Classic Movie Review: The Night of the Hunter (1955)

This review comes via request of a good friend of mine as a part of my series of Halloween reviews this year. I was going to say that this is a more obscure film for me to review, but that actually might not be true as the Library of Congress in 1992 deemed it "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant." It's also shown up occasionally on all-time great movie lists and has influenced a lot of different directors. So maybe I just missed the boat when it comes to knowing this movie exists, because I hadn't heard about it until a month or so ago when my friend mentioned it. It also means that I'm at an extreme disadvantage in writing a review because I've only had a week now to think about it as opposed to 62 years for some people. But hey, perhaps a fresh perspective is a good thing on occasion, especially when it comes to the case of nostalgia. It's often seen as blasphemous to say anything bad about a movie deemed a classic. But if I just watched it for the first time a week ago, I can simply treat it as a brand new movie and move forward without having to worry about nostalgia or its designation as a classic. In turn that means that if this has been one of your all-time favorite films for years, then you might be in for an interesting ride with this review.

After having heard of this movie for the first time a month ago and watching it for the first time a week ago, I even more recently learned that "The Night of the Hunter" is based on the book of the same name, which in turn is based on the life of one Harry Powers, a serial killer who was hanged in 1932 for the murder of a woman and her three kids. Powers lured women to him via Lonely Hearts ads (the old-fashioned version of dating sites?), claiming he was looking for love, but instead had a goal to kill them for their money. Thankfully he was caught, convicted and put to death before too many people fell victim to him, because apparently he got 10-20 letters per day based on his ads and had written love letters to many of them with the intention of killing them for their money. This gives you a bit of an idea of what you're in for if you decide to put in "The Night of the Hunter," although not really because, while the movie is based on the life of Powers, "loosely based" might be the proper terminology. The fictional version of this story that is told in this movie is a lot more toned down than the real life version as I'm guessing that director Charles Laughton wanted to make a movie that people of his time would actually watch.

This makes for an interesting conversation. A dark, gruesome, bloody thriller is probably not something that audiences would gravitate towards in 1955. Even Hitchcock had to restrain himself in order to get the rating of approved that was necessary for films back then to actually make money. I'll talk about that more on a later date when I review a certain Hitchcock film. But 2017 is much different than 1955 in terms of content that a director is capable of making. I feel many of Hitchcock's films would be much more intense if he had lived in today's world with his same mind. Perhaps Charles Laughton would've elected to go darker and scarier if he also were around today to make this movie? With that in mind, what if we hired a director today who excels at dark, crime thrillers to return to this material and give it a more realistic, darker feel to it? Put that thought on hold for a bit, because I'm going to come back to it. As far now, we have to talk about this movie, which surrounds the fictional character named, not Harry Powers, but Harry Powell. Guess what he does? Yup. He goes around killing women for their money. At least that's his goal in this movie. And he's learned of $10,000 that he's absolutely dead set on owning.

In the movie, Powell is portrayed by actor Robert Mitchum and is a rather happy, jovial fellow. In fact, he's actually a minister and has convinced himself that God is OK with murder because murder happens in the Bible. I mean, there's moments in the Bible where God commands his people to kill others. That means murder is good, right? Well... uhhh... wrong. But crazy people often need justification like that in order to convince themselves that what they're doing is right. So it makes sense. We learn all this at the beginning of the movie when Powell is alone in a car talking out loud to himself, God, the camera, or all of the above. It's the movie's way of delivering the necessary exposition so they can dive right into this story without wasting any time. Shortly after this, Powell gets arrested for burglary, a crime that the real Harry Powers also served time for 10 years before his conviction and hanging. It's in prison where the fictional Harry Powell happens to come across a man talking in his sleep about $10,000 he stole and gave to his kids, demanding secrecy from them. So when Powell gets out of prison, off to that family he goes. To marry the wife and do his absolute best to get the money from the kids. Which turns out to be harder than he initially planned on due to the praiseworthy stubbornness of the young boy.

The interesting thing that I found about this movie is that the setup of the film is not really dark or scary in terms of the tone and feel. It almost starts off as quite the opposite, that being light and happy. Which then catches you off guard when you hear what this guy is actually saying and the dread sets in without the movie even having to pound that dread in with music, lighting or camera work. If this guy hadn't admitted to being a serial killer, perhaps he would've even been a character worth caring about. The thing is, while we as an audience know his secret right off the bat, no one around him knows the secret, which makes you scream inside your head as this happy, lovable preacher starts introducing himself to everyone and eventually marrying this girl. I was genuinely terrified, yet I fully understood why everyone else made the decision to put their complete faith in this man. I mean, a happy, lovable minister is always someone worth trusting, right? I was on the edge of my seat for most of the first third of the movie as this creep moves his way into this family's life. The horrific anticipation of knowing something awful is about to happen is a rather suspenseful feeling, which is perfect for this time of year. We all love being scared at Halloween.

