Directed by Charles Laughton

I think it’s fair to say 1955′s The Night of the Hunter is one of the oddest films to ever come out of Hollywood. According to many, it’s also one of the greatest. This may be true; I’m not sure. But it’s definitely worth seeing a time or two to decide for yourself.

The Night of the Hunter is the one and only film directed by actor Charles Laughton (Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935).

A kind of weird cross between noir and fantasy, it’s a movie he described as “a nightmarish sort of Mother Goose tale.” That’s a pretty accurate description. A frightening film, it’s characterized by a fable-myth, fantastic quality.

A desperate man, anxious to support his impoverished family, particularly his children, kills two people while stealing $10,000. He hides the money then makes his children swear to keep the location secret from everyone.

He’s then captured, tried and convicted. Sentenced to death, he meets a preacher while in prison, prior to his execution.

During this short time together, the preacher becomes aware of the man’s theft and that the money is hidden. But he doesn’t know where.

He does, however, know it has something to do with the man’s family. Released from prisoner, he goes out seeking them and the money.

But he’s not a genuine preacher. He is evil. Twisted and murderously misogynist. (And he’s portrayed brilliantly by Robert Mitchum.) On the fingers of each hand the words are printed, love and hate (one word on each hand).

It’s interesting how the film shows that part of his dysfunction is manifested through an angry, repressed sexuality that evokes an extreme Puritanism about sex.

As the movie progresses, he becomes increasingly threatening to the children, the older child of which has been skeptical of the him from the start.

Again interesting, the film seems to associate health sexuality with innocence, such as in their mother’s initial relationship with the preacher and later with another young girl-woman, Ruby.

In fact, the film appears to be about the corruption of innocence, or at least the attempt to do so. While the children embody this innocence it is by no means exclusive to them. Some of the adults (like the mother, or Ruby who is on the verge of womanhood) also have some of this innocence

Despite its noir storyline (and look, to a degree), the movie keeps weaving into the fantastic.

It has a bit of the look and feel of Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast, 1946 (La belle et la bête), or Children of Paradise, 1945 (Les enfants du paradis), by Marcel Carné. It works like an allegory of good and evil.

Each time the story begins to take on a realism of any sort, each time it begins following a traditional Hollywood film narrative approach, it swings back into this fantastic realm.

For instance, there is the sequence when the children flee the preacher and set off in a boat on the river. Once on the river, the look alters to something more fantastic and starry, evoking the film’s strange opening.

This is also a movie about very strong, deliberately self-conscious imagery. From that strange, starry opening to the shots of the preacher’s tattooed hands to the river sequence with it’s shots of nature (i.e., frogs etc.) to the shadowy shots of Mitchum in his hat, Laughton and cinematographer Stanley Cortez have carefully informed the movie with intriguing, meaningful shots.

While he only directed one movie, Charles Laughton made it a dandy. Is it one of the greatest American films ever made (as Roger Ebert says)? I don’t know. But if it isn’t, it’s damn close.

Note on the DVD

Although the DVD opens with those appalling words, “This film has been formatted to fit your screen,” they are a bit misleading. The standard screen is 1:33 and, according to IMDB, the aspect of this movie is 1.37 : 1. So while it may have been altered, it seems to have been only slightly.

(Originally posted 2003 on Piddleville.)

Directed by Henry Hathaway

One of the things you discover watching older movies, especially Hollywood movies, is that some of the tricks and strategies we see now are not so new. They’ve been used many times before.

For example, 1968′s Five Card Stud could almost be a contemporary film in that it attempts to be at least two types of movie at the same time and makes a big mess doing it. It’s a strategy generally used when there are no ideas left, which appears to be the case with this movie.

This ain’t no Rio Bravo. Or El Dorado, for that matter. It’s a western that tries to be a murder mystery as well. The result is a movie that doesn’t know what direction it’s going in. (I think this movie might even be trying to be a comedy, though it has all the humour of asphalt.)

The problems just aren’t in the script though. The characters are all cliches – which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, actually, given the western and mystery forms.

But there has to be at least something more to them, even if just a smidgeon. Even if only the merest hint of someone or something behind the lines.

You can’t help wondering why anyone bothered casting Dean Martin or, more particularly, Robert Mitchum. Anyone could have played these roles since there is really nothing to play. As for Inger Stevens … if ever a movie used an actress as window dressing, this is the movie. Why is she there?

Compounding things is the annoying, over-the-top soundtrack. Good grief! Hearing it, you can’t help but wonder if the director was making one film and the composer was scoring another.

So what do we have … a western that tries to be a mystery (or vice versa). Possibly a comedy, though if so, an extremely lame one. And a soundtrack for a soap opera.

What a mess!

What was discouraging for me was the fact I really was in the mood to see an old style western. Well, this ain’t it. Frankly, I don’t know what this is other than a huge waste of time, money and talent.

(Originally posted in 2003.)

Some decisions don’t work as well as you would like. In fact, they can work against your intentions.

For a variety of reasons I’ve had difficulty lately getting back into my movie watching routine which used to be almost a movie a night. The reviews I’ve written account for only a small number of the movies I’ve actually watched. I had the best intentions but I never did write about a great movie, The Contender (2000). Or do that review of all three Bourne movies.

I tried to kickstart things last night by watching The Seven Year Itch (1955). Bad idea.

