541 The Night of the Hunter

[MitchPerrywinkle]

dad1153, that reminds me of the first time I saw this film with a group of my friends last October. There were a few snide remarks here and there (when Powell arches his head towards heaven before he kills Winters, one of my friends asked "What on Earth is he doing?!"), and not everyone thought it was a great movie. But another friend of mine constantly murmured how beautifully shot the film was, and even the most jaded of my friends grunted in approval. And that scene where Powell threatens to gut John like a hog unnerved everyone.

I'm currently reading the novel by Davis Grubb (courtesy of my local library), and it's a great novel. Laughton adapted it beautifully, especially considering how more unsettling the book can be (Powell forces Willa to look at her naked body in the mirror instead of just her clothed self), particularly when Powell uses far more curse words towards the children (he calls Pearl a "bitch" instead of "wretch"). But it's fluid and descriptive and has a mood that I feel Laughton and Agee successfully translated to the screen.

[manicsounds]

I guess most people will notice that the "Charles Laughton Directs..." feature on disc 2 is updated, including the passing of Peter Graves, and the ages of the children etc.

Anyone thought about why Criterion decided to pass up on tracking down and interviewing the 2 kids? Maybe it's just me, but I like to hear interviews from children years later. Like on "Dodes'Kaden" with Yoshitaka Zushi, "Twilight Zone" Bill Mumy, "Curse Of The Cat People" Ann Carter etc. I'm pretty sure most kids would be like, "I don't remember..." but it would be nice to hear nonetheless. (And according to the end of the film, the 2 kids whereabouts are known, as opposed to those "lost child actors")

[Feego]

I too would love to have seen interviews with the two child actors, particularly Sally Jane Bruce. Even if they (or she, specifically) don't remember exact details of the production, it would be interesting to know what they think of the film now and how they feel about their characters. I was very happy when Criterion included the interview with Enzo Staiola on Bicycle Thieves, and Brigitte Fossey gave a spirited, detailed interview for Forbidden Games. I wonder if perhaps Criterion contacted these actors and they just said no. As it is, Criterion's release is amazing, but interviews with Chapin and Bruce would have really put it over the edge.

[MitchPerrywinkle]

It would have been nice to have the kids be interviewed (since they are pretty much the heart of the film), but I do think they just declined (or Ms. Bruce was so young she barely remembers the experience).

It really is slim pickings, though. This is as perfect a release for the film as we could possibly hope for (barring the interviews and a reprinting of Davis Grubbs' excellent novel), and I am more than content with the superb job Criterion has done.

[Drucker]

So I gather from the posts that if you like the movie it's a must-buy? I started re-watching it last night...and found it just unbelievable. Usually that kind of "over-acting" 1950s style gets to me (Mitchum talking to himself to express thoughts), the dad talking to himself about where to stash the money before he finds a place for it...
But I think this movie is just so badass. I feel it's significant that some of the more incidental moments (among the ones mentioned, young boy yells "I'll never tell! You can't make me!" then covers his mouth) aren't as cringe-worthy thanks to the atmosphere the whole film has.
The picture I noticed wasn't the worst I've seen of SD-DVDs (my flip-cases of Casablanca and Stagecoach before upgrading...) but I definitely noticed some blurring on the sides, and plenty of lines and pops. The picture of the Criterion blu is that much of an improvement? It's currently only 30 on amazon.

[knives]

Let me put it this way, if you like the movie even the smallest bit and find this set at a price you feel is reasonable and you don't buy it you are an idiot. This comes close to being the best set ever.

[swo17]

We did collectively vote for it as Criterion's best release last year.

[Drucker]

Seems like it. It's just ever since buying a blu ray I've only bought upgrades and not a single new movie. That is...to add to the 25 I own and have yet to watch. Sigh

[MitchPerrywinkle]

If you're a B&N member, wait for the sale next month for the blu-ray. Thanks to coupons and your membership discount, you'll be able to get the blu-ray for $17.50, which will probably be one of the very best deals you will ever make.

[Drucker]

I've yet to become a B&N member...it seems like most people here are. I tend to buy on Amazon. Most of the blu rays at this point it doesn't seem are any cheaper used as they are new...And non-blu rays I can always get for 10 dollars cheaper or more. How come you all don't do this, just curious?

[aox]

I've yet to become a B&N member...it seems like most people here are. I tend to buy on Amazon. Most of the blu rays at this point it doesn't seem are any cheaper used as they are new...And non-blu rays I can always get for 10 dollars cheaper or more. How come you all don't do this, just curious?

I shop exclusively Amazon and am huge into buying third party there. I only use B&N during the 50% sale.

[JAP]

Winner of the Best Supplements category of the Il Cinema Ritrovato Dvd Awards 2011 (complete list, in italian)

[tojoed]

I should bloody well think so!

[tenia]

If you're a B&N member, wait for the sale next month for the blu-ray. Thanks to coupons and your membership discount, you'll be able to get the blu-ray for $17.50, which will probably be one of the very best deals you will ever make.

