Skip to main content

And now, here you have a case in which there are no clues, no fingerprints, no motives, no suspects. Ought to be very simple for you.

I Confess
(1953)

(SPOILERS) There’s a sense in I Confess of Hitchcock aiming for a piece that will garner respect for the qualities of depth and range, rather than something that will simply be a crowd pleaser. It’s a very sombre affair, all-but devoid of his usual wit and thus very much not playing to his strengths. The moral quandary at its heart isn’t really one, since Montgomery Clift’s priest never appears to have the slightest inclination to betray his vow, and the “scandal” of his relationship with Anne Baxter’s married woman is entirely less so by virtue of his being entirely innocent. As a consequence, despite Clift’s strong performance, the film’s protagonist is the worst thing he can be: passive. And I Confess is never really able to move past that.

It seems there was rather more bite to the original premise, following Paul Anthelme’s Nos deux consciences (1902), whereby the priest’s lover bore his illegitimate child. On top of which, he is executed at the end. Warners nixed that, but they were deluding themselves if they thought they had something more commercial on their hands as a result. Clift’s Father Logan hears the confession of Otto Keller (OE Hasse), that he has murdered lawyer Vilette (Ovila Légaré) during a botched robbery. Logan is bound not to tell, making matters additionally problematic when Inspector Larrue (Karl Malden) sniffs out that Vilette was blackmailing Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter) over her historic relationship with Logan; she is now married to politician Pierre (Roger Dann) but still loves Logan (who only has eyes for his flock). All of which leads to an inevitable priest in the dock as Otto goes from chastened to actively rooting for the priest’s downfall.

Hitch considered “the final result was rather heavy-handed. The whole treatment was lacking in humour and subtlety”. Which is undoubtedly the case. He wondered if he’d had a blind spot for it due to his Jesuit upbringing, and that might partly be so, but I Confess has more pervasive problems. As interior and impressive as Clift is, there’s only so much that can be done with the part. On the plus side, the issues the director had with his leading man, chiefly a consequence of Clift’s method style being at odds with a director who designed his films by shots rather than performance, don’t show on screen. Nor is it evident that the actor wasn’t in the best of shape during production, drinking quite heavily. Indeed, in his straightjacketed way, Clift does manage to present an interior life to the Father. Most of those around him, with the honourable exception of a highly impressive Dolly Haas as Otto’s wife Alma (named after Hitch’s own wife) are much more one-note. In particular, Otto’s German refugee comes on all humble but soon enough becomes a grotesque caricature of a hate-filled Hun.

Malden’s always good, and there are points – Larrue’s first interrogation of Logan – where he has a chance to shine, frustrated by Logan’s reserve. But he’s nevertheless required to follow the general template of the police inspector, such that it’s rather a surprise he should be so forthright when the verdict comes in. The jury make a point of suggesting they found the priest’s involvement suspicious and he tuts “They’ve ruined him. Why couldn’t they have said nothing and simply let it go at that?” Crown Prosecutor Robertson (Brian Aherne) similarly pivots from likeable to a Rottweiler in the court, despite claiming it wasn’t personal (Truffaut comments of the idea that “justice was merely a parlour game”). As for Baxter, she’s okay but rather forgettable (Hitch wanted Anita Bjork).

As Truffaut says, the coincidence at the beginning is very (in)convenient “that the murderer who has killed him in order to rob him should happen to confess his crime to the very priest who was being blackmailed by the dead man”. This is the kind of thing that wouldn’t matter so much in one of the director’s more frivolous thrillers, but I Confess is in close up of motivation and action, so draws unflattering attention to its internal logic. However, if it hadn’t descended so quickly into rather crude stereotypes, this might not have mattered so much.

Most commonly, the idea is presented that box-office failure ensued because “the public was irritated with the picture because they kept hoping that Montgomery Clift would speak up”. I can’t say that was really my issue, and as such, I can’t agree with Hitch’s Catholic clause – “the Protestants, the atheists, and the agnostics all say, Ridiculous!” Rather, Logan’s moral code is quite clear and comprehensible. In that regard, I Confess creates a different kind of suspense – as much as the picture has any – of the mechanism that will eventually exonerate Logan if not through his own admission. This aspect isn’t overly satisfying as played out. We don’t have a clear enough insight into why the jury let him off. And as well constructed as the sequence of Alma’s intervention is, it does smack rather of a decision made in order to give us an ending with justice served.

There’s generally a reason the lesser Hitchcocks are where they are in the roster, although the French really rated I Confess. The Quebec locations are noteworthy, and there’s the occasional, very occasional sliver of humour (the priest whose bicycle keeps falling over). Apparently, co-writer George Tabori intended a McCarthy-hearings subtext to the innocent keeping silent, but it’s unsurprising Hitch didn’t go for that. Pauline Kael called it “so reticent, it’s mostly dull”. It’s certainly the case that the film only truly develops a pulse during the more generic final half hour, as Father Logan is put in the dock. The truth is probably somewhere between her position and that of the French. I Confess is very impressively crafted, but it can never move beyond its essentially inert nature.








Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.