Expecting something completely different when I saw the cast-list, this movie took me by surprise. Hepburn discarding more or less her usual screen-persona holds this mystery-thriller together with a strong performance.Robert Taylor returning from service in WW II,takes another step from those pretty boy parts of his early career. Robert Mitchum,still fresh after his breakthrough, is more or less wasted in a supporting role. Clearly patterned after earlier successes like Preminger's "Laura" and Hitchcock's "Rebecca" this movie isn't quite in the same league,but it still better than most.This is another title I hope will arrive on DVD.
Add a Review
-
nnnn4508919122 February 2007
-
oliver-1775 August 2005The 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. -
nycritic16 May 2006Something 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.
-
dougdoepke13 May 2012The first half-hour is quite well done. Hepburn is excellent as the plain Jane whose brave exterior hides an aching heart. That the sleekly handsome Taylor would suddenly pay her attention is almost too good to be true. For the sheltered girl, it's a Cinderella dream come true. The Washington DC party scenes are particularly well done, just the sort of thing MGM was skilled at, and watching her keep up a brave façade among the snobs while hiding deep insecurity is particularly affecting. But then the movie goes into a dark psychological phase, and it's mainly downhill from then on.
There's nothing plausible about Ann's (Hepburn) obsession with a mysterious Michael (Mitchum), especially while she's married to Prince Charming Alan (Taylor). It's clearly a plot contrivance and a clumsy one, at that. And catch that sequence where Alan tries to kill Ann while they're on horseback. It's about as poorly staged and edited as any action sequence I've seen. In particular, the progression of backgrounds doesn't come close to matching, creating a rather surreal effect.
In my book, LB Mayer's MGM was the wrong studio to do this kind of dark material. Too bad Mayer didn't pass the story over to a budget outfit like Columbia or RKO. They would have turned out a fast efficient little noir, which is what the material is really suited for. The trouble here is that MGM casts two of its biggest celebrity stars in the lead. Hepburn and Taylor are fine performers, but their super-star status required lots of screen time, so the movie gets padded to an often redundant two hours, which doesn't help.
It's also an odd role for Mitchum given his later screen persona. Of course, it's still early in the tough guy's career, and a year away from his defining role as the noirish Jeff in Out of the Past (1947). Still, seeing him in a bland part that any number of lesser actors could have handled takes some getting used to. He's lucky he went from here to the eccentric RKO, while I'm wondering where his career would have gone had he stayed with glamorous MGM.
All in all, the melodrama itself is a turgid disappointment despite the first half-hour and the amount of talent involved. -
(Some Spoilers)Like the Sword of Damocles Michael Garroway, Robert Mitchum, hovers over the movie "Undercurrent" and is the one person who holds your interest and curiosity to what the film is trying to tell you yet you never see or hear from him until the movie is more then half over.
Michael's brother Alan, Robert Taylor,has become very wealthy by inventing the Distant Controller which turned the tide for the allies against the Nazis in the Second World War. Handsome charming and rich Alan swept Ann Hamilton,Kathreine Hepburn, off her feet almost as soon as she laid eyes on him when he came to visit her father Prof. "Dink" Hamilton, Edmund Gwenn, to do research in developing the chemical Tetrodyet for the US Army. It wasn't until the wedded couple moved back to Alan's family estate in Middleberg Virgina that Ann began to realize that her husband is keeping a deep dark secret from her:his brother Michael. In Alan's disturbed mind anything that has to do with Michael had to be purged from the Garroway home and Ann starts to wonder if Michael, who she never even knew existed, is even alive.
The Garroway brothers who started an electronic business before the war in the late 1930's had developed the Distant Controller that made Alan a millionaire. It was just then that his brother Michael disappear from sight. It's the true story behind the Distant Controller that has Alan paralyzed with fear.
Besides his loyal and faithful employee Warmsley(Clinton Sunberg), who Alan is obviously paying off to keep his mouth shut, Michael is the only one who knows the truth and that knowledge may very well cost him his life. Just before the Distant Controller was put into production Michael went underground over an incident involving his brother and one of the employees of the company Carl Stoyer.
Trying to put the Stoyer episode out of his mind Michael joined the US Army and spent the next four years overseas almost hoping that he'll end up getting killed thats how traumatized he was over his brother's actions involving Carl Stoyer. Finding out that Alan married Ann Michael resurfaced to warn her what he's really like and what he's capable of doing feeling that sooner or later he'll snap and end up murdering her.