Small digression : I see the B&N 50% sale coming soon, and wondered, since it will be my first order from them, first if I should expect any issue for a delivery to France, because I heard the worst thing on B&N deliveries / reliability, second where I could find those coupons you're talking about. I remember having seen some of them last year, but can't find them anymore.

[JamesF]

Kidding aside, an inclusion in some form of the Charles Laughton "audiobook" (for lack of a better phrase) in some form would be wonderful. Accompaniment to a stills gallery, perhaps?

Well, three years on from this post, I pulled my finger out and decided to do this myself. Before MGM and/or IODA have it taken down, please enjoy...

CHARLES LAUGHTON reads THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER

It's not totally polished, mainly because a) I only had a rip of the old MGM DVD to work with, and b) I'm not a professional editor, but it'll do. Hope you guys enjoy it.

[AndrewBoone]

I was really impressed with this film. It wasn't perfect -- I thought the ending could have been a bit better, which is to be expected from '50s Hollywood -- but otherwise I thought it did a really good job of resisting the conventional styles and methods of the day. I mean, I really can't say that I've ever seen another film like it, from any era, so it's especially impressive that Laughton was able to pull it off in the middle of a decade in which American cinema was not particularly diverse. His debut and ultimate film all in one, Laughton did a fantastic job here. The cinematography is astounding, unlike anything I've seen before, and the film is nothing if not original. Also, Robert Mitchum, who I haven't always been especially crazy about, pulled off his role masterfully. Having never seen another film by the director (naturally, since it was his only one) and not knowing anything about this movie, I really had no idea what to expect, and needless to say, I was delighted.

[domino harvey]

I was really impressed with this film. It wasn't perfect -- I thought the ending could have been a bit better, which is to be expected from '50s Hollywood -- but otherwise I thought it did a really good job of resisting the conventional styles and methods of the day. I mean, I really can't say that I've ever seen another film like it, from any era, so it's especially impressive that Laughton was able to pull it off in the middle of a decade in which American cinema was not particularly diverse.

The 1950s were one of the most fascinating and wide-ranging periods for American cinema. You should familiarize yourself beyond the canon before making such wide-ranging negative remarks dismissing an entire era's output with tired assumptions

[jindianajonz]

"But Dom," he asked, "Where can I find a place where people discuss and recommend lesser known films from a particular decade?"

[Drucker]

I was really impressed with this film. It wasn't perfect -- I thought the ending could have been a bit better, which is to be expected from '50s Hollywood -- but otherwise I thought it did a really good job of resisting the conventional styles and methods of the day. I mean, I really can't say that I've ever seen another film like it, from any era, so it's especially impressive that Laughton was able to pull it off in the middle of a decade in which American cinema was not particularly diverse. His debut and ultimate film all in one, Laughton did a fantastic job here. The cinematography is astounding, unlike anything I've seen before, and the film is nothing if not original. Also, Robert Mitchum, who I haven't always been especially crazy about, pulled off his role masterfully. Having never seen another film by the director (naturally, since it was his only one) and not knowing anything about this movie, I really had no idea what to expect, and needless to say, I was delighted.

Another film which deserves a listen to the commentary track. A lot of the style of the film, for example, makes more sense when you (if you haven't already) fully realize the story is told from the perspective of a child. Combining it with his affinity for silent film is what helps to make Laughton's masterpiece so unique.

[AndrewBoone]

The 1950s were one of the most fascinating and wide-ranging periods for American cinema. You should familiarize yourself beyond the canon before making such wide-ranging negative remarks dismissing an entire era's output with tired assumptions

Sorry, friend, but now it's you who is making both the assumptions and the negative remarks. I am more than satisfied with my familiarity with '50s cinema in America. Your assumption that my repertoire from that era of cinema is limited or restricted to "the canon" is not only off-base, but really quite far-fetched and unfounded. We simply disagree, that is all. That doesn't make your knowledge base larger than mine. It very well may be, but in either case, it certainly is no cause for disrespect. Furthermore, no one is "writing off an entire era's output". Not sure where that comment came from. I love '50s Hollywood, so I really don't know where you're coming from there. I simply made a comment that about that decade in American cinema having less diversity than many others. I do not agree at all that it's one of the most wide-ranging periods for American cinema. On a thematic and subtextual level, I just don't see a great deal of range in '50s American cinema compared to some other decades. Naturally there are exceptions. I'm not saying every movie is restricted to that stereotype, but the tendency is there all the same. You clearly disagree with that. That's okay. Just another example of the subjectivity of cinematic interpretation, without which film would really be a truly worthless medium. So disagreement is a good thing. In the future, a little more reason and a little less disrespect would be much appreciated. You're certainly never going to make me feel shame or guilt for expressing my opinion, which is all I did. Responses like that are what drive many people away from a site like this.

