I Confess (1953)

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

First, I feel the need to verbalize that the flashback sequence in this film that illustrates Anne Baxter's testimony is incredibly haunting and one of the most memorable little bits of cinema, in my biased eyes. At first sight, I was in love.In fact, much of the film has the same understated and tragic tone. It is not an outwardly suspenseful film, as many have noted. It relies on expressive lighting (that seems to borrow from European films of the time), solid performances by Baxter and Malden, and a romantic, emotional core. Clift as the center of the film can be a bit underwhelming at times, but his work is believable and never distracting.Just because this film deviates from what is stereo-typically Hitchcock does not mean it should continue to be overlooked. It was a bit of a flop at the time of its release, and had plenty of strife connected to both the director and lead, but to me, that hardly shows. Its an unusual, visceral gem of a film that deserves a second look.

I saw the top critic mentioning there is NOTHING WRONG with the movie to make it unpopular.I found there are very apparent, simple reasons WHY.First, this whole story is about silence. Silence of struggling inner voices, silence of powerful, self-devouring emotions. But it is all that silence that makes the MAIN THEME - CONFESSION of deep down personal hurts valuable. it's exactly this narration that helps to deliver the the best. But people don't like that. There is no twisting, dramatic big scenes. No drama, no conflicts spoken out = not appealing? But many important concepts portrayed through that slowly unraveling, distressing storyline.Looking forward to some excitement? That's why you don't UNDERSTAND it.Second, oh gosh, why do you expect to see the same plot line for EVERY movie just because it comes from THAT SAME producer? Why don't we look at movie by itself, not comparing with the other SAME STUFF? The WHOLE POINT OF THE MOVIE IS NOT SUSPENSE. The suspenseful tone is the narrative device that conveys the core of the story, but NOT THE END GOAL. If you were expecting a murder case suspense from this, then you are LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING from it. People just miss the central thing of it.The central message nourished by powerful dichotomies, the artistry of picture, the strong performances, are all components that make this movie great.

Otto Keller, the caretaker of a church, disguised as a priest, tries to steal money from a lawyer named Villette, gets caught in the act, and ends up killing Villette. He confesses to Father Logan. Ironically, Inspector Larrue comes to suspect Father Logan of the murder, but Logan cannot reveal what Keller admitted in the confessional. Larrue's suspicions are strengthened when he finds Villette was blackmailing Ruth Grandfort, a close friend of Logan. Eventually, Logan is put on trial for the murder.But it is only half a trial. We never see the defense attorney call witnesses to testify, cross examine the prosecution's witnesses, or present his closing argument to the jury. The only thing he does of any significance is object at one point, but the prosecutor continues with his line of questioning unabated. Speaking of which, the prosecutor often stops asking the witness questions so he can give his theory of what happened. We know that movies take liberties in their presentation of trials, but the absence of an objection from the defense at these points is irritating. In any event, when the jury comes back with a not-guilty verdict, it strikes us as arbitrary, for we never heard anything from the defense casting doubt on the accusation. In fact, for all practical purposes, Father Logan might just as well not have had a defense attorney.This reminded me of the movie "Helter Skelter" (1976). There too, we have a defense attorney that is practically nonexistent. The day before the closing arguments are to begin, the prosecuting attorney tells his wife how worried he is about the summation he will have to give, because so much depends on it. I remember thinking to myself, "Is he kidding? Everyone knew Charles Manson was going to be found guilty. No special skill was required from the prosecutor in giving his closing argument." In fact, I was wondering what closing argument would be heard from the defense. That was where the real challenge lay. So, in the next scene, we see the prosecutor give his all-important summation, while I waited patiently for him to finish so I could hear what the defense attorney would say. But we never got to hear from him, I suppose because there was nothing for him to say. And that is why "Helter Skelter" is not a very good movie. In general, when a trial takes place in a movie where we do not hear from the defense, it is not likely to be very interesting.Then, after Father Logan is found not guilty, the whole town seems to be against him. That is totally unrealistic. In real life, we would expect him to have some supporters who believed he was innocent. The unanimity of the townsfolk in this regard is as one-sided as the trial, and therefore just as boring.During the trial, the real murderer, Keller, testifies against Logan, giving false evidence that he hopes will incriminate Logan, the very priest he confessed to. In fact, Keller even planted the bloody cassock in Logan's room. This is too much. It would have been far more interesting if Keller had given evidence that would have helped Logan, short of admitting that he was the one who was guilty. He could have said Father Logan got back to the church too early to have committed the murder, for example. This perjured testimony from the killer in defense of Logan would have created an even greater degree of moral tension. Logan would not only have to keep it a secret that Keller killed Villette, but he would also have to accept that Keller's lies on the witness stand helped his own case, making him indebted to Keller. As it is, Keller is ridiculously evil, trying to help convict the very priest he confessed to.Another thing that makes this movie too one-sided is Father Logan's total innocence in every regard. In the movie, he returns from the war and meets Ruth, who he does not know is married. He is not a priest yet, and so he kisses her, as they were in love before the war. A storm comes up, and they are forced to spend the night in a gazebo. The next morning, Villette, who owns the place, discovers them and suspects them of having had sex, which they did not. This becomes the basis for the blackmail.Think how much better it would have been if Logan had been a priest at the time, knew that Ruth was married, and in a weak moment had sex with her that night in the gazebo. Allowing for Logan to have sinned in this way would have created some moral tension, and provided an even stronger motive for the murder of Villette. In fact, it is almost a cliché that when a man and woman take shelter in a storm, they have sex, so it is a little disappointing that they do not. Instead, Father Logan is presented as completely without sin, which is just as uninteresting as Keller's unqualified evil.In short, Father Logan is too one-sided (too innocent), Keller is too one-sided (too evil), the trial is too one-sided (the absence of a defense), and the attitude of the townsfolk is too one-sided (everyone hates Logan). The result, especially when compared to the movie that might have been, is disappointing.

Most likely somebody has told you a secret on the condition that you promise to tell no-one. I think it is quite common that people have a hard time keeping such promises. But what if keeping the secret puts you in a difficult spot? That is the premise of this movie. Not only is Father Logan required to keep a secret in respect for the privacy of the confessional, but the secret he has to keep is one that would clear him of a murder charge. That kind of pushes the keeping a secret business to the limit.I think any Montgomery Clift performance is worth seeing, and this one is no exception. Clift is able to say a lot with facial expressions and Hitchcock gives him an opportunity to use that talent with many extreme close-ups. Clift's Logan can display a combative side at some points while evincing a disciplined, spiritual, rectitude at others.If you go into this expecting a Hitchcockian high-wire thriller, then you will most likely be disappointed. The script is more introspective than action packed.I don't associate Hitchcock with film noir, but I think that "I Confess" is a good example of that genre. The use of high contrast black and white lends a dark overtone to the proceedings, particularly in the use of shadows and dark cityscapes. I was impressed with the photography, perhaps the most artistic of any Hitchcock I have seen. The print on the DVD I watched was pristine, amazingly so for a movie that is over sixty years old.The original score by Dimitri Tiomkin is bombastic and intrusive--a big negative.It is interesting to compare this with the 2011 "The Confession" that has a similar initial premise but plays out in a much different way.