The Christ Figure and Hitchcock’s Understanding of Catholicism
-
Upload
kyle-evans -
Category
Documents
-
view
105 -
download
1
description
Transcript of The Christ Figure and Hitchcock’s Understanding of Catholicism
Catholicism takes a powerful position in filmmaker Alfred Hitchcock’s repertoire
of influences. Morality, the fight between good and evil, the falsely accused and original
sin are all themes that saturate Hitchcock’s collective work and each can be tied to the
directors religious upbringing. This influence can be seen in his films through a range of
intensities from highly cryptic to very literal and clearly represented. But from all of his
religious portrayals, none more clearly represent his ties between morality and religious
faith than the never wavering Christ figure. The two most literal examples of which
Hitchcock wears his religion on his sleeves and blatantly reveals the presence of a Christ
figure are the films I Confess (1953) and The Wrong Man (1956). Not only does Catholic
ideals of morality and goodness play a dominating role in these films, but the driving
force behind the plots of each are centered within Catholicism and divine intervention.
Though there have been studies that focus on the idea of Hitchcock as a Catholic
filmmaker, they are not well represented when compared to the extent in which
psychoanalysis, feminism, and voyeurism have played a role within modern Hitchcock
film analysis. Within these studies of the filmmakers Catholic influences there is not
much asked about why Hitchcock portrayed his films under this light, instead it is just
accepted that his reasoning was solely as a dedicated man of faith. In contrast to this,
Hitchcock’s dedication to his faith quite fully withered by the end of his life, to the point
of expressing paranoia and discomfort by the presence of a priest. It is very true that
Hitchcock began his life as a dedicated Catholic, as brought about by his upbringing
within those beliefs, and his themes of Catholicism can be easily attributed to this fact,
but why would anyone ever imagine that he would never have questioned his own faith.
This seems only reasonable considering his gradual distancing from the church in his
later years and his evolving interest in psychoanalysis, which animalizes the human
psyche in complete contradiction to most Christian beliefs. Hitchcock’s representation of
the Christ figure and his inclusion of religious themes in general could represent more
than merely a manifestation of his beliefs, but a more complex personal struggle with his
own faith and a way of understanding his own religious ideas.
Because of the incredibly personal manner of the proposed statement that
suggests the possibility of Hitchcock’s religious influences being present in his films due
to his own religious qualms, there could never exist a definitive black or white answer
and this essay is far from an attempt to deliver one. Instead, the purpose of this writing is
to suggest the issue as a possibility through analyzing Hitchcock’s upbringing within the
Catholic faith and comparing it to the most clearly faith driven films in his repertoire. The
obvious place to start is within Hitchcock’s childhood from which the foundation of his
religious beliefs can be understood and more clearly comprehended as to how they would
affect his life as a filmmaker. By utilizing psychoanalytic concepts, which Hitchcock
developed much interest in, one can come to understand how the strict Catholic belief
structures would have such a heavy influence on the mind young Hitchcock and a lasting
affect throughout his life.
"Ours was a Catholic family and in England, you see, this in itself is aneccentricity." -Alfred Hitchcock to François Truffaut (Truffaut 1983, p.25).
Hitchcock was raised in a devout Catholic household. His parents, William
Hitchcock a Protestant and Emma Whelan an Irish Catholic immigrant, married in a
Catholic church, which according to the accepted beliefs of the time it was understood
that the children were to be raised within the Catholic faith (Blake 2000, p.50). Alfred
Hitchcock was the youngest of three and according to an interview with journalist
Charlotte Chandler, the only day his mother ever missed church was on the day of his
birth (Alleva 2010, p.14). Regardless of whether or not this is an exaggeration; it does
give insight to Hitchcock’s own perception of his mother’s religious dedication.
Hitchcock was exposed to a series of religious educational institutions as a young boy
including The Howard House Covenant School, Salesian College (a Catholic boarding
school for young boys where he only lasted a week), and most famously St. Ignatius
College. St. Ignatius was a Jesuit day school that Hitchcock attended from ages 11 to 14
and has been considered by many critics to be a very strong source of influence for his
work as a filmmaker. Hitchcock stated in an interview with Truffaut, “It was probably
during this period with the Jesuits that a strong sense of fear developed – moral fear – the
fear of being involved in anything evil. I always tried to avoid it” (Truffaut 1983, p.26).
John Houseman, a close friend of Hitchcock, wrote in his memoir that “[Hitchcock] was
a man of exaggeratedly delicate sensibilities, marked by a harsh Catholic education and
the scars from a social system against which he was in perpetual revolt…” (Houseman
1972, p.479) According to Neil Hurley “the three years that Hitchcock spent with the
Jesuits were perhaps the most impressionable years of his life” (Hurley 1993, p.20). It is
entirely logical to think that Hitchcock would internalize such dramatic influence from
his strict and orderly ratio studiorum Jesuit education, just as an early 20th century
overpowering educational system would have the same affect on any child exposed to it.
