Night of the Hunter (1955)

[trekgeezer]

Serial killer - preacher Robert Mitchum pursues and terrorizes two kids for the loot from a robbery their father  (Peter Graves) committed.

The only film directed by Charles Laughton, the movie has atmosphere you can cut with a knife. Mitchum's constant singing of the classic hymn "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms" is used in such a way that you will never hear it again without thinking of this film.

This is great movie that tanked at the box office and really didn't garner much respect for about 20 years after it was made.

There was a made for TV remake a while back with Richard Chamberlain in the part, but he is a pale shadow to the creepiness that Mitchum brings to the role.

If you've never seen it, you should.

[Mr_Vindictive]

One of my favorite films from the 50s.  Incrediably creepy and Mitchum does an amazing job.

[dean]

A classic film really.  Words cannot explain just how great it is really.

The love/hate speech he gives is fantastic and is just really well done.

[Scott]

[peter johnson]

I've shown this thing to so many people who've never even heard of it --
The scene of Shelly Winters floating beneath the water, her hair wafting with the water-weeds in the current . . .
Lillian Gish as, if not Jesus, then an angelic force to be reckoned with . . .
The addressing of sexuality, both adolescent and perverse, throughout . . .
And, of course, Robert Mitchum as Old Scratch -- Max Cady was just practice . . .
     Nice still, Scott -- really, the whole river sequence is like an Aboriginal Dreamtime.  People just can't believe what they're looking at when they see it for the first time --
"Where has this film been?!?  Where have I been?!"
peter johnson/denny crane

[akiratubo]

I agree with the guy at 1000misspenthours.com about the movie taking too long to end.  It would have been much better had it ended with the Preacher (Booth?  Been a long time since I've seen it.) drowning in his pursuit of the stupid kids.

IIRC, the Chamberlain version actually did end there.

[peter johnson]

See, I didn't mind the length of the ending at all -- I felt there had to be that confrontation twixt good and evil and the whole mythos of temptation, etc.  
I think if you look upon everything that follows, once the kids get in the boat, as a different film in a different dimension, then it doesn't seem too long at all --
peter dali/denny bunuel

[akiratubo]

peter johnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think if you look upon everything that follows,
> once the kids get in the boat, as a different film
> in a different dimension

I'm pretty sure it was just an ill-considered ending.  Interesting interpretation, though.

[Yaddo 42]

The ending didn't bother me, and I never felt it went too long either.

Most "serious" reviews or interpretations of the film speak of how it evokes the air of a very dark fairy tale, a fever dream, or a child's nightmare. So it seems in keeping with the slightly unreal tone of the whole story. Besides Laughton was a first time director, considering the film that resulted, I'm willing to give him some leeway. He made a much better film first time out the gate than the majority of first time directors, much less ones from lots of seasoned pros, it's really a shame the film wasn't appreciated when it was released, it would have been interesting to see what else he might have done as a director.

[peter johnson]

Yeah, Jesus and Satan have to fight it out at the end, otherwise, what's the point?
 . . . The deep closeups of the rabbits and other animals as the kids start to float toward the good spirit/Jesus/Lillian Gish are like mythopoaeic icons, like something out of Joseph Campbell or Jung or shamanistic societies:  Guardian dieties that are the inhabitants of the netherworld being entered --
No, really a great picture on a lot of different levels -- I reappreciate it every time I show it anew to someone else.
peter johnson/denny crane

[akiratubo]

peter johnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Jesus and Satan have to fight it out at the
> end, otherwise, what's the point?

Problem with that is, it isn't a movie about Jesus and Satan.  It's a movie about a psychopathic preacher and some kids.  Had Booth drowned pursuing the kids, that would have wrapped up both the plot and any good/evil angle.

[trekgeezer]

One of the reasons I've always liked this movie is the surrealistic night time scenery, especially when the kids are in the loft and see and hear  the preacher  as he crosses the moonlit horizon.


Another bit of trivia that Robert Osborne brought up when I watched this on TCM was that Laughton really didn't get along with kids very good, so Mitchum is directing the kids in many scenes.

[peter johnson]

Re.
akiriturbo -- "It isn't about Jesus and Satan, it's about a psychopathic killer and some kids" --
Um . . . okay, then . .
So, who is Liilian Gish, then?   An incidental figure to cut away from to commericals for TV?
Seriously, it's allegorical and there's much more to it than a killer and some kids -- there is a reason for the bit at the end.  If you don't acknowledge the existence of Gish's character, then how do you account for the persistence/existence of the kids?   Gish represents Salvation, writ large, a difficult concept to modern sensibilities, made all the more odd by the fact of Laughton being a confirmed homosexual, despised and distant to modern society.
If you want to limit the movie to "killer and kids", then there's no reason for the film to exist.  It really is Laughton trying to explore deeper themes of Western mythology.
Think:  Why is the preacher unable to enter the gate at the house?  He's stronger than Gish -- Why doesn't he just enter and destroy immediately?  It's the same mythological story borne out over time in different cultures.
peter johnson/denny crane