french film bible, cahiers du cinema recently named charles laughton's sole directorial effort as the second greatest film of all time, which in anyone's eyes is quite the achievement, but in the mind of someone whom regards the french magazines opinion very highly its even more of an endorsement. having not seen the night of the hunter for around five years, it was with the poll that im conducting at the moment (see the 400 blows) in mind that i revisited it.
has there ever been a more chilling villain in all of cinema than robert mitchum's 'preacher'? this is the performance that defines mitchum's career for this viewer, and it is a portrayal that affected me many years before having actually seen the film. you see, i have fond memories from my childhood, of seeing a photograph of robert mitchum, hands adorned with love/hate, leaning against a white picket fence and smiling affably into the camera. it would later transpire that this photograph was a (rather oddly chosen) promotion still from the night of the hunter, although at the time i genuinely didnt have a clue where it was from, and in a similiar vain i dont actually remember where it was that i saw the photo. it was from this brief tease that i searched out the night of the hunter on VHS. i must have been around 15.
having finally discovered the film that had lingered in my mind for so long i wasnt disappointed, although i will admit that some of the films deeper subtext did go over my head at the time. it wasnt until this most recent viewing that i was fully able to comprehend the entire scope of the picture. understanding the logistics of the silent film and german expressionism helped a great deal too, in providing further enjoyment, as i feel that laughton's film owes as much to murnau or lang as it does to the contemporary cinema of the mid-1950's. the stark blacks of the starkly star-decorated skies add a depth quite unusual for typical hollywood fare of the time, and while the general concept is dealt with in a fairly laconic manner, the horror on display is rather heavy and forebearing. the controversial nature of the representation of the 'preacher' in the film may have drawn protest too, although i sincerely doubt his actual credentials. in spite of all of this, the fact that the film is one of cinema history's all-time great failures is still beyond me, with the repurcusions felt by the films director one of the biggest crimes of the incident.
charles laughton's reluctance to work on the other side of the camera is one of the great injustice's of the cinema, the enticing question of "what if...?" has rarely been more apt.
