I thought I knew everything about Alfred Hitchcock, probably my favorite director of all time. As it turns out, I didn’t even know what I didn’t know.
Playing in select theaters right now is a crackerjack documentary called Hitchcock/Truffaut, which recounts the time in 1962 when up-and-coming French director François Truffaut conducted an interview with the Master of Suspense that was so long and so deep that the resulting material, published as a book in 1966, runs some 368 pages and covers virtually every frame of every Hitchcock film.
Truffaut’s interview is considered a landmark in the history of cinema, because it marks the moment when Hitchcock began to be taken seriously by his peers. Before Hitchcock/Truffaut, he was regarded strictly as an entertainer. After the book was published, he became an artist and a renegade. Today, he is considered arguably the most influential director who ever lived.
More noteworthy still is how much Hitchcock revealed about himself and his work. Despite his reputation for being tight-lipped and (it must be said) a bit of a tyrant on the set, in his chat with Truffaut he pretty much gave the game away.
As such, perhaps the most tantalizing moment in the new documentary, which includes audio clips from the original interview, is the moment when Truffaut asks Hitch about the influence of his Catholicism in many of his most compelling works. Hitchcock’s response: “Go off-record.” We hear a click, and everything goes black.
It was David McCullough who mused that you can learn an awful lot about a person from what he chooses not to say in public—particularly when he is perfectly willing to say so much else. So perhaps if there is a “rosebud” to Hitchcock’s career, it can be found in his Catholic youth.
I must admit, I had no idea Hitchcock was Catholic. Indeed, I had never given a thought to what religion he identified with, nor did it occur to me that such a thing might be relevant.
For some great directors, religion is inescapable—be it Catholicism for Martin Scorsese or Judaism for Woody Allen or Joel and Ethan Coen. It’s not that their movies are necessarily about their faith so much as they are informed by the values and sensibilities that their faith espouses. Taxi Driver could not possibly have been made by a non-Catholic and Annie Hall could not possibly have been made by a non-Jew.
You don’t get that sense with Hitchcock, whose movies are intended as mass entertainment above all else and possess no particular sensibility beyond wanting to give their audience a good old-fashioned thrill.
Or don’t they?
What changed my mind about this—what made me view Hitchcock’s work through a more theological lens—was seeing (for the first time) his 1953 film I Confess. Based on an old French play, the story involves a priest who learns that a man has committed a murder, but because he hears this in the sanctity of the confessional, he cannot divulge any information to the police in their investigation of said murder.
This being a Hitchcock movie, the priest himself will eventually become implicated in the crime, thereby raising the stakes in his professional and spiritual obligation to “clergy-penitent privilege”—the notion that what happens in the confessional stays in the confessional. By honoring his theological duty, he risks sacrificing his own freedom. But by breaking his oath of confidentiality, he may well lose his job and, with it, his whole reason for being.
It’s a devilishly clever conceit—yet another variation on Hitchcock’s long-running theme of a man ensnarled in a legal bind from which there is no escape.
More than that, however, I Confess stands as one of the most singularly Catholic movies ever made by a major (and otherwise nondenominational) filmmaker. The priest is played by Montgomery Clift—that most mysterious and charismatic of Hollywood stars—as a man undergoing a deep internal struggle over whether doing the “right” thing might involve turning his back on God.
It’s a performance of towering complexity—subtle, delicate and wrenching—in a movie that is brave and dignified enough to treat Catholic tradition with the gravity it deserves—in this case, the tradition of the confessional as a sacred space, even when that sanctity might allow a man to get away with murder. Theological dilemmas don’t get much thornier than that.
It’s a measure of the movie’s nerve that audiences were not crazy about it when it was first released. As recounted by Truffaut in his book, “[T]he public was irritated with the plot because they kept on hoping that Montgomery Clift would speak up.” Hitchcock agreed, saying, “We Catholics know that a priest cannot disclose the secret of the confessional, but the Protestants, the atheists, and the agnostics all say, ‘Ridiculous! No man would remain silent and sacrifice his life for such a thing.’” When Truffaut asked if this disconnect served to weaken the film as a film, Hitchcock nodded, saying, with remarkable candor, “[W]e shouldn’t have made the picture.”
Here, in other words, was a movie more concerned with spiritual truth than with satisfying popular tastes. That Hitch himself apparently disapproved of the final product only goes to show how personal the whole thing was, as if it was the one time he indulged whatever remained of his strict Jesuit upbringing, if only to get it out of his system once and for all.
However, even if I Confess is an outlier in the Hitchcock canon, it helps us to recognize the latent Catholic themes that run through virtually all of his great works—most prominently, the sin of guilt. Janet Leigh’s guilt over stealing $40,000 in Psycho. Kim Novak’s guilt over masquerading as James Stewart’s dream girl in Vertigo (and Stewart’s guilt in thinking he contributed to her death). Eva Marie Saint’s guilt over deceiving Carey Grant in North by Northwest. Farley Granger’s guilt over murdering a classmate for sport in Rope. And on and on and on.
These are not Catholic movies, per se. However, they are all haunted by the aura of divine justice and the fear of God’s eternal wrath that only a Catholic could fully appreciate. While most of Hitchcock’s heroes probably fear the police and/or each other more than the man upstairs (this was certainly the case with the director himself), they are nonetheless aware that their actions have consequences. That sooner or later, one way or another, they’re going to get what’s coming to them.
And unlike in, say, the films of Woody Allen—a writer-director who has very little faith in God or justice—these sinners generally do pay a price for their crimes, thereby allowing moral order to be restored to the universe just in time for the end credits to roll.
While Catholicism certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on guilt, sin, justice or anything else, Catholic filmmakers have long been uncommonly adept at portraying how the teachings of their ancient holy books manifest themselves in the contemporary world. They’re the ones who take God seriously, for better and for worse.
I note this, in part, because there is a large cadre of nonbelievers who sincerely think that religion has nothing positive to offer civilization. Or, at the least, that whatever good might come from religion could just as easily come from secularism and, in any case, is dramatically outweighed by the evil that could not come from anywhere else.
I used to agree with this assessment. Most of the time, I still do. But in the process of extricating myself from the world of the faithful, I have come to better appreciate the monumental role of religion in the lives of others. I don’t think either God or religion is necessary to lead a fulfilling life, but roughly three in four Americans do, and their faith has sometimes inspired them to craft works of art that could not have emerged in any other way.
I can live without God. I’m not sure I could live without Raging Bull. I don’t generally resort to prayer to help solve my biggest problems, but I’m pleased that it worked for George Bailey. Religion does little for me, but in the end that doesn’t matter so long as it does something for everyone else. And if no religion meant no Alfred Hitchcock—well, I’m not sure that’s a trade-off I’d be prepared to make.