You could see what an effect of even the mention of Michael's name had on Alan where he changed from his usual bubbly and charming self into a sweating and wide-eyed looking psychotic. Truly in love with Ann and not wanting to lose her Alan at first maligns his brother making up stories about his wild lifestyle and his embezzling the company's funds but Alan's story about his missing brother has a false ring to it and Ann senses it.
Ann gets conflicting information about Michael from his former acquaintance socialite Sylvia Burton, Jayne Meadows,that hint's to Michael being murdered by Alan and Alan's unsavory business practices. The deadly truth come out about Alan after he's confronted by his brother who tells him that he's not going to let happen to Ann what happened to Stoyler and the only way he can redeem himself is to tell Ann the truth about his dark and mysterious past before he will.
The movie "Undercurrent" takes a while to build up it's storyline and for a time your left hanging to what the connection between Michael and Cral Stoyer has to do with Alan's success in the world of electronics. As the truth about Alan comes out the more he becomes unhinged and in this case the truth doesn't set him free but frees those, like Ann, from him and the fantasy world that he's meticulously build around himself all these years. -
jesusfreak-0088121 January 2022I 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.
-
secondtake12 September 2010Undercurrent (1946)
Melodrama with Katherine Hepburn instead of Bette Davis or Joan Crawford?
Yes. And it works, though differently. Hepburn rules the movie, for sure, and she covers some range from sweet daughter of a scientist to a rich man's wife losing her innocence to someone who rises up on her own two feet. She's still the classy (or stiff) Hepburn (depending who you ask). I like her, and I liked her in this film a lot.
The plot uses a whole range of clichés but uses them well. The slight twists to what you expect are never shocking, but they keep you guessing. The second big star, seemingly, is Robert Mitchum, but if you are a fan of his, don't see the movie for his role. It's exceedingly minor. A very strange contract arrangement on that one. When he is there, it's undramatic, though he's in command, of course. The other male lead, Robert Taylor, is his usual reasonable, appropriate self--carefully chosen words to avoid saying a little starchy and ordinaire. One bit part is predictably colorful, Marjorie Main with her earthy comebacks.
Director Vincente Minnelli is in good form here, actually, and if the movie seems routine, it's the story that holds it back. He has some great photography behind it all (Karl Freund), and the score is unusually effective and beautiful (Herbert Stothart). I wouldn't call it a film noir, though it has shadings of the style and it's from that post war dark period. Instead, it's a noir melodrama. Worth seeing, absolutely, if you like those kinds of films. -
Bob-4515 August 2005"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". -
All of the criticisms of this movie might well be flushed down the loo. This is one powerhouse of an interesting movie.
Call it Film-Noir. Call it Mystery/Suspense. Call it Psychological Thriller. Call it what you may...I call it: absorbing drama.
It moves very deliberately...and the facts are revealed one by one, in true mystery fashion, until the fantastic, thrilling ending.
Those who say that Hepburn and Mitchum were miscast are just so wrong. Hepburn wasn't playing Hepburn here...she wasn't Tracy Lord here. She wasn't a know-it-all New England uppity snob here. Not a worldly character at all. She played a different character than I've ever seen her do. Hepburn doesn't rely on her stable of clichés to capture our imagination here. She does it with imagination and as few of the Hepburn cornerstone mannerisms as possible. Good result!
Robert Taylor is fascinating to watch. He has so many secrets in this role. And they reside behind his facade for us to watch and enjoy. He slowly swirls into controlled mania and desperate determination. Very fine, indeed. He should have been nominated for this one.
And then there's Mitchum! What can one say about Mitchum without gushing foolishly. Gee whiz...the first time you see him...he shows us a side of him we have hardly ever seen! He seems at peace, mild in character, mellow in mood...pensive...other worldly. Likable even! Never gruff or abrasive like we've seen him so many times before.
What is unique about this story is that we really do not know what is going to happen next. We spend most of the movie residing in Hepburn's character's mind. Her wondering, her confusion, her search for the truth -- at all costs.
I was expecting not to like this movie. I was expecting it to be another formulaic Hepburn vehicle about high society. But this is where this movie takes a left turn into an underrated mystery.
I enjoyed the use of the theme to the Third Movement of Johannes Brahms' Third Symphony throughout the movie. It lent a delicious air of mystery, love and luscious pastoral passion to the whole affair.
And to say that Vincente Minnelli was WRONG for this movie? Gee whiz! He was perfect! Why compare him to Hitchcock? Minnelli has manufactured a mystery world all his own. Sure there are devices. All movies have devices. But they are handled so deftly...we don't rely on them to make us aware of the story -- they don't get in our way. They heighten our interest and this very absorbing plot.
