Implausibility, Religious Corruption, and a Hint of Feminism
 Response #4
Cierra Larson

    I agree with the points Laamanen makes in “Preaching in the Darkness,” particularly the idea that The Night of the Hunter didn’t go over well with 1950s audiences because of its direct opposition to patriarchal Christian values that were prominent at the time. However, another reason that the film might not have been a success is because of its inconsistent genre and overall implausibility. My main concern with the film is the plot; it’s unconventional and far-fetched. Although I like the idea of Miz Cooper being a portrayal of feminism in the 1950s, I don’t think that was Laughton’s intent with the film. I think it’s easy to read Cooper as a feminist character, but the film could also be a warning to any Christian who becomes bloated with power like Harry did.
    According to Laamanen, the film outraged many mainstream Christian traditionalists in 1955. However, just because it was 1955 doesn’t mean the people back then were more susceptible to fantastical beliefs. The film has some iffy plot points, especially the mystery surrounding the money. Ben Harper steals $10,000 and only tells John and Pearl where it is; this seems unlikely, because the family doesn’t seem particularly poor, and the children don’t seem like very reliable sources to entrust $10,000 to. The biggest issue with the money, however, is Harry’s insatiable need to get his hands on it. This man never wanted a wife or family, yet he got married and became a guardian all for the sake of the money. He claims to dislike sins of the world, which is noticeable when he refuses to consummate his marriage, yet he constantly pursues this money, and the audience never learns why he so fervently desires it. He even kills his wife and stalks John and Pearl down the river, and not because he misses them. He takes a good month out of his daily life to pursue John, Pearl, and -- most importantly -- their doll.
    It’s possible Harry’s obsession with the money is supposed to portray the corruption that can befall people in power positions; the film might not be a comment on male gaze vs. female gaze, but rather a warning against the obsession that can ensue when one becomes dependent upon a need for power and control. Harry has the power to mesmerize audiences, which is depicted in the scene where he tells the story of the right and left hands which symbolize good and evil. With his gift comes a power and responsibility, and Harry soon takes advantage of his abilities and uses them to win Willa over. Harry is a corrupt religious leader whether he wants the money or not, but his obsession with the money solidifies the idea that he is abusive of his power and has become dependent on gaining in any way that he can.
    On the flipside, there’s Miz Cooper, who is not swayed by any of Harry’s false prophecies. Miz Cooper is a bad ass woman who isn’t afraid to shoot a rifle, which makes her a very likable character. Was Laughton trying to make a statement about feminism by using her female gaze against Harry’s male gaze? It’s very possible. It’s equally possible, however, that this film comments on different ways to view Christianity. There’s the “Harry” type of Christian, who is constantly boasting about his abilities and acting “holier than thou,” and telling people they’re going to burn in hell, and then there’s the kind, forgiving form of religious expression portrayed by Miz Cooper. Miz Cooper tells stories from the Old Testament, notably the story of Moses, and seems to use more of her Bible knowledge to try to help the children find their way and show them her love for them without expressing it bluntly. Harry uses his religious beliefs to belittle others, especially Willa, when he tells her to “Do as I say,” or when he tells John, “Don’t touch my knife or it’ll make me mad.” Although Miz Cooper does directly oppose Harry, she doesn’t have to be seen as merely a “female character,” but rather as an embodiment of the type of Christianity that was favorable to the preachy style of Harry. I think the film makes this clear when Miz Cooper ultimately triumphs over Harry’s corruptness.