I, Confess

Posted by Clayton L. White (stinky_booties@hotmail.com) on March 21, 2007

With I, Confess, Alfred Hitchcock set out to make one film that would reflect all of his feelings about his Catholic upbringing. The film is based on a 1902 play by Paul Anthelme, and you can tell. The story was probably outdated when Hitchcock made it in 1953, and time has only added to this fact. The film itself, however, is essential for die hard Hitchcock fans, and for fans of great acting.

The great Montgomery Clift plays Father Michael Logan, a young priest at a rectory in Quebec. In a bravura opening sequence, a man by the name of Otto Keller bursts into the church late at night and asks Fr. Logan to hear his confession. Keller tells Logan that he has just killed a man by the name of Villette. Logan is shocked but cannot say anything because he was told this in confessional, and breaking that privacy would violate his beliefs, and the beliefs of the church. The inspector on the case, played by Karl Malden, finds two little girls who saw a priest leaving Villette around the time of the murder. After questioning all the priests in town, the inspector focuses his attention on Fr. Logan. Logan has his own secrets involving an old girlfriend named Ruth (Anne Baxter), and maybe some involving Villette himself.

The main problem with the film is that there isn’t much momentum. Logan cannot defend himself at all, and simply takes everything that the law throws at him. As an audience member, you just want to yell at Clift throughout the entire film. In all honesty, I’m not Catholic, so I can’t accurately speak of the true sanctity of confession, but the thought of being on trial for someone else would certainly get me to speak up. Second of all, the idea of a priest on trial for murder may have been a bit incendiary in 1902 or even 1953, but now there are priests and ministers in the news for some crime nearly every week. The third problem I had with the film was the overt symbolism. While it was interesting at first, it started to wear off. There is one shot where a statue of Christ carrying the cross is in the foreground of the frame, while Clift is in the background walking down the sidewalk. Of course this represents the gigantic burden that Fr. Logan has to bear, and the character is the most blatant Christ-like figure in all of Hitchcock’s work. As I said, this was interesting in the beginning, but it got a bit much.

There were many good points to the film as well. Clift’s performance is phenomenal. Every film that I see this guy in convinces me even more that he is one of the all time greats. He isn’t given much to say, so his performance is completely restrained, but like his performance in A Place in the Sun, Clift lets us see the inner workings of his character. It’s one of the most subtle performances in all of Hitchcock’s work, but it is extremely effective. In later years Hitchcock would remark how difficult it was to work with actors like Clift and Jimmy Stewart. They were too methodical for him. He liked to be in complete control of his productions, and wouldn’t bother much with the inner turmoil of his characters. The supporting performances are all very good, especially by Malden and Baxter. The film was shot on location in Quebec, and with the exception of Vertigo, this may be Hitch’s best location work. Cinematographer Robert Burks uses black and white to it’s fullest, most haunting effect. It reminded a lot of Ingmar Bergman’s later work. It’s absolutely gorgeous to look at.

Even though the film has been largely forgotten in America, the French Cahiers du Cinema crowd, made up of great filmmakers like Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, and Eric Rohmer, consider it among Hitchcock’s best work. I found the film to be fairly engrossing, while the technical aspects of the film are fairly flawless. I would certainly recommend it to curious viewers, and to anyone interested in further exploring Hitchcock’s films. I would recommend it most to fans of great screen acting. Clift was one of the originators of the Method style of acting, and each performance of his is the very definition of what great acting should be.

The DVD from Warner Bros. is very good. The sound is adequate and the image is superb. It contains a few features that are worth your time ifyou like the film. This is not one of Hitchcock’s best moments, but it is one of Clift’s. It isn’t a great movie, but a lesser Hitchcock film is still better than most movies you’ll ever see.

| | Read more articles by Clayton L. White