review by Julie Patron
The Night of the Hunter 1955
Watched Jul 10, 2012
Julie’s review:
While watching The Night of the Hunter, I was repeatedly reminded of Antichrist; I'm still not entirely sure that's a valid comparison, but it's what I thought of. I think there are some very superficial similarities - the beautiful, dream/nightmare-like expressionist style, the detailed shots of animals. But I also think that The Night of the Hunter seemed like a horror movie in the way that Antichrist was a horror movie - not a traditional one, but one that is still very much so, at its core. I think I was even more disturbed by The Night of the Hunter, which did not rely on shock for its horror.
I found this film to be strangely terrifying. The picture is told mostly from the point of view of a little boy whose father robbed a bank and was hanged for the crime. Robert Mitchum, as the man who shared a cell with the boy's father and learned that the father hid the money, is an imposing, menacing presence. Others have pointed out the dreamlike/fairytale nature of the film, but all I felt was a childlike identification with the boy, and the pure desire to get away from that man.
And wow, Lillian Gish.
Also, that was an interesting string of movies - three films in a row in which a character manipulates religion to cover up, justify, or conceal murder.
I like it when people command me to watch a film because it saves me from having to make a decision in my life. Done!
Good lad ;)
This dissaponted me like no other film has. No tension whatsoever......found Mitchum to be unintentionally funny.
Did you watch it recently, or in 1955? ;) kidding. That's interesting, although I didn't feel that way. Even though I knew that there was no way the kids would actually be killed, my rational brain forgot that throughout. I think, also, that seeing the film mostly from the perspective of the boy made it easier to find Mitchum scary.
I felt similar to Thomas. Mitchum's character is so great but I didn't feel much tension or fright, not nearly what I expected. Maybe it was because I watched it recently, not in 1955, which is an interesting topc of discussion for a lot of old movies. For me there was a lot of mood missing, but I should probably give it another try.
Good point. I agree to a certain extent; when we've reached a time of movie villains the likes of Frank Booth, John Doe, and Anton Chigurrh, Mitchum's character can seem more tame by comparison. I also think that any suspense/thriller/horror depends on how much you can identify with the victim. Even though I found the wedding night and subsequent scene horrifying, I found myself wishing that the actress playing the mother was a better actress, because I thought it would have given those scenes an even greater impact. Interesting you thought that there was mood missing though; I didn't see that.
P.S. Sorry for the delay I was out of town!
Sure, he might have been scary in 1955, but the quality of a film should, in part, be judged on how well it holds up many years later.
Yup, well that's the point on which we disagree - I think that he still is scary, and I think that the film does hold up today.
When I read you review, it made me interested about this movie, and then I found him in the The Essentials: Noir and I decided to watch. I think your comparison with The Antichrist is valid, there is a bit of an spicy irony in The Night of the Hunter about the goodness of the Christian God and the evil inside the people this same god created. However, I watched von Trier's long time ago and can't say much more, but something in the aesthetic choices, specially in the Gothic light might be another point of similarity.
I'm glad my review intrigued you, I'm very much looking forward to reading your review. Interested to see if you'll think it holds up or not. Thanks for backing me up on Antichrist =)