Under Capricorn

In Style and Meaning: Studies in the Detailed Analysis of Film, Ed Gallafent says:[4]

The use of the long take in Under Capricorn relates to three elements of film's meaning.

1. Ideas of accessible and inaccessible space as expressed in the gothic house.
2. The form in which characters 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.

Gallafent, professor of film at University of Warwick, also explains these aspects of Under Capricorn:

The inscription on the Flusky's mansion — Minyago Yugilla — means "Why weepest thou?"

St. Mary Magdalene (the patron saint of penitent sinners) in religious iconography: the bare feet, skull, the flail, the looking glass in which the beholder’s face is not always reflected, the jewels cast down to floor. All of these images are in the film. Sources for the imagery that Hitchcock might have had in mind are the paintings St. Mary Magdalene With a Candle (1630–1635) and St. Mary Magdalene With a Mirror (1635–1645), both by Georges de La Tour.

Note: "Minyago Yugilla", according to one source,[5] is not written in a real language. However, according to other sources,[6][7] it is in Kamilaroi (Gamilaraay), a now moribund Australian aboriginal language. See also this similar translation[8] of the phrase "Minyilgo yugila."   Further to be noted may be that "Woman, why weepest thou?" can be found in the Holy Bible in the Gospel of St John, 20:15.

The production credits on the film were as follows:

• Director - Alfred Hitchcock
• Writing - James Bridie (screenplay), Hume Cronyn (adaptation)
• Cinematography - Jack Cardiff (director of photography)
• Art direction - Thomas N. Morahan (production design); Philip Stockford (set dresser)
• Technicolor color director - Natalie Kalmus
• Costume design - Roger K. Furse
• Assistant director - C. Foster Kemp
• Production management - Fred Ahern (production manager), John Palmer (unit manager)
• Editor - A. S. Bates
• Operators of camera movement - Paul Beeson, Ian Craig, David MacNeilly, Jack Haste
• Sound - Peter Handford (sound recordist)
• Continuity - Peggy Singer
• Makeup artist - Charles Parker
• Music - Richard Addinsell (musical score), Louis Levy (musical director)

According to Warners' records, the film earned $1.21 million domestically and $1.46 million in foreign territories.[2]

It is thought that the audience had imagined Under Capricorn was going to be a thriller, which it was not — the plot was a domestic love triangle with a few thriller elements thrown in — and this ultimately led to its box office failure. However, the public reception of the film may have been damaged by the revelation in 1949 of the married Bergman's adulterous relationship with, and subsequent pregnancy by, the married Italian film director Roberto Rossellini.[10]

The film was not well received by critics. Bosley Crowther of The New York Times wrote that "it seems that neither Miss Bergman nor Mr. Hitchcock has tangled here with stuff of any better than penny-dreadful substance and superficial demands."[11] Variety called it "overlong and talky, with scant measure of the Hitchcock thriller tricks that could have sharpened general reception,"[12] while John McCarten of The New Yorker wrote that "this picture simultaneously succeeds in insulting the Australians, the Irish, and the average intelligence."[13] Richard L. Coe of The Washington Post wrote: "The triangle performances are splendid, but the lines and situations the three principals are called upon to face are trite indeed ... Jame's Bridie's script, from a Helen Simpson novel adapted by Hume Cronyn, has little to be proud of, is indeed unintentionally hilarious at times."[14] The Monthly Film Bulletin was also negative, writing: "The story is not enlivened by any qualities in the dialogue, which is crude and frequently stilted, or in the direction, which surely represents the nadir of Hitchcock's present period. It is extraordinary that this director, responsible for some of the most brilliant British films of the thirties—lively, fast, and full of incident—should return to this country from Hollywood for the sake of a ponderous novelette, which even more than Rope shows a preoccupation with complicated camera movements of no dramatic value whatsoever."[15]

Harrison's Reports printed a mostly positive review, praising Bergman for "another striking performance" and adding, "The story is not without its weak points, particularly in that much of the footage is given more to talk than to movement, but Alfred Hitchcock's directorial skill manages to overcome most of the script's deficiencies by building up situations that thrill and hold the spectator in tense suspense."[16] Edwin Schallert of the Los Angeles Times was also positive, calling it "a film of great class. It may fall short of Hitchcock's greatest in some respects because it lacks their vital suspense and intense interest. Yet its values are so noteworthy that it may definitely be recommended to all film-viewers."[17]

In Peter Bogdanovich's interview with Alfred Hitchcock, Bogdanovich mentions that French critics writing for Cahiers du cinéma in the 1950s considered Under Capricorn one of Hitchcock's finest films.[18][19]

A September 2019 two-day symposium in London has renewed attention to the film.