Though, in order to portray a fully rounded perspective, film historian and critic
Father Richard A. Blake expresses a difference of opinion in regards to Hitchcock’s
Jesuit educational influences,
“If one would try to identify some residue of ‘Jesuit Theology’ influencing his films, it should not be to readily attributed to this period in his life. For a boy in
his early teens, religious education would have been little more than a catechism recitation” (Blake 2000, p.51).
Even though Father Blake’s book After Image gives a very insightful look into the
religious aspects of Hitchcock’s filmmaking, this idea that Jesuit schooling did not have a
lasting religious impact on Hitchcock falls short in explaining the psychological
associations that would have undoubtedly connected the strict and discipline driven
educational environment to the dogmatic religious teachings. Blake goes on to quote
Hitchcock from an interview with Peter Bogdanovich,
“As far as any religious influence goes, at the time I think it was fear…I don’t think the religious side of the Jesuit education impressed itself so much upon me as the strict discipline one endured at the time.”
It is clear that Blake is attempting to express that any specifically religious
influences portrayed in Hitchcock’s films do not bare any connection to the filmmaker’s
Jesuit education, but if viewed through a psychological lens, both Blake and Hitchcock
himself could have overlooked an important factor. It seems impossible that a young boy
could not directly associate the “fear” absorbed from a strict Catholic education to the
institution of Catholicism itself. If this were true, it would suggest that Hitchcock’s
themes of Catholicism and Christian morality, originally impressed on him by his mother
and household, would be directly linked to the strict and fear driven educational system
of the Jesuits of which Hitchcock naturally rebelled against. If such a psychological
connection exists it would certainly help in explaining Hitchcock’s apparent paranoia of
priests and his general separation from religion later in life.
Hitchcock’s Jesuit schooling gives the first evidence of his own possible religious
struggles. To further investigate this, it is important to look at Hitchcock’s most overtly
Catholic films in order to gain insight as to what his portrayal of the Christ figure in his
films were representing within his own psyche. If Christ is to represent the foundation of
Catholicism then it would be logical that Hitchcock’s symbolic representations of Christ
could give clues to his own projections upon his religion. Before investigating what these
characters represent to Hitchcock, it is important to discover the qualities and
characteristics that Hitchcock uses to create the Christ figure. Hitchcock was not afraid to
paint a character in this light and has done so on several occasions. Perhaps his earliest
portrayal of Christ in his films was The Lodger (1927) in which an innocent man is
persecuted by a mob of bloodthirsty citizens. Sean Forrest investigates this further and
points toward some striking revelations in his essay The Catholic Hitchcock. After being
beaten by the mob while dangling from his handcuffs from a fence (the suffering and
crucifixion of Jesus) he is taken down, arms and head limp and swaying, reminiscent of
many artistic representations of removing Jesus from the cross (Forrest 2010, p.11).
Daisy, the female protagonist, rushes to cradle him invoking imagery of Marry cradling
her son, specifically Michelangelo’s La Pieta (Forrest 2010, p.12).
When Truffaut asked Hitchcock if his intention was to characterize the protagonist as a
representation of Christ, he responded, “Naturally, that thought did occur to me"
(Truffaut 1983, 47). Though it is interesting to investigate the ways in which Hitchcock
covertly represents Christ and religion through his characters, it would be more useful,
for reasons of clarity, to instead investigate his most overt representations of these ideas.
The films in which Christ figures most obviously dominate the plot are I Confess and The
Wrong Man, Hitchcock’s only two blatantly Catholic films.
I Confess
“That's the trouble with I Confess. 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” ." -Alfred Hitchcock to François Truffaut (Truffaut 1983, 204).
I Confess has never been considered one of Hitchcock’s greatest films. Robin
Wood says the film is “…earnest, distinguished, very interesting, and on a whole a
failure” (Wood 1970, p.41). Though not a critically acclaimed film, it does contain many
insights that could help to discover Hitchcock’s overall religious intentions and, as with
most less praised Hitchcock films, it does grow in importance upon multiple viewings.
The story is of a wrongly accused man, a common Hitchcock theme, who in this case
happens to take the form of a priest. Father Michel Logan is suspected of murder after
hearing the confession of the guilty man and, due to Catholic oaths, cannot relay any
information that he was given in confessional. When the police begin asking him
questions of the murder, he sticks by his oath and tells them nothing, which raises the
suspicion of the investigators and eventually resulting in Fr. Logan’s trial for murder.
