MovieChat Forums > The Night of the Hunter (1955) Discussion > The REAL villain of this film...

The REAL villain of this film...

posted 8 years ago by thomastheakston
19 replies | jump to latest

....is John and Pearl's father, Ben Harper. All the death, terror and trauma of the film's plot can be traced back to his delusional and murderous actions.

For those in need of a refresher, here's a brief summary of what Ben Harper manages to achieve in the short time he is alive during the film's action:

- robs a bank
- murders two men
- gives the money to his son, insisting that he hide it and never tell anyone where it is
- gets arrested in front of his wife and children
- goes to prison, and divulges just enough information to his psychotic cell-mate Harry Powell to ensure the future murder of his wife and terrorizing of his children
- gets hanged to death

Ben Harper is so clearly a deranged lunatic that I'm surprised it hasn't been discussed before. Harry Powell is mad and dangerous, yes, but he *knows* he is. Ben Harper has the sort of clear-eyed sense of righteousness that also characterizes such monsters as Tony Blair.

In their shared cell, Ben justifies his murder and robbery by saying that he was sick of seeing children going hungry. Noble sentiments I'm sure, but how the heck do you go from that to the cold-blooded murder of two men and an armed robbery??? What about the children and family of the two men he gunned down? They're certainly no better off after his actions.

And what did he think would be the outcome for his own family? Did he really think he'd get away with it, and enjoy the spoils with his wife and children?

Instead of the money making their lives better, it poisons everything beyond healing. In hiding it and making his children swear not to reveal its location, Ben Harper passes to them one of the most terrible burdens in cinema history. The psychological toll of this on them (especially John) is simply unimaginable. Every horrible event of the film can be traced to this hidden money and the oath that John and Pearl took to protect it.

Rather than saving his family, the money tears it apart. The children lose their father to the legal system; their mother's throat is cut by their new step-father; their own lives are then threatened by him, and they are reduced to running away from home and living like vagrants until good fortune sends them to Rachel.

Was life really so bad for the Harper's before Ben ruined everything? They might not have been rich, but they had a house, they had clothes, they appeared to be clean and fed. Ask John or Pearl at the beginning of the film if they'd rather have things as they are, with their mother and father there with them, or a little bit more money and their parents dead and gone, their home lost, and 100% they would have gone with the former. Absolutely no question about it. They would rather live out on the street with their parents than in that big house alone with some useless money and Harry Powell.

Look at John during the final showdown with Harry, when he is arrested by the state troopers. All the trauma and anguish that he has been subjected to since his father's arrest comes pouring out of him, and he weeps as Powell is thrown to the ground, flinging the money around crying "I don't want it, I don't want it".

Ben Harper, look what you did.

[–] cmashieldscapting 8 years ago

Yes, and the worst of it, and what really didn't work for me--after realizing Harry's intense interest in his situation, Ben was unable, if he even tried, to warn his family "by the way, beware of a creep named Harry posing as a preacher asking questions." He would have needed to give no details, just let them know that. A simple warning would have saved the whole ordeal! Of all the things his kids had to process later, this should have been the worst.

[–] thomastheakston 8 years ago

Good point, I hadn't even thought about that.

I think Ben Harper was just too wrapped up in the glory of his own self-righteousness to even consider his family. The way he lies back on his prison bunk as he justifies his actions to Harry - hands behind his head, clear of voice and bright of eye - speaks volumes.

Poor John and Pearl. Rachel may think that children are resilient creatures, and to some extent she is right, but I can't help but thinking that the Harper kids (John especially) are going to have serious attachment and post-traumatic stress disorders when they are older.

[–] loughsprng 8 years ago

Well after reading both of your diatribes I'm guessing you're suffering from something.......I'm just not sure what. Trollerism maybe.

[–] thomastheakston 8 years ago

Thanks for taking the time to respond in detail to the points we've raised.

Seems a shame that an attempt to discuss an overlooked aspect of the film in a relatively serious manner is deemed "trollerism".

Physician, heal thyself.

