541 The Night of the Hunter

[Michael]

The Night of the Hunter

[img]http://criterion_production.s3.amazonaws.com/release_images/3067/541_box_348x490_w128.jpg[/img]

The Night of the Hunter—incredibly, the only film the great actor Charles Laughton ever directed—is truly a standalone masterwork. A horror movie with qualities of a Grimm fairy tale, it stars a sublimely sinister Robert Mitchum as a traveling preacher named Harry Powell (he of the tattooed knuckles), whose nefarious motives for marrying a fragile widow, played by Shelley Winters are uncovered by her terrified young children. Graced by images of eerie beauty and a sneaky sense of humor, this ethereal, expressionistic American classic—also featuring the contributions of actress Lillian Gish and writer James Agee—is cinema’s quirkiest rendering of the battle between good and evil.

SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES

- New, restored high-definition digital transfer (with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray edition)
- Audio commentary featuring assistant director Terry Sanders, film critic F. X. Feeney, archivist Robert Gitt, and author Preston Neal Jones
- Charles Laughton Directs “The Night of the Hunter,” a two-and-a-half-hour archival treasure trove of outtakes from the film
- New documentary featuring interviews with producer Paul Gregory, Sanders, Jones, and author Jeffrey Couchman
- New video interview with Simon Callow, author of Charles Laughton: A Difficult Actor
- Clip from the The Ed Sullivan Show, in which cast members perform live a scene that was deleted from the film
- Fifteen-minute episode of the BBC show Moving Pictures about the film
- Archival interview with cinematographer Stanley Cortez
- Gallery of sketches by author Davis Grubb
- New video conversation between Gitt and film critic Leonard Maltin about Charles Laughton Directs “The Night of the Hunter”
- Original theatrical trailer
- PLUS: A booklet featuring essays by critics Terrence Rafferty and Michael Sragow

DVD
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabledBlu-ray
Criterionforum.org user rating averages

Feature currently disabled

[Alonzo the Armless]

Of all the films I've seen in my life, The Night Of The Hunter is probably the most frustrating experience. One moment I love it, the next moment I hate it... then back and forth, back and forth. Like the Reverends tattooed fingers. No matter how many times I watch it, I still can't make up my mind whether the film deserves to be called a masterpiece or an interesting failure. Does anyone here have the similar experience?

Half the film seems perfect. The dreamy, hazy world seen through the eyes of the children is gorgeously realized but the problem is: the children. Annoying, forced acting. Intended?

Shelley Winters is fantastic as always and it's quite unsettling to see her like this - a very weak, vulnerable mother. But when she goes religious-berserk at a revival, it's a hoot and I couldn't help cracking up. Robert Mitchell is consistently fantastic and super-creepy as expected.

I couldn't figure out the very bizarre Christmas ending.. is it supposed to be some kind of a "morale play"?

I love NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. It's like no other film out there and it amazes me that a film so weird came out in the late 1950s. The lighting, the sets, the story, the acting by Mitchum and Gish, the camera angles, the scares -- all make it one of my favorite films of all time.

[cdnchris]

How funny. A guy at work and I got in a conversation about this film, which shocked me because I couldn't believe someone at my job actually saw this movie AND liked it, but we both pretty much felt the way Michael did when we originally saw it, but it definitely grew on us later on and after a few viewings. I think what got us, though, is how unconventional it really is. Even by today's standards it's incredibly weird, but it really is a nightmare perfectly captured on film, even with all of its little flaws. And any flaws in it are made up by Mitchum, who is just beyond creepy and evil.

Another thing that shocked me is this guy knows that "Love/Hate" speech pretty much line for line. It's one of his favourite moments in movie history. Mine as well.

[hearthesilence]

Last time I saw this, it was a GORGEOUS print (restored with the help of Martin Scorsese, they didn't use this restoration for the DVD, but I hope they do soon because it looks beautiful) at school. Someone behind me, who I rarely spoke to but knew, he was snickering through most of the movie and obviously hated it.