This film is a great example of Hitchcock’s interest in the exchange of guilt. Otto, the
murderer, confesses to Fr. Logan and explains the murder to his wife, effectively
transferring the guilt from himself to those around him. In the case of Otto’s wife, she
becomes guilty only through the knowledge of the truth and her refusal to speak out
about it. Fr. Logan becomes guilty in a much more literal sense as the police assume he is
guilty through his silence.
Hitchcock, by use of story, actions and imagery, clearly characterizes Fr. Logan
as Jesus Christ. Logan, literally, carries Otto’s sins and is persecuted for it. He never
deviates from his holy path throughout the film even to the extent of being prepared to
die for his beliefs in front of a court that intends to crucify him without substantial
evidence. In fact, the original script was to end the story with the execution of the priest
creating a literal connection to the crucifixion of Christ (Lawrence 2007). Otto lies in
front of the court, under oath, and pins the murder on Logan, who is now bearing the full
burden of another man’s sins as he still refuses to speak. Two simultaneous parallels can
be drawn between the role of Otto and that of Judas while also representing the people
whose sins Christ died for. He plays the role of Judas by turning on Fr. Logan who is
represented as Christ through the carrying of Otto’s sin and guilt, therefore Otto as Judas
through Logan, and Logan as Christ through Otto. This feedback loop further drives the
plot and helps to establish the intended reception of the characters.
The jury finds that there is not sufficient evidence to convict Logan of the crime
and he is released, but it is at this time that the citizens of the town get their own
opportunity to persecute the priest. Drawing from the concept of the angry mob in The
Lodger, Hitchcock gives us another analogy between Logan and Christ. The crowd, far
from convinced of his innocence, confronts Logan outside of the courthouse as they
begin to jeer and yell in ways that are very reminiscent of biblical text. One man yells
right before they break into violence, “Preach us a sermon, Logan!” This alludes directly
to the book of Matthew which states, "Then they ripped his outer garments, saying: 'He
has blasphemed!' […] Then they spit into his face… saying: 'Prophesy to us, you Christ!
Who is it that struck you?'" (Matthew, 26:65-26:68, 1253).
Beyond the story itself, Hitchcock’s calculated imagery drives this point further.
The most shocking example of this is within a single shot of Fr. Logan walking to turn
himself in, just as the accused Jesus did to the Romans in Jerusalem. In this most
quintessential shot of the film Logan floats down the street, his cassock drifting with him,
while in the foreground is a cemetery with a statue of Christ being tortured by the roman
soldiers as he carries his cross to his inevitable crucifixion. It is in this shot that
Hitchcock makes his most stated and mathematically tasteful allusion to Fr. Logan’s trial
to come as a clear parallel to the trial and crucifixion of Christ.
The Wrong Man
"The Wrong Man differs so much from usual notions of box-office ingredients that it is…a highly personal film. Its religious overtones…and the explicitly Catholic frame ofreference…may also have been Hitchcock's present to himself" (Durgnat 1974, 274).
The uniqueness of I Confess is in the fact that from the beginning, it establishes
itself as a Catholic narrative, while on the other hand, The Wrong Man partially conceals
it’s Christian foundations allowing only hints along the way. It is not until the climax that
the audience understands the full caliber of this fundamentally Catholic film. Manny, the
films protagonist is accused of a crime he did not commit, once again Hitchcock showing
his interest in the theme of the wrongly accused man. Manny, just as Fr. Logan in I
Confess, plays a significant Christ figure in The Wrong Man.
Our first sign of Hitchcock’s representation of Christ through the main character
is his full name. Christopher Emanuel Balestrero contains much Christian symbolism,
especially connected to Christ (Forrest 2010 p.47). Christopher or “Chris” is derived from
Christ and Emanuel or Immanuel is described in Mathews Gospel before the birth of
Christ, "Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will
call his name Immanuel, which means…'With Us Is God'" (Matthew 1:23, 1217).
Through the use of the protagonist’s name, Hitchcock gives the audience a hint to the
religious aspects that are to come. This message may be cryptic to the casual observer,
but to individuals with a foundation in Catholicism, the connection could be made quite
easily.