[–] cmashieldscapting 8 years ago

Regarding overlooked points of the film, what the heck was with Uncle Birdie Steptoe? Did he simply get really paranoid when drunk or was he hiding out on that old boat after having done something terrible? For instance, had he committed some crime in the past people might either know of, or find out about? Why on earth would he believe that simply having discovered a body, he would be blamed for the murder? Not to mention the story Harry was telling deliberately concocted to cover up a murder? Also strange that people who knew the children's mother were so quick to believe she would really leave them with a near-stranger. Makes one wonder whether she was quite all there even before meeting Harry, or whether something was seriously wrong with her friends. (The lady who pushed her and Harry together so much certainly bore some responsibility.)

Had Uncle Birdie spoken up, Harry could have been arrested for the murder all signs of which pointed to him, and the kids taken into protective custody. The way it worked out seems to indicate John and Pearl were simply meant to end up with Rachel Cooper.

The scene which gives me the most chills (next to the discovery of the body which is one of the eeriest in all cinema), is where Rachel Cooper tells John the Lord has granted him more strength when he is little than he will have at any time. That sort of statement will resonate with a child for life. It is both praise to the resilience of children, and a warning that at some point he will not only have to reprocess the trauma of his childhood but may not have the fortitude to deal with later problems. It is a two-edged statement indicating adults are simply not as able to bounce back from certain situations.

[–] thomastheakston 8 years ago

Yes, Birdie is an extremely interesting and ambiguous character, isn't he? I think he's is actually a stroke of genius on the part of the film-makers (and possibly the author of the original novel, which I haven't read).

In the early parts of the film it seems like he's being set up to be some sort of saviour for the children (he even says at one point something like "if you ever have any trouble just come to old Uncle Birdie"), and he seems like one of the few friendly adult presences in the film. But then when John and Pearl do turn to him in their direst hour of need, he is useless to them, utterly useless, rolling around blind drunk, crying, and muttering about "poor old Birdie". When they need him the most, he is revealed as a pathetic old drunk who only cares about himself.

I'd never really considered why he reacts like he does when he discovers the body in the lake, but I like your suggestion that he has something sinister in his own past that causes him to panic. Adds a further layer of darkness to an already incredibly dark film.

[–] cmashieldscapting 8 years ago

Yeah, that's why it's interesting to conjecture about the future of these kids...if/when they spend enough time around normal people and have to process how extremely abnormal everyone in their early life was!

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

The scene which gives me the most chills (next to the discovery of the body which is one of the eeriest in all cinema), is where Rachel Cooper tells John the Lord has granted him more strength when he is little than he will have at any time. That sort of statement will resonate with a child for life. It is both praise to the resilience of children, and a warning that at some point he will not only have to reprocess the trauma of his childhood but may not have the fortitude to deal with later problems. It is a two-edged statement indicating adults are simply not as able to bounce back from certain situations

That might be over-analyzing it, just a litte, but I see your point. It's just that I don't really believe that the filmmaker and screenwriter meant anything in store for the children beyond the story's resolution, with them in their new, stable home and the promise of a better future as Rachel Cooper's foster children.

Agreed, in the absolute, real world sense of your perceptions re: Rachel telling John what she did about him being stronger now than he would ever be again, it isn't the wisest of counsel to impart on a young child who still has his whole life ahead of him. But there's been quite a bit of "reading between the lines" contributed in this discussion (most of it spot on, and kudos to you and others who've made your "food for thought" observations) and I must now, therefore, do some "reading between the lines" of my own.

From Rachel's point of view, young John has endured so much trauma already -- and yet, he somehow made it through it all (Rachel attributes it to God's providential help) -- that she couldn't deem it very likely that there could be even WORSE things in store for his later life; after all, how do you top:

Having a murderous, justly condemned criminal for a father, and the shame it would bring on the family from then on?

A weak-willed mother who ignored every red flag that Preacher Harry raised, thus endangering herself (fatally) and her two children?

Watching your own father being manhandled like a dangerous animal and later knowing he was executed in prison?

His mother's disappearance and awareness that his deranged step-father must have murdered her?

Having to bear responsibilities that no young child should ever be saddled with, e.g. the oath his father imposed on him to hold the money and remain silent, and being his little sister's constant guardian?

Being let down by the spineless, old drunken boatman who balked and reneged in his promises to take care of him and his sister, if ever need be?

