The Jessica Journals:

Typically, people are told to beware of Friday the 13th. If you happen to be Caesar, you're told to beware the 15th of March. For me, however, Friday the 14th turned out to be the Day of Dread, for it was upon that fateful day that I was forced to register for classes at the celebrated University of Wisconsin Fox Valley. This day of infamy did not come without warning, and, as the day approached, I decided to strengthen myself by enduring a little pre-torture torment.

Yes, I watched my first Alfred Hitchcock movie of the year.

I confess it was not as bad as I had expected; however, I Confess was still no walk in the park. It was, in fact, the gripping tale of Michael Logan, a Catholic priest who hears a murderer’s confession. Though stunned and repulsed, his priestly responsibilities prevent him from going to the police...even after he himself is accused of the crime. The sudden return of an ex-flame, now married but still in love with him, only complicates the Father’s situation as he wrestles with his responsibilities as a priest and his desires for himself, between the man he was and the man he has become, between was is and what ought to be. Released in 1953, I Confess starred Anne Baxter as the flame (who frankly looked a lot hotter in The Ten Commandments), Karl Malden as the relentless detective, and a very hot Montgomery Clift as the conflicted priest.

Of course, when described like that, I’m almost tempted to run out and buy the DVD. However, the intrigue is only a result of my excessively brilliant riteeng scillz. In reality, although the movie was a mere five and ninety minutes in length, it felt as though it were a whole two hours, and that was only at the half-way point.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Hitchcock movies are only good when the writing is good, which is rarely. Although I will no doubt make pimply-faced film students the world over rear to their feet in shock, dismay, and defiance, I am going to come out and bluntly state that the “brilliance” (if one can use that word) of Hitchcock’s movies is not in the (often times distracting) directorial style but rather in the choice of subject matter and in the sheer number of movies produced. For some bizarre reason, a good many people find mystery/suspense stories so compelling they don’t care if the mystery is convincing or if the characters have more than one dimension but will, in fact, gobble up even the most mediocre of story provided it starts off with some baffling blood-letting--as evidenced by the staggering glut and incomprehensible popularity of novels by James Patterson and David Baldacci. It is my belief that the popularity of Hitchcock’s body of work has nothing to do with anything that was uniquely Hitchcock but rather is the result of the large number of movies he directed and the early date at which he started churning them out.

And yet, for all of that, do I simply avoid watching his movies? No, I am drawn to watch them and loath them unless they are Rebecca, Rear Window, Psycho, Suspicion, or Dial “M” For Murder.

I Confess was certainly not the bottom of the barrel of rotting, stinking, worm-ridden apples that is the Hitchcockian library. I would, in fact, probably place it mid-way between Psycho and The Man Who Knew Too Much, both because Father Logan knew too much about a psycho and because the movie warrants a rating of +5.

However, even after bestowing that very kindly rating upon it, I have to say I was deeply dissatisfied with the level of writing, particularly in regard to the characters. There were so many interesting avenues the movie could have explored in the development of said characters, none of which it did. One thinks immediately of the murderer who was such a mishmash of conflicting emotions—remorse over his action, fear of being caught, love for Father Logan, hatred of Father Logan, as well as both love and disregard for his wife. All of these emotions could be adequately explained; however, I did not feel as if the movie did so. And what of Father Logan? Of all the things he could have done after he found out that the woman he loved had married another man he chose to become a Catholic priest; why? Was he a religious man before that moment? What were his beliefs about God? And, immediately following the murderer’s confession, did Logan chose to not tell anyone about it because of his responsibilities as a Catholic priest or because he thought the murderer deserved mercy? And did he chose to remain silent when he was accused of the murder because of those same Catholic duties, or because he hoped the murderer would step forward on his own...or was he was masochistic and desired to suffer? Inquiring minds want to know, but, of course, that sort of character development was beyond Hitchcock’s standard levels of storytelling abilities.

As I said above, I have decided to rate this movie a +5, and I arrive at that rating through the following means:

There was no out of control carousel +10
The movie did not star Jimmy Stewart -5
The movie did not star Ray Milland - 2
The bad guy was not played by Peter Lorre -3
Montgomery Clift was easy on the eyes +2
Karl Malden’s detective was hard-nosed and cool +4
Karl Malden’s detective was completely wrong about who the murderer was -4
There were no musical numbers +3

I would like to be able to give it a better rating if only because I’m feeling somewhat charitable today, but I simply cannot in good conscience do that. However, I do hold hopes that the relative lack of suckiness in I Confess portents what will come about in my future schooling. If it does, I will consider raising the score to +6.