The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955) - Pressured Widows and Pure Children

[D.Yergeau]

It is my opinion that this film clearly shows what kind of dangers can come from people who feel that they have an unmediated relationship with god. This is not to say that any unmediated relationship with god is dangerous, but it can be with some individuals.We clearly see this in the actions of Harry throughout the movie. Whether he is some sort of schizophrenic who is just hearing voices, or he just actually believes he is talking to god we do not know. However we do know that he uses this excuse to justify all of his terrible actions, and all of the murders he commits. His relationship he has with god is very dangerous because he feels no remorse for his victims, and even talks to god about how god would be okay with the killings because there are plenty of killings in the bible. We can see how this kind of relationship is dangerous because in real life, if someone were to use this same reasoning to justify killing people today it would be an extremely dangerous reasoning because they would not feel any remorse for their victims, and would not be stopped until they were caught.

I found it interesting that all of his victims were widows, and none of them were just single women who had never been married before. My belief is that this is due to the social norms of the tie pressuring a woman to remarry after her husband had passed away. The scene in the movie where John’s mother and grandmother are working together in the kitchen, and she continuously pesters her to get remarried, and says she is no spring chicken, and that she needs a man to help raise those kids. The fact that Willa is manipulated quite easily only speeds up the process of her blindly marrying the first “decent” man that comes along.

The fact film is also represented from a child’s point of view for a very specific reason. Generally speaking, children are viewed as pure in the realm of religion, or at least more pure than adults because they are able to see things more clearly as they are, and less how they want them to be as adults do. We see this clearly in the way Willa treats the actions of John compared to those actions of Harry. For instance, when John tells on Harry for asking about where the money is she believes Harry because she doesn’t want to believe that she made the wrong choice when she married him, and that she should have listened to how John felt about him in the first place. This reasoning is why the film is represented from the point of view of a child. It shows us an unbiased point of view on the events of the film and allows us to fully see the evil acts committed by Harry. All of the adult characters, and even Pearl who is mostly just too naïve to see everything, are taken in and swept up in Harry’s charisma and unable to see through his outward actions to see his true intentions.

[cwhite]

9. When money and marriage are involved in film they usually deal with gold diggers marrying rich men and killing them for their fortune. However, "The Night of the Hunter," has a male character, Harry Powell, who marries widows for their money. Essentially, he kills and steals dead man's money. The further irony and reversal of roles ties into the fact that Powell is a religious fanatic that murders. He won't even share the same bed as the widow he marries, or have relations that don't result in a baby, yet he'll kill his wife and leave two young children to fend for them. The film is thinking about this irony and so the story is told from the perspective of the two young children, an unbiased point of view. Harry thinks he's the godly hero in the story because he kills widows with a purpose, saying they lure men with their sexuality. The children are the most innocent and close to god in this story, not the murdering men. The whole motive issue for Harry also needs to be seen in context of the era the film was created. 1955 was way before female sexual revolution, where female pleasure began to be acceptable. However, since the film was created in a time where sex was supposed to “religious” and all about procreation, the plot is actually realistic.

[jkatz]

The Preacher is a very interesting character. I would have to disagree and say I do not think he used his relationship with God as an excuse for justification but rather he honestly believed in what he preached and that his actions were right and just in serving God. The Preacher took the Bible very literally. At the time the Bible was written killing was an acceptable action in certain circumstances whereas today, killing is not morally acceptable. Harry’s morals are aligned with those of the past.

Harry preaches against materialism, which appears contradicting because he has grown such an obsession with getting this $10,000. He seems blinded by this thirst for cash so I can see why one may think his relationship with God is an excuse. However, I truly believe that if he had in fact gotten his hands on the money he would have used it with good intentions to serve God.

The Preacher killed widows because they would no longer bear children, which is what women were initially designed to do. Therefore, in his mind, widows are useless. Not to mention widows appear to be an easy target.

[ehiggins]

Obviously the film is saying something about the dangers of an unmediated relationship with God, as well as the virtues of those who use this relationship for good. Yet what bothers me about the message of the film is that I don’t understand how their is a right way to view or interpret the readings of the Bible and thus be a virtuous christian. The bible seems like a constitution of sorts. Just because of how it’s written there are loopholes and vague areas that are subject to our own interpretations. With the American Constitution we get different political parties and with the bible there form different religions or relationships with God.

Harry, through reading the Bible, sees his actions as being righteous, noble, and part of God’s almighty plan. He can take the bible and see that it’s validating his actions. We of course know that it is not okay to slaughter other people, and that it’s not christian, but when people see completely different meanings behind the same words as another reads, then how are we to know what is really the christian thing to do?

Are we then to mediate the relationships between people and the almighty? That doesn’t seem like a good idea. If we look at the Crusades and the Inquisition, we see that there is much the same brutality as Harry demonstrates in “The Night of the Hunter”, only on a larger scale with corrupted leaders who believed that they were doing the work of God.

