A Woman's Face

Year:  1941

Filming:  Color

Length:  105 minutes

Genre:  Drama/Noir/Suspense

Maturity:  PG (for intense thematic elements)

Cast:  Joan Crawford (Anna Holm), Melvyn Douglas (Dr. Gustaf Segert), Conrad Veidt (Torsten Barring), Osa Massen (Vera Segert), Richard Nicholas (Lars-Erik Barring), Connie Gilchrist (Christina Dalvik), Reginald Owen (Bernard Dalvik), Albert Bassermann (Consul Magnus Barring), Marjorie Main (Emma Kristiansdotter),

Director:  George Cukor

Personal Rating:  4 Stars

***

   Certain movies come to you by complete surprise, and are surprisingly well worth the viewing. In the case of this film noir diamond-in-the-rough, it just so happened to be among at the end of a VHS that was included in a bargain-bin at a yardsale. When I first started watching it, just to see what it was, I was none too impressed. The scenes were dreary, and the story-line seemed quite hard to follow. But as I stuck with it, I became immersed in this edge-of-your-seat thriller that feels near Hitchcockian in mood.

   Set in 1940’s Sweden, Joan Crawford stars as Anna Holm, a woman with a scarred face and a scarred heart, running away from her torrid past at the same time as she lashes back at the world for all her past sufferings. Operating a black-mail ring and using a restaurant chain as a front, she is given a packet of clandestine love letters stolen from the vain and frivolous Vera Segert, who frequents one of the restaurants. Torsten Barring, the mysterious stranger who stole the letters, wants to become partners with Anna, who he admires for her cunning criminal mind in spite of her disfigured face.

     Anna is unaccustomed to the attentions paid to her by Barring, and soon falls head over heels in love. Her low-life cohorts mock her out and threaten mutiny, but she assures them that the letters from Vera will enable them to blackmail her and make a profitable sum. But when she goes to the home of Mrs. Segert to extort money from her in exchange for the letters, she accidently runs into her husband, Dr. Gustaf Segert, a respected surgeon who sees Anna’s face and believes he can restore it. Realizing this might be her only chance for regaining her former beauty, she agrees to undergo the experimental procedure, even though it is known to be dangerous.

     Over the course of multiple agonizing procedures, Segert is intrigued by Anna’s elusive personality, and comes to admire her determination and strength in comparison with his shallow, unfaithful wife. However, he still senses that there is something about Anna that is dangerous, and even after the operation is a success and her face is restored, he questions whether the beauty of her soul can be restored so easily. Still, after she leaves, he has hope that no matter what her past might have been, she will use her new-found beauty to make a fresh start for herself in the world.

    But still desperate to secure the love of Torsten Barring, Anna becomes enmeshed in a plot to murder his young nephew, Lars-Erik, so he will inherit his uncle’s vast estate in the mountains. Although initially hesitant, she eventually agrees and applies for a job as governess for Lars-Erik. But as she gets to know Torsten’s affable uncle, Consul Magnus Barring, and the adorable little Lars-Erik, she begins to feel like a human being again, and her own icy heart begins to thaw. Will she have the courage to break with her dark past and forge a brighter future, or will she be defined by the scars that once disfigured her face?

    A Woman’s Face is one of those obscure, unusual little movies that turns out having profound examinations of the human condition. It stands out in the film noir genre as having a “method to its madness”, so to speak, and cutting to heart of the true meaning of beauty and love. Although the first scene opens in a courtroom where Anna is being tried for murder, the rest of the story is told through flash-backs based on the testimony of the witnesses. I initially found this technique rather confusing, but after a while, I began to appreciate it, and even found it particularly gripping.

    As fits the mood, it was shot in black-and-white and emphasizes the play between light and shadow, just like Anna’s own struggle between. We only catch several direct glimpses of Anna’s scarred face, because she wears her hat low, and this adds to the mystery as to whether or not she has been made “beautiful” when she is in the court room. The first time we see it is when Barring approaches her with the clandestine letters, and hides his shock by pretending he merely saw that she had something in her eye. It is this gesture that makes Anna feel accepted by a man at along last, and enables Torsten to manipulate her for his own ends.

    The cast is superb, and does an excellent job acting out the diverse roles. I have never been a major fan of Joan Crawford, and yet she really does shine in this film and show her talent for portraying a woman crossed between malicious intent and an almost pathetic desire to return to innocence. Melvyn Douglas is a very steady, very logical Dr. Gustav Segert, who comes to realize that for all his medical expertise and ability to heal the scars on Anna’s face, he is woefully unable restore the beauty of her soul. Still, he is there when she needs him, and stands up in her defense at the trial. Conrad Veidt makes a deliciously elegant, chillingly slithery Torsten Barring, who reveals the full extent of his evil nature a little at a time.

