(Charles Laughton, 1955)
(essay by Troy)
I’ll be back…when it’s dark
Such a line speaks to the deep rooted and irrational fears that all children have of the night, a time when they feel alone, unprotected, and at their most vulnerable. It’s the time when the mythical boogeyman goes about terrorizing the young. Building from this archetype is Charles Laughton’s The Night of the Hunter, creating an all-too-real boogeyman in the form of Robert Mitchum’s monstrous wolf in sheep’s clothing, Reverend Harry Powell. As elemental a horror story as one can come up with, it’s core is simplicity, the story of two children constantly on the run from the intimidating Powell, desperately searching for refuge. It’s themes are universal; the fundamental battle of good versus evil, the duality of man (hammered home with the “love” and “hate” that our evil preacher has tattooed on his hands), and the need for children to be protected from the predators of the world, lest they be eaten up. It’s part Biblical allegory and part Grimm Brother’s fairy tale, viewed through the prism of the Depression era Deep South.
Brother and sister John and Pearl Harper’s father goes to prison, but not before giving them a large sum of money he stole and swearing them to keep its location a secret. While in prison, he is a cellmate with murderous preacher Harry Powell. Powell discovers that the money has been hidden with the Harper family and upon his release he seeks out children’s mother, Willa, and woos her in order to get access to it. Of course, he soon finds out that only the children know of its whereabouts. Thus begins the psychological mind games as Powell attempts to gain control of Willa, John, and Pearl in an effort to find the money.
The Night of the Hunter was the lone film directed by famed actor Charles Laughton. It’s too bad that he never got another shot behind the camera (the film was a financial and critical failure on release) because Laughton, along with DP Stanley Cortez, obviously had a great eye for mesmerizing black and white visuals, creating scene after scene of amazingly shot and memorably staged moments. Both men show an indebtedness to the Gothic nature of the silent German expressionist films (specifically those of F.W. Murneau) and enhance it with the lighting and cinematographic styles that came with film noir, while setting it in the most Gothic of American settings, the Deep South. It’s the rarest of beasts – the Gothic expressionistic film noir fairy tale.
Key to the German films Laughton drew from was the evocation of a dreamlike feeling. During the sequence of the children rowing down the river, the artifice of the entire setpiece creates an intentionally surreal vision complete with foregrounded frogs, rabbits, and cobwebs to evoke this dream state. Later, when the children seek refuge, a house and barn are seen silhouetted against the starry sky, shaped and angled such that they lose all semblance of reality. Elsewhere, other aspects of the German style are used to create a consistent sense of disjunction and unease — the angular nature of Willa’s bedroom (with its angular, skylighted ceiling that feels straight from a Gothic church or The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari), the wide shot of Powell on a horse in silhouette (reminiscent of a Horseman of the Apocalypse), and the general use of Dutch and low-angled shots. The film noir influences are most notable in the lighting, used to create shadows upon the character’s faces, as well as the silhouette effect mentioned above (and in some crowd scenes Laughton and Cortez completely obscure entire rows of faces in darkness).
It all works towards crafting several enduring scenes that carry a disturbing sense of dread. In addition to the aforementioned moments, there is also Powell hovering over Willa’s prone body with his knife, the struggle between Powell and the children in the basement and the “now you see him, now you don’t” moment near film’s end that also includes another amazing silhouette of Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish) in a rocking chair holding a shotgun. Most elegiac and eerily poetic, though, is the haunting sequence where we see Willa’s dead body at the bottom of a lake, the shot lingering on her as her hair waves through the water like the plants that surround her.
While the film’s status as a “true” horror film can somewhat rest upon the technical aspects, without Mitchum’s perfect portrayal of Powell, it wouldn’t have near as much power. Mitchum makes Powell so obviously evil to the viewer yet he provides him with his natural charisma, adding a snake oil salesman’s tongue that makes it abundantly clear how he can con the locals of the town. His psychotic menacing of the children and the psychological and physical harm he heaps on poor Willa (and between this and Lolita, you have to feel sorry for the abuse heaped on the poor characters of Shelley Winters) are disturbingly sinister. Mitchum is sure to leave just enough realism in his generally over-the-top performance (just try not to laugh during the scene where he hoots and hollers after being filled with buckshot by Cooper) that he’s not merely a totemic representation of primitive evil ala slasher icon Michael Myers, but provides a good deal of depth, creating a plausible presence that is symbolic of the manipulation and abuse that can stem from authoritative parental and religious figures.