I try to tell people, before they see it, that it's a horror story done like a kids' book, but darker and a bit twisted. I stress the 'kids' book' part because if they haven't seen it, they get this impression that it's supposed to be like HALLOWEEN or some other horror classic, and they get thrown by the stuff that may seem corny out of context. The general tone of the dialogue probably throws them because it's got that 1940's schoolbook quality to it.

[cdnchris]

I try to tell people, before they see it, that it's a horror story done like a kids' book, but darker and a bit twisted.

Ah, thank you. That was what we were trying to get at, but just couldn't find the perfect description for it. We just came up with "nightmare".

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I've heard the film described as a fairy tale as well. It certainly isn't meant to be realistic... everything is heightened in the movie, from the German Expressionistic lighting (great use of shadows, btw.) and the exaggerated performances of the cast... esp. Mitchum who is so good. Definitely, a career-defining performance, IMO.

There are some truly striking images from the movie that are forever burned in my brain. Like that eerie underwater shot of the deceased Willa Harper. That one gets me every time. But the film does oscillate between moments of real terror and ones that are just so funny... like when Mitchum's preacher gets excited at the site of the dancer and flicks his switchblade... heh!

The kids' performances don't bother me and judging from what I've read they were instructed to act that way. There is an excellent article online that talks about the recently discovered rushes of the movie that shows Laughton in action, working with his cast that dispells a few myths that have surrounded the movie. Check it out here.

It is really a shame that this was Laughton's only directorial effort. I would have loved to see what else he might have made based on the brilliance of this movie.

[Andre Jurieu]

Well, whether instructed to or not, intentional or not, the acting of the children distract me at the bookends of the film. They are less distracting in the middle portion, and I do love when they are on the river. Yet, other than occasionally being diverted by the children, specifically the boy, I find everything else in the film works incredibly well.

[tryavna]

The kids' performances don't bother me and judging from what I've read they were instructed to act that way. There is an excellent article online that talks about the recently discovered rushes of the movie that shows Laughton in action, working with his cast that dispells a few myths that have surrounded the movie. Check it out here.

Wow! That story is fascinating and corrects my own misperception (based on all the rumors) of Laughton's relationship with the children. I'd love to see the rushes myself. If Hearthesilence is right and a newly restored print exists, maybe we ought to start pressuring Sony to put together a nice two-disc release that would include some of these rushes. (I'm assuming that, since the current DVD is an MGM/UA release, Sony now owns the rights to Night of the Hunter.)

To return to those old rumors, though, perhaps Lanchester's accounts of Laughton's difficulties with the children were the result of Laughton himself looking back and trying to rationalize why the film was such a flop -- both critically and commercially.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

If Hearthesilence is right and a newly restored print exists, maybe we ought to start pressuring Sony to put together a nice two-disc release that would include some of these rushes. (I'm assuming that, since the current DVD is an MGM/UA release, Sony now owns the rights to Night of the Hunter.)

Yeah, I have the MGM disc and it's pretty bad (they also totally dropped the ball on the Sweet Smell of Success DVD too!). For such a highly regarded film (now) the lack of any kind of extras is pretty disappointing. Considering that several books are not out dedicated to the analyzing the movie (and examing its origins, how it got made, etc.), a commentary track by some scholars would also be a good idea. Altho, somehow I don't think this film is high on Sony's list right now.

[djali999]

I find a lot of people are turned off by the first few minutes of the film, before it really finds a consistent tone - dramatic chords, then singing, Lilliam Gish reading bible stories, then a dead body... I really think you have to imagine it as a silent picture in order to fully grasp what Laughton has achieved.

I think it's among the finest American films ever made, and one of my top favorites. And I'm sorry, but if you're discounting it as not a horror picture, you don't deserve the film. Preacher's scream at the escaping children is more frightening than most moments in so-called horror pictures combined.