Well done. I wish it had been a longer movie...it was THAT kind of movie.
I recommend this one... -
For attractive spinster Katharine Hepburn, the sudden introduction to the handsome Robert Taylor sweeps her off her feet and leads her straight into matrimony. She's got family present. He doesn't. The sudden revelation that he has a brother whom he hates begins to disturb the new Mrs., and several other factors raise suspicions for her that all is not well. A certain concerto Hepburn plays disturbs Taylor violently, and questions about the missing brother's whereabouts raise more suspicions. Others get testy every time that the brother is mentioned, leading to a dark conclusion where having curiosity proves to be quite a dangerous trait.
All four of the great stars (Hepburn, Crawford, Davis, Stanwyck) went from playing strong will and independent women to ladies in jeopardy, evidence that times were changing post World War II. Hepburn seems to be stretching the truth in trying to make us believe that she could be anything but formidable. Taylor's moody and neurotic, so most of the mystery surrounds him. All of the questions seem to have answers to them on the way when Hepburn meets Robert Mitchum, the caretaker of a woodsy cottage owned by the family, but those answers aren't what she's expected. This is the only film noir that Hepburn ever did, and the only one directed by Vincent Minnelli, an odd choice for this assignment.
A talented supporting cast includes Edmund Gwenn as Hepburn's lovable father, Marjorie Main as their longtime housekeeper, Clinton Sundberg as the bookkeeper for Taylor's company and Jayne Meadows as a nosy socialite who quizzes Hepburn on Taylor's brother but obviously knows more than she's letting on. "I Love Lucy" fans will be delighted to see Kathryn Card in a showy small part. The film is fairly intriguing, only slightly convoluted and glossy to the max. Hepburn and Taylor lack spark, hence their only film together, although I wouldn't have minded seeing Hepburn paired again with Mitchum, especially in their older years. -
den_quixote8 June 2017With this cast and Vincent Minelli directing you might reasonably expect a professional product but you are not going to get one. Hepburn is said to have accused Mitchum of getting the part solely because of his looks because he could not act. If so she was right but beware you who live in glass houses. Hepburn was equally awful and Robert Taylor was decidedly mediocre. Marjorie Main is the one highlight and she is gone after the first 15 minutes or so. The biggest problem however is the totally unbelievable plot. Edmund Gwenn is a scientist living with daughter/assistant (Hepburn) in a home, with adjoining laboratory, run by Marjorie Main. Robert Taylor plays an Elon Musk type, a 40 year old multi-millionaire bachelor, who is trying to win the rights to one of Gwenn's products. He comes to the Gwenn home and is immediately smitten with Hepburn and they marry shortly thereafter and then it gets bad, really bad. Horrible dialogue combined with a preposterous plot, miscast actors and obvious foreshadowing make for one long and tedious movie. There is a reason you have never heard of this one. It is awful.
-
What a cast! Hepburn, Robert Taylor and Robert Mitchum! Hepburn here is paired with Robert Taylor, a scientist, who seems to have some very nervous employees and some sensitive areas, one concerning an absent brother, Michael. When Hepburn meets one of Taylor's old girlfriends, a very well cast Jayne Meadows, she becomes suspicious of Taylor's motives for marrying her - and suspicious about what happened to Taylor's brother.
Hepburn gives her usual intelligent performance, showing a vulnerable, feminine side that is very appealing. There is a scene in a fitting room where she is absolutely stunning. The scenes between her and her father, played by Edmund Gwenn, are delightful and realistic, as she complains that Taylor could not be attracted to her. "Look at me," she demands, "what do you see? " Her father smiles and says "Beautiful" and kisses her. It's this type of gentleness coupled with good acting, underlying suspense and excitement that makes Undercurrent a very good -- and very underrated -'40s film. Taylor is handsome and enigmatic in his role. Somewhere along the way, he stumbled into playing bad boys, as he does later on in "Conspirator" as well, and these roles suit him. Hepburn once said that Spencer Tracy made her seem very feminine; Taylor does too.
I have to add that I did find the casting quite odd but inspired, with Hepburn and Mitchum cast against type, and Hepburn paired with Taylor. I wish we had seen more of this in Hollywood. -
planktonrules8 June 2010Considering that this is a glossy MGM production starring Katharine Hepburn, Robert Taylor and Robert Mitchum, it's certainly well worth watching as it can't help but be very good. However, the film, at times, seems a bit hard to believe. If you can turn off that nagging voice that questions a few directions the plot takes, then you're bound to really enjoy this film. Plus, even with a few minor plot problems, it's a good picture.