With the message that the film is conveying I just can’t see how one person can be virtuous and another be evil if they are all getting their reasoning from the same source. Rachel is characterized as being the only true christian kind of lady, and we all cheer when she finally pulls out her gun on Harry to protect the children. Yet how is anyone to know what it truly takes to be a christian, when all characters claim that they are, and are backing their claims with hard evidence from the Bible?

[tdiamond]

The Preacher is a very interesting character. I would have to disagree and say I do not think he used his relationship with God as an excuse for justification but rather he honestly believed in what he preached and that his actions were right and just in serving God

Why not both? I think that he does believe between himself and God that what he is doing is right and God's will. However, Harry's pursuit of money comes from a justification of his actions.

Harry uses his need for a new tabernacle to preach his word as justification for getting his money. He kills women and widows for his reasons that he worked out with God. He says something along the lines of there being nasty things, with curly blond hair etc in the beginning. And then there's the woman he is about to kill at the cabaret show. He kills these women for these reasons and the money is an added "bonus" to it.

His specific need for the 10,000 shows that what he is doing is to get the money which is justified by his will to take the money and make the Tabernacle of Robert Mitchum

[Lsogn]

By witnessing the heinous intentions and actions of Harry Powell through the eyes of children, I agree with D.Yergeau that the polarities of good and evil are intensified in “The Night of The Hunter.” From the first glimpse of Powell as a larger than life shadow on the wall of John and Pearl’s bedroom, we can see that he will be an ominous presence in the lives of these two young children. After peering out their window, John persuades his little sister, Pearl, to go back to sleep because the shadow belongs to, “...just a man.” However, through interactions with Powell, John realizes just how dangerous he is, even if other adults--such as his mother--won’t take his fears and doubts as seriously as she should.

Throughout the development of this film, the diverse ways parents can respond to the needs of children are portrayed. Ben Harper, the father of John and Pearl, said that he stole the money from the bank because he didn’t like seeing children living in poverty and “...sleeping in old abandoned car bodies.” There was a suggestion here that “redistribution” of money from the bank to needy children would be a solution to their problems. After Harper’s execution, the guard goes home to his family and suggests to his wife that maybe he should “...quit my job as a guard.” His wife responds, “...and leave me a widow?!” (She didn’t want him to return to his previous job as a worker deep within a mine.) The next scene shows him gazing reverently at his young children, tucking them in as if to say that he would endure whatever necessary to care for them.

Willa, the mother of John and Pearl, is coaxed into marrying Harry Powell even though she acknowledges her son’s reservations, and she’s also worried it’s a little too soon to be marrying again. But she seems to think that her children need a father and that filling that role is important for their well being, even if she knows very little about Powell. The only reason Powell married Willa was a self-serving one--to learn the whereabouts of the stolen money--and with no concern or regard for the young children he would now be responsible for through marriage. His actions towards them and their mother define evil itself.

This film tells the story of Moses’s birth and how his mother, in order to save his life, had to set him free to float in a small basket down the Nile River. Later, he is rescued by the Pharaoh’s wife. It is this very Bible passage that Rachel Cooper tells the young children she willingly cares for when they have no where else to go. After seeing an owl swoop down and grab an innocent bunny before her eyes--she says, “...it’s a hard world for little things.” Rachel personifies the message that all children, whether belonging to us by birth or to others are our responsibility and warrant our care and concern.

[khaney]

I, like D.Yergeau, find the fact that all of Harry’s victims being widows very intriguing; however, I differ in the fact that I do not believe that the significance of the victims being widows ends with the fact that they can be easily manipulated into marriage. I believe that the film uses widows as an example of people whom are tempted to have a much more powerful, personal relationship with God (and thus more dangerous), in order to make meaning of the world and themselves. In the film, we really are given the example of two widows, Willa and Uncle Birdie. In the film, both Willa and Birdie demonstrate their own obsession with purity. Willa demonstrates in multiple scenes that she is ashamed that the money her husband had stolen had somehow tainted her, while in one of the first scenes we see Birdie in, he has to place the photo of his deceased wife face down in order to enjoy a drink, in order to avoid her judging him. As the movie progresses, we also see these characters relationships with the supernatural become stronger, and even start to overshadow their relationships with other people. Willa, after hearing Harry threaten her son, does nothing, but rather, chooses to place all of her faith in the idea that God had a plan that would let everything work out alright. This faith directly results in her death, as she allows Harry to kill her in her bedroom. Uncle Birdie, on the other hand, after finding Willa dead while fishing, let’s his own obsession with purity and faith in God restrict him from protecting John and Pearl, as he promised to. Rather than turn to the police, and let the murder of Willa taint him (he states his fear of accusation), he gets drunk and puts his faith in God to rectify things. The larger issue I believe this points to in the movie, is that one’s relationship with God should not be stronger than one’s relationship and lover for other people. Both of these widow’s have found their strongest relationship broken, and thus, attempted to rekindle their connection for their loved one through becoming close to God. However, through doing this, they committed themselves to inaction, and deplorable behavior, that resulted in the suffering of those around them.

