I Confess

[Moraldo Rubini]

Note: For those who want to be protected from plot points, spoilers will be printed in black. [Afterthought: Aw heck, maybe those who are nervous about spoilers should skip this entirely...]

Finally saw Hitchcock's I Confess tonight on the big screen at San Francisco's Castro Theatre. It was part of a festival of Hitch's lesser works, which I frankly thought was appropriate for this film. There were some interesting traits though. Before going, I knew the basic conceit of the movie: that a murderer (O.E. Hasse) confesses his diabolical act to his priest (Montgomery Clift) who, because of the church's canonical code, is forbidden from telling the police. But I was delighted at the number of confessions that are interwoven throughout the plot. The murderer who symmetrically confesses twice, his wife's (Dolly Haas) confession, the confession of the priest's former paramour (Anne Baxter) about their relationship, the ironic and constant demand for confession from the police (Karl Malden).

The film is an excercise in déjà vu, as Hitchcock's motifs from earlier movies pop up throughout. The climax taking place on a stage (a la 39 Steps), a shocking murder on crowded public steps (a la Foreign Correspondent), the innocent man considered guilty (Saboteur). Hitchcock often has fun with props (the wine cave key in Notorious, the glass of milk in Suspicious, etc.), and he seemed especially cognizant of bits of business in this flick. He defines Brian Ahearn's role of the prosecutor by introducing him to us at a table where he is creating his "scales of justice" by balancing two forks over a drinking glass. Our second introduction has him balancing a drink on his head. The villain works in the church, and there's a scene where he is to replace the altar flowers. His arm is loaded with gladioli when he discovers the priest is about to be arrested. He follows the priest throughout the parrish, nervously dropping the flowers as he unravels with anxiety.

Much of the film has a documentary feeling, using a grainy black-and-white film stock. Then we're taken back to a romantic flashback that's all heavenly choirs and glossy visuals. It's pretty over-the-top and was a little difficult for the audience to take seriously. Some of this was due to Anne Baxter's hammy performance, but apparently this was what Hitch wanted.. Her character is a overly-romantic and this is her version of the story. At any rate, I thought her performance read false; especially when juxtaposed with Clift's understated interpretation. So much of his character is imparted without dialogue; just beautiful close-ups relying on his eyes to evoke what he's feeling. He would have made a swell silent actor.

Master of suspense? Hitchcock gets his cameo out of way in one of the very first establishing shots.

Hitchcock filmed on location in in Quebec City and it looks like they hired locals to work as extras. There are numerous crowd shots, and one has the feeling that they're gathered to see Hollywood, rather than the unfolding of plot points.

It's not Hitch's best work, but it has its interesting aspects. For me, it was a curiosity. Obviously, it's a must for Hitchcock completists.

[charliechaplinfan]

I Confess is one of the last Hitchcock films I watched and although not a completist I've watched most of them. I was surprised I hadn't got around to watching it before, I found it one of the most enjoyable Hitchcock films. To me it felt very different, the clarity of the black and white photography, the actors were New York actors as opposed to studio actors, the film was more about performance than style or objects or themes. Montgomery Clift gives such a fine performance as the priest and supported by a very able cast, I do agree about Anne Baxter, they are at odds as one time lovers. It feels fresher, less fimiliar tha Hitch's other work, I'm not denigrating him, I love Hitch's work, I'd class I Confess as one of his best.