I was hoping to watch something fabulous to reinvigorate my movie watching habit. It didn’t work out that way. My choice was poorly made. A bad decision. Although, there is the possibility it worked in an “end around” kind of way. Maybe it will kickstart things by focusing me on finding something fabulous. God knows, I know they are there. I think I’ll try again tonight. If you’ve any suggestions on what to watch, feel free to pass them along in the comments. In the meantime …

I did post a few reviews, including one I wrote this morning on the above mentioned movie. Those reviews are:

• The Seven Year Itch (1955)
• River of No Return (1954)

A couple of notes … if you’re not aware, you may be interested to know The Seven Year Itch was directed by Billy Wilder, script by George Axelrod and Wilder. And River of No Return stars Marilyn Monroe and Robert Mitchum.

Directed by Otto Preminger

This is by no means a great movie but, for some reason, I like it. For one thing, I love the song. It’s horribly corny, but … well, I like it. Go figure.

I think I’d call River of No Return a comfort movie. Like another movie I get the same feeling from, Father Goose, it’s just feels comfortable watching it and I don’t tire of it. At the same time, I can’t help having qualms because I know it’s not a particularly good film. It’s not bad, either, it’s just a middlin’ kind of movie.

And very cornball. Marilyn Monroe is a honky tonk floozy in a town in the Northwest. Robert Mitchum is a guy with some land he’s working out in the wilderness. Because of a bad guy and Indians (yes, Indians) they’re forced to take a raft down river.

Well, there’s a lot more than that. Essentially, this is an old-fashioned adventure movie with a romance thrown in. Robert Mitchum looks a bit more clean-cut than he normally does, and Marilyn is … well, Marilyn in tight jeans, saloon singer corsets and so on.

Despite this wishy-washy review, there are a couple of really nice elements to the film. One is Marilyn’s singing.

She does quite a bit of it (including a nice rendition of that cornball song I love, River of No Return) and it demonstrates what a nice voice she had and her talents as a singer.

The other element of the film that stands out is the second-unit work. The scenery and the shots that incorporate it are wonderful. Shot in British Columbia I believe, the natural backdrop is quite stunning and the cinematography is top-notch.

As part of the Marilyn Monroe: The Diamond Collection II, the film has gone through the restoration process and the image is fabulous. Maybe a little too much so.

The problem with having such a good image is you get to see some major continuity problems, such as the changes from on location work to studio. This must have been a rushed, low budget affair as a very poor job has been done matching lighting and other elements, and it’s really quite obvious.

You also get to see some omissions in the restoration process. During dissolves, you see one quality of image then, just as the dissolve ends, the quality of the image, particularly the light element, jumps to a much higher quality.

It’s almost as if once the dissolve ends, someone turns on the lights.

I don’t recall noticing this the first time I watched the disc. But I did the second time. And, not being a tech guy, I’m guessing the problem is in the restoration.

However, given the poor job in the filmmaking, perhaps its in how the film was originally made.

Either way, there are some technical issues with this movie that stand out.

So … This is a troubling film. I can see so many problems with it. Yet, despite that, I like it.

There’s no accounting for some people’s tastes.

(Originally posted in 2003.)

Directed by Fritz Lang

Now this is what a noir film should be. Good guys, bad guys, and a lot of dubious ground between them. (Mind you, it’s not a noir film in the strictest sense.)

Perspective is everything, I suppose, and perhaps that is why (for me) noir works best in black and white. It’s how I came to know them when I was younger. This doesn’t mean more recent, colour noir movies don’t work (just look at Chinatown and L.A. Confidential), but black and white just seems more appropriate.

Maybe it’s the sense of shadow and gray that comes across. It reflects the heart of these stories, an uncertain, dangerous world where it’s hard to tell who is on your side, or even what side you’re on.

As in Gilda, the casting of Glenn Ford is perfect. He plays these parts well. He’s the hero, but not so heroic as to be unbelievable. In fact, the type of hero he plays here is the same type Clint Eastwood got so much mileage out of for so long. He’s the ambiguous good guy.

Then there’s Gloria Grahame who gives a wonderful performance as Debby, the gangster’s girl.

But where The Big Heat really excells is in casting Lee Marvin, an actor who gives Robert Mitchum a run for his money as one of the meanest s.o.b.’s to appear on screen.

Marvin’s explosive and sadistic temper come across as so natural you would be afraid to meet him anywhere but on the screen.

In many ways, The Big Heat is a template for certain types of films (though it certainly wasn’t the first to use this pattern). This is a revenge story. But watching it from this point, over 50 years after it was made, it’s easy to forget that some of the set-ups and patterns were not established in the way they are now so, while in some ways they appear to have a certain stale, over-used quality, the truth is they were fresh and even alarming in 1953.

For example, there is the set-up scene where the domestic life of the Ford character is shattered. The scene becomes the catalyst for the character’s later actions. This pattern has been used over and over again since (again, particularly by Eastwood).

Regardless whether it’s perceived as new or cliche, it works. From start to finish The Big Heat holds you and carries you through its dark unwinding. To be perfectly true to the noir genre, Ford’s character is not as corrupt as he should be (though his revenge could be considered a form of corruption, I suppose). But this is quibbling. It certainly has the noir feel and that is far more important. Noir is really about atmosphere; it’s about tone.

This one is highly recommended.