Reviewed by Glenn Erickson
Explaining what's good about Alfred Hitchcock can sometimes seem pointless, as many of the benchmarks
for directing excellence seem to have been drafted from his example. How many times can one praise
Psycho or Vertigo and come up with anything interesting to say?
I Confess is far from perfect and this is what makes it one of the more fascinating Hitchcock
movies to discuss. It goes in a number of directions that seem at cross purposes to the director's
narrative strengths. It miscalculates some effects so seriously that it has to be redeemed
by an actor's performance ... not something typical of a Hitchcock movie. I know it's a device used
by literary analysts, but analyzing the weak links in Alfred Hitchcock's repertoire is perhaps
the best way to understand his art.
Devout Father Logan (Montgomery Clift) hears the confession of a murderer and
therefore cannot divulge it to the police even by inference or suggestion. This puts him in a
sticky position as the murder victim was blackmailing a woman from Logan's past. Before taking
the cloth Logan had a sweetheart's affair with Ruth (Anne Baxter). She married while he was away
at war, a detail she neglected to tell him about when he returned. The blackmailer seized on this
relationship for profit. Ruth (now Ruth Grandfort, wife of a respected public official) thinks that
Father Logan has murdered to protect her, an opinion shared by police inspector Larrue (Karl Malden).
That's what everyone seems to think and Logan's priestly code leaves him helpless to defend himself.
I Confess is a serious picture by a serious Catholic director, a fact immediately pounced upon
by French critics that rank the film high in Hitchcock's body of work. The Master of Suspense
liked to work with McGuffins, essentially meaningless objects or gimmicks that set his plots in
motion yet didn't burden him with unnecessary exposition or deep meanings. "Keep it light" was
his motto, even in serious films. By disposing with plot details, it left him more time to
concentrate on whatever theme or narrative twist he had in mind.
But in I Confess the Maguffin of the sanctity of a Priest's confessional is the focus of
the film. It's a subject that the average viewer has to be educated about, an absolute rule of
the Catholic faith. Hitchcock is fond of mocking most institutions but that doesn't seem to be
his purpose here. Hitchcock plays it straight, creating a movie about faith that's not a happy
match with a romantic murder thriller.
Hitchcock's films work on rational logic and cause and effect, rarely acknowledging faith except as
something for a quaint chuckle: Perhaps I Confess is the revenge of the churchman snubbed
by Guy Haines at the end of
Strangers on a Train? Hitch's
criminal and moral culpability are often utilized to highlight cruel ironies, which in I Confess
almost break the back of his story. Father Logan stays true to his professional, holy code and
throws a city into chaos and innocent lives in danger. Logan doesn't shoot the victims of the final
hotel seige but in a normal story he'd be at least partly responsible for them. It's difficult for
non-Catholics to understand why Logan remains silent while other people are suffering.
Hitchcock called himself a 'simplifier' instead of a 'complicator,' but the issues in I Confess
are not easily simplified. The code of the law and the code of the Church are two separate worlds and
Logan is trapped in the middle. An article of faith is at stake and that places Logan on the level
of a potential saint - when it comes to religious principle he's unwilling to compromise. 1
I have to think that Hitchcock saw Bresson's
Diary of a Country Priest, was
deeply moved by it yet knew that very few moviegoers would begin to tolerate its abstract theme
and lack of conventional drama. Father Logan doesn't seek to literally emulate Christ as does
The Priest of Ambricourt, but he has a lot in common with Bresson's sad priest. Their silent
suffering cuts them off
from meaningful communication; both are diagnosed by laypeople as being foolish, stubborn and
guilty of something. Father Logan is in a particularly tough Catch-22, as even the sympathetic police
chief played by Karl Malden interprets his lack of cooperation as hidden guilt.
The romantic murder thriller format encumbers I Confess with a tangle of problems that
Hitchcock does not solve. In 1953 Hitchcock had to go through censorship hoops to present a story about
a priest merely suspected of a love affair; he recounts in interviews the church advisor's nixing of
any gestures by Father Logan that might suggest he would consider implicating the real killer.
Father Logan's principled position leaves him no leeway - he can't even privately harass the
real killer to give himself up and stay loyal to his oath. Logan is an involuntary accessory to a
cover-up, a crime for which politicians - well, some politicians - are regularly crucified.