The film begins with Hepburn playing her father's assistant and caretaker. She's a bit shy around men and a little insecure. So, when a rich and immensely successful man (Taylor) falls for her, she keeps doubting herself and thinks he could have chosen better. But, during all of the first half of the film, he seems like an almost perfect husband--caring and kind. However, slowly through the course of the movie, he shows hints that he isn't as sweet and good as he's appeared.
The first time you see this dark side of Taylor is when his estranged brother (Mitchum) is mentioned. When Hepburn asks him innocent questions about him, Taylor oddly lashes out at her. And, the more he reacts this way, the more curious she becomes--wondering what happened between them. There is MUCH more to the story than this...and it gets very, very dark in the last moments of the film. However, I don't want to say more--it would spoil the film.
The best thing about this movie is the evocative mood throughout. The combination of excellent direction, music and cinematography makes for a very brooding film--a mood that is actually better than the sum of all its parts. Plus, if you are a curious psychology major, you may enjoy seeing Taylor's character who appears to be a combination of someone dealing with Paranoid Schizophrenia and an Antisocial Personality Disorder. This means that while he may act very normal almost all the time, there is an undercurrent of insanity and persecution. And, since he has a lack of conscience, he is capable of doing anything if he thinks he can get away with it! A scary combination and a nice film--even though, occasionally, it seems a tad overdone.
By the way, at one point in the film, Hepburn is supposed to be right on the Virginia coastline. However, it's obviously NOT Virginia to anyone who knows the state--as the cliffs and rocky shoreline are obviously on the West Coast. -
dionnetobias14 July 2020Has anyone seen Robert Mitchum? First spotted about an hour in to this film and is now MIA. Any help finding Robert in this movie would be greatly appreciated!
#findrobertmitchum -
hildacrane9 September 2005This goes down like a milkshake and an order of fries---one of those guilty pleasures from MGM that has no nutritional value, but is so glossy that it's irresistible. In this melodrama/suspenser, Hepburn is in training for her 1950's lovelorn-spinster parts in "The Rainmaker" and "Summertime." She is so basically no-nonsense and self-sufficient that it's a little hard to buy her as the threatened bride, but she's enjoyable all the same. It's fun to see how the screenplay sets up the roadsigns to Murderous Husband.
What a treat to see Kathryn Card AND Marjorie Main, in the same movie--they could almost be twin crusty ladies. Edmund Gwenn is back in a return engagement as Hepburn's father, some 11 years after he played the part in "Sylvia Scarlett." The two Roberts are improbable brothers, and there is no chemistry between either of them and Hepburn, but they have nice resonant voices. At only 36, Taylor looks tired--he was probably a heavy smoker. When Mitchum gives his speech about the ocean's dangerous "undercurrent," you almost expect to hear trumpets underscoring the word, which is part of the fun. -
gaityr15 December 2002UNDERCURRENT most certainly isn't a typical Katharine Hepburn film. In between films with Spencer Tracy, she tries her hand at a suspense thriller, playing the supposedly dowdy Ann Hamilton, an apparently confirmed spinster who quickly finds herself in love and married to Alan Garroway (Robert Taylor), a rich scientist who is hiding a far greater and darker secret than she could ever have imagined. It isn't long before Ann the gregarious tomboy becomes the cookie-cutter-perfect Mrs Alan Garroway... except for one thing. She just can't seem to shake off that darker, malevolent undercurrent of obsession and hate she senses in her husband. Nor can she ignore the shadow of her brother-in-law Michael Garroway (Robert Mitchum), whom she's never met but has been told so much about. As Alan's apparent normalcy begins to fall away before Ann's eyes, the audience also realises that his deadly obsession with his brother Michael has shifted onto Ann. Now that Alan has staked his possessive claim on her, can Ann free herself from his love for her... and more importantly, her own love for him?
Sounds good? Well, the premise is certainly there. And you've got to admire what must have started out as a far more ambitious project altogether. You've got at least four powerhouses in this film--Hepburn, the Roberts Taylor and Mitchum, and the direction of Vincente Minelli. Unfortunately, UNDERCURRENT only makes an adequate attempt at putting this story together on the screen. There are moments and characters in the film that had so much potential, an example being the mysterious figure of Mother Garroway, who seems as sinister as either of her sons, and yet is quickly forgotten once she seems redundant to the plot. But she isn't, really--the circumstances of her death are just as intriguing as those surrounding Michael's death/disappearance... and yet not picked up on. Nor is the suggestion that Michael is as much Ann's obsession as Ann is Alan's expanded upon.