    As much as I feel for Dr. Segert’s marital woes, as I Catholic, I don’t believe that necessarily validates him having an extramarital romance. Now, I’ll grant that his wife is cheating on him, and is totally self-consumed, so he might have grounds for annulment there. But still, I don’t know if just jumping from woman to woman is the right way to handle the situation! That having been said, he sees something beautiful in Anna that enables her to break the dark bonds that have ensnared her, and she is finally able to accept and receive true love. It’s interesting to note that Anna made a study of famous love letters throughout history, from the likes of John Keats, even in the darkest periods of her life.

  

    I love the Swedish setting! It’s so unusual, and dark, and almost mythic. I enjoyed seeing how the Swedish court proceedings unfolded, and the unique customs such as taking an oath before testifying “as a son/daughter of a Christian”. But one thing strikes me as being rather strange: how is that this film is made (and seemingly set) in 1941 Scandinavia, and yet there is no mention of the Second World War? I mean, I know Sweden was neutral, but I’m sure it had to be permeating the news! But then again, perhaps the heart of the movie really was about the war after all, and Torsten Barring was just another form of Adolf Hitler. His declaration that some people are entitled to be evil and to conquer is the thing that finally shakes Anna out of her infatuation with him. At any rate, drawing the parallel is certainly a valid one.

    Lars-Erik is actually the key character in the movie, whose innocence strikes a chord deep within Anna that pulls her out of the darkness and into the light. Although she has been accustomed to being treated as sub-human because of her scarred face, and thought she had to be a she-wolf in order to survive, his unconditional love for and trust in her awakens her stifled conscious and the realization that she can be good. It is symbolic that at a party she is dressed as a local Swedish saint who is patroness of children. Barring mocks her for this, and she assures him she is not completely on the side of the saints. And yet the chance for it has been opened, and she can bear to turn her back on it completely.

    The turning point in the movie takes place on the ski lift in which Anna is riding with Lars-Erik. According to Barring’s plan, she is supposed to unlock the gate and let the lad fall to his death. Although she starts to do so (and the close-up shots seem like something straight out of an Alfred Hitchcock production), she realizes that she cannot, and pulls him back to safety. When Torsten realizes she will not follow through with his plan, he kidnaps young Lars-Erik and takes off with him on a sleigh. Anna realizes his devious intent and alerts Dr. Segert, who also happens to be visiting Consul Magnus. Then the two of them set off on a break-neck chase to rescue the child…and the unexpected series of events that lead Anna to be accused for murder before the court unfold.

    A Woman’s Face is a suitably dark yet beautifully deep film noir drama about the powerful reality that ever person has the chance to be redeemed and start anew, no matter their checkered past. It also shows that beauty is something that comes from within, and defines the essence of the person, as opposed to mere physical traits. Couple this meaningful moral with artfully rendered suspense, exquisite performances, and a break-neck sleigh race in the Swedish mountains, and you’ve got a film not to be missed!

Torsten Barring (Conrad Veidt) bewitches Anna Holm (Joan Crawford

I Confess

Year:  1953

Filming:  Black & White

Length:  95 minutes

Genre:  Drama/Inspirational/Religious/Suspense

Maturity:  PG (for intense thematic elements)

Cast:  Montgomery Clift (Fr. Michael Logan), Anne Baxter (Ruth Grandfort), O.E. Hass (Otto Keller), Dolly Haas (Alma Keller), Roger Dann (Pierre Grandfort), Karl Malden (Inspector Larrue), Ovila Legare (Monsieur Villette), Brian Aherne (Willy Robertson)

         

Director:  Alfred Hitchcock

Personal Rating:  5 Stars

***

    “Technically one of Hitchcock’s best”, I Confess is not your run-of-the-mill murder mystery. Instead, it reveals a little-known aspect of The Master of Suspense: his lingering fascination with and devotion to the Catholic Faith. Being a member of the endangered species of British Cradle Catholics, Hitchcock rarely revealed his religious allegiances in his productions, but this is a noteworthy exception, and his only film that can truly fit into the noble genre of “inspirational.”

    Montgomery Clift stars as Father Michael Logan, a Canadian Catholic priest serving in Quebec. But his routine life takes a turn when the sacristan, Otto Keller, confesses to having murdered a prominent businessman, Monsieur Villette, and Logan is sworn to secrecy under the Seal of Confession. He tries to convince the Keller to turn himself over the authorities, but instead the penitent sets out to frame the priest as the real killer.

   Meanwhile, Ruth Grandfort, the beautiful wife of a prominent Canadian lawyer, sets out to clear Fr. Logan by exposing a complex web of rumor, scandal, and blackmail that connects them both with the murdered Villette. But by bringing old secrets and new struggles to light, she only adds to the mounting suspicions that Logan was carrying on a romantic affair with her, and that he did indeed have a motive to silence Villette.  

    As the net closes, Logan must make a decision whether to flee the city and the false accusations or turn himself over to the police to be tried for murder. Even though he knows all the evidence is pointing against him and he has little hope of acquittal unless he reveals what he heard in Confession, he will not disgrace his priesthood by running away, and decides to stay and face his fate head-on.

