The problem I have with this film being called a stinker is that it isn't based on the merits (or de-merits) of the film at all. Most people who take a steaming crap on this one are basing that on Hepburn's performance. What is wrong with Hepburn's performance? Nothing. If you ask any of these people what is wrong with her performance they almost always say "Hepburn was always a strong, gutsy woman...", blah blah blah. It's utter rubbish.
Hepburn played a number of women one would not call 'strong' women. Ann Hamilton in Undercurrent is one of them. On its obvious merits, Hepburn's performance delivers. She's quirky, likable, charming, quite radiant (if I'm being honest). The script is well constructed, twists and turns well executed, dialogue succinct. Robert Taylor plays against type as a menacing, madman and does a stand-up job and Hepburn gives a taught, crisp response to that, trembling, cowering and even shrieking in terror.
I'm first to acknowledge this kind of role was not common in the Hepburn repertoire. But she plays it superbly, as does Robert Taylor in his against-type role. I think the problem most people have is not anything genuinely wrong with the film, but something wrong in their perception of its stars and their expectations (however reasonable, or not) of what those stars are going to deliver. As it wasn't in keeping with many of Hepburn's other roles, their expectations are let down and they walk away claiming it was a bad performance, when it was anything but. It's simply that they aren't willing to grant Hepburn any merit in a role they deem her 'unsuitable' for.
At least that's my interpretation of why this one is so commonly called a stinker. It's a film that I'm always surprised hasn't gained a strong following in more recent times. In 1946 I can imagine audiences had their expectations built up by these stars being current and being marketed in certain ways. Suddenly along comes Tracy Lord and Tess Harding...cowering from their husbands, instead of wiping the floor with them. These days I think most of us viewing classic cinema were not around at the time to have had our perceptions and expectations coloured by current advertising media, so we view them with a bit more objectivity and a fresher outlook. We're delving into these peoples' work, instead of being sold on a set of works of a certain nature and then having something quite different thrown into the mix and being shocked by it.
Hepburn's career is full of these kinds of films. Some of them - like Spitfire, The Little Minister, Quality Street, A Woman Rebels... are actually legit stinkers. But quite a number of them - Christopher Strong, Sylvia Scarlett, Keeper of The Flame, Dragon Seed, Undercurrent, Sea of Grass - were examples of Hepburn's range, well played, totally unique in her filmography, perhaps anyone else's too, and totally under-appreciated.
reply
share
ksf-2
10 years ago
Starts slow. gets better as it goes.
could almost be a hitchcock, with the mystery building, keeping the viewer in suspense. you'd never know v minnelli did it. one of his early ones.
marjorie main! and jayne meadows first film role.
reply
share