But perhaps most memorable and disturbing is simply the way that Mitchum conveys his demented musings in his Southern backwoods drawl, whether as he soliloquies with God,
Well, now. What’s it to be, Lord, another widow? How many’s it been, six? Twelve? I disremember. Lord, I am tired. Sometimes I wonder if You really understand. Not that you mind the killings! There’s plenty of killings in your book, Lord.
threateningly calls out for the children,
Chiiilll… dren!
destroys the psyche of his new wife,
Get up. Now go look at yourself yonder in that mirror. Do as I say. Look at yourself. What do you see, girl? You see the body of a woman, the temple of creation and motherhood. You see the flesh of Eve that man since Adam has profaned. That body was meant for begettin’ children. It was not meant for the lust of men! Do you want more children, Willa?
or ominously conveys a message that we know the true meaning of.
She’ll not be back. I reckon I’m safe in promising you that.
Of all his speaking moments, none reaches the height of his dark rendering of “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.”
Leeeeeaning, leaning
There’s a palpable feeling in the way he sings these words that conveys a frightening menace and power, the twisted feeling of conviction that he carries with him and uses to justify is terrible actions. That juxtaposition gets to the root of the perverse and sick nature that compose what a true monster is made of.
(See more screencaps at Troy’s blog, here)
(this film appeared on Troy’s list at #4 and Jamie’s at #21)













One of my ten favorite movies ever. I just can’t under any circumstance see this as a horror film. I know that my definition of this wonderful picture as film noir is also debated by many. I just think that if not film noir, than it’s more of a psychological gothic melodrama in the vein of Rebecca or Gaslight. I guess we can argue these things all day…..
I tried to point toward why I think it can be considered horror with the whole tie-in to Powell as bogeyman and how that can be considered a horror archetype. I’ll agree that this is one of those films that I could go either way on, but it still hits enough of the feelings of horror that I outlined waaaaay back when we started this that I am comfortable considering it as such.
‘psychological gothic melodrama’, which means Bergman’s HOUR OF THE WOLF is a ‘psychological gothic art-film’, THE SHINING is a ‘psychological marriage crisis melodrama’, and ROSEMARY’S BABY is a ‘psychological satan-impregnating supernatural thriller’ and none are then Horror films. Sheesh….
Anyways, I like this film too. That Preacher is a real iconic character, and that underwater scene… ohhhh.
My question to you Jamie…… is Rebecca and Gaslight horror? I see The Night Of The Hunter having way more in common with those films than The Shining, Rosemary’s Baby or Night Of The Demon. Gothic Melodrama is a real sub genre unlike those wannabe clever titles you try to designate above. Besides in my personal opinion Hunter is 100% film noir and deserves to sit alongside The Killers, The Big Sleep, Sweet Smell Of Success and other movies in that respective genre. I just never considered it horror or ever recall hearing anyone else mention it as such. Hey it makes sense to lift your preferred genre to higher ground by including this 5 star classic. Any group of films with this Laughton masterpiece entrenched within it’s cannon receives more esteem. As a noir addict though I want it batting cleanup exclusively in my favorite genre. Sorry but Hunter has a no trade clause………
)
It looks like Criterion is classifying it as a horror film
http://www.criterion.com/films/27525-the-night-of-the-hunter
Hey, I understand want to claim it for the genre you value the most — it’s part of the reason I was so excited to put it on my list. I think we can all agree that regardless of the genre it’s part of, it’s one of the greatest films of all-time.
Oh, and I could work at making a claim for REBECCA and GASLIGHT as horror films due to their Gothic/thriller aspects, just as I could for SHOCK CORRIDOR due to the paranoia/man going crazy aspect. But that wouldn’t convince you anymore, now would it
(The whole thriller/horror movie difference is razor thin at times — when I get home tonight I’ll have to dig up something I read about the difference in my Horror Encyclopedia and post it here)
Great not only does Troy write awesome essays but he comes up with kick ass rebuttals in the comments section as well. Damn Criterion and their classifications (I still don’t see it)……..
Maurizio I do definitely see your point, though I would dare say this film could qualify in countdowns for the following genres:
noir
fantasy
horror
gothic melodrama
You are NOT wrong to have counted it as noir. I’d say the majority would answer with that if forced to decide, but horror would be the second genre with the most advocates. Hence, it’s well placed here.
As you will be doing the site’s film noir countdown months down the road, I do expect it will place highly on that one as well.
exactly, films can be ‘_____ AND _____’, it’s not, ‘this film is ______ OR ______’.
A book as general and generic as ’501 Must See Films’ places it in the Horror section. It, like most great films defies and defines convention and classification. It does scare though, which is how I define Horror.
Nice plug Sam. God you are smooth……. I need some of that in my DNA. I couldn’t sell water to a dehydrated man in the sahara……
LOL Maurizio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I also want to point out that while little children seem to ruin most older films they appear in, Pearl does a magnificent job in this one. She really works and has such an odd presence throughout the movie. I think after Robert Mitchum she is the next best thing throughout.