While Minelli is brilliant in capturing the rhythm and mood of a scene when it comes to colourful MGM musicals, he only manages to create a mediocre level of suspense in this film--there are no heart-pounding moments in UNDERCURRENT; when the lights go out as Ann is stuck in the closet, one only feels annoyed and mildly curious at the completely black screen. There's hardly any pace to it either, since the supposedly climactic ending only comes off rather half-hearted and a bit lame with the less-than-expert editing between Taylor's face and Hepburn's reactions. And yet Minelli is nothing if not an accomplished director; some shots are beautifully dark and capture the ambiguous relationship of Alan and Ann quite well.
Similarly, the performances in this film showcase both its good points and its problems. Starting with the two Roberts: Robert Taylor makes a commendable effort to transform Alan into something remotely human, and almost succeeds. He mostly underplays his part, except for one great scene when he truly goes all out to look deranged, and that really helps. Alan *is* supposed to be perfectly normal... at least on the outside. The trouble with Taylor is that his underplaying isn't as skilful as, for example, Spencer Tracy's--Taylor tends to fade into a monotone, making it just the kind of under-acting performance that would galvanize La Hepburn into *over*-acting to fill up a scene. As for Robert Mitchum: he's hardly onscreen enough to warrant much of a review. Still, considering that he's playing the pivotal role of the mysterious, back-from-the-dead brother of Alan Garroway, Mitchum and his character mostly look stoned beyond caring about what's happening around them. Shame.
As for Ms. Hepburn: although this isn't usually her film genre of choice (film noir is really something one doesn't expect Hepburn's name to ever be associated with), she turns in quite a credible performance. Ann Hamilton starts out as the giddy independent gal in love, a prototype from Hepburn's romantic comedies, but also progresses (or should that be degenerates?) into a woman haunted by fear and obsession--that of her husband's, surely... but possibly her own as well. Even a Hepburn fan must admit that she has a tendency to mug, to overact to fill a perceived void, and unless reined in by a director or co-star, tends to overpower everything around her through sheer force of will (and personality). Mercifully, this only happens in the first few scenes when Ann is still the happy independent girl she is before meeting and marrying Alan--odd that it should happen with a type of character Hepburn has arguably played so many times before. If it hasn't already been made clear, in this film Hepburn is in fact at her best when she plays the scenes with Ann constantly doubting her husband, worrying at his family mystery as a dog would a bone. She portrays the right level of frenzy, of worry, of muted suspicion and unspoken doubt. Her performance on this occasion suggests that there is much more to Hepburn as an actress than simply 'playing herself', although this isn't realised immediately after UNDERCURRENT which, as I gather, flopped rather mightily at the box office. She returns to romantic comedies to lick her wounds for a decade or so, forestalling the revelation of her potential as a dramatic actress to later in her career. The only problems this character gives her are when Ann is called on to be truly helpless--two occasions on which histrionics have been deemed necessary. Both times, when she has to cry but most especially when she has to scream, Hepburn fares rather badly. Other than that, she turns in a performance that does manage to rein the largely ordinary bits of the film together.
All in all, it's rather a shame that UNDERCURRENT doesn't make full use of the considerable talent at its disposal. Minelli and the writers don't see the potential in the script and characters, nor, I suspect, does Minelli know just how to handle Hepburn to draw a more rounded performance from her. UNDERCURRENT isn't a bad piece of film-making or story-telling, but it is far from a great one. Unfortunately, considering the names involved in this production, adequacy is the last thing they should have achieved in making this film. -
mossgrymk7 February 2022While not a complete waste of a hundred minutes one exits this film feeling that one's time would have been better spent, say, reading "Magic Mountain" or finally cleaning the bbq grill. To put it at its kindest Katherine Hepburn, brilliant as she is in straight on drama, especially ones not written by Ed Chodorov, or any kind of comedy, is simply not a very good noir actress. What comes across in "Phil. Story" or "Desk Set" as witty and acerbic in the moody, shadowy, tortured confines of this dark genre seems labored and mannered. And no matter what the genre Kate simply projects too much strength and self assurance to be a convincing LID (Lady in Distress). Reportedly, she told Mitchum, after a fight they had on the set, that he couldn't act. Well, ol Bob could teach Kate a thing or two on how credibly to project vulnerability in a setting of inner and outer corruption. One person who appears to have risen to the noir challenge is Robert Taylor who gives the film's best performance, by far, as a complete and utter corporate/society scumbag. Then again, noting this actor's offscreen personality, maybe it wasn't that much of a challenge. At any rate Taylor, Karl Freund's cinematography, and Vincente Minnelli's ability to take ground chuck and turn it into ground round if not steak tartar are the only reasons to stay with this too often over the top yet paradoxically too dim "Gaslight" wannabe. C plus.