[domino harvey]

Then go, friend. Having an uninformed opinion go unchallenged is not a right and I don't have to respect the spouting of arrogant dismissals. You think American cinema of the 1950s has little range, which is untrue to anyone familiar with the era beyond a few examples. Your response is conspicuously absent of any specifics and acting indignant isn't helping cloud that. "I have my opinions and you have opinions and we should just have our opinions" isn't discussion or debate, it's afternoon tea

I am better versed than most in the decade's output but I'd be the first to admit that by sheer volume of releases, there's still a lot I haven't seen and I would never claim complete knowledge of the time period. Few would. But based on what I have seen, it's easily apparent that the decade's releases represent a vast spectrum of audiences, styles, approaches, and methods-- which is all that's needed to dispute your claims. I have spent years posting here about many of these films, and it would not be difficult to find many many examples of me talking at greater length about numerous examples from this era. And the notion that there is a limited range of subtext in this era is vibrantly inaccurate to the point that it makes it hard to take your supposed familiarity with the era very seriously.

[tenia]

Even without being highly enlightened about it, shouldn't a quick research on the internet give a wide array of what the 50s US cinema has produced ?

[knives]

Yes, though I'm not sure if that would help beyond saying Westerns, musicals, horror flicks, and weepies were made in the era.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

The 1950s were one of the most fascinating and wide-ranging periods for American cinema. You should familiarize yourself beyond the canon before making such wide-ranging negative remarks dismissing an entire era's output with tired assumptions

Sorry, friend, but now it's you who is making both the assumptions and the negative remarks. I am more than satisfied with my familiarity with '50s cinema in America. Your assumption that my repertoire from that era of cinema is limited or restricted to "the canon" is not only off-base, but really quite far-fetched and unfounded. We simply disagree, that is all. That doesn't make your knowledge base larger than mine. It very well may be, but in either case, it certainly is no cause for disrespect. Furthermore, no one is "writing off an entire era's output". Not sure where that comment came from. I love '50s Hollywood, so I really don't know where you're coming from there. I simply made a comment that about that decade in American cinema having less diversity than many others. I do not agree at all that it's one of the most wide-ranging periods for American cinema. On a thematic and subtextual level, I just don't see a great deal of range in '50s American cinema compared to some other decades. Naturally there are exceptions. I'm not saying every movie is restricted to that stereotype, but the tendency is there all the same. You clearly disagree with that. That's okay. Just another example of the subjectivity of cinematic interpretation, without which film would really be a truly worthless medium. So disagreement is a good thing. In the future, a little more reason and a little less disrespect would be much appreciated. You're certainly never going to make me feel shame or guilt for expressing my opinion, which is all I did. Responses like that are what drive many people away from a site like this.

I dislike simpering snark as much as you (it's how the bullied bully, and I am occasionally guilty of it), but I don't think, given your statement I put in bold above, that this really is a subjective question. Formally and technically, the decade brought incredible innovation. The use of color alone in films of this period has never been surpassed. As for themes and subtexts, I haven't seen another decade in American film that can beat this off-the-top-of-my-head laundry list: Bucket of Blood, Shake Hands with the Devil, Suddenly Last Summer, 7th Voyage of Sinbad, The Fly, I Want to Live!, Party Girl, Thunder Road, Incredible Shrinking Man, Run of the Arrow, The Tall T, Tin Star, Baby Doll, Bhowani Junction, The Boss, Eddy Duchin Story, Friendly Persuasion, Girl Can’t Help It, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, Moby Dick, Nightfall, Wrong Man, Bad Day at Black Rock, Cobweb, Moonfleet, Phenix City Story, Trouble with Harry, Broken Lance, Carmen Jones, Crime Wave, Cry Vengeance, Demetrius and the Gladiators, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers, Star Is Born, Them!, Track of the Cat, 99 River Street, Angel Face, The Bigamist, Dangerous When Wet, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, The Hitch-Hiker, House of Wax, Julius Caesar, Kiss Me Kate, Niagara, Salt of the Earth, Story of Three Loves, War of the Worlds, 5 Fingers, Bend of the River, The Big Sky, Clash by Night, Lusty Men, Member of the Wedding, On Dangerous Ground, The Sniper, Cry Danger, Man with a Cloak, Mating Season, The Well, The Thing from Another World, Breaking Point.

You may not like a lot of these films, but you can't deny that they are evidence of an insanely wide range of subtexts and themes, many of which unfold with wildly unconventional narrative styles and unexpected endings. Entire genres were created! I don't think a contrary "opinion" can gainsay this into subjectivity.

Finally (and to get back on topic), are you saying the end of Night of the Hunter is conventional--or "could have been better"--simply because the villain is caught and a loving, domestic safety restored? Aside from this convention that dominates any decade of American cinema, I don't see the ending as being that conventional--rather odd and elegiac, actually, on top of that lovely moment of wrapping an apple in a doily.

[knives]

It's also rather disturbed in its own way with the boy turning this venomous preacher into his father and being permanently broke as a result. For me it's one of the most disturbing endings ever made.