On N List of Movie Reviews
(For optimum viewing, adjust the zoom level of your browser to 125%.)
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
Rate:
7
Viewed:
3/06, 2/24
3/06:
After reading so much about how good The Night of the Hunter is, it turns out to be among the most
disappointing and overrated film noir pictures I've seen.
It remains the only movie that Charles Laughton had ever directed. By the way, he doesn't appear on screen. The use of shadows is
remarkable, making the photography more artistic than expected.
Robert Mitchum's character has tons of potential, but he's underutilized. Bad acting is more of a problem. I'm not
impressed with the story. It has a couple of nice moments, especially when the children's mother is underwater. The rest
is filled with 40's mediocre fluff.
All in all, The Night of the Hunter is a big letdown.
2/24:
I thought I would retry The Night of the Hunter in the hopes of an improved viewing experience.
Well, the movie looks better, but it's still poor in several aspects. I blame it on Charles Laughton. Had he done two
or three movies first to fine-tune his directorial craft, there's an excellent chance The Night of the Hunter
is a classic by now. The writing is first-rate, but yes, everybody in town is West Virginia dumb and I can buy that.
The biggest mistake is switching around whoever for the leading role. At first, it was Robert Mitchum. After the money was passed to
the boy, it became Billy Chapin's movie. The last twenty minutes or so, Lillian Gish suddenly got the baton. But why?
What the director accomplished is taking away the effect of Harry Powell and John Harper's relationship. They were doing fine on
their own, and that's enough for the movie. As a result, Robert Mitchum's screen time is so short that he's barely shown. Plus,
he isn't evil enough; watch how he "tried" to get the kids, especially on the stairs.
I like the cinematography whose style reminds me of German Expressionism, most especially
Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari.
It was handled by Stanley Cortez who did The Magnificent Ambersons for
Orson Welles. As a matter
of fact, Charles Laughton drew heavy inspiration for his vision by watching a lot of silent films, hence the casting of
Lillian Gish. As for the aerial shots, they're mishandled; he should've consulted Nicolas Ray of
They Live by Night fame to find out how it was done properly.
On the other hand, the editing is amateurish. Charles Laughton inserts shots of various animals, but they contribute exactly
what to the overall film? I understand it's meant to be artistic in the experimental sense, but still... When Harry Powell
died, the movie was over at this point, but the director kept going by giving Rachel Cooper more importance. Why? Who cares about
her? In other words, it's loss of control on his part.
Another is when Shelley Winters was shown underwater. It's a cool shot, but why hold it so long with several
angles? The point has been made. Move on... But Charles Laughton wants to point it out more and say, "How cool it looks, huh?
Let me show this in a different way: " Yeah, okay, okay, okay...it's enough. What I don't understand is how did
Harry Powell manage to dump the car in the middle of the river?
The performances are fine. Billy Chapin held his own when pitted against Robert Mitchum. They had a chance to
be special like Brandon deWilde and Alan Ladd in Shane, but Charles Laughton ruined it. Hence,
the movie was a massive box-office failure before going on to be overrated by idiots. That's why he never directed again which
is too bad because the talent was clearly there.
By the way, the biggest question that needs to be asked is: how did Harry Powell end up in the state penitentiary for a simple
misdemeanor that carried a thirty-day sentence? Anyway, that's $10,000? In real American dollar bills? Um, yeah...sure.
They turned out to be Mexican currency.
All in all, The Night of the Hunter is a good attempt by Charles Laughton, but he needed experience first before doing that.