The Night of the Hunter review

 Number 211 on the top 1000 films of all time is Charles Laughton's film-noir thriller 'the Night of the Hunter.'

Ben Harper (Robert Graves) is a bank-robber who killed two people before escaping with $10,000. He hides the money and makes his two small children John (Billy Chapin) and Pearl (Sally Jane Bruce) promise to never reveal the location. However, he is then caught and sent to death-row. Before his execution, he tells the preacher-disguised serial killer Harry Powell (Robert Mitchum) about the money, although he doesn't reveal the exact location. Powell then visits Harper's family in his hometown in the hopes of finding the money. Although he quickly wins over the town and Harper's wife, his children remain distrustful of him.

Upon its initial release, the Night of the Hunter was so negatively reviewed that Charles Laughton never directed another film again. Although its critical evaluation has immensely improved in modern times, I do think this is great shame. The Night of the Hunter reminded me of the best of the old German expressionist films of old particularly Fritz Lang's M. This wasn't an accident either as Laughton gave the film a deliberate expressionist style.

 He deliberately employed the harsh lighting and strong shadows you would often see in expressionism. Much of the set design was also incredibly simplistic and minimalist. One of my favourite shots was when you see Powell's silhouette on the Harper children's bedroom wall. You only see the shape of his hat, but it was still incredibly sinister.

Robert Mitchum was also well-known for starring in film noir roles before he achieved mainstream success. From Undercurrent to the Locket to Pursued and Where Danger Rules, he has played a variety of roles. And he was the perfect fit for the duplicitous Harry Powell. He was charismatic enough to win over not only Harper's entire home-town, but also Harper's widow. And not only does he win her over, but he manipulates her into becoming his greatest acolyte. When Powell refuses to consumate their marriage, she starts believing that her soul needs to be redeemed and starts joining him in his preaching missions. Yet all of Powell's charisma was not enough to win over Harper's children.

However, I do think that the film's ending severely let it down. Everything changed from a tense, scary horror noir to a borderline Christmas film. All the suspense dissolved into unnecessary sentimentality and sweetness. Spoilers to follow.

After exposing Powell, John and Pearl run away from their home town where they take refuge with a woman called Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish) a tough-as-nails badass who looks after troubled children. When Powell follows them there, Cooper fires a shotgun full of birdshot into his face. She holds him off long enough for the police to arrive and arrest Powell. Afterwards, Christmas comes and John and Pearl join Cooper's brood of lost children. They all live happily ever after. Although Cooper was only a supporting role, I thought she was a great character. It was brilliant seeing a female character having that much agency especially in a 1950's film.

But at the end of the day, 'The Night of the Hunter' is a thriller. It should be suspenseful from start-to-finish and this ending killed the suspense. Okay, it's nice to know that the Harper children finally get to have a normal life after their traumatic ordeals, but this could have just been implied. We didn't need to get a whole Christmas special.

Nonetheless, I did enjoy this film. I do think it's such a shame that Laughton didn't make anymore films. Such a waste of potential.

Review for M

So number 62 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1931 German drama-thriller M.

Set in Berlin, Germany, Hans Beckert, (Peter Lorre) a peadophile and child killer is on the prowl.  After the police are unable to stop him, the citizens led by crime bosses band together.

This film is a great exploration of mob psychology and vigilante justice.  After it becomes obvious that the police aren't going to do anything, the people take the law into their own hands.  There is something poetical in how it is crime bosses who are leading the charge in catching this killer, as if they are any better than him.  Although their motivations for doing so make sense.  They want to stop this killer, as he is driving away business.  To catch him, they use the city's homeless population is used.

When a blind beggar recognises the familiar whistle of Hans Beckert, the people take him to stand trail at a Kangaroo Court that is strongly biased against him.  The jury are the townspeople and the judges are the criminal bosses.  However, despite this, Beckert still receives a defence lawyer.  This is where the film's best scene takes place.  Beckert gives an impassioned speech claiming that he was not conscious of his killings; something inside of him made him do it.  

From here the lawyer argues that Beckert is criminally insane and should therefore be sent to hospital instead of prison or being executed.  This touches upon the incredibly sensitive and hotly-debated issue of mental illness and crime.  If somebody is insane, are they really aware of that they're doing? Or is something deeper compelling them to do it? I'm not claiming to provide an answer, but the way this film engages with this theme is one of its driving forces.

Despite the power of the last scene, I did not enjoy the film, as much as I thought I would.  It flitted about a lot from scene to scene and the characters weren't as memorable, as they could have been.  Even as I am writing this review, I'm having trouble remembering the names of any of the characters. There seemed to be a distinct lack of a main character.

This notwithstanding, the film is still a fascinating examination of the human psyche.  It becomes even more poignant with the recent case of Anders Breivik who was denied the status of criminally insane.  If he had been declared insane though, would this have excused the deaths of seventy-seven people? I'll leave you to think about that.