I Confess (1953)

User Rating:

7.2/10   

Director:

Alfred Hitchcock

Writers:

George Tabori (screenplay) and
William Archibald (screenplay) ...

Release Date:

22 March 1953 (USA)

Genre:

Crime | Film-Noir | Thriller

Tagline:

FILMED IN CANADA'S COLORFUL QUEBEC BY WARNER BROS. (original print ad - all caps)

Plot:

Refusing to give into police investigators' questions of suspicion, due to the seal of confession, a priest becomes the prime suspect in a murder.

Plot Keywords:

Priest | Police | Murder | Lawyer | Confession

Awards:

1 nomination

Cast

Montgomery Clift	...	Fr. Michael William Logan
Anne Baxter	...	Ruth Grandfort
Karl Malden	...	Inspector Larrue
Brian Aherne	...	Willy Robertson
O.E. Hasse	...	Otto Keller
Roger Dann	...	Pierre Grandfort
Dolly Haas	...	Alma Keller
Charles Andre	...	Fr. Millars

Also Known As:

Alfred Hitchcock's 'I Confess!' (USA) (promotional title)

Runtime:

95 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English | French | Italian | German

Color:

Black and White

Aspect Ratio:

1.37 : 1

Sound Mix:

Mono (RCA Sound System)

Certification:

Spain:18 | Canada:PG (Ontario) | UK:A (original rating) | UK:PG (1988) | Brazil:16 | Canada:PG (video rating) | Argentina:16 | Australia:PG | Chile:18 | Finland:K-16 | France:U | Peru:18 | Sweden:15 | USA:Approved (PCA #16036) | West Germany:12

Filming Locations:

Eglise Saint-Zéphirin de Stadacona, quartier Limoilou, 972 rue Saint-Jean, Québec, Québec, Canada

Company:

Warner Bros. Pictures

Trivia:

Director Cameo: [Alfred Hitchcock]crossing the top of a staircase during the opening sequence.

Goofs:

Continuity: While Ruth waits for her husband beside the door of the city council, a thin old man enters and walks until the desk and then disappears between shots.

Quotes:

[first lines]
Fr. Michael William Logan: Who's there?

Movie Connections:

Featured in Hitchcock's Confession: A Look at 'I Confess' (2004) (V)

Soundtrack:

Dies Irae

Superior, if not superlative Hitchcock

It's never been satisfactorily explained why this wasn't a commercial success. It's not a bad film. Nor is it good in an inaccessible way. Hitchcock's explanations for its failure aren't at all convincing... Non-Catholics don't know about the seal of confession, he said; they can't believe that a priest will sacrifice his freedom and career just to keep a secret. Rubbish. They can and they do. EVERYONE knows about the seal of confession, and Montgomery Clift makes Father Logan's sacrifice perfectly plausible. (Besides, I've never had much time for the objection that a lead character is "too good".) The one thing some people don't know about the seal of confession is that the priest can't mention the sin even to the guilty party, but this is made clear enough in the film in one of the confrontations between Keller and Logan. (All such confrontations are excellent, by the way.) Hitchcock also complains that audiences missed the point by hoping for Logan to tell the police what he knows, a complaint which betrays a misunderstanding of audience psychology. We NEVER hope that the hero will "get out of jail" by doing something dishonourable or morally wrong; so long as there is some other way for the plot to be resolved, THAT'S what we're hoping for. Besides, it's obvious that Logan will never break his vows. Another reviewer says that Logan should simply say to the police: "The seal of confession prevents me from answering your questions"; but the film makes it clear he can't say even this. It would put the police on Keller's scent, and Logan feels - rightly or wrongly, but at any rate plausibly - that his vows force him to be genuinely silent, not nudge-nudge wink-wink silent. I'm on his side here. It's hard to feel much sympathy for the "I won't say who did it, but I WILL drop a hint" attitude adopted by the priests of modern police dramas.

So what IS wrong with "I Confess"? Too much "Teutonic[?] gravity", as some have alleged? "Not enough humour"? Please. those imposing shots of stony Quebec MAKE the film. And let's face it: Hitchcock isn't funny. Give me this kind of thing over the leaden levity of "North by Northwest" any day. No: the short answer is that there's NOTHING, or nothing to speak of, wrong with "I Confess"; certainly nothing that explains its unpopularity.

A few things weaken it a little. If Montgomery Clift plays one of Hitchcock's most likeable characters, Anne Baxter plays one of the least likeable ones; I found it hard not to hope that Ruth would fall into the sea, or walk in front of a bus, or induce a casual passer-by to strangle her. This is okay: the fact that she's irritating helps the story. All the same, her explanatory flashback DOES tend to drag, and one wishes her scenes could be speeded up a little. Then there's Dmitri Timokin's score. It's a fine score, in its way, but it DRONES. Tiomkin is never allowed to get a crescendo out of the orchestra; instead, the sound engineer turns up the volume every so often.

Not that any of this matters much. Overall it's one of Hitchcock's more engaging films. The worst that can be said of it is that it's not a masterpiece, nor is it among his very best. Try it if you think that all the critical carrying-on over such films as "Foreign Correspondent", "Notorious", "Strangers on a Train" and "North by Northwest" is a bit much, and you long for something that isn't so theory-driven.