Night of the Hunter (1955) - Charles Laughton

Charles Laughton made only one film as a director and Night of the Hunter is akin to Orson Welles retiring after making Citizen Kane.  I won’t say that this film is as good as Citizen Kane, but it’s hard to think of any director whose first (and in this case only) film was this good.  Along with producer Paul Gregory the pair made a few celebrated stage productions before tackling their first screen project.  It came from a long knowledge of film, of how to tell a story and from making movies in nearly every conceivable style from slapstick comedy to horror.  Laughton had been around for decades and won an Oscar early in his career for The Private Life of Henry VIII, but his most significant contribution to cinema will most likely be remembered as Night of the Hunter.

Defining the film in terms of genre can be problematic.  This can fall into a horror subplot because after all there is a monster in the film who is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing (Robert Mitchum).  However the lack of supernatural elements generally lend itself more to horror’s rational cousin the thriller.  I would argue it doesn’t matter what you call the film, but since there is an impending greatest horror list I’m putting together at the end of the month, I’m willing to call it a horror film.  All of the horrific elements stem from Mitchum’s Preacher Harry Powell. 

Often in horror films there is a general sense of dread throughout the film.  False starts and spooky warnings that are foreboding, looking forward to later more tangible danger.  Laughton largely ignores these elements.  Sure the film opens with children playing around a corpse, but it doesn’t have that same supernatural “something is wrong” element that is so common among these films.  Laughton is identifying with the children here and is there any ruder way to shatter childlike innocence than that?  Powell is seen driving away right afterwards having his own one on one conversation with God.  He says he knows that God don’t mind the killing because “the bible’s full of killings”, but he knows God is on his side because God hates women just like him.  Not all women, just the ones that wear makeup, dress provocatively, curl their hair, wear perfume, and arouse man’s baser instincts.  What makes him so frightening is that he “knows this”.  He is completely convinced in his own mind that he is doing the lord’s work.  He can’t even recall if this is the 8th or 12th woman he’s married and murdered. 

The telling scene that takes place right as Powell is arrested points to perhaps one of his reasons for his incredible misogyny.  While at what appears to be a burlesque show/strip club he’s sitting around leering men watching a woman do her routine and as you notice the look of contempt on his face, he pops his knife out, through his pocket.  The phallic imagery is undeniable and it makes you ask the question.  Is his hatred based on his own inadequacies as a lover?  Is his natural instinct towards killing for his own frustration at being impotent?  Why the knife?  Why not a gun, a rope, or any other weapon?  Clearly the parallel is being drawn and it’s for this reason I believe he later turns Willa Harper (Shelley Winters) out on their wedding night.  He tells her that sex is only to produce children, but I wonder if it’s not because he simply can’t get it up.  I’m sure I’m not the first person to make this claim, and I would argue Laughton is anything but subtle in his symbolism here.

At the beginning of the film we even have a voice over warning us about wolves in sheep’s clothing and we know what to expect.  The entire film, which was based on the best selling novel by Davis Grubb, is steeped in a Southern Protestant brand of Christianity.  It differs dramatically from the catholic understanding of the bible and is something that anyone from down south can easily identify with.  The hymns that Powell sings are recognizable, and even one night Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish) joins in singing “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms” with him.  What’s noticeable about their duet is that she changes the lyrics to include Jesus in the hymn.  Powell makes no mention of Jesus and to him his brand of religion is just betwixt him and the Lord.  He has no denomination, and doesn’t even seem to acknowledge Christ in his travels. 

Some of the expressionist tendencies

Now according to Robin Wood most of the film’s more cinematic moments were part of James Agee’s script.  He was known primarily as a film critic and put out two volumes of film writing entitled Agee on Film.  Some people credit him with helping to revive Buster Keaton’s career following an article he wrote about silent comedians for Life magazine.  He was a huge alcoholic and Jeff Fahey’s character in White Hunter Black Heart was loosely based on him.  He died at the age of 45 just two years after this film was made.  The script apparently contained directions for helicopter shots, camera angles, and various other staging suggestions.  Laughton a first time director seemed content to follow his instructions, so you can make a claim which one of them really “directed” the picture.

Speaking of which Laughton was known for hating children.  So you can imagine a conflict of interest when the two main characters of the film happen to be 9 and 4 respectively.  From what I read in Danny Peary’s Cult Movies 3, Laughton detested Billy Chapin and Sally Jane Bruce so left their direction to Mitchum.  His sympathies lie with Preacher.  Laughton spent the large majority of his career playing obsessed and ruthlessly evil one dimensional villains, so you can imagine how he saw himself in this character.  Of course one of the things that makes Preacher so effective is his charisma.  He gets nearly all the women around to fall for him, and he wouldn’t be nearly as competent at killing if they didn’t let their guard down immediately.  Charles Laughton was far from good looking ,and really he was far from average looking, the man was pretty damn ugly so there’s no way he could have pulled off this role.  Mitchum on the other hand was quite handsome and developed his own penchant for playing slightly psychotic men who seemed like good guys at first.  Although his turn in Cape Fear is all psycho. 

