Margo - help - Night of the Hunter

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:25pm

Maybe you can help me, here. joeyjoe and I rented Night of the Hunter this evening and after hearing all my life how wonderful this film is - I was stupified. Lillian Gish is the only performer in the film who gave a realistic performance - everyone else was over the top and though the story WAS a good one, I wonder why it garnered so much praise. Margo, please - can you enlighten me? There WERE some suspenseful moments, but so many bad "takes" by the actors and Robert Mitchum was not the least bit menacing....I'd like to hear your take on the film.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:30pm

Redhot, why don't you want my opinion on the film?

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:33pm

Sorry, my dearest Matt - I didn't want to take you away from all your Brooklyn shilling - but yes indeed - your opinion DOES matter - so, sweetums - tell me...

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:34pm

I don't know, I never saw it.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:36pm

you silly tease- getting me all riled up like that - and by the way - are you referring to Night of the Hunter, or Brooklyn?LOL

[Ebonic_Singer]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:36pm

Haha. matt you are one funny fella.

[MusicMan]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:37pm

Directed by Charles Laughton, TNOTH is presented in a manner very reminiscent of German expressionism with highly stylized production values, sets and performances. Which is completely befitting this Southern gothic tale of love and lust.

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:37pm

Either, actually.

But one of those is on my list of things to see. Can you guess which one?!?!?

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:40pm

Alright Possum, I'll play along - is it Night of the Hunter, by chance?

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:41pm

Hey, very good! 10 points for Redhot! (And 5 for JoeyJoe, just because)

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:44pm

I shall accept our 15 (combined) points!..hmmm - that calls for some pumpkin heaven!

[Matt_G]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:44pm

Stop it! I just had ice cream and now you're gonna make me go BACK to the fridge???

EVIL, YOU ARE!! PURE DELICIOUS EVIL!

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 9:49pm

Thank you, Possum...you have figured out my REAL name - Pure Delicious Evil!!...and on that note, I must haul my sorry, tired ass off to beddybye, so that I may look refreshed and peachy in the AM...
Adieu - parting is such sweet sorrow!
(joeyjoe says goodnight also!)

[Pip]

Posted: 9/9/04 at 10:41pm

I bought a cast recording of The Night of the Hunter (the musical) awhile back...and it seems kind of odd and incomplete. I like some of it, but this thread made me wonder if the musical is based on the movie or what?

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/10/04 at 9:59pm

bump

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 9/10/04 at 10:04pm

bump, bump, bump, bump, bump it up ( I don't know what possessed me to write that, but.........what can I do? )

Posted: 9/10/04 at 10:15pm

What's to bump?

NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, the musical, is indeed a version of the film.

There was a workshop production in NYC a number of years ago starring Carolee Carmello.

[SamIAm]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 9:30am

My brief weigh in, although I am obviously NOT Margo. This was a purposefully and completely stylized production and considered very 'artistic' for its time. Meant to look and feel melodramatic and praised by some because of that very stylized feel.

I might also note that many films of that time were produced and directed in a style that would be laughed out of the theater today. The techniques used ranged from stiff, flat line delivery in some films, to sweet syrupy music overlays to engender emotional responses. Relationships were rarely believable and the research on professional jobs (like lawyers and psychiatrists) was pitifully absent in a lot of cases, making the storylines dated and laughable today.

But there are films that stand out for their meticulous preparation and more believable production and direction values. I think, because we have changed our expectations of film so much over the past 2-3 decades, it is hard to revisit some of these with the same passion. Compare 'Cape Fear' with Mitchum with DeNiro's 'Cape Fear' performance and tell me which is more frightening. BUT if that film had been produced that way in Mitchum's day, audiences would have been totally overwhelmed. It was a more innocent time and one in which 'art' was seen in a very different way.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 4:44pm

I can certainly appreciate the artistic endeavor to create the film - but what I find so odd is the fact that Lillian Gish gives such a naturalistic performance, and everyone else in the film is so "over the top", it just makes me sort of sit there and go "Huh?"

[SamIAm]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 4:54pm

I do agree with you that her performance seems somewhat out of sync but perhaps Gish (who was seen as exotic and stylized anyway) was thought to be over the top enough as she was.

Her performance did stand out because of the difference in approach but then from what I know of the Gish legend she did her own thing and wasn't inclined to change it because of a different in the tone of the direction or the piece.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 5:00pm

Thank you, Sam - that's very insightful - I didn't know that much about Lillian Gish - but I find her performance the best thing about the film.