(Preceeding comment not really directed at members of this forum, but film-goers in general based on what I've found their reactions to be))

[zedz]

It's an amazing film, but one that it seems quite hard for modern audiences to connect with - probably because it's so far outside the standard frames of reference of even classic Hollywood cinema. Unfortunately, when confronted with something that doesn't conform to received notions of cinematic 'reality', the first refuge of an unprepared audience is to assume it's camp: hence the sniggering.

The film quite consciously slips into allegory, and the moment when it does so is one of the most incredible sequences in American cinema. The first part of the film is a superior thriller that sets up the threat of Mitchum, disposes of Winters and sends the kids off across the countryside. I agree with djali999 about the horrific power of this section: I think there are more genuine chills in this half hour or so than in any number of horror 'classics': Mitchum standing over Winters; Mitchum racing up the stairs after the kids (Frankenstein's monster was never this terrifying).

But that's all pretty much within the American thriller tradition. Once the kids head down the river, the film takes a sharp left turn off the main road into a rarefied realm: dream-like, mythic and allegorical. The look of that river scene, the sound, the music are incredible: even more radically fantastic than Cocteau. After that journey we're in a fairytale world (with the mother dead, we are sharing the children's vision), in which Mitchum is evil personified - an ever-present dark shadow, omnipotent, omnipresent - and the children's rescuer is goodness personified (thus casting Gish is a stroke of genius - who else could carry this off?). Unless you buy into the mythic polarity, Gish's character really does seem to be unbelievable. At least Mitchum's character has already been established in the more realistic portion of the film. (And by the way, those chills keep on coming, as when Mitchum's shadow appears on the horizon - Laughton manages to preserve the visceral power of that opening section even when he's working in a much less realistic mode).

Thus, the storyline works itself out on a somewhat symbolic level. Personally, when I think about cinema's purest archetypes of Good and Evil, I don't think of shallow superheroes, kitschy Ring-squabblers or inane Star Warriors, I think of Mitchum and Gish, facing off in the dark, signing hymns at each other.

[unclehulot]

Yeah, I have the MGM disc and it's pretty bad

What's so bad about it? Having greeted it with open arms in the early days of DVD, and compared it to my Criterion LD (DVD won by a mile), I think we're a bit spoiled here sometimes......or did you just mean the lack of extras?

[Dylan]

The photography (by Stanley Cortez) is great, Mitchum is great (as always), the part with Mitchum murdering Winters (in that beautiful set) is wonderful, and the dead woman at the bottom of the lake is a terrific image. There's a certain perversity about combining all of these elements into an almost family-friendly film that I like.

[unclehulot]

I don't know what the recent restoration looks like, but I've seen the film twice theatrically, and it was projected academy ratio (1:33) both times. Anyone care to chime in who's seen the recent theatrical version? In any case, Criterion's LD was 1:33, so I don't know what TCM showed, but I'm surprised.

I don't think it was the film maker's intention to be "daring" in any particular way....say like Kiss Me Deadly seems to be trying. Disney? Can't say that holds water for me. The Davis Grubb original IS a "children's book", but only just, as far as I'm concerned.....seems to me Laughton tried to make a rare, if not unique film from a child's point of view with NO condescension.....that's about as far from Disney as possible.

I think it's a film one connects with strongly or not much at all. An audience in Ann Arbor once (with a few too many smart ass college film-impared sorts) laughed during the incredible scene where the kids escape from Mitchum on the river.... the fake animals were just too much for them. Oh well, it was their loss, in my opinion.

[Dylan]

A couple years ago I chatted with Preston Neal Jones, who wrote a book on Night of the Hunter, and he confirmed with me that the original aspect ratio was 1.66:1. It still looks good in 1.33, but in 1.66 it looks even better. The cropping on the DVD is most apparent in the shot after the preacher screams when the children get away.