-
JoeytheBrit26 April 2020So-so melodrama which suffers from Katharine Hepburn failing to overcome her miscasting as an unworldly newlywed struggling to come to terms with Hubble Robert Taylor's mood swings. Mitchum appears too late and is given too little to do to salvage much.
-
davidcarniglia6 June 2019Top shelf cast for this psychological film-noir/mystery. Robert Taylor is Alan, a big wheel, courting Katherine Hepburn's Ann. She's already got an admirer in Professor Joe Bangs (Dan Tobin) a colleague of her dad, Prof. David Hamilton (Edmund Gwenn). Although Alan has gotten rich off of Government contracts for his aeronautical inventions, his brother Michael (Robert Mitchum) has dirt on him.
She takes an obvious shine to Alan. He's all charm "Do you see the spark?" he hints, as they experience some static electricity. She's pretty much overwhelmed, feeling frumpy and undesirable. Nonetheless, we leap ahead at a lurch: she's married to him. She feels out-of-place in his crowd; more or less treated like a kid or poor relation.
When she vows to fit in better with his friends, he responds, chillingly, "If you do, I'll kill you" Sort of condescending misdirection. Next, from a sort of motherly aunt type, Mrs. Foster (Kathryn Card), she hears about Michael. Alan goes on about Michael, accusing him of embezzling from their company. Anyway, more or less fortified by a new wardrobe and Alan's confidence (his mother was an invalid for years before her death), they're planning a dinner party.
She's pretty much comfortable now, the gracious host. To Judge Putnam (Charles Trowbridge) she goes on about a book of poetry that she didn't realize belonged to Michael. Alan knows that however, and goes nuts, instantly jealous. That's weird, as she hasn't even met Michael yet. They go down to the family home, near Mrs. Foster's.
There's some quizzical looks from the caretaker George (Leigh Whipper) and even the dog. In the stables, a horse rears, and a disturbed guy is going on. When Alan gets back he berates her for playing a piano tune that his mother was playing when she died. Another gaslighting moment, as George tells her that Alan's mother never played the piano.
She figures out (with George's help) that it was Michael who played that piano tune. She tells George they have to 'help' Alan. But out on the West Coast, they run into Sylvia (Jayne Meadows) an old flame of Michael's. She's got some angle on him, but she's kind of secretive. While Alan's on a sidetrip, she visits his office; but, like everyone else, the assistant there is guarded about Michael.
There's more subterfuge about him--but this time from Michael himself. She finally runs into him at a family beach front house around the Bay Area, and mistakes him for a caretaker. He points out that it's dangerous to swim nearby, because there's a bad "undercurrent." Suddenly, Alan shows up; berating her once again for snooping into the past. A lot of shadows on the wall, tumbled furniture. Michael remains incognito.
Meanwhile, she surmises from gossip that Alan's intentionally trying to make her look bad. More than that, his motive for marrying her was to have a 'replacement' for someone who got away--and that he was going to 'create' a wife to suit his fancy. She goes to see Sylvia to find out the straight dope on Michael.
She finds out that it's Michael who's been wronged by Alan. Sylvia thinks that Alan has killed him. Alan wants Ann to go back East. She ruminates on what Sylvia told her. As usual, George knows something. We know Michael is around; even the dog knows. The Alan/Michael reunion scene at last. Michael accuses Alan of killing a former employee who invented the aircraft control device that Alan took credit for. Aha!
Alan admits he'd rather have Anne than his reputation and fortune. It's an atmospheric, almost gothic scene in the stables, with them arguing while the wind is whipping around, the horse rearing, leaves scattering, the lantern swaying...But Anne never stops apologizing for suspecting Alan of misdeeds. At least she finally gathers that Michael is around. Alan thinks she's in love with Michael.
Maybe so. More threats from Alan "I said I'd never let you go!" He literally stops her at the gate. "Don't be afraid, Anne" She just can't get away from him. Alan stupidly takes the cantankerous horse as they ride with Mrs. Foster to her place. Alan's apparently thrown by the horse, but--he's faking it. With Mrs. Foster gone, he tries to push Ann off the path and over a cliff. He almost succeeds, but, interestingly, the horse saves her by trampling Alan.