The big mess in I Confess is the love angle, with Ruth Grandfort's deliriously beautiful
romantic flashback. Through the alternate-reality of Ruth's romantic memories, we are fed not the truth but
a subjective fantasy about the past. Hitchcock wants to correct the narrative error of
Stage Fright by beginning the flashback with an impossibly idealized love image (the gauzy
perfection of Anne Baxter descending the stairs to her lover) and thus clue us in to the unreliability
of the rest of her testimony. But it doesn't work, for the same old reason - film reality is real
and unless primed for a post-modern (read: intellectually forced) visual world where all images are
suspect, audiences will accept what they see. The saccharine staircase shot doesn't seem
all that different from visuals in normal romances, so our suspicions aren't aroused to the falseness
of Ruth's story.
In other words Hitchcock is trying his best, but failing, to tell a visual story with the facility of
the written word. An author can change speakers and give us whatever clues are needed to let us know
if a particular narrator is lying or, like Ruth, is operating under romantic delusions.
Ruth's words don't really lie but her visuals must be lying, as we see Ruth and Michael Logan as perfectly
normal star-eyed lovers torn apart by war. We're supposed to realize that Ruth is shallow and selfish,
thinking only of herself in giant tearful closeups. But then the story goes to pieces when Ruth
offhandedly tells us that after a few missed letters, she went and married another man. This happens
across about ten seconds of screen time and it frequently makes audiences laugh out loud. Ruth
comes off as an idiot. In real life, Michael may have just grown tired of her at the same time his
war experience drew him to the priesthood. Perhaps his affair with Ruth was a 'time-off' from his
planned commitment to the church. We never know as we get nothing at all from Michael's side of
the story. Ruth's account may be hogwash, painting smiles of love on Michael's face and making him
seem eager to "make hay" with her out in the Canadian countryside.
That's what we see and it causes problems when it is later contradicted. The audience resentment factor is
powerful, as if the magician had 'cheated' once again. Hitchcock acknowledges this
in some movies (Stage Fright) but not others. But it plays as a cheat and is usually rejected
by audiences as an easy way out of a difficult storyline, like the "It's all a dream" gag made famous by
Invaders from Mars. Hitchcock's film
is an "original" cheat, unlike the tiresome cheat of, say A Beautiful Mind where
a false story is eventually revealed as the invention of a madman. Because it seems that practically
every movie now wants to play games with 'filmic reality" these narrative devices mostly get in the
way. But back in I Confess Hitchcock was trying an honest and original narrative experiment.
The Anne Baxter character suffers the most. Father Logan is never
honest with her, has never said, "Listen doll, I'm devoting myself to God and you were just a
fork in the road." So she has nursed exaggerated fantasies of a gloriously
tragic love affair - an affair now rekindled with the notion that her dream lover
has killed on her behalf. Logan is just as paternalistically silent with her as he is with the
killer Otto Keller. Kept in blissful ignorance (where even Hitchcock frequently suggests
women belong), Ruth looks like a villain during the investigation and the trial, indulging herself
in dramatics while further implicating Father Logan.
But the final miscalculation is all Hitchcock's. Discovering in the middle of a life-or-death pistol showdown
that her dream lover did it all for Christ and that she was irrelevant, Ruth retreats into domestic limbo with
her cuckolded husband. "Take me home," she says, and doesn't even wait to see if Michael lives or dies. This
is one of the strongest put-downs of womanhood on film. I Confess says that romance is immature nonsense
compared to Logan's holy commitment. Logan's loyalty to the cloth is the only real value. I'll bet the
Church 'advisors' purred in contentment at that one.
This narrative misalignment - Hitchcock's fundamental miscalculation - makes the rest of his
directorial touches stand out in naked relief. I Confess is filled with Quebec architecture,
suggesting a relationship between the timeless buildings and the infallibility of Logan's faith and
the rightness of his church. Catholic services and the official functions of the priest are
respectfully realistic and unadorned, but every time Logan steps out into the city streets he becomes
a Catholic version of Will Kane, marching down lonely streets on his way to a High Noon showdown with
destiny. He's a man alone, misunderstood by all; he can only trust that greater powers (he's forever
gazing up at skies and handsome stonework facades) are on his side. 2
The ultimate gaffe is when Logan is composed in a shot that parallels him with Christ carrying the cross.
This has to be the worst use of a symbol in Hitchcock's whole career. Well, Marnie's flashing
red psycho klaxon is at least as bad.
Only on the periphery does Hitchcock become brilliant and in I Confess the person to watch
is Dolly Haas' Alma, the innocent wife of the killer. She has her own justification not to turn him in,
one condoned by the legal system, at least as far as courtroom testimony is concerned. Ironically,
as the most innocent member of the cast she's the one who pays the most dearly. We're supposed
to maintain a heirarchy of concern with Logan's problem on top, followed by Anne Baxter's etc.
