decided never to do another costume picture,

unless one wants to count Psycho.

konway87 · May 21, 2010

Hitchcock wasn't impressed with Under Capricorn, because it turned out to be a box office flop. This led to the closing of his own studio Transatlantic Pictures. He thought that the film was a failure, because of the screenplay. In the interview with Truffaut, it is clear that the audience was expecting a thriller. This was because the publicity department gave the impression that Under Capricorn was going to be a Horror/Thriller.

Warner Bros publicity department did everything the wrong way. Here is a Lobby Card of Under Capricorn. In this Lobby Card, it looks like a Horror/Thriller.

http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Hitchcock_Gallery:_image_1453

konway87 · May 21, 2010

Hitchcock wasn't impressed with Under Capricorn, because it turned out to be a box office flop. This led to the closing of his own studio Transatlantic Pictures. He thought that the film was a failure, because of the screenplay. In the interview with Truffaut, it is clear that the audience was expecting a thriller. This was because the publicity department gave the impression that Under Capricorn was going to be a Horror/Thriller.

Warner Bros publicity department did everything the wrong way. Here is a Lobby Card of Under Capricorn. In this Lobby Card, it looks like a Horror/Thriller.

http://www.hitchcockwiki.com/wiki/Hitchcock_Gallery:_image_1453

JackFavell · May 21, 2010

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and some people will only follow what the majority thinks. Some like to appropriate other's opinions and pass them off as their own. Some like to play elitist games and go only by what they perceive as "expert" criticism. I like to make up my own mind about movies I watch, so I am fairly uninterested in what critics think of a film, even if that critic happens to be the director! But it must have been a great disappointment to Hitch to have his film flop when he relied so much on it being a money maker.

One doesn't skimp on the script when starting out with a new production company, does one?.And I am sure that if Hitch didn't like the script at the beginning of filming, he would have tried to get a script he did like. He may have started filming, and then had reservations about it, or he may have simply had his hands full with other production issues. I think the script is good, though far less complex than some of Hitch's other films, however, it is quite romantic. Maybe he was counting on this and Bergman's presence? It is a very British film, and seems calculated to appeal to a British public rather than an American one - konway, can you tell me who this film was meant for, and why he picked this film to be the big moneymaker?

I am sure that even Hitch, who had relative success, at times felt uncomfortable with his image as a master of suspense, even at this early stage. Did he want to break free? There are other films that belie this yearning to go in a slightly different direction or maybe just to add variety to his repertoire. Perhaps he saw this film as a transition one. Maybe he had too much on his plate to fully create what he might have out of the film? I think he may have had a hard time admitting that picking a very thoughtful, fairly quiet British period costume romance was a foolish choice as a draw or a moneymaker, at least in America, and so later he blamed the script, which might be a weak point compared to other more complex and popular Hitchcock films, but would be perfectly fine coming from another less successful director.

Was he just tossing it off as a popular romance in order to make a quick buck? Or was this close to his heart? I really don't know the history of the film.

I guess I am asking, konway, do you think that the film is realized the way Hitchcock wanted it? Script considerations aside?

konway87 · May 21, 2010

When he started Transatlantic Pictures with Sidney Bernstein, he wanted to make Under Capricorn. But Ingrid Bergman was unavailable. So he made Rope. But Rope was a box office failure. Hitchcock also payed special attention to Under Capricorn, because Ingrid Bergman was interested in it.

Hitchcock himself says this in Truffaut interview Book (Page 137) "I would have liked it to have been a success, even outside of commercial considerations. With all the enthusiasm we invested in that picture (Under Capricorn), it was a shame that it didn't amount to anything."

So the lack of success and criticisms from critics heavily disappointed Hitchcock.

American Critics weren't favorable at all. As you know, Under Capricorn is a drama. They were expecting to be a thriller. That's why Hollywood Reporter commented like this "one had to wait a hundred and five minutes for the first thrill of the picture." This info can be seen in Page 135 and 136 of Hitchcock/Truffaut Interview Book.

But French Critics consider it as one of Hitchcock's finest films. Truffaut told Hitchcock that Margaret Leighton was great in it. Hitchcock agreed with Truffaut. But he also told Truffaut that British Critics said that it was terrible to take a lovely actress like Margaret Leighton and maker her into an unsympathetic character. This info can be seen in Page 137.

