It's not hard to see every film directed by Sir Charles Laughton- rent The Night of the Hunter and you observe the great character actor's entire work as auteur in a one stop shop. A lot of people really like this picture and use that tired yet occasionally appropriate phrase "masterpiece" to describe it, but the picture is really quite shallow.
It's not hard to see why it's so well respected. It's a very dense movie. With a lot of metaphors, Biblical and otherwise. It's also defiantly formalist at a time when the American film industry was steeped in classicism. Great goals, but the movie so darn stupid.
The movie essentially a battle between of total evil, personified by Harry Potter (Robert Mitchum) and complete good personified by Rachel Cooper (Lillian Gish). Guess who wins? Potter is a criminal who half believes that he is who pretends to be- a Southern evangelical preacher. While serving a term in jail he learns that his condemned cellmate (Peter Graves) has hidden a great deal of stolen money somewhere on his property, so he moves in and marries his crazed widow (Shelley Winters). The only people who do know are the children: John (Billy Chapin) and Pearl (Sally Jane Bruce). The psychopathic Potter knows they know, however, and is prepared to commit any crime to get them to talk.
To give credit where credit is due, this film, directed by a great actor, features to great performances. It's probably Mitchum's best, as he's permitted to completely let loose and not try to play a psychologically realistic character. Even better is Lillian Gish as Rachel, who aside from the very beginning doesn't appear until the last third of the film, to its detriment. Laughton also gives the movie a very unique look, heavily influenced by Orson Welles, as well some interesting use of music.
But after awhile Laughton's camera tricks gets tiresome and the picture is eventually boring as you realize that there is really no substance beneath them. The movies act likes its saying some profound statement but all it's really saying is that good is better than evil. Really? I noticed that!
Laughton misses some real opportunities for some psychological commentary concerning John's outlook on life. The movie could have dug a lot deeper had it dealt with some of the questions of whether he will follow in his father's violent footsteps, a la Shane.
Yes, Laughton and screenwriter James Agee throw out a lot literary references, but so what? They don't make the movie any smarter. The Night of the Hunter is basically an extremely well shot and well acted b thriller, but somehow not as fun. The Night of the Hunter (1955)