The Christ Figure and Hitchcock’s Understanding of Catholicism

Kyle Evans
 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 an
eccentricity." -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 of
reference…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.