Some critics and reviewers think that "I Confess" is not a typical Hitchcock movie. True, it's not a "Rebecca," or "Suspicion," or "Dial M for Murder." But neither are so many other Hitchcock films - "Lifeboat," or "Vertigo," or "The Birds," or "North by Northwest." For that matter, most others of his suspense murder mysteries are quite different from one another. "Psycho" isn't anything like "Rebecca." "Rope" is nothing like "Saboteur." "The 39 Steps" is nothing like "Strangers on a Train."
So, while some folks ponder what constitutes "typical" Hitchcock, I'll just weigh in on this film. First, Hitchcock surely knew the main subject of the plot. He was raised Catholic and practiced his faith. He knew about the seal of the confessional - that a priest can never reveal what he hears someone confess. That is the core around which this entire story and film are based. Hitchcock said he knew that Protestants and people other than Catholics couldn't understand that. Yet, I don't think the film handles it in a way to help others understand what it is about. But then, if it did, the plot would have to come out differently. And that would change the story.
Second, it seems to me that Hitchcock proceeded with this film with one of two premises. He either didn't care that some or many people might see the subtle hole in the screenplay; or, he didn't mind the conclusion by those who would notice, that many Catholics in Quebec didn't really know their religion very well. In 1950, the population of Quebec, Canada was close to 90 percent Catholic.
Inspector Larrue (Karl Malden) says that he had been an altar boy. But when Fr. Logan responds to his questions three different times, and says "I can't say," Larrue is clueless. He doesn't think to ask him if he can't say because of the seal of confession. That's the first thing that should cross the mind of a knowledgeable Catholic if he heard a priest say that and not explain it any further. Later, when Otto Keller is confronted by Larrue, Logan and others, Fr. Millars is also present. When Keller says that he thought Fr. Logan had spilled the beans about Keller's having done the murder, Fr. Millars looks pleasantly surprised. Had it never occurred to him that his fellow priest was bound by the seal of confession?
Third, the film has one other gaping hole. In the courtroom, the Crown prosecutor, Willy Robertson (Brian Aherne) shows Fr. Logan a cassock the police had found in his dresser. It was the one Keller had worn as a disguise the night of his attempted robbery and then murder of the lawyer, Villettte. It had blood on it. Keller's wife, Alma, had hid it in Fr. Logan's dresser. Robertson asks Fr. Logan if it was his cassock, and he replied that it wasn't. Yet, Robertson proceeds with the premise that Logan had hid the cassock in his own dresser.
Wouldn't the police have asked Fr. Logan about it before the trial? And when he said it wasn't his, wouldn't they dig deeper. If it belonged to another priest, would that not raise other questions and suspicions? If none of the priests were missing a cassock, where did that one come from? If Keller had purchased or stolen it from somewhere else, there would have been a trail. Inspector Larrue was supposed to be the top detective and a smart guy. Wouldn't he wonder about Fr. Logan being so dumb as to try to hide a cassock with blood on it that would link him to the crime, in his own dresser drawers?
These are obvious holes and things that one would expect the police to be very sharp about. But they would also completely change the story and plot - and ruin it from the type of mysterious theme that it plays out. Yet, this is one crime and mystery film that has too many simple goofs and slipups on the part of the police to be believed. And, that makes this one of the weakest plots and screenplays from which Hitchcock made a movie.
Then there is Montgomery Clift's portrayal. Clift had a film persona of a quiet type. None of his films have him with long dialog. Much of the power of his acting was in his mannerisms, his facial expressions, and how the cameras caught closeups of him. His characters seldom showed signs of a lot of energy.
But in this film, Clift seems inordinately wooden. Even his walk along the streets seems robotic. There's not even the slightest bounce in his steps that all people show a little of when they walk. And on the ferry and in some short scenes with pauses, he seems to be dazed or unaware of anything around him. I read that he had been drinking heavily during this filming and that it concerned Hitchcock and some others of the cast. That might explain this somewhat.
Finally, there is one other thing doubtful and irritating in this film. Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter) professes her long and deep love for Michael Logan. So, why did she not wait for him during the war? Many, many young women did wait for their men. A beautiful love story of such waiting is in the 1946 smash hit and Oscar-winning movie, "The Best Years of Our Lives." Wilma Cameron waited for and married her childhood sweetheart, Homer Parrish, who came back with both arms missing. Yet, in this movie, Ruth Grandfort tells her story in Robertson's office, and just says rather matter of fact, that she married Pierre while Michael Logan was off to war.