There’s something about Pearl’s perfectly round face and pigtails that creates that odd presence you mention. The chemistry between Mitchum and the kids is great. Apparently Laughton hated directing the kid actors, so I wonder if Mitchum worked directly with them for some of those scenes.
Yeah I just want to pinch her cheeks and scream out YOUR SO CUTE!!!! Of course she’s like 62 years old by now…… her voice is very distinctive as well.
What about To Kill A Mockingbird – the novel and the movie – the narration from a child’s perspective and the wonderful performances from the two kids?
You know Tony it has been a while since I’ve seen that one. I barely remember it. I was just thinking of how much better The Gunfighter would be without Ringo’s annoying son. Since we are on a horror poll I’m also remembering the girl in The Body Snatcher who refused to walk. I guess acting schools for kids didn’t really exist back then. 310 To Yuma, with Van Heflin’s sons also grates. There are many examples, though also a bunch that could disprove my theory….. Pearl being a wonderful one.
Count me in on TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD, one of my most beloved films (and one I have a special place in my heart for as I’ve used it in classrooms since my student teaching days) The performances were magical.
well, apart from ‘Mockingbird, there’s ‘A Tree Grows in Brooklyn’, ‘The Window’, ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’, ‘The Fallen Idol’, ‘The Yearling’ and ‘Shane’. I think it’s pretty much to do with the sensibilities of a director, rather than the acting ability of a generation. The one that grates for me is ‘The Day the Earth Stood Still’ – way too clean, prim and proper
THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL’s version of justice is also way too clean, prim, and proper.
Bobby J brings up another great example in The Fallen Idol.
Probably the biggest exception I can think of are Ozu’s films in the early 30s – just astonishingly naturalistic performances by the kids.
“setting it in the most Gothic of American settings, the Deep South. It’s the rarest of beasts – the Gothic expressionistic film noir fairy tale.”
Absolutely! And this does qualify for a number of genres including horror, largely as Troy point out in this spectacular review because of Mitchum’s terrifying performance.
Like Maurizio, I adore this film in every sense and simply cannot wait for the Criterion blu-ray coming out next month!
What a wonderful surprise!
Incidentally folks, Tony d’Ambra at FILMSNOIR.NET has come down firmly on the side of GOTHIC MELODRAMA in his superlative review here:
http://filmsnoir.net/film_noir/the-night-of-the-hunter-1955-not-noir.html
….but he does note that the film contains many noirish elements. Hence the waters are muddied even more. I do think the horror placement is quite persuasive.
Yeah I read Tony’s wonderful review. His views on what is and isn’t noir are much stricter than mine. I actually view noir primarily as a visual style before anything else. Obviously there are some thematic similarities that need to be adhered to in order to qualify (or else something as unnoir as Casablanca might sneak in just on it’s mise en scene alone) as part of the greater whole. I have debated if my list should be only B/W 1941-58 films or encompass more modern neo noirs as well. It would be more fun and surprising to have the post Touch Of Evil movies get consideration. Others have already made more pure lists on other sites…. I think a mish mash of different era’s would be more fun….
It’s a tough call Maurizio, but I would myself probably favor the neo-noir inclusions. I loved what Dave Hicks did, but from just reading your regular comments at the site, I know you will have a considerably different value judgement aesthetic, which has me already intrigued!
I like having broader definitions of genres, as I think we’ve aimed to do. It makes for some fun surprising and lively debate and allows you to not have to stick to the same old standbys all the time.
So I say go with the neo-noir and mix the eras up.
Yeah it also makes the list more unpredictable. While like Tony I have certain personal guidelines on what I consider true noir (no color films, nothing after 58, no Hitchcock) a fusion of noir/neo noir countdown will probably be much more fun.
Thanks guys.
Maurizio, I agree my criteria are tighter, but in some cases certainly open to debate, and my reasons are sometimes nebulous at best – more from a feeling than from applying a template. I admit I am a ‘classicist’ but I would extend the classic cycle to the early 60s with Fuller’s The Naked Kiss as the cut-off.
Nice analysis. Did you notice that Demi Moore’s recent film The Joneses has a big Night of the Hunter reference when a character commits suicide in a pool, and is found underwater sitting tied to a riding mower? Willa’s death never got so odd a tribute, I thought.
Haha. That’s great.
A truly great essay Troy. Your insights into the river sequence are real revelations for me.
As Sam mentions (he really is the most loyal and generous friend!), I don’t consider Hunter a noir but it is arguable, as is the horror angle, which I consider tenuous.