    Once he is brought to trial, the prosecution relies heavily on the emotionally distraught testimony of love-lorn Ruth and the blood-stained cassock found among Logan’s possessions. In a twist of irony, Otto Keller, the real murderer, is also brought forward to testify against the priest. Now Fr. Logan must wrestle with the decision whether to seize his last chance to save his own life before it is too late, or to abide by the Seal of Confession.   

    This movie is one of those vintage gems that leaves one speechless by the sheer impact of the story and artful depiction of the setting. The black-and-white scenes filmed on location in old Quebec are deliciously dark and foreboding, and there are some glorious scenes of church interiors with soaring altars that seem to speak of hope in the midst of desolation. All this combines to create a seamless movement from one mood to another.

    There are also a lot of typical “Hitchcockian” bits involving doing weird things with dinnerware (like trying to balance a penny between two forks or a glass of water on one’s chin) and his trade-mark “walk-ons” as a parishioner coming out of church and a pedestrian meandering down a dark alleyway. There are also loads of suspenseful, dialogue-driven encounters and a big chase sequence with a lot of shooting. As I said, that’s Hitchcock.

    Thanks to an excellent cast, the intensity of the characters wrestling with their inner demons is palpable. Montgomery Clift portrays Fr. Logan in a deeply human way, yet makes his devotion to his priesthood the keystone of his character. There are any number of really engrossing sequences in this film dealing with Logan’s inner turmoil and the battle that rages within him between his identity as a priest and a man, comparing his own crosses to the Cross of Christ.

    The scene where he walks through Quebec, uncertain whether to run away or stay to face an unfair trial, is paralleled by the beautiful life-sized Stations of the Cross he walks past in the park. His anguished journey finally draws him back inside a church, his eyes uplifted towards the altar, before finally turning himself over to authorities. Again, in the court itself, there is a shot of Logan sitting in the interrogation box, which fades out on the face of the priest and brings into focus the crucifix hanging on the wall behind him, reminding the viewer of Christ’s own unjust trial and punishment.

    One burning question remains: Is Anne Baxter always doomed to be type-cast as a somewhat pathetic, generally annoying former flame, fading enchantress, trying to reclaim the affections of her ex-boyfriend at his expense? After a while, it gets nothing short of monotonous knowing exactly what sort of character she is bound to be! That having been said, I think she grew sufficiently comfortable with these parts to pull them off quite well. As Ruth Grandfort, she effectively makes you want to shout, “Shut up!” when she starts spilling her past indiscriminately and making things worse and worse for her Logan who she just won’t give up, even though he has clearly given her up for his calling to the priesthood. Happily, he is much more understanding towards her than Moses was in The Ten Commandments!

    O.E. Hass and Dolly Haas also do an excellent job as Otto and Alma Keller. The way Otto verbally pins Fr. Logan into a corner, testing him to see if he will reveal what was said in Confession, and taunting him with the fact that he is framing him for the murder, is so blood-boiling, heightened by the look of disbelief and horror on Montgomery Clift’s face. Alma is also a wonderfully complex character, caught between her loyalty to her husband and her own guilt for helping to destroy the priest who has been so kind to them as immigrants. In the end, she will choose to do the right thing, saving Fr. Logan by sacrificing herself.

    Interestingly, I Confess was initially not very well received because non-Catholic viewers had a hard time understanding the rationale behind The Seal of Confession and why it would so noble, instead of just stupid, for a priest to conceal the identity of the murderer. That is why the very sparse “romance” element in the film is often played up to the hilt, with movie covers displaying smooching sequences that never, ever occurred! There was also a move to exploit the murder mystery angle, introducing smothering sequences on the cover that never, ever occurred!

     But all this beating around the bush is silly, and it belies the fact that the storyline cannot be accurately called a “romance” since one party is no longer involved in the would-be relationship, and it cannot be accurately called a “mystery” since we already know who the murderer is from the start. The truth is that Alfred Hitchcock, in spite of his other ghoulish and risqué pictures, had molded a boldly spiritual, deeply inspirational testimony to his own Catholic Faith and the priests who had educated him. It makes me want to shout, “Hitchcock, why couldn’t you have made more movies like this instead of that other weird, dumb stuff you made?”   

    In spite of hang-ups in the non-Catholic world, the undeniable quality of I Confess caused it to come into its own in later years, and it has come to be accepted as an excellent example of suspense cinema, complete with unusual conundrum and powerful resolution. For me, the most poignant scene of all has to be the conclusion in which Fr. Logan once again gives absolution to his tormenter, Otto Keller, after Keller is mortally wounded. The first time I watched this, my jaw just hung open for a long time, and I knew I would have to watch it again before long. For once agreeing with the general consensus of critics, I would definitely rate this intricate study of human strength weakness and strength as the best film the Master of Suspense ever directed or produced.

Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter) meets with Fr. Logan (Montgomery Clift) on board a ferry