Poor Alma is a footnote victim, collateral damage under the onslaught of everyone else's collective
sins: Her husband's greed and cowardice, Ruth's selfish vanity and even Father Logan's 'noble'
Another irony is that Alma literally usurps Logan's role. She takes a bullet for him, and in an
instant of instinctual action achieves Logan's goal of martyrdom. He wants to be the Christ figure, but
instead this meek woman dies to save him. Buñuel's acid Nazarin wears this 'failure
to emulate Christ' theme on the surface, whereas Hitchcock seems to be placing a subversive counterargument
behind a screen. When Father Logan walks away from the bloodbath at the end of I Confess,
there seems to be no ambiguity at work. Or is there? Was Hitchcock prevented from presenting Father
Logan as a more complicated character? Or was he blind to the contraction in his message?
I Confess could be twice as confused and still be a riveting experience thanks to Montgomery
Clift's performance. It's arguably one of his best, as he successfully communicates almost everything
through facial mannerisms. He's the best and most believable tortured priest in the movies. Hitchcock
doubtlessly was impressed.
Anne Baxter's opportunity to star opposite Clift turns out to be a pitfall when the movie makes her character
look like a ninny. After repeated viewing she seems like a dippy ingenue enraptured by her own romantic imagination,
even during the beautiful descent of the staircase. Too bad the visuals and the message are so at
odds. If Baxter the actress suffers it's because confused viewers tend to think it's her performance
that is at fault instead of the cinematics.
Most of the peripheral characters are strained by the awkward plot. We wonder why Karl Malden's honest cop doesn't
guess the reason why Logan isn't talking: Gee, now what reason might a priest have for remaining silent about
something? We fully expect Malden to start slapping Father Logan around at the end, saying "You let all this slaughter
happen for WHAT?!" O.E. Hasse is unlikeable as an unconvincingly heartless man - an incredibly bad Catholic who uses
the confessional as a "get out of jail" card. Dolly Haas (the wife of the wonderful cartoonist Al Hirshfeld profiled in
The Line King) is the character I
identify with, the one most of us should. When important people start acting on the basis of higher religious or political
principles, ordinary folk tend to suffer. Alma represents us all.
Warners' DVD of I Confess hasn't been given quite the exceptional treatment of the other
Hitchcock films I've seen in this new collection. The image is a bit (just a bit) murky, indicating
that it might not be a new transfer. Robert Burks' razor sharp cinematography is somewhat let down.
The real victim is Dimitri Tiomkin's superb music, which in the main title sounds muddy and indistinct.
This truly weird, flowery melody mixes romance with a delicate ode to higher virtue. It's one of my
favorite Tiomkin scores.
Laurent Bouzereau's featurette isn't as memorable as some of the others, perhaps because to get into
interesting territory with the film one must deal with loaded, subjective subjects
like faith and religion. Father Logan's moral dilemma is discussed as almost a technical, mechanical
There's a trailer that tries to implicate Clift as the cause of the scandal. It has a shot that's an outtake of
the "carrying the cross" scene, only Montgomery Clift can be seen strolling back to his initial position.
A newsreel shows Hitchcock
and Baxter premiering the film in Canada with the Canadian actor Roger Dann following meekly
in their wake. The cover art is from a great-looking original ad showing Clift holding Baxter in a
hammerlock that matches James Cagney's grip on Virgina Mayo in White Heat. It
completely misrepresents the film ... in the best way possible.
On a scale of Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor,
I Confess rates:
Movie: Very Good
Supplements: docu featurette, premiere newsreel
Packaging: Keep case
Reviewed: September 11, 2004
1. Hitchcock shows a range of
priests, actually. Logan's superior is
an intelligent bureaucrat while a novice seems rather nerdy and incapable of taking on the kind of
moral mess that Logan welcomes. Anti-church types like to read symbolism into the young priest's
bicycle, and in the fact that they're repainting the rectory ... what are the priests covering up?
Is this subtext coincidental or ultra-subtle Hitchcock subversion?
2. Even the 'Direction' signs are a miscalculation. They
have nothing to do with the story except as an artificial way of saying "Look here." The Canadian
signage means simply "One Way Street." Few Americans know this, so the signs tend to confuse
most viewers. Hitchcock's gimmick visuals are usually much more adroit. Maybe 1953 was a low ebb
DVD Savant Text © Copyright 2007 Glenn Erickson