The direct counter example to the characters of Willa and Uncle Birdie is Rachael Cooper, who, having lost her husband and her son, begins to harness relationships with other people (her adopted children), rather than turn to cultivate what I believe the filmmakers demonstrate to be an unhealthy relationship with the Divine. It’s important to the films point to note that Mrs. Cooper does not seem to have no relationship with God, as throughout much of the film she is quoting the Bible, or telling biblical stories, but rather, she has a relationship with God that seems to be mediated through her love of other people.

Through examining Willa, Uncle Birdie and Rachael Cooper, I believe that it is clear that the message that the film is trying to portray is that a relationship with God is not bad, but, one that allows us to disassociated ourselves from our relationships with people are unhealthy, and will lead to our demise.

[P Baird]

I believe that the use of a child’s point of view goes beyond the idea focusing on their purity. The film seems to comment on a child’s lack of control over the situations in their worlds. Through the entire film, John suspects (rightly) that Harry is only interested in the family for the money. However, because of his age, his mother shrugs off his accusations without the slightest hint of deliberation. The film perfectly illustrates this lack of trust that adults seem to have when you are a child. Had John been an adult, Willa most likely would have heeded his advice and not taken so kindly to Harry so quickly. Perhaps it would not have stopped her from marrying him but she would have been more cautious in getting to know him if a fellow adult had shown some concern over his true agenda as John had. The audience finds themselves in the same situation as John. With full knowledge of Harry’s true character but no way of stopping the inevitable.

[A. Dickinson]

To tell you the truth I believe the reason as to why Willow didnt listen to John was not because she didnt want to believe she made the wrong decision with a husband but because she didnt want to believe that someone as divine as Harry could be undermined by a child. After marrying Harry she only wanted to cleanse her soul for her own salvation and she were to listen to John then that would undermine and even render her own cleansing process a farce. She, essentially, made herself ignorant to anything logical that went against her want for "cleanliness". I believe this is what the film is trying to say is dangerous, that religion, although liberates the soul, can easily harm just as many as it saves.

I do, however, agree with you on how the child's perspective adds an unbiased element to the film. Where the child don't really understand what the scriptures mean or how exactly to interpret them, adults do and they use said scriptures to justify any act. John and more specifically Pearl do not really understand why the preacher is so willing to harm them when he is a man of God or why their mother is so willing to give them up just to cleanse her own soul. This child's perspective adds an element of innocence to the film to juxtapose the pure insanity not only Harry's creed holds but as well as Willow's and Mis. Spoons. Pearl, however, is not receptive to any of this because she is just a child, John however must deal with all of this. The audience must adopt his view because his view adds perspective from both worlds; on the one had the audience still wants to consider him a child because of how young he looks and acts, but at the same time he has been given a huge responsibility by his father, a responsibility usually reserved for a man. These two perspective helps the audience to not only the irrationality of Harry's, Willow's, and Mis. Spoon's beliefs, but as well as how unfair it is to place such pressure on to children. These two views, however, also highlight the purity and Christ figure on Rachel. John ends up viewing her as a savior, someone who knows the difference between right and wrong, acts peacefully but will defend if necessary for the sake of preserving life. John's view, in my view, shows the film's belief on whats the right method of following religion and what the wrong way of following it. Killing in cold blood and using the bible to justify it is in no way a good act or even a Christ like thing to do, but preserving life, doing good for others before yourself and just being a good person are the true tenets behind religion.

[L Rosenfield]

Why was Willow so concerned about atonement? The background of her character was never really revealed and I wonder what she was so ashamed of in her past that she tried to completely replace herself with a cleansed being. It is possible that the criminal acts and fate of her husband would transitively made her feel sinful. In the eyes of the townspeople, his actions of killing and stealing were unjust. In the Ben Harper’s own eyes, he was acting for the well being of his family (possibly heroic and cleansing).
Having been stolen, the money was tainted and was more of a burden on them than a blessing.

The preacher finds the money to be a blessing that he can use for “god’s work.” Considering the power he had with his words alone, the money would only amplify his force. So, yes, this money would be a blessing to the preacher and an omen to those whom are unfortunate enough to come across him, for they would submit to his influence. The preacher prayed with a knife between his hands, which shows that he is using religion as a vice to permeate his power over others. The preacher’s relationship with Willow is representative of this theory: he reeled her in with his omnipotence and then killed her for swaying from him once he realized he was losing control of her. His acts were justified in his mind because within his contract that he “betwixed up” with god, he was doing his duty.

Back to the subject of the money being a burden vs. a blessing. The money was more of a burden to John and Pearl than a blessing, which is what it was intended to be. Having seen how his father treated the world and how the world treated his father in return, John established a solid moral stance and obligation. This obligation was to protect them from harm, just as his father did for him. This forced him to grow up immediately and take the place as the firm figure in his family and preserve their wellbeing. The preacher easily lured Pearl and his mother, but John was not so easily manipulated. So in a way, the money was a burden because it brought the crooked preacher to the family and a blessing because it strengthened John and brought him to ending the streak of the preacher.