C.Bogle · May 21, 2010

Of course the fact that the film was publicized incorrectly and was a big box office

floppero couldn't have been good news for Hitch. But even without the financial

disappointment, I think he wasn't impressed with it as a film. He seems to have been

more interested in snagging Ingrid Bergman for his project, and in retrospect, he

admitted this was his initial error. Then the script wasn't very good. By that time,

he was probably in too deep to get out, and did the best he could with what he had.

I think he realized that costume pictures weren't his forte, since he wasn't satisfied

with Jamaica Inn either. Both financially and artistically, his 1950s work seems to

prove his instincts were right.

Bronxgirl48 · May 22, 2010

> {quote:title=konway87 wrote:}{quote}

> I am glad you are appreciating Under Capricorn, Bronxgirl48. I agree that Joseph Cotten was great in it. I also thought Margaret Leighton (Milly) was absolutely brilliant.

Your observations and analysis of this film is what's really brilliant, konway! Leighton is excellent -- I've got absolutely no sympathy for Millie, however. She's just creepy to me. I love how in every gesture and intonation, calm or furious, Cotton as Sam reveals his deep love for Hattie -- the gentle touch of his hand on hers, his poignant recitation to Wilding of the way they met in Ireland, and how "a great gulf fixed" drove them apart (I keep replaying that scene when I watch on YouTube). I prefer Bergman's "hysteria" here rather than in GASLIGHT. Hattie and Sam's relationship is one of the most bittersweet I've ever seen on screen.

Edited by: Bronxgirl48 on May 22, 2010 12:30 AM

konway87 · May 22, 2010

I thought the script of Under Capricorn was absolutely brilliant. I don't see any problem with it. Jamaica Inn isn't really a Hitchcock picture. It was one of Hitchcock's most unhappy directing jobs. And he made no cameo appearances in Jamaica Inn. In Under Capricorn, he makes 2 cameo appearances.

JackFavell · May 22, 2010

I agree with Bronxgirl, konway, your analysis is fantastic!

Now see, as much as I like Joseph Cotten, I just loved Michael WIlding in this one. I thought he was just the right combination - two parts fop and one part Byronic hero! and I loved his humor. However, he is the most accessible character.

I think I will have to watch again, looking specifically at Cotten's performance. I was so irritated at him when he burst into the ballroom! Even though I know he did it out of love, I can't get around how stupid it was. Though if he hadn't, he and Henrietta might not have come together at the end the way they did. I think his is the role that will come to be the most sympathetic on successive viewings. The movie has to take the view that he is mysterious brute - we see him all through the film just as society sees him.......but I guess in the end, he really is the Byronic hero, not WIlding at all. Sam's emotion and love for Hattie get the better of him.... which shows him to be the better man in the long run. We don't really see this tender hurting side of Sam until the end of the film.

I do like how WIlding, for all his fervor and ability to charm, STILL botches up his escape from Minyago Yugilla. It's kind of endearing, but oh! those poor horses!

konway87 · May 22, 2010

SPOILERS

Hitchcock liked working with Michael Wilding. After the closing of his own studio, he picked another small project which became Stage Fright (1950). And Hitchcock worked with Michael Wilding again. Stage Fright (1950) is another drama with some thrilling moments. I like it a lot. Its a small picture. This is the only film where Hitchcock worked with Alastair Sim.

Back to Under Capricorn. I want to show some more points before you watch the film again. I think Michael Wilding's character Charles Adare is like Sydney Carton from A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. They both become heroes at the end of the plot. I somehow feel sorry for all of the 4 characters in the film. I found Milly and Lady Henrietta very similar especially through their actions.

Bronxgirl, I don't know if you noticed this. There is also character resemblance between Winter and Samson Flusky. They do look a little alike. They both have similar past. That's the reason why Samson Flusky hired him. This is an example of theme "the mystery of human personality." Like Bronxgirl pointed out, Sam has a generous mind that the audience don't notice. He is isolated in his own way, because of inferiority complex. Although he gets angry, still in next scene you see him as a kind human being. For Example, Sam angrily says to Lady Henrietta that "I am done with you" after he hears that Lady Henrietta will be send back to Ireland. The next scene we see him making a decision about sacrificing everything so that he could go with Lady Henrietta back to Ireland.

According to Writer Ed Gallafent, the use of the long take in Under Capricorn relates to 3 elements of film?s meaning.

1.Ideas of accessible and inaccessible space as expressed in the gothic house.

2.The form in which character inhabit their past

3.The divergence or convergence of eyelines ? the gaze that cannot, or must meet another?s.