Beyond his biblical name, Manny also bares the weight of another’s sins in much
the same way as Fr. Logan. Manny is being punished for crimes that he did not commit
and it is in his moments of highest distress, reveals his parallels to Christ. In the
courtroom where he is being tried, Manny clutches his rosary symbolizing his dedication
to his faith and his Catholic roots. A whiteness who mistakenly confirms Manny as the
criminal draws a connection to Otto in I Confess. She is told to place her hand on the
shoulder of the man she believes is the criminal, which represents Judas’ kiss before
Jesus’ crucifixion. (Forrest 2010, p. 60)
The climactic moment of the film shows Manny praying in front of an image of
Christ, invoking his help. The seen continues with a dramatically long cross dissolve into
the face of the true criminal and his apprehension. Manny is saved through divine
intervention. Interestingly enough, The Wrong Man is based on a true story, as prefaced
by Hitchcock’s monologue before the narrative unfolds, but this suggestion of a
supernatural intervention is brought about by Manny’s prayer is in fact pure
dramatization. In reality, Manny Balestrero was at work, playing in a nightclub band,
when the true criminal was apprehended (Forrest 2010, p.64). Hitchcock took quite a
liberty in expressing this very religious climactic sequence. It is at this moment that the
film takes a turn and becomes a truly Catholic film as the plot is now being driven by
Christian themes.
It would be easy to say that Hitchcock intended to portray these Christ figures and
Catholic themes in his films in order to show his dedication to his faith, but there seems
to exist much more complexity to the situation when comparing these Catholic films to
the rest of his life, and especially his childhood. Hitchcock’s harsh Jesuit schooling
implanted “fear” into the mind of the director and it would seem reasonable that this fear
would be directly associated to the religious ideals from which it came. Hitchcock’s films
of religion, both covert and overt, could tell us something much deeper about the director
than they would originally suggest. In both the films analyzed above, the Christ figure is
played by a good man that is being punished for committing no crime. This false
accusation can be attributed to an attempted representation of the suffering of the
innocent Christ, but it can also be read from a completely different standpoint. Are these
devout men being punished for being religious? It seems possible, if considering
Hitchcock’s association of fear to his schooling and transitively to his faith, that the
filmmaker was (unconsciously?) punishing these men of faith for there beliefs in
response to his own insecurities of Catholicism. This would suggest that Hitchcok’s films
of religious themes or implications could represent his own overcoming of his childhood
fears. Donald Spoto best shows Hitchcock’s distrust in Catholisism in The Dark Side of
Genius, saying that he,
“…rejected the suggestion that he allow a priest… to come for a visit, or to celebrate a quiet, informal ritual at the hours for his comfort. It had been years since he attended worship… but it was not so long since he had expressed his distrust and fear of the clergy… ‘Don’t let any priests on the [studio] lot,’ he had whispered to his office staff in the last year. ‘They’re all after me; they all hate me.’ There was no way of convincing him to see a clergyman at home either, although he imagined them there, too.” (Spoto 1983)
It is clear that Hitchcock’s faith died as he aged, which would imply the presence
of some amount of residual hatred toward his Catholic background, which in turn would
have been most literally expressed through his films. Hitchcock’s ever developing
curiosity with psychoanalysis would also give credit to this idea. If he was searching for a
way to understand his own unsettling feelings of religion, then psychoanalysis would be
the appropriate place to turn, and according to psychoanalytic concepts, this interest in
the subject would represent his unconscious desires to understand and correct his
insecurities.
If Hitchcock’s unconscious desires were driving him to punish these Christ
figures, this would make for quite an interestingly blasphemous scenario. Though it is, of
course, not a theory that is possible to entirely prove, it does bring to light some
interesting questions about Hitchcock’s self identity. Was Hitchcock a Catholic
filmmaker, as some would suggest, or was he utilizing the subject in order to convey his
own fears, impressed upon him as a boy, and unconsciously attempt to understand and
come to terms with these fears? When analyzing both his personal history and his
cinematic religious themes, it suggests itself as a valid theory.
Bibliography
I Confess. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Montgomery Clift, Anne Baxter. Warner Bros.,1953.
The Wrong Man. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Henry Fonda, Vera Miles. Warner Bros.,1956.
The Lodger. A Story of the London Fog. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Ivor Novello, June,Malcolm Keen. MGM, 1927.
Truffaut, François. Hitchcock. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983.
Blake, Richard A. After Image. Chicago: Loyola Press, 2000.
Houseman, John. Run-Through A Memoir. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1972
Hurley, Neil P. Soul in Suspense: Hitchcock’s Fright and Delight. Metuchn, N.J. & London, 1993
Forrest, Sean Kenneth. The Catholic Hitchcock. Ann Arbor: Pro Quest, 2010.
Wood, Robin. Hitchcock’s Films. New York: Paperback Library, 1970.
Lawarence, Amy. Constructing a Priest, Silencing a Saint: The PCA and I Confess. Film Histories, Volume 19, pp. 58-72. John Libbey Publishing, 2007.
Durgnat, Raymond. The Strange Case of Alfred Hitchcock. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1974.
Spoto, Donald. The Dark Side of Genius. Boston: Little, Brown, 1983.