[jesus the mexican boi]

It's an amazing film, but one that it seems quite hard for modern audiences to connect with - probably because it's so far outside the standard frames of reference of even classic Hollywood cinema ... Personally, when I think about cinema's purest archetypes of Good and Evil, I don't think of shallow superheroes, kitschy Ring-squabblers or inane Star Warriors, I think of Mitchum and Gish, facing off in the dark, signing hymns at each other.

Zedz, cool and concise. Your earlier post captures exactly how I feel about this masterpiece. Certain films require an extra leap of faith from the audience, and NIGHT OF THE HUNTER is probably the prime example of this phenomenon. It's more than suspension of disbelief, it's immersion in the world of the film, which is all those things you listed -- thriller, allegory, dream, melodrama. Some audiences are put off by this demand and, unfortunately for them, they lose out on one of American cinema's most rewarding experiences. There are few films quite like it.

[devlinnn]

but is also trying to be cute, funny, serious, sexually suggestive, Hitchcockian.

Which pretty much sums up Mr. Laughton, and why with just one film he is a genuine auteur. With one chance to sit his arse on the director's chair, he threw up of one cinema's bona-fide masterworks, a stunner. I've always seen it as a silent film with sound, the exaggeration of mime and performance in tune with what it is for a child to be horrified and thrilled by the unknown, dark shadows of an adult world. You can sense in each beautiful black and white frame that Laughton made the film for himself alone - a pitch-black love-letter to the make-believe of his own private and public world. By using the camera and his actors to allow his own psyche and art to run wild, it is with hope that future filmmakers pick up his baton and continue to run with it.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

What's so bad about it? Having greeted it with open arms in the early days of DVD, and compared it to my Criterion LD (DVD won by a mile), I think we're a bit spoiled here sometimes......or did you just mean the lack of extras?

Both. The transfer is "okay" but could be better esp. considering someone above mentioned that a better print does exist. And the lack of extras, for such a classic movie, is appalling.

[Andre Jurieu]

I've always seen it as a silent film with sound, the exaggeration of mime and performance in tune with what it is for a child to be horrified and thrilled by the unknown, dark shadows of an adult world.

Dev said it perfectly. That's exactly the perspective required to evaluate this film. I really think this is the key to understanding Laughton's work and his intensions. As adults we often forget what it was like to witness and observe the world as a child, when our logic and reason were not as much of an influence on our perceptions, and thus our view of the world was warped and exaggerated, though we were unaware of it at the time. Shadows were cast in a more terrifying way, the dark was just a bit more pitch black, and old adults were creepy if they were strangers.

I'm going to go off a bit of a tangent for a moment, but I can only make my point clear with a rather lame example. I remember watching a sitcom once where a character explained to a date that, when he was a child, for the longest time he believed "Gunpoint" was an actual place, so he could never figure out why people kept going to this town where so much crime was committed, and so many bad things happened to the inhabitants. As a child he wondered why anyone would want to live or visit a town where people "were robbed at Gunpoint". He just figured if so much crime occurred at this town, everyone should move away from it. I remember watching the show, and thinking to myself that I had similar flawed logic as a child, and a great deal of simple daily activities never really made sense when I was a child. The problem was I couldn't really remember any specific example, because everything that confused me as a child, now makes perfect logical sense as an adult, and I made the mistaken assumption of thinking that they always made perfect sense to me.

My point is that to watch a film such as The Night of the Hunter, which relies heavily on adopting a (slightly warped) childhood perspective, and notice all the exaggerations in style, mood, atmosphere, acting, dialogue, etc. it remains difficult for adults to grasp the absurdity, (hyper)sensitivity, and vulnerability of childhood viewpoint or experience. Though Laughton captures it in wonderful ways, it's difficult for an adult to grasp just how brilliantly he does so, because our own perceptions are just so far removed from childhood. We live in a world that, for the most part, we can make sense out of, while we forget that childhood was absurdly confusing at times. One of my own earliest memories is of riding around in my tricycle in an apartment in Libya with an older cousin, who was also riding around in a tricycle. However, no matter how many times I remember that moment, it always seems as if his front bike tire was enormous, and almost so gigantic that I feared it would run over me. My mother once told me that makes absolutely no sense, since our bikes were apparently the same size. Yet the childhood perspective warps everything.

