The Night of the Hunter (1955) in The Psycho Ward Forum

Forum Jump

The Night of the Hunter (1955)

Author	Comment
LesDaniels		#21	[-]
May 13 08 8:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'm probably the only one here who read the Davis Grubb novel before seeing the movie, back when I was an innocent more than fifty years ago. It scared the yell out of me, but my recollection of the ending is a little vague. I think events transpired about the same as in the movie, but the effect was not so overtly allegorical, and thus not quite so jarring. I mean the kids escaped, but not into the Garden of Eden.
	Remove this ad
zogstar67		#22	[-]
May 14 08 11:19 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: Guys- "I love this one too," It is just a terrific film. Would that Laughton had done more; geez, what would his NAKED AND THE DEAD have been like...? He studied Griffith films at MOMA, and said he wanted people to sit forward in their seats again, riveted, not lay back, blase. "but the last act seems so...misplaced and corny" "...the ending always seems totally odd and out of place..." With respect, I couldn't disagree more. It is set up by the opening, developed through Gish's phenomenal work, and tied inextricably to the "Good" thread that runs all through the film, right alongside the "Bad." Have we come to the point where we really need our psychosis to be pure and unremitting, without ever a redemption? Do the monsters always have to win, and the innocent victims be devoured? SPOILERS I GUESS Well, I'm not talking about the "happy" nature of the ending or Gish's speech at the end. Those are just fine. I'm talking more about the almost comical way in which Mitchum is captured in the barn after there has been such a grim, relentless buildup. And how the townsfolk turn into a screeching, murderous mob and head for the jail, only to have Mitchum quickly whisked away. Again, an ominous buildup with little payoff. I'm not saying it's a flaw in the film, just curious. I'd be interested in hearing the interpretations of critics and fans on those points. I wasn't looking for him to die like Alan Rickman at the end of DIE HARD, but it did frustrate my expectations a bit. Last Edited By: zogstar67 May 14 08 11:21 AM. Edited 1 times.
Bill Warren		#23	[-]
May 14 08 2:15 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I, too, have always been puzzled by the comic nature of the scenes beginning with Mitchum's suddenly standing up in front of the camera in Gish's house, then getting shot in the butt by buckshot as he runs, whooping, back to the barn. The book does mention that Laughton changed these scenes somewhat in post-production, but I don't recall if it explains why. Maybe it had to do with the boy's unintentionally sort of combining memories of the cops taking his father away with the spectacle of the same thing happening to Harry Powell. I think Mitchum is a far better choice for the character than Gary Cooper would have been. I think Cooper couldn't have unbent himself enough to give us Powell's towering rages and cowardice. I also think Mitchum is a better actor than Cooper, but I don't think Mitchum would have agreed. Last Edited By: Bill Warren May 14 08 2:18 PM. Edited 1 times.
yendor1152		#24	[-]
May 14 08 3:41 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bill, I actually thought the scene you described was scary! The way Gish's view is suddenly obscured and Mitchcum jumps up like a jack in the box. When she shoots him, she's so obviously taken aback by his yells and screeches, it hardly seems played for humor. I have always noticed that Mitchum's whoops repeat themselves at least twice as he runs for the barn. Rod
Koukol 5		#25	[-]
May 14 08 4:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	That scene is just so...freaky...in a good way.
Wich2		#26	[-]
May 14 08 7:09 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Gotcha, Zog. And good point. The Wife and I always think there's something missing, when a truly Evil villian doesn't get a proper comeuppance. Then again, the way it happens on film is more like real life? Best, -Craig W.
Bill Warren		#27	[-]
May 14 08 8:47 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	When she shoots him, she's so obviously taken aback by his yells and screeches, it hardly seems played for humor. According to that book, and to what I see on screen, it was definitely intended to be somewhat funny. Mitchum's wild-eyed expression, his whoops and yelps--all those looked and sounded pretty funny to me.
TomWeaver999		#28	[-]
May 14 08 9:58 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Yeah, but you've admitted you're from that atypical little section of the country where the audiences unaccountably laugh at everything! Mitchum's wild reaction is freaky-deaky -- I too watch in stunned silence.
voyttbots		#29	[-]
May 15 08 11:04 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I just saw this on TCM recently and that ending surprised me as well. It really does play as comedy. " I`m here to kill your monsta." Last Edited By: voyttbots May 15 08 11:13 AM. Edited 1 times.
