Under Capricorn - What exactly is it with this movie?
I'm viewing this right now on TCM and there is something odd about it. It has an almost "made for TV", low budget quality. The audio is flat, or something. Anyone know what makes it seem this way? Was it filmed using some special technique or something?
OP, it was shot in long, uninterrupted takes, like "Rope." That may be what is throwing you off.
I don't think its the pacing, I think it's something to do with the quality. It reminds me of those BBC television dramas from the 70s, like Brideshead Revisited. Was it shot in 16mm or something?
I agree, OP. I noticed that as well.
Ingrid Bergman hated the shoot because of the long, uninterrupted takes.
R4 Thank god I'm not the only one - I thought I was losing it for awhile there. Thanks.
Very underrated Hitch movie, it is a better Rebecca.
R7 But Margaret Leighton was no Judith Anderson.
Really? I think it's the worst Hitchcock movie of all. The acting was unconvincing. The accents were annoying. Bergman was supposed to be Anglo-Irish gentry who just happened to speak with a Scandinavian accent. The clothes were ugly. And it was generally not fun to look at. Hitchcock usually filled the screen with plenty to see. But not here. The only saving grace was Michael Wilding being his usual charming self.
Rent Capricorn Crude instead.
I think the problem is that Under Capricorn hasn't been restored yet or put out on an official DVD yet, so most of the copies floating around on those cheap DVDs and TV stations are pretty awful. Is it possible that the movie is in public domain?