All of these three elements can be linked to concepts of Guilt and Shame. In 1 and 2, the question is how something is felt to be present. In 3, it is difference between representation or sharing, of the past as flashback, and of the past as spoken narrative, where part of what is being articulated is precisely the inaccessibility of the past, its experience being locked inside the speaker. As for 3, the avoided gaze is determining physical sign of shame.

It was Ed Gallafent who pointed out symbolisms connected with St. Mary Magdalene. We see the form in which character inhabit their past through St. Mary Magdalene's religious iconography like bare feet, clothes/Jewels cast down to the floor, the looking glass in which beholder?s is not always reflected.

JackFavell · May 22, 2010

I like the idea that Sam Flusky and Winter are the same.

I liked Winter a lot, and I wanted badly for him to rat out Milly -- she should have lost his allegiance when she threw him under the bus, blaming him for the wine bottles being dumped on the table. He never did tell on her, and as much as I wanted him to, it showed he was an honorable man that he did not.

Was Winter an ex-con too? I think he was, as Sam picked him up on the dock. So the most honorable people in Sydney were the ex-cons who had paid their debt to "society".

Charles, as he himself said, was no gentleman and thus not a part of polite "society". He formed his own opinions. His uncle was an absolute fool and a stuffy one at that. At the ball, he was positively hypocritical. The other "society" guests at the ball and dinner party were insufferable bores or gossips, and the wives were constantly swayed by rumour and innuendo. They were like the women servants below stairs.... who were a mean lot, but shaped up quite well after Hattie told them she would not beat them, so in some ways, they were at least slightly more likeable than their society "betters".

Edited by: JackFavell on May 22, 2010 11:59 AM

konway87 · May 22, 2010

SPOILERS

The first scene with Winter is the scene at the office before the scene in the beginning with the shrunken head. That's when Winter tells the story about his past. I agree. Winter is an honorable character.

johnm001 · May 22, 2010

With the exception of Vertigo, The Paradine Case, Under Capricorn and Jamaica Inn, I like every single Hitchcock film. Naturally, some more than others, but other than those three (which I don't like, at all), I am such a fan of his films. Next to Robert Wise, he is my favorite director. My top ten favorite films of his are:

The Birds

North by Northwest

Spellbound

Psycho

Dial M for Murder

Strangers on a Train

The Lady Vanishes

Saboteur

Stage Fright

The Trouble With Harry

JackFavell · May 22, 2010

I'm glad The Trouble with Harry made your list! It's a favorite of mine.

johnm001 · May 22, 2010

It's such a fun picture. I was shocked the other day when I wasn't so quick on the Tivo trigger, and happened to catch some auto commercial using Bernard Herrmann's music from *The Trouble With Harry*! His music and the New England locations are certainly part of the film's appeal. Also, John Forsythe and the entire cast is a joy!

konway87 · May 23, 2010

SPOILERS

The Trouble with Harry is a special film, because it has beautiful cinematography and first score for Hitchcock by Bernard Herrmann. Performances were fine especially from John Forsythe and Mildred Natwick. I don't know why some people say John Forsythe was miscast.

As you know, James Bridie and Alfred Hitchcock created the idea of character resemblance. This idea was first used in The Paradine Case. But the Original Hitchcock Script by James Bridie was never used, because of the casting changes. This idea was used in Rope, Under Capricorn, Strangers on a Train, I Confess, The Trouble with Harry, The Wrong Man, and Vertigo.

In Trouble with Harry, Harry mistakenly thinks Miss Gravely (Mildred Natwick) is Jennifer Rogers (Shirley MacLaine).

konway87 · May 27, 2010

SPOILERS

What do you all think about Hitchcock's favorite film Shadow of A Doubt? As you all know, the villain "Uncle Charlie" is connected to a Vampire throughout the picture. Like James Bridie, Thornton Wilder was another playwright who was great in character connections. Young Charlie is closest to Uncle Charlie. But Uncle Charlie is also connected to other characters in the film. He is the youngest like Roger. Like Ann, He was always reading at his young age.

I think Ann represents a past illusion of Uncle Charlie.

misswonderly3 · May 27, 2010

I had not heard about this Vampire connection in Shadow of a Doubt. Please tell me about it.

konway87 · May 27, 2010

SPOILERS

I collected these informations from many Hitchcock admirers.