Professor Von X		#30	[-]
May 15 08 11:17 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Maybe that was Laughton's intent... to make the character pathetic and silly in the end. The Big, Bad Wolf, undressed. Professor Von X
	Remove this ad
yendor1152		#31	[-]
May 15 08 12:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, when you guys refer to "the ending," what exactly do you mean? Mitchcum getting shot is far from the film's end. It goes through his trial, then during Christmas for the children, and actually ends with Lillian Gish talking about how children "abide and they endure." Frankly, I saw nothing played for comedy in this film. Rod
zogstar67		#32	[-]
May 15 08 12:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Professor Von X wrote: Maybe that was Laughton's intent... to make the character pathetic and silly in the end. The Big, Bad Wolf, undressed. Professor Von X That's my best guess, too. If others think it's to be taken seriously, I won't argue the point, 'cuz I'm not sure myself. I wish someone had asked Laughton or even Mitchum about this. And maybe someone did....
Koukol 5		#33	[-]
May 15 08 8:28 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well i'm stunned that anyone thought this film might be in anyway a comedy.
zogstar67		#34	[-]
May 16 08 10:10 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't think the film is a comedy. It's dark, tense and even magical in places. It's not a comedy. My specific issue is that the individual scene in which Mitchum is captured seems to me to be staged and played comedically, at least for a moment or two, until little John starts having his tearful flashback. Others don't see the comedy. I do. I don't mean it makes me laugh. I mean it makes me say "WTF? Why did they play that for comedy?" I'm certainly willing to admit that I could be wrong about the filmmakers' intent and I'd love to find an interview or something explaining what they were going for, because the scene, as is, seems out of place to me. The film is certainly not a comedy. It has a few laugh lines, like any other drama, but it is not a comedy and I don't think anyone has suggested it is.
zogstar67	SPOILERS BELOW	#35	[-]
May 16 08 10:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Coming at this film from an entirely different angle, another interesting point is that at the screening I went to, there was a minor groan from the audience when John "gives up" the money near the end. After seeing the film 4 or 5 times, it occurred to me: That money in no way belongs to John or his family. And while they were certainly poor, it wasn't as if the money was any use to them stuffed in a doll with the whole community ready to pounce if they tried to spend it. In fact, the whole problem could have been avoided (and their mother saved!) if they had publically turned the money over to the authorities or even given it to The Preacher. Of course, the film isn't about rational decision-making. John is fiercely loyal to his father and believes what he is doing is right so strongly that the audience does too. The film is, in part, about how childhood innocence can exist apart from the adult world where the difference between RIGHT and WRONG and LOVE and HATE is often confusing, arbitrary and even corrupt.
Bill Warren		#36	[-]
May 16 08 12:29 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't think anyone here is even REMOTELY suggesting this movie is a comedy. As Zogstar said, we're talking about the unusual handling of one scene, lasting about a minute or less. As for the money--in the boy's mind, the money is associated only with death (his father and then his mother) and the terrible pursuit by the Preacher. When he saw Powell being taken away by the police, just as his father was, the pressure the boy's been under for weeks, probably months, finally gives way and in his confusion he thinks that surrendering the money will make the past un-happen. Last Edited By: Bill Warren May 16 08 12:31 PM. Edited 1 times.
TomWeaver999		#37	[-]
May 16 08 2:17 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Has anybody seen this? Is it available any place?: "Ford Star Jubilee" (TV) The Day Lincoln Was Shot (1956) Produced by Paul Gregory [NIGHT OF HUNTER producer] Charles Laughton ... Narrator Lillian Gish Billy Chapin Paul Bryar [NIGHT OF HUNTER hangman] Jack Lemmon ... John Wilkes Booth Raymond Massey ... Abraham Lincoln William Phipps [close friend of Charles & Elsa -- convinced Charles to cast Mitchum in NIGHT OF HUNTER]
zogstar67		#38	[-]
May 16 08 2:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I dunno, but I'd like to see it! How many times did Massey play Lincoln, anyway?? And I wonder if Lemmon had NORTH and SOUTH tattooed on his knuckles.
TomWeaver999		#39	[-]
May 16 08 3:02 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I think I know why this episode ran on FORD STAR JUBILEE rather than ... FORD THEATER.
yendor1152		#40	[-]
May 16 08 6:12 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Why?
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

The Night of the Hunter (1955)