Pictured above, one sexy man

I won’t make the argument that the children deliver stellar performances although Billy Chapin does an admirable job.  As a child star, Chapin stopped acting entirely after 1959 so this is what he’ll always be remembered for.  Sally Jane Bruce might not be a terrible actress for her part, but the role itself is somewhat infuriating.  She seems like she’s quasi-retarded and even if she’s only 4 or 5 it seems she ought to have a much greater understanding of what’s going on.  However the story seems to dictate that women seem all but oblivious to Preacher’s evil.  It goes along with the theme that she would actually run to his arms when he finally shows up at Rachel’s house telling her the story of how he had been looking for them.  Even after being chased around, and even after he threatens to stick John like a pig and leave him bleeding with his knife (which he ironically is wielding in his hand with the letters L-O-V-E tattooed on it), she still doesn’t seem to recognize this man as pure evil. Ruby (Gloria Castillo) doesn’t even seem to fathom how evil he is when on trial for multiple murders, she lingers at the courthouse and still has that glassy eyed look in her eyes as if she believes he’s somehow not as bad as all that.

Another thing that makes the Preacher seem a little more classic movie monster is his persistence.  When John and Pearl spend the night hiding in a barn he hears his never ending hymn singing as he slowly rides on a horse never going too far from the riverfront.  John comments “don’t he ever sleep” and you know in classic movie monster terms, no he doesn’t.  Just like Michael Meyers or Jason Voorhees, this is a monster who will never stop his pursuit, and he also doesn’t seem like he’s in too much of a hurry to find you either.  He knows that eventually you’ll have to sleep and he’ll just keep trotting along.  Like any great monster though he of course believes he is in the right.  He wants the stolen money to build a tabernacle to the lord, and never in the film does he even admit to himself that he plans on doing anything else with the money.  The fact that John and Pearl are so determined to risk their lives to keep a promise to their irresponsible father seems almost pointless.  It plays into the black and white nature of the fair tale which this film clearly situates itself in.

The intro which features all of Rachel’s children’s heads in the sky along with hers as she mentions those fore-warnings put us in a fable.  Perhaps to Laughton this rural south resembled more of that old time “once upon a time” land.  It is set during the Great Depression which accounts not only for how many children seem to be homeless, why the father went out and robbed in the first place, and how a man can go around as a preacher and be so instantly accepted.  When Willa confesses her sins she is completely convinced that her new husband is right about sex.  She recognizes herself as a temptress and blames her own greed for her husband’s crimes.  She is now prostrating herself in front of a burning torch and repenting just like anyone at a frantic revival meeting.  It’s the type of thing that existed for years, but took deep root during the destitute times of the 30s which gives the film much more credibility than if it had taken place in the more stable Eisenhower 50s.  Not just the reference to Preacher as a wolf abound, but throughout their journey down the river we get glimpses of animals looming large in the foreground which helps link the fairy tale mythology to the film.

More oblique angles

 There have been some contrasting ideas as to why Rachel sees through the Preacher.  Some ideas pointed out that maybe she is too old for his advances, and she’s past the point of being sexually attracted to him therefore isn’t under the same spell as the other women.  However when the noisy neighbor falls hook, line, and sinker for his charms it makes me think it has nothing to do with age.  She just simply is the first rational and level headed adult in the film.  Her character is balanced and keeping with the fairy tale mythology is the mother goose figure of the story.  Perhaps she is just too good or too saintly to fall for his deal.  When he tries to go into his well rehearsed speech about his matching love and hate tattoos she cuts him off long before he gets the chance.  She not only recognizes that he isn’t the father of John and Pearl, but knows he is no preacher either.  Those tattoos have been the stuff of homage and parody in everything from The Simpsons to Do the Right Thing.

The role was a great return to the screen for Lillian Gish who for many was a symbol of the history of film, as her time in films dated from Griffith all the way to the 80s.  She lived into the 90s and her death seemed to coincide with the 100 year anniversary of the movies.  She always had that youthful look to her that allowed her to play much younger roles throughout the silent era, and it gives a certain vitality to her portrayal here.  She’s old enough to be a mother figure for these orphans but youthful enough to understand and relate to them, and energetic enough to fend off the would be predator.  There is a brief moment when she calls the children out following Powell’s arrival where you wonder if she won’t be like every other adult and send them off, but somehow we know she’s different and boy is it gratifying when she does finally call him out.

Regardless of who you wish to attribute the greatness of this film to, it can be agreed it is a collaborative effort.  Stanley Cortez does a fantastic job with the photography and even if Agee provided these shot ideas in the script, it still took a good cinematographer to realize them.  Laughton trusted in his performers and the story to make everything happen, and well would any of it had been possible without the original source novel.  The performances are strong throughout and Mitchum seems to genuinely relish going over the top at numerous turns.  The film has plenty of expressionist tendencies and he seems to be channeling some of those classic much more hysterical German performers of the silent era.  His gestures are wild and violent and he is animated in dialogue the way you’d expect a showman preacher to be.  Put together it’s just a damn good movie.