These and other harrowing circumstances aren't what people in Western cultures typically endure in an entire lifetime; and yet, a boy under ten years of age had all of these things thrusted on him. But still, he survived.

As I understand Rachel, she doesn't suppose that John will ever again need the kind of strength that would be equal to bearing all that he endured already; future challenges in life would look relatively simple to the boy as he grew into manhood and would take on the burdens, responsibilities and curveballs that every adult must bear in the course of day to day living.

WWII was about ten years in the future, and by then John would be old enough to enlist or be drafted; I think he probably would have had a good war record in either the South Pacific or the European Theatre, having endured all of the trauma in his childhood and also continuing to grow under Rachel's influence and faith, the kind of faith that saw many a battle weary soldier or sailor through the worst ordeals and horrors of military combat. In this scenario, John WOULDN'T need to exceed the "strength" that Rachel believed he had already manifested.

Just my two cents.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] cmashieldscapting 8 years ago

Good observations!

[–] loughsprng 8 years ago

Oh, you're welcome.

[–] Guns-N-Butter 8 years ago

I think the point, which was left out of the other poster's response in a assumptive way, is that calling the father the "real villain" is a rather dubious presentation. We can easily see the villainy of the preacher is vastly more significant when compared to that of the father. The father is actually more of a criminal buffoon whose intentions are selfish and not honorable, yet are not those of a calculating villain, which is the character of the preacher.

[–] loughsprng 8 years ago

The Night Of The Hunter as told by Charles Laughton :

"Let me tell you a tale of two children, of all children. Once upon an evil time of hunger and depression in our land, they lived with their mother, Willa, and their father, Ben Harper in a house by the river, cradled and comforted in the green arms of the great Ohio Valley. Their town was called Cresaps Landing, and the boy's name was John, and the girl was Pearl.

Now, Ben Harper was a good man in an evil season, a hungry season; and one day, he took a gun to the bank where he drew his pay each week, and he slew two men. Wounded, he fled homeward with the stolen fortune, praying in his broken mind and body that this money might some day prove provender for his loved ones. That these ten thousand hundred dollars would shield his children from the cold shadow of wanton need that had chilled his own time on earth, and even as the police car screamed close behind him down the road to his home by the river, Ben hid the cursed, crinkling treasure in his little girl's doll.

And he made John swear, and he made Pearl swear that they would never tell, that they would never, never tell! And he made John swear that he would guard his little sister's life with his own if need be, and John swore, and they took Ben away and sentenced him to hang."

I'll let each reader of this thread decide for themselves who THE REAL villain of this film is.

[–] thomastheakston 8 years ago

In reply to loughsprng, first of all thanks very much for that quote from Laughton, I'd never seen it before.

However, as much as I venerate Laughton as a great actor, director and fellow-Yorkshireman, what he has to say about the film is neither here nor there. Or, rather, what he has to say about the film should in no way have a bearing on our interpretation of it.

Pretentious rant alert

Works of art have to exist in and of themselves, and if you follow the post-structuralist view that meaning can be retrospectively applied ("death of the author" etc.), then my view on the film, your view of the film, are as valid (or not) as his. And crucially, none of them has precedence over the other.

Pretentious rant over

In fact, even if I did agree that what Laughton says about the film is the final word on the matter, the words you have quoted don't in themselves convince me that we can simply write-off Ben Harper's actions as those of a "good man in an evil season". The way Laughton almost casually writes "and he slew two men", as if it was a simple, inevitable action, is too dismissive, and doesn't in any way correspond to the magnitude and monstrous nature of Harper's crime. Two men dead. Their lives over, forever. Two men themselves living in "an evil time of hunger and depression", possibly with families just as desperate and dependant as Ben's, and who now have to come to terms with both grief and want. Who will "shield [their] children from the cold shadow of wanton need" now? Laughton can glibly slide over this aspect of Ben's actions, but I can't.

[–] loughsprng 8 years ago

Sorry but you've just set off my B.S. alert. The fact that you glibly slide over Powell's monstrous nature (of murdering 20+ women in the guise of Christianity) and try to pin poor Ben Harper as THE REAL VILLAIN of Laughton's film tells me you are either devious in nature - or clueless as to what both the author Davis Grubb or the director Charles Laughton had in mind.

