Undercurrent

The first time I saw undercurrent, I was as disturbed as everyone else by the soporific pacing.

Having just seen it for the second time, I have to say that there is much detail to enjoy. As in most Minnelli pictures, I enjoyed the awkward party scenes, in which elegant extras enjoy themselves while the principals cringe.

Katharine Hepburn is in her "insecure" mode, like in Summertime, and she is very good. The role would have been more natural for, say, Jeanne Crain.

Most enjoyable is Jayne Meadows, as a cold fish you can't quite figure out. She is incredibly beautiful in the ladies'lounge scene. Both her scenes with Hepbburn crackle with 1940s psychological intensity.

Something of a success, something of a misfire. Katharine Hepburn, Robert Taylor, and Robert Mitchum are all cast against type in this noirish movie made in the style of THE STRANGER, GASLIGHT, and even REBECCA in which a shy woman marries a man with a dark story surrounding him. It looks lush in its black and white visuals and takes its time to get to the tight noose of its plot. However, the middle-of-the road aspect of UNDERCURRENT comes mostly because to believe Katharine Hepburn, of all women, would be this passive person with little to no self-assurance and essentially be a damsel in distress -- a role Joan Fontaine or Joan Crawford could phone in while garnering Oscars -- would be to extend the suspension of disbelief to unbelievable levels. I can see why she'd agreed to take on the role of Ann Hamilton: like any actor, it would give her a chance to extend her range and prove she could pull it off. Both Roberts fared better to varying degrees: Taylor, a thirties heartthrob, had that rich voice and those dark looks that could convincingly translate into playing the complete opposite of the leading man. Mitchum, on the other hand, never known to play an overall nice guy, does just that here. Does it work? Not as well as Taylor, especially when over the years he made a name playing some of the most memorable villains in film history in NIGHT OF THE HUNTER and CAPE FEAR. Here, Mitchum gets little to do, and must concede the scene stealing to Taylor who all but ties Hepburn to the train tracks while twitching that mustache of his and sneering. A nice surprise was to see Jayne Meadows making her film debut by playing a woman who also resembles Hepburn and has some interesting information to give Hepburn about Taylor and Mitchum.

Ann Hamilton (Katharine Hepburn) is a homebody who helps her chemist father (Edmund Gwenn) with his inventions and experiments. He sells his latest invention to a company owned by Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor). He and Ann have a whirlwind courtship, have a small quick wedding at her home, and then he whisks her away to his home in Washington.

But this is where this film picks up this haunted Mrs. Danvers vibe. Alan becomes quite disturbed and angry at even the mention of his brother Michael's name. Alan says Michael robbed his first company blind and put it under but always had this smooth cultured veneer that fooled people and made him feel like an also ran. He says Mike fought in WWII and he hasn't heard from him since he joined the army and has no idea where he is. Alan has no other living relatives, so Ann has to accept this explanation. Alan is so disturbed by the thought of Michael that he has removed all pictures with either Mike or his mother - Mike was her favorite - from his home, his office, everywhere.

But Ann becomes obsessed with learning about Mike, and more than that, what became of him. Because she is beginning to wonder if her new husband murdered Mike. Complications ensue.

Maybe an individual might make the headstrong decision to marry in haste, but Ann's dad and his housekeeper (Marjorie Main) were encouraging her and even cheering her on. Was Ann eating them out of house and home or was it just the convention of that time that even a marriage with a troubled person was better than never having been married at all? I guess if I'm going to watch the films of the 1940s I should be prepared to deal with the social mores of the 1940s.

These were good roles for both Robert Taylor and Katharine Hepburn as it let them stretch their acting wings and break out of the material that MGM normally put them in.

"Undercurrent" is a surprisingly effective mystery/"chick flick," given elements that could have sunk a lesser effort. For example:

o Dr. Bangs gives away one of the movie's secrets VERY early in the plot (Before Hepburn marries Taylor) o The behavior of some of the supporting players (for example, Mr. Warmly's first scene) aren't really consistent with the denouement o Katherine Hepburn, at 39, is not an altogether convincing object of desire for her younger costars o While Robert Taylor gives a great performance, the first hints of his instability come too early in the film o Third billed Robert Mitchum has about five minutes screen time and his character has no part of the physical action.

Perhaps, if it were not for the tremendous skill with which "Undercurrent" has been acted and directed, these apparent shortcomings might have mattered more. Certainly, casting Taylor and Mitchum against type was a stroke of genius. Further, the more one watches Katherine Hepburn's brilliant performance, the more one realizes "Undercurrent" would have been far less successful using a more "age appropriate" actress, unless she were equally skilled (Olivia De Havilland? Joan Bennett?). However, in addition to brilliant acting, Hepburn carries a cool, self-assured demeanor as part of her persona; which makes her apparent helplessness later in the film much more suspenseful, if not downright terrifying. Given that Hepburn is in virtually every scene, it's really Hepburn's movie and she doesn't disappoint.

I give "Undercurrent" a "7".

I can't be unbiased. This is the film that brought me into classic film - the first full film I ever saw on TCM. It means more to me than the favored classics. It gave me the greatest gift.