1) When we are first introduced to Uncle Charlie, he is lying on his bed, arms folded across his chest, suggestive of a vampire lying in his coffin.

2) As the landlady lowers the blind and the light disappears from his face, Uncle Charlie rises as though waiting to commit his crimes under the cover of darkness. This image is also interesting to note, as the blinds are traditionally drawn where there is a dead man in the room.

3) Jack Graham asks Ann to tell Catherine the story of Dracula.

4) Uncle Charlie comes from Philadelphia, "Pennsylvania." Dracula comes from "Transylvania."

5) Telephathic communication between Young Charlie and Uncle Charlie is connected to the relationship between Mina Harker and Dracula.

6) 'The same blood runs through our veins' does have a connection to the 1931 film--Dracula says the exact same line in reference to Mina when he and Van Helsing have their "battle of wills" to prove he now has power over her.

7) Women are attracted to Uncle Charlie.

8) The fact that he remains unseen on the train is a lot like Dracula's trip from Transylvania to London.

9) Uncle Charlie is also killed on the train RETURNING to the east, much like how Dracula dies returning to the east.

A Hitchcock admirer named CabmanGray wrote this "The film is mainly about the loss of innocence, but it's deliberately loaded with vampire references. Uncle Charlie is often seen in his bed/coffin during the day, but when young Charlie finds out who/what he really is at the library, then SHE sleeps through the next day until nightfall. This suggests that she has become a little more like Uncle Charlie now that her innocence has been torn away. In other words, she is becoming a little more like the waitress (Louise) in the bar scene who has clearly lost her innocence about the world long ago. I've always considered the waitresss as an "undead" victim. Some viewers have asked "why does the waitress talk like that?" Well, she's supposed to sound like that. She's no longer an innocent or naive about the world as young Charlie is. They say the waitress is talking like a zombie (no emotions). That, of course, is the whole point! "for a ring like that I'd just about die" she states. Well, she is somewhat dead, at least on the inside. Hitchcock, Thornton Wilder and Alma Reville are basically saying that when you lose your innocence, then you lose a little bit of your soul as well. Uncle Charlie is seen as a kind of plague on the small town, but he doesn't invade their homes to drain their blood, instead he corrupts the minds of the young by taking their innocence from them."

misswonderly3 · May 27, 2010

Fascinating stuff! I've seen Shadow of a Doubt many times, but now I'm planning to watch it with this new information in mind.

konway87 · May 27, 2010

SPOILERS

Here is the list of Hitchcock's films that were box office failures or flops.

1) Shadow of A Doubt (1943)

2) The Paradine Case

3) Rope (1948)

4) Under Capricorn (1949)

5) Stage Fright (1950)

6) I Confess (1953)

7) The Trouble with Harry

8) The Wrong Man

9) Vertigo (1958)

10) Topaz (1969)

Although Shadow of A Doubt was a box office failure, still many critics later considered this film as Hitchcock's best film.

The Paradine Case (1947) - Unfortunately it is a lost film, because of Selznick's editing. He removed several of Hitchcock's scenes and replaced his scenes with his silly retakes. And the film was a box office flop. But the Critics were favorable about 131 minutes version (with most of Hitchcock's scenes). Unfortunately, this version is considered lost.

Rope (1948) - This film was a box office failure. But many Hitchcock admirers consider this film as one of Hitchcock's best.

Under Capricorn (1949) - This film was a box office flop, because the publicity department did everything the wrong way. And Critics didn't like it. But French Critics praised this film and considered this film as one of Hitchcock's finest films. In 1950s, Cahiers du Cinema (French Film Magazine) voted Under Capricorn (1949) as one of the ten greatest films of all time.

Stage Fright (1950) - The film was a box office failure, because the audience didn't like an idea Hitchcock used in the film. I don't want to spoil the idea, because there are a lot of people here who haven't seen the film.

I Confess (1953) - This film was a box office failure in U.S. But it was well received in France. And French Critics considered this film as one of Hitchcock's best films.

The Trouble with Harry (1955) - A Failure in U.S, because the publicity didn't everything the wrong way. But the film was very successful in Europe especially in France and Italy.

The Wrong Man (1956) - I think The Wrong Man is Hitchcock's most realistic film, although it was a box office failure.

Vertigo (1958) - Its considered as one of Hitchcock's best films. But the film was a box office failure and many critics didn't like the film.

Topaz (1969) - I think this was Hitchcock's biggest failure.

konway87 · May 27, 2010