At long last, she has Michael available. The movie, already a bit long, lingers on this final scene as they tell each other what we already know. Undercurrent has good performances from most of the cast, captivating settings with appropriate atmosphere, and has many good scenes--especially the first scene with Mitchum, and the stable scenes. But the plot never really adds up.
It's hardly to buy the premise that Ann's character could fall in love with someone she doesn't know she's met until almost the very end. If Michael's character had a larger role it might've been more believable; for example, have Michael reveal his identity to Ann in the California beach house sequence. He really gains nothing by waiting; as it is, he only comes clean with Ann after Alan has tried to kill her.
Which leads to a bigger problem: why would Alan want to kill her anyway? If she was going to throw a wrench in his plans, why would he want to marry her? Her theory that she reminds him of a lost love is a more plausible reason for his love/hate relationship with her. The idea that Alan's past will catch up with him because of Ann doesn't necessarily follow. She remained loyal to him most of the way, until his domineering behavior became overtly dangerous.
That would all make for a good straight psychological thriller premise, as he clearly tries to drive her over the edge (in all possible ways, as we see). But what triggering event or cause could their be for his psychotic behavior towards her? In a nutshell, the wartime invention element has nothing to do with Alan's personal life; Ann's a complete outsider to all that. I see three possible plots here: a revenge plot between the brothers, possibly with Alan's delusions complicating things, a love triangle, with Ann coveted by Alan and Michael, and a straight Gaslight psychodrama, with the focus on Alan's obsession with Ann.
What Undercurrent does is combine elements of all three of these plots. The result is a lot of underdeveloped and incomplete aspects that don't fit well together. In addition to expanding Michael's role, it might also have been interesting to give Slyvia more scenes. It seems weird that she has simply accepted the rumor that Michael's dead--why can't she drive out to the beach house and find him skulking about? After all, she's apparently been living nearby the entire time that he's off the grid.
With Slyvia and Michael more prominent throughout, there would be another shot at a triangle once Ann shows up. It's just too automatic that Michael falls for Ann just because she's there, and Alan's gone.
Undercurrent is worth a look, literally, as there's plenty of good cinematography here. Just not a lot of drama. 6/10. -
Builders13 August 2005Upon first viewing, Undercurrent is an unexpected treat, commanding full attention for almost 2 hours. Hepburn in the role of Ann, manipulated, insecure, feeling under-dressed and overwhelmed at a social event, terrified and claustrophobic as her new husband's character is revealed, is not to be missed. As others have noted, the plot has "Rebecca-esque" qualities, but a character completely its own.
Taylor's tormented Alan is also perfect, darkly ruminating and possessive, always on the edge of losing control, driven mad by his wife's interest in his hated and absent brother, and jealously afraid of losing her love.
While the ending is somewhat predictable, the plot also amazes, as it progressively reveals a person not present (for example, using the rebound book of prose with the underlined Robert Louis Stevenson poem, innocently quoted by Ann, believing it to be her husband's) and destroys the covetous, deceitful and murderous Alan. -
gridoon202417 July 2017"Undercurrent" is notable as Katharine Hepburn's only acting excursion into the thriller/mystery/damsel-in-distress genre; she makes an honest stab at it, but it's not really her strong suit. The script, by Edward Chodorov, is generally not predictable, but it is talky and plodding; apart from excellent use of light and shadow in some key scenes, director Vincente Minnelli doesn't do much that's outstanding. It's not a bad film, but it's not as good as you might expect from that cast, either. **1/2 out of 4.
-
vincentlynch-moonoi27 October 2011There's something wrong with this film.
I've read several professional reviews of this film, and several try to liken it to Hitchcock's "Suspicion". This is a faulty comparison, in my view. Several reviews also pointed out that this was the only film noir film Katherine Hepburn ever appeared in. Well, although it was a very different plot, it somehow reminded me of the Hepburn/Tracy film "Keep Of The Flame" (an oddball favorite of mine).
The film starts out innocently enough, with Katherine Hepburn living with her scientist-father (Edmund Gwenn), and then being swept off her feet by the suave businessman (Robert Taylor) who is buying her father's scientific discovery. They marry, she is pushed into the world of Washington and big business, becomes rather sophisticated, but sense something wrong with the story of her husband's strained relationship with his brother (Robert Mitchum, who you don't see in the film until about halfway through). Hepburn becomes more and more suspicious of her husband, coming to the conclusion that perhaps he did murder his brother. Desperate to hold his marriage together, Taylor becomes (too) suddenly threatening, and attempts to kill his wife. This seems a little implausible, since although he was moody about his brother, he never appeared to be mentally ill. There's a great scene in the film where Taylor attempts to force his wife -- on horseback -- off a mountain cliff (and there are no mountains in Middleburg, Virginia where this portion of the film supposedly takes place...they might better have placed it in Winchester, further to the west). And who comes to Hepburn's rescue? No, not whom you expect! :-) In the end the bad guy dies...you'll have to watch the film to see who the bad brother really is -- Mitchum or Taylor.
