Sunday, January 27, 2013

Week 3: I Confess (1953)

Good evening. I have to first confess that I Confess slipped through the cracks for me. I had not only never seen it before, but I also don't remember ever having heard of it before either. I am glad that I stumbled upon it.

In the film, Father Michael Logan finds the church handyman, Otto Keller, praying in the church late one night. The distraught Keller asks the priest if he can speak to him in confession. While in the confessional, Keller reveals to Logan that he has murdered a lawyer, Mr. Villette, while trying to rob him and getting caught. Unfortunately for Logan, that happens to be the same lawyer who was blackmailing his ex girlfriend Ruth, now the wife of a prominent politician, about their past relationship. Suspicion for the murder naturally falls on Logan, who, bound by the vows of confession, cannot reveal what he knows about Keller.

I am surprised that this film is not better known, because it is very representative of Hitchcockian style. The symbolism is powerful, from the very opening sequence, which shows several "direction" street signs pointing towards the body. Those signs later symbolize Logan's inability to turn his poor fortune around, his inability to do anything but allow himself to stand trial for a murder he did not commit.

The acting and camera work are also classic Hitchcock. There are countless shots of various characters revealing their own personal moral dilemmas by the pain and conflict apparent in their eyes. The sense of suspense, of not knowing whether the priest will betray his vow, or whether someone else will discover the truth, is captivating.

Montgomery Clift delivers a solid performance as Father Logan, but every bit as impressive is Karl Malden as the police officer investigating the murder. O.E. Hasse steals the film as Keller, though. His transformation from broken man searching for peace after committing murder, to an empowered antagonist thriving off of Logan's vow to silence, back into a broken man struck in the circumstance he created was lovely to watch.

My criticism in this film lies in the character development of Ruth, played by Anne Baxter. Baxter's performance itself is fine, but her character seems so unlikeable that I don't sympathize with her at all. Furthermore, Hitchcock chose to reveal her past relationship with Logan in a very romantic, dreamy, flashback that seemed fairly boring and dragged on for far too long, distracting from the pressing storyline. Despite this drawback, it was a good film overall.

Hitchcock worked on the film for this script with 12 different writers for eight years, longer than any of his other films. He was obviously very dedicating to seeing it through. It was based on a play he had seen by Paul Anthelme called Nos Deux Consciences. 

He and the screenwriter, George Tabori, decided to make a few changes from the original script. He added in the past relationship with Ruth to create a stronger motive for Logan to have killed Villette, even creating a child they had out of wedlock. They also chose to stay true to the play's ending, having Logan die at the end of the film. The censors ultimately shot down both of these decisions. Tabori refused to make the changes, so Hitchcock brought in another writer to do so.

It is highly reported that Hitchcock had trouble working with Clift, the original "method" actor in Hollywood. His acting method and drinking on set slowed the filming. He would often have to have many takes on Clift's scenes when he would refuse to take Hitchcock's direction and apply it. One well known, amusing instance of this was a scene where Hitchcock asked him to walk down the stairs and look up in the sky, so Hitchcock could cut to a shot focusing on the top of a building. Clift told him "I'm not sure that I would look up." Hitchcock responded "Well, if you don't look up, then I can't cut to the shot I want." Hitchcock and Clift definitely butted heads, though in the end the film was still successful on both of their parts.

I believe this film was probably dear to Hitchcock's heart, since he was raised strictly Catholic. I wonder if the Catholic overtones somehow contributed to this film being not as well known or liked as some of his other works. He once said about this film "We Catholics know that a priest cannot disclose the secret of the confessional, but the Protestants, the athiests, and the agnostics all say, 'Ridiculous! No man would remain silent and sacrifice his life for such a thing."

Despite his concerns in that area, though, I think that all people can appreciate the position Logan was in. The moral dilemma reads well to the audience, no matter what their religious beliefs. Though it was not by any means his best work, I think it is underrated and definitely worth watching.


1 comment:

  1. I have seen this film as recently as 2-3 years ago, and as I recall, I enjoyed it at the time. However, "I confess" that beyond the basic storyline, I do not recall the details of the movie itself. Perhaps the reason for my memory lapse is due to some of the negative elements of the film per your review (I am sure my memory lapse would not be due to aging,or anything like that...) Having read your review, I am looking forward to viewing the film at my first opportunity to assess in the light of some of the imems you mentioned (Clift/Hitchcock rift; and Anne Baxter's on screen character as you assessed it for starters) As always, great job of cinematic review!!

    ReplyDelete