Compared to the many great and excellent films that Hitchcock made, this one has too many holes, a sub-par script, and some weak acting by the leads.
So, while some folks ponder what constitutes "typical" Hitchcock, I'll just weigh in on this film. First, Hitchcock surely knew the main subject of the plot. He was raised Catholic and practiced his faith. He knew about the seal of the confessional - that a priest can never reveal what he hears someone confess. That is the core around which this entire story and film are based. Hitchcock said he knew that Protestants and people other than Catholics couldn't understand that. Yet, I don't think the film handles it in a way to help others understand what it is about. But then, if it did, the plot would have to come out differently. And that would change the story.
Second, it seems to me that Hitchcock proceeded with this film with one of two premises. He either didn't care that some or many people might see the subtle hole in the screenplay; or, he didn't mind the conclusion by those who would notice, that many Catholics in Quebec didn't really know their religion very well. In 1950, the population of Quebec, Canada was close to 90 percent Catholic.
Inspector Larrue (Karl Malden) says that he had been an altar boy. But when Fr. Logan responds to his questions three different times, and says "I can't say," Larrue is clueless. He doesn't think to ask him if he can't say because of the seal of confession. That's the first thing that should cross the mind of a knowledgeable Catholic if he heard a priest say that and not explain it any further. Later, when Otto Keller is confronted by Larrue, Logan and others, Fr. Millars is also present. When Keller says that he thought Fr. Logan had spilled the beans about Keller's having done the murder, Fr. Millars looks pleasantly surprised. Had it never occurred to him that his fellow priest was bound by the seal of confession?
Third, the film has one other gaping hole. In the courtroom, the Crown prosecutor, Willy Robertson (Brian Aherne) shows Fr. Logan a cassock the police had found in his dresser. It was the one Keller had worn as a disguise the night of his attempted robbery and then murder of the lawyer, Villettte. It had blood on it. Keller's wife, Alma, had hid it in Fr. Logan's dresser. Robertson asks Fr. Logan if it was his cassock, and he replied that it wasn't. Yet, Robertson proceeds with the premise that Logan had hid the cassock in his own dresser.
Wouldn't the police have asked Fr. Logan about it before the trial? And when he said it wasn't his, wouldn't they dig deeper. If it belonged to another priest, would that not raise other questions and suspicions? If none of the priests were missing a cassock, where did that one come from? If Keller had purchased or stolen it from somewhere else, there would have been a trail. Inspector Larrue was supposed to be the top detective and a smart guy. Wouldn't he wonder about Fr. Logan being so dumb as to try to hide a cassock with blood on it that would link him to the crime, in his own dresser drawers?
These are obvious holes and things that one would expect the police to be very sharp about. But they would also completely change the story and plot - and ruin it from the type of mysterious theme that it plays out. Yet, this is one crime and mystery film that has too many simple goofs and slipups on the part of the police to be believed. And, that makes this one of the weakest plots and screenplays from which Hitchcock made a movie.
Then there is Montgomery Clift's portrayal. Clift had a film persona of a quiet type. None of his films have him with long dialog. Much of the power of his acting was in his mannerisms, his facial expressions, and how the cameras caught closeups of him. His characters seldom showed signs of a lot of energy.
But in this film, Clift seems inordinately wooden. Even his walk along the streets seems robotic. There's not even the slightest bounce in his steps that all people show a little of when they walk. And on the ferry and in some short scenes with pauses, he seems to be dazed or unaware of anything around him. I read that he had been drinking heavily during this filming and that it concerned Hitchcock and some others of the cast. That might explain this somewhat.
Finally, there is one other thing doubtful and irritating in this film. Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter) professes her long and deep love for Michael Logan. So, why did she not wait for him during the war? Many, many young women did wait for their men. A beautiful love story of such waiting is in the 1946 smash hit and Oscar-winning movie, "The Best Years of Our Lives." Wilma Cameron waited for and married her childhood sweetheart, Homer Parrish, who came back with both arms missing. Yet, in this movie, Ruth Grandfort tells her story in Robertson's office, and just says rather matter of fact, that she married Pierre while Michael Logan was off to war.
Compared to the many great and excellent films that Hitchcock made, this one has too many holes, a sub-par script, and some weak acting by the leads.