Ben Harper was motivated by desperation.

Harry Powell was motivated by greed.

If you can't see the difference then what a pathetic human being you really are.

[–] thomastheakston 8 years ago

I'm sorry that you've had to resort to making personal attacks. I enjoy discussing films at a level that could be called "over thinking" it, and believe that great works of art like the Night of the Hunter encourage discussion like this, and can withstand it. After all, in 50 years or so me and my views (pathetic it otherwise) will be gone, while Laughton's glorious film will live on and still be celebrated.

Perhaps I was rash in seeking to label Harper as the "real" villain. Maybe I just wanted to attract attention to my original post, which I enjoyed writing. In my defence though, I think really the point I was making was that all the trouble we see unfold in the film, all the evil that befalls his family, is the result of Ben Harper's criminal actions.

Yes of course I can see that Powell is more evil, both statistically and in general character, but that wasn't my point. My point is that his own brand of evil is only allowed into the fabric of the film because of Harper's villainy.

I've enjoyed discussing this so far, like I say, and enjoy interrogating films beyond what we see on screen, or rather beyond what their original intentions might have been. I believe this is fairly common on the Internet.

Hopefully we'll be able to continue discussing this, but I won't be responding to any more personal attacks, and would politely ask you to address the points I make without having a dig at my character or humanity!

[–] loughsprng 8 years ago

I don't have to "dig" at your character on humanity - you just admitted you were "rash in seeking to label Ben Harper as the REAL villain" in order to attract attention to your original post.

I simply called a spade a spade.

And as for me resorting to personal attacks - it was simply my responding in kind to your post about Ben Harper.

And let's be clear - Ben Harper is not the villain in this film, nor was he the villain in the book. Harry Powell's corrupt nature is the reason he enters into the lives of Ben Harper's family.

If you want to post your own personal interpretation of another person's work - then label it as such - instead of posting it in a public forum as fact - and then acting as though you've been mistreated when someone responds in kind.

[–] extrememediamogul 8 years ago

I like your different take on how the father did put the children in that situation and I do see the validity in your argument. Especially since, as my friends commented when we were watching it, "was the family's life really so bad that the father's actions were justifiable? And could they not have survived without the money." But I did, from the beginning kind of view it like Les Miserables because Jean Valjean was also guilty of a crime he committed due
to dire circumstances (and kind of a gray area issue--i.e. if your life or family's lives are at stake some crimes may be justiafiable)

[–] Shounenbat (27) 3 years ago

Valjean's sister's family was literally starving, though. She had a mess of kids and no way to feed them, so he stole bread. That's a far cry from heading to the bank because of an economic downturn, stealing a vast sum of money, and killing two people before hiding the loot in your child's toy.

As for OP's initial post, I think Powell is the bigger villain. Ben Harper's wrongdoing ultimately lead to Powell becoming fixed on his family and the hidden money, but I also take the character of each person into consideration.

Ben Harper did evil with good intentions. Even if I don't think his situation was so dire as to warrant bank robbing, he clearly didn't do it out of malice. Most of us who have messed up in life can say that we did the things we did without intent to actually hurt anybody, because of the greater good, or just because it seemed like the right and moral thing to do at the time. That's where Ben Harper is, in my mind.

Harry Powell, on the other hand, knows what he's doing is wrong. In his own disturbed mind, he may think God is smiling at his actions, but he knows society will condemn him for what he's doing. He's got a body count, he's greedy, and he'll stop at nothing to get what he wants. He's not doing what he's doing because he thinks he's making the world a better place, he's doing it to get ahead himself, regardless of how many people he destroys in the process.

His good demeanor is a facade to keep suspicion off of him and to draw more potential victims into his sphere of influence. That makes him far worse than Harper, even if he wouldn't ever have heard of the $10,000 if it weren't for becoming his cellmate.

[–] snepts 8 years ago

Idk, living with Shelley Winters might make one a little batty. All that whining and pouting. Shirley Jones / Debbie Reynolds she's not. (j/k, haha)

I'm not a woman much less Deanna Durbin, but the old-time glam-shot appeals to me.