But as I said, there is still something not quite right with this film, yet I can't put my finger on it. I'm not saying it's a bad film. It's worth watching...once...for the performance of Hepburn, which is quite good. Taylor does well here, also, despite his sudden onset on mental illness. And Mitchum is cast in a different light than we often expect. Yes, watch it, but you may not want to put this on your DVD shelf.
Postscript: 9 years later and I just watched this film again...quite by accident. It's worse than I remember. The first two-thirds of the film are quite intriguing. But the climax of the film just plain bizarre. Vincente Minelli, the director, should have stuck with musicals. -
Robert Taylor came back from the war and this was his first film. He was delighted to work with Kathryn Hepburn, whom he had great respect for. She considered him to be a much underrated actor, with more talent than he was given credit for. He proves it in the film about a wealthy industrialist, who has a mysterious past and a missing brother, played by a young Robert Mitchum. He meets Ann (Hepburn) and marries her in a whirlwind. She is so in love that she doesn't see some of the strange goings on. He skulks around, goes away on strange trips, and becomes irrational when anyone speaks of his brother. He suspects that she is falling in love with Michael (Mitchum) even though she never met him. What she finds is that Alan is really a psychopath and may even be a murderer. He follows her, accuses her, yells at her, and tells her that if she leaves him he will kill her. She runs, he chases her on horseback, and in the end, as he tries to kill her, his horse tramples him to death, leaving her to find a new life with the brother. Robert Taylor was always at his best as the bad guy. The studio system never used him well, and put him in a lot of bad films. His talent was generally wasted, what a shame. Vincent Minnelli used him and crafted the part so that Taylor could show a different side, not the pretty boy that he was always hounded by. Wonderful use of shadows and black and white photography. A must see.
-
This film had me hooked because of the plot. The suspense was somewhat Hitchcockian. But the film really belonged to the haunting Brahms score and a very restrained Robert Mitchum (a role that reminds you so much of his fine role in Ryan's Daughter decades later) who only appears in the second half of the film.
This is not Robert Taylor's best effort, yet it's an effort that cannot be ignored. He is menacing in his role but the menace is accentuated by the dark photography of Karl Freund that sets the mood for the film--so much like the photography of "To Kill a Mockingbird". Katherine Hepburn is good as usual.
Somehow, the director Vincente Minnelli could not bring all the great strengths of the movie together to make it stand out. A good plot, a good cast, and a good cinematographer could not make a film that was in sum greater than its parts. -
bkoganbing28 June 2007Robert Taylor, Katherine Hepburn, and Robert Mitchum all star in the MGM melodrama Undercurrent which no one will ever rank at the top 10 for any of these stars.
Hepburn is reunited with Edmund Gwenn as her father as he was in Sylvia Scarlett. This time they're a more traditional father and daughter than those fugitives on the run in that other film. In Undercurrent he's a college professor and she's his a bit long in the tooth daughter.
Young millionaire industrialist Robert Taylor gives her a whirlwind courtship and they get married. It looks like Prince Charming has arrived, but Taylor is harboring some deep dark secrets, about a brother he flies off the handle about at the mere mention of his name and about just how he acquired those millions.
Mitchum is that brother and he only has three scenes of any note, maybe about 15 minutes of the film in total. He and Hepburn did not get along and she publicly disparaged his acting abilities. He in turn thought she was one royal snob. Years later Hepburn did admit to making a mistake about Mitchum, I don't think he ever forgave her.
One person who she did think highly of was Clinton Sundberg who she saw in a play The Rugged Path on Broadway with Spencer Tracy. She was the one who influenced Louis B. Mayer to sign him and Sundberg acquitted himself well here and in MGM films for the next several years. He plays Taylor's plant manager and has a lot more sinister role than one initially suspects.
This was Robert Taylor's first film after returning from the Navy in World War II. He acquits himself well, but he and Hepburn just haven't any chemistry at all. His career really doesn't get back on track until Quo Vadis. The leaden story doesn't help either.
There are some similarities to Hepburn's film with Spencer Tracy, Keeper of the Flame, but that one was far better.
Do you think this was one Tracy passed on?