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 7:02pm

I think SamIAm mostly covered this already, but "Night of the Hunter" was a highly stylized neo-noir film which was very experimental for its time -- so much so that it flopped at the box office, was panned by many critics and ended Charles Laughton's directing career before it even began. I think you and JoeyJoe were disappointed because you were expecting something completely different from what Laughton was trying to achieve. It's not supposed to be scary or naturalistic -- there's too much of an undercurrent of humor, even camp, for it to be that (remember that Laughton was a rather flamboyant closeted gay man and the film in some ways reflects his larger-than-life personality).

Agee wrote this film to be a sort of child's nightmare of being chased by a bogeyman in the dark. Laughton employs some of the techniques of 20's German expressionism, as well as 40's film noir to give the film a sort of overheated through-the-looking glass quality, an ethereal absurd fantasy, full of symbolism and potent images, just like a particularly vivid dream.

The acting is intentionally over-the-top at times in keeping with the overall style of Agee's premise and Laughton's sensibility. Mitchum gives the most dynamic and out of character performance of his entire career. Known for being mostly somber and wooden in nearly all of his other films, here, he's playing a child's vision of the bogeyman, speaking in a cartoon southern drawl, bugging out his eyes, and overemoting all over the place, you all but expect him to look into the camera and yell "Boo!" Shelley Winters is the very picture of downtrodden and bedraggled domesticity. Gish is a sort of grounding influence on the film, the symbol of pure good in contrast to Mitchum's vision of evil, and her more modulated realistic performance is intentional (ironic considering her background as a silent movie queen -- one would think she'd be more over the top than the rest).

The cinematography and art direction are stunning making the overall experience of this film a unique and powerful one. It's a dark fairy tale laced with camp and humor -- if you watch it with that in mind, I think your experience with it will be much better.

Updated On: 9/12/04 at 07:02 PM

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 7:15pm

Margo, we've been waiting for you... i remember seeing this film several years ago, but only catching the last half or so, so this was the first time i had seen the film from beginning to end... the one thing i loved was the atmosphere created by the sets and by the music... some of the sets seemed liked the came straight from a stage, and there was a lot of cathedral imagery created by shadows, especially in the bedroom scenes... the acting makes more sense from your explanation... as soon as redhot finishes rehearsing his show behind me, i'll show him your response...

[MargoChanning]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 7:37pm

Your point about it looking exactly like a stage production at times is an excellent one. The control Laughton and his cinematographers had over each and every shot and "picture" was remaarkable -- there were effects you normally could only achieve in a theatre (and that was intentional). I remember being struck by the catheral image of the shot where Shelley Winters in praying in the attic -- simply gorgeous.

There's so much I could write about this film (though I haven't seen it in a few years). It's truly an anomaly -- there's no other picture quite like it, either before or since, which is why it often defies people's expectations and assumptions of what kind of film it's trying to be (you're not the first to be confused and disappointed by it). That it was Laughton's only film is a crime. His work on this film reminds me of James Whale (another closeted, but flamboyant gay British director), in that it takes a well-established genre (here the "thriller;" with Whale, the horror movie -- Frankensein, Bride of Frankenstein and The Old Dark House) and turns it on its head, imposing a subtle gay/camp sensibility to the proceedings (think of that crazy queen Ernest Thesiger who plays Dr. Pretorius in "Bride"). Nicholas Ray was another one who imposes that sensibility on genre pictures (the lesbian overtones in his western "Johnny Guitar"; the obvious sexual tension between Sal Mineo and James Dean in the classic teen rebel picture "Rebel Without A Cause").

"Night of the Hunter" doesn't easily fit into any of the established genre categories, because there's absolutely nothing about it that is formulaic or by-the numbers -- it's a unique achievement by Laughton (too bad he didn't live long enough to see it rediscovered and acclaimed).

Updated On: 9/11/04 at 07:37 PM

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 9/11/04 at 9:21pm

Well, my dear Margo - I knew you would be the bearer of helpful knowledge. I actually liked many things about the film and shared joeyjoe's admiration for the cinematography, lighting and design. It simply made me curious (and thats not a bad way to feel after a viewing, now is it?) I've not been exposed to anything else starring Mitchum or a young Shelley Winters...and only recognized Lillian by her famous face in the opening shots where she is reading to the children. I was surprised at the realism of her acting, as compared to everyone else in the film, and for some reason, it confused me and made me question what the director was going for. Had I a better knowledge of German espressionism, I might have viewed it for what it was.
Thank you again for the wonderful commentary. Do you do this for a living?LOL... we love you!