One problem is that, as adults, we usually simply discard childhood to mean innocence, so we assume anything from a childhood perspective should merely capture an innocent quality that we now long for. I believe that is the great difference between our reception to something such as To Kill a Mockingbird vs The Night of the Hunter. Something like To Kill a Mockingbird, as good as it is (and I do enjoy the film), comforts us as adult viewer, because it conforms to our perceptions of childhood as adults, while The Night of the Hunter really "immerses" (it's so embarrassing to be using a Movie Critic buzzword) into the world of a child with all its absurd atmosphere and strange performances.

[unclehulot]

By the way, fans of the first rate score to the movie should seek out this Bear Family label CD of the 1955 RCA recording, a version with excerpts of the score and a narration by Charles Laughton.

[tryavna]

But some of it is hilarious (though I'm unsure if it's intentional or not).

There's a certain perversity about combining all of these elements into an almost family-friendly film that I like, but I don't think it works very well, as most of the film comes off as funny when it doesn't feel like it should be

You know, I find the movie hilarious, too -- but in a good way. I mean, considering just how flamboyantly evil Robert Mitchum's character is, I think you're supposed to view it as a black comedy. In many ways, it's similar to the very black humor you can find in Franz Kafka's fiction or Munch's paintings -- two other masters of nightmarish art.

[unclehulot]

Reminds me that as a teen I found Alban Berg's Wozzeck funnier than grim! Now I do see the grim side, but don't find it the predominant trait. There must be a certain genetic predisposition to find the truly macabre amusing as you say, "in a good way". As everyone else is squirming, I have a big grin on my face! Psycho is another work that I find hilarious.....which is perhaps in keeping with Hitchcock's funhouse view of the thing.....perhaps Laughton was mining the same vein, but in a slightly more ambiguous manner.

[hearthesilence]

I actually posted this a long time ago, but it's been lost with the rest of the 'old' forum. I was at a screening for "Persona," and the archivist at MGM (which someone here was able to identify - I forgot his name but remember what he looked like) was there to present it because he restored it. REALLY cool discussion about his work on "Persona" as well as dozens of other projects he had going, but to stay on topic, he said the home video division of MGM and the archival division, they're completely separate entities, they don't interact all the time. Unfortunately, this means that the restoration work done by the studio isn't always used by the home video division. He used "Night of the Hunter" as an example because it was scheduled to be shown the following week at the same venue: the original DVD did NOT use his restored work (which may or may not have been ready, regardless they didn't ask for it), but he was pleased people there would have the opportunity to see it the following week. So straight from the source, the DVD did not use the best available source. Does that mean the current DVD is that bad? Not necessarily, I haven't seen it so I can't say. But it does mean it can be a lot better.

[mmiesner]

before people go off on me for saying this, i have only seen the movie once, it was in the midst of a Mitchum kick, and it was IMMEDIATELY after watching Cape Fear (which i believe is one of the creepiest performances ever by an actor). here goes:

this movie sucks and is boring. completely overrated and confused.

i totally agree with Dylan that the film tried to do too much. it tries to be funny, it tries to be scary, and it tries to have a meaningful story, and in my mind it would have worked better had it stuck with one of those being more in the forefront than sticking all of them with almost equal smatterings.

like i said, only seen once and maybe not in the best situation, but i just think it's overblown and not that great.

[ben d banana]

Well I wholeheartedly disagree. It's been awhile and I'm hardly the most critically astute member here (understatement!!!), but this film could barely have fascinated me more. Nothing about it appeared to be a failure or confused (or unintentionally camp or funny). I was completely immersed in its look and performances and was left wishing Laughton spent more time in the director's chair. Then again, I'm able to imagine he was pulling a George Costanza and just got up and left on a high note.