Under Capricorn: Hitchcock's forgotten classic

It's strange to read of Alfred Hitchcock's disappointment at the reception and outcome of Under Capricorn (1949), his melodramatic thriller set in 1830s colonial Australia. Perhaps his distaste for the film accounts for its relative obscurity compared to other films in the Hitchcock cannon. Surprising, too, is his suggestion that he miscast Joseph Cotton in the role of Sam Flusky, the lower-class groom whose love affair with the young lady of the estate leads to disaster. Others might suggest that Cotton superbly conveys his character's intense brooding, his confusion at his emotions and at those of his alcoholic wife.


Peter Bogdanovich: This picture was not a success, but why do you think many French critics consider it one of your finest films?

Alfred Hitchcock: Because they looked at it for what it was and not what people expected. Here you get a Hitchcock picture which is a costume-picture and not approached from a thriller or excitement point of view until towards the end. I remember some remark by a Hollywood critic who said, "We had to wait 105 minutes for the first thrill." They went in expecting something and didn't get it. That was the main fault with that picture. Also the casting was wrong. This was the lady-and-the groom story again. Bergman fell in love with the groom, Joseph Cotten, and he got shipped to Australia as a convict and she followed him. It was her getting degraded for love — that was the main thing here. Cotten wasn't right. I wanted Burt Lancaster. It was compromise casting again. Also I used a fluid camera — mistakenly perhaps because it intensified the fact that it wasn't a thriller — it flowed too easily.