I think the contributions of DP Stanly Cortez and scenarist James Agee should be acknowledged also. Speaking of Cortez, who worked on Sam Fuller’s The Naked Kiss and Shock Corridor – does the latter movie qualify as horror?
Wow, thanks Tony. I actually struggled a bit in describing that river scene and exactly what feelings it evokes — there’s a semblance to it that reminds me of something I’ve seen or heard in the past that I can’t quite place my finger on (some strange concoction of moments taken from cartoons, theme park ride, children’s story books, silent film, and film noir) so classifying it as a “dream” is the only thing that really pulls it all together for me.
One thing I failed to mention is that the mood is enhanced with the lullaby like song that Pearl sings as they float along.
I also think that dreamy boat ride with edits of various animals has an almost Malick vibe to it……..
I did manage to mention Cortez, though perhaps he deserves more — I always struggle as to how to seperate the contributions from DP and director when I write reviews. As for Agee, agreed — he deserves an acknowledgment.
I find SHOCK CORRIDOR firmly entrenched as noir/mystery, though it does dip its toe in some paranoiac moods that I would consider horrific and has an ending straight out of dozens of horror movies. I didn’t consider it for this list as it never struck me as horror, but if one wanted to make the case for why it’s horror for them, I’d listen.
Sorry Troy. I made the error – conflating Laughton and Cortez in your review. I should have double-checked. I usually check by doing a Find in my browser. Your recognition was more than adequate.
A great consideration of what is possibly my favorite movie (and one that I definitely consider to be a horror film). It’s interesting…the old MGM DVD was presented in what I assumed to be the open matte negative, and the specs on the new Criterion suggest that it will be in the cropped 1.66 that was presented theatrically. I have no idea if Laughton (and Cortez) composed with widescreen or the academy ratio in mind, but it will be very interesting to compare the two versions.
Hmm, didn’t know about this being released in widescreen with the Criterion release. Will anxiously await the changes that brings to the compositions.
One of the most gorgeous films in cinema history and yet on my first viewing I was disappointed. The cinematography and visual conception was tremendous, which I fully expected, but the screenplay seemed uneven and the ending anticlimactic, which I had not expected. Still there are other films where I can overlook dramatic flaws in favor of visual style; so I’m not sure why it bothered me here. I’ll have to watch it again at any rate; for some reason I didn’t really think of it as a horror film yet it slots into that genre more obviously than some of the other offbeat selections, so in retrospect I’m not surprised to see it here.
“(and between this and Lolita, you have to feel sorry for the abuse heaped on the poor characters of Shelley Winters)”
Not to mention A Place in the Sun!
Maurizio, noir/neonoir would be interesting but I’d just as much (maybe more) like to read a strict noir countdown from you too, going by your tightest criteria…
Absolutely love this film – one of my all time favorite films from childhood. It not only spooked me as a kid but also elicited one of my earliest realizations that, “Wow…FILM IS ART.”
Great screen caps…the one that will always haunt me is the revelation of what’s at the bottom of the lake.
Upon seasonal re-watches, things that do bug me now are the stilted performances of the children, the over-acting of Lillian Gish, and the all-too-happy ending.
But why let a few quibbles ruin a memory of Mitchum-dread and American Gothic imagery that will last forever?
I couldn’t agree with this choice more. Along with Stanley Kubrick’s THE SHINING, Dario Argento’s SUSPIRIA, Coppola’s DRACULA and the ultimate, Murnau’s NOSFERATU, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER stands tall as one of the most visually elaborate and arresting horror films ever made. Each scene (or, for that matter, frame) of this film is composed as if painted on to screen by Whistler. Its horrific tendency works in perfect juxtapose to the etheral beauty first time director Laughton infuses like a thread in a delicate tapestry woven by an Amish farmer. Add to the mix a titanic performance of hellish intimidation and manical menace by the superb Robert Mitchum (his finest moment on screen) you come up with a film that not only dazzles the eye but chills you to the bone. Its Laughtons only film behind the camera, but I dare say, he had nothing more to prove after making this film. Superb essay by TROY.
Noir? Horror? If my opinion means anything, then I look aty it this way: NIGHT OF THE HUNTER frightened me. So… Tadaaaaa! HORROR FILM. LOL, I’m easy. As for Stanley Cortez, this could be his most visually sunptuous film since he composed the visuals for Welles masterpiece THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS. As for Gish over-acting. I say nay, she’s playing it just like the storybook character in a childrens tale. Most of Grims work was beautiful with a fine line of ugliness underneath. Gish, in her overflowing love for life nailed the emotional innards of a figure one step out of heaven. Her expertise in physical performance back in0the days of classic silent film was probably not a coincidence of casting for this film. Laughton made a near perfect film here, as such I feel he would take no chances, particularly in his actors as he was a great one himself…