Corrientes ocultas

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...

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.

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.