You'll note, though, that I said I was on the edge of my seat for most of the first third of the movie. I don't want to give too much away in case there are others reading this who, like me last week, haven't actually seen this movie. But the movie is essentially a three act story. I don't know what the time proportions are, but there are definitely three distinct parts. The first part of this film is what I have been describing to you. This is the horror of knowing that something awful is going to happen as this man gets closer and closer to achieving his goal. But for me personally, the movie didn't quite hit the levels of fear that I thought it was building to. There's definitely an overhanging sense of dread in the second and third parts of the movie, but I found myself a lot less interested in what was actually happening. I wanted the movie to unleash all of its terror and dread on me, but I felt like the director either made the choice to purposely hold back or didn't quite have the creative liberty at the time to do so. Thus we are left with a movie that, while still satisfying enough in the end, did come off as a bit cartoonish if you will. Certain aspects of the movie wouldn't have transpired the way they did, I didn't think. And they absolutely didn't when you look at the real story of Harry Powers.

With this in mind, I got to thinking what the movie could've been like had it been made in 2017. Actually, that's a lie. While watching this movie with a group of friends, the comment was posed that there's no other movie like this one. I took that as a challenge and, after much thought, it connected with me that Harry Powell reminded me a lot of Jake Gyllenhaal's character in "Nightcrawler" and Rosamund Pike's character in "Gone Girl." Three very different movies, thus the comment might stand of "The Night of the Hunter" itself being a unique film, but the characters themselves and the motivations behind what they do connected in my mind. And it's that connection that got me to thinking that a modern-day version of "The Night of the Hunter" has the potential to be absolutely insane with the right cast and crew. I know this might sound blasphemous. But if Wikipedia is correct (it never lies!), then this is a movie that inspired a lot of modern-day directors who have gone onto make absolutely terrifying thrillers. If "The Night of the Hunter" was their inspiration, then perhaps this has the proper elements to be remade into a modern film where the director has the liberty to do such things that would've gotten Laughton hanged in 1955.

Maybe it's because "Gone Girl" was the first movie I came up with when seeking comparisons to "The Night of the Hunter," but when I was contemplating the proper director for my remake, David Fincher was the name that seemed perfect. In addition to "Gone Girl," he's also made movies like "Se7en" and "Zodiac" that proves he has the thriller genre down pat. I believe that he would do "The Night of the Hunter" complete justice with his version. He could give it the modern grit and tone to please today's audiences while still being faithful to the original film. I also came up with a cast that I would love to see, which includes Jake Gyllenhaal as Harry Powell, Armie Hammer and Michelle Williams as our original couple Ben and Willa Harper, with Jaeden Lieberher and McKenna Grace as the two kids. I feel this is a cast that would deliver absolute power to these roles, especially with Fincher directing them. I don't have my exact script hammered out in my head, but it would be dark and intense. Perhaps we could even go back to the original source material by telling the true story of Harry Powers. Or maybe a combination of the real story and the fictional version. I don't know. Maybe you hate me right now for suggesting this, but I think it could work.

The point of all this is, while I honestly did enjoy myself in "The Night of the Hunter," I think the intensity was turned down quite a bit from what it could've been, perhaps due to restrictions based on what 1955 audiences could handle. While it's very true that I'm not an expert on classic cinema from this age, thus making me not the most qualified person to review this movie, thrillers are my thing. It's my favorite genre. When I compare "The Night of the Hunter" to other thrillers that I've seen, I didn't get quite the thrill out of it that I was expecting or hoping for. The first act was solid, but it got a bit cartoonish at times, wandered around through the second act and perhaps went on a little further than it needed to in the third act in terms of the story (not the run time of the movie). Perhaps it's unfair to compare it to modern-day thrillers like "Gone Girl" or "Nightcrawler." But I think a comparison to Hitchcock's films are absolutely on the table. Movies like "Psycho," "Rear Window," "Vertigo" and "The Birds" are a lot more refined, intense, terrifying and boundary-pushing. Even with that said, "The Night of the Hunter" is still a solid film and might even be perfect if you like your thrillers a bit more toned down. My grade for it is still an 8/10 despite what I've said.