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.








Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.