Alfred Hitchcock returned to the United Kingdom to make two of his lesser known works, Stage Fright and Under Capricorn. Neither of them score high on the credits of the master of suspense.

But Under Capricorn is remembered best as Ingrid Bergman's last Hollywood production because while this was playing in theaters, news of her out of wedlock pregnancy as a result of her affair with Italian director Roberto Rossellini was announced. Hollywood quickly condemned Saint Ingrid as if somehow because she played Joan of Arc and a nun, she was held to some kind of higher moral standard.

Under Capricorn is best described as Australian Gothic, it's very similar to Rebecca with a touch of O'Neill's Mourning Becomes Electra and a bit of Wuthering Heights tossed in for effect. The setting is Australia in 1831 where new British King William IV has appointed a new governor, Cecil Parker, for New South Wales. And Parker has a cousin, Michael Wilding, who has accompanied him.

Wilding's an independent sort who when told not to associate with rich, but brooding landowner Joseph Cotten, does just the opposite. He remembers why he seems to know Cotten and his wife Ingrid Bergman. Back in Ireland, there was quite a bit of scandal when Bergman of the landed gentry and Cotten a groom on her estate eloped. Her brother came after them and Cotten was put on trial and found guilty of his murder. As it was a manslaughter rap, Cotten got the choice of going to Australia or a prison stretch. Cotten went to Australia and became pretty rich. Ingrid followed, but the happiness they sought eluded them. They're now a pair of miserable people who are shunned by polite society.

Like Rebecca, Under Capricorn has a housekeeper from hell in Margaret Leighton who may have gone back from Australia and become Mrs. Danvers great grandmother. Leighton has her eyes on Cotten and she's slowly poisoning Bergman. Leighton has turned the whole manor staff against Bergman when Wilding arrives on the scene.

Joseph Cotten is a bit more rough around the edges than we normally see him on film. Still he does deliver a nice performance whose sacrifice for love we eventually learn.

Though there are a lot of similarities to Rebecca, Under Capricorn is not nearly as well done. Still even second rate Hitchcock is better than first rate from a lot of people.

None of Alfred Hitchcock's films are terrible, even his weakest film(for me) Jamaica Inn. But that is not to say that Hitchcock, my favourite director, hasn't done any disappointing work, Jamaica Inn, The Paradine Case and this were. Under Capricorn is a very beautifully made film, as with all Hitchcock's films with the cinematography being Under Capricorn's best quality and the costumes and sets are very sumptuous. There are times where the score is not as fitting with the mood as it could have been, but much of it did and the score itself is marvellously orchestrated and overall very effective as a score. Ingrid Bergman is very good in a sensitive and magnetic performance, out of this and Spellbound I felt she was a little better here. Michael Wilding doesn't have much to do but gives his all and is very handsome. Margaret Leighton steals the film, wonderfully vicious she is. Under Capricorn does have its failings though. Hitchcock is one of cinema's greatest, but there isn't much in Under Capricorn to allow him to bring his own style to it, to the extent that like Jamaica Inn it didn't feel like a Hitchcock film. Joseph Cotten for me was miscast, too stiff and too much like a gentleman with not enough of the brooding persona that his character should have been, the latter of which he did successfully bring to Shadow of a Doubt so I don't know what happened here. The script has a lot of talk but a lot of it comes across as corny, emotionally cold and overwrought, while the story, the subject matter of which is actually great, is executed in ponderous and overly melodramatic fashion and seems rather thin also. Complex it is, but this is done with not that much depth. With the cast, the characters could have been interesting but suffered from being underwritten and characterless. In conclusion, well made but lacking and disappointing. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Filmed on an expansive budget, Under Capricorn has everything going for it except its script - a trite magazine story with soap opera characters indulging in lots of talk and dissension which involves very little action and which all comes to a ridiculously facile conclusion.

Admittedly, it has all the gothic trappings of Rebecca (which is really a costume picture in modern dress), Great Expectations and Gaslight, but unfortunately the result is just plain boring. However, the credits are pretty wonderful. The film is always very attractive to watch with its fluid camera movement, long takes, stunning costumes (by Roger Furse), colorful sets and adroit cinematography (how about that long take in the middle of which Wilding takes off his coat and puts it behind the window-pane to show Bergman her reflection?). And Addinsell's music score shimmers with pleasing atmosphere.

The players are very agreeable too. Michael Wilding with his odd air of hesitant confidence, has always struck me as an amiable and capable actor, and here he has a role well-measured to his talents. Ingrid Bergman is also ideally cast (although she doesn't maintain her Irish accent much past her most effective introductory scene about 30 minutes into the film). In an equally difficult role, Joseph Gotten manages a reasonable conviction and is given solid support by players like Cecil Parker and Dennis O'Dea.

My one complaint against the acting is that Margaret Leighton's portrait of the sinister housekeeper is somewhat exaggerated, lacking the slyness someone like Judith Anderson or Gale Sondergaard would have brought to the part.