MovieChat Forums > Touch of Evil (1958) Discussion > Did the village idot 'night man' ruin th...

Did the village idot 'night man' ruin this movie for anyone else???


I love film noir, the darker and creepier the better, but the unintentionally comedic stammering and overacting of the "Night Man" at the Hotel (viewers will remember him as such since he repeated that he was "the Night Man" over and over and over and over again) completely ruined the whole dark, creepy ambiance of the film for me. His time on screen was so bad it was painful and embarrassing to watch, a stock "village idiot" charcter that feels like an an unwelcome vistor flown in from a different movie - like a 30's slapstick comedy perhaps? His presence is truly unfortunate since TOE could have otherwise been a good noir tale...Some directors should be banned by law from putting "comic relief" charcters in their movies - Welles is one of them!

JEFF MATHEUS

reply

Quinlan kills the Mexican motel owner directly after we see the yokel. It put the movie right back in the dark.

reply

[deleted]

I just saw this film for the first time and the "night man" totally took me out of it. I was mesmerized by the cinematography and interesting characters up until his appearance and then all of a sudden--a bunch of unfunny weirdness? A true WTF moment for sure. I really don't get what the point was. Dude was like Kramer on methamphetamine.

Although I must admit I was lmao after the joint made him scream.

When you have to shoot- shoot, don't talk -Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez

reply

The only possibly redeeming feature of the Night Man's schtick as conveyed by Dennis Weaver is that it may have contributed, judiciously diluted, to the character of Norman Bates two years later (the unfortunate Janet Leigh being on the receiving end again).

I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken.

reply

...didn't "Uncle Joe" Grandi own the motel as a legitimate enterprise and front for his illegal operations? And wasn't he in cahoots with Quinlan in diverting Susan to the motel, in order to get at Mike through her? And wouldn't Uncle Joe want a "night man" or custodian on the premises who could do the simple work of maintaining the property but be too limited in intellect to understand the sordid activities constantly going on at the motel?

You guys (not ALL "you guys," just the ones making the unfair judgments against Dennis Weaver, and you know who you are) seem to think the role was written with Weaver in mind, instead of it being written and scripted well before casting consideration was mulled over. The Dennis Weaver "night man" could have been an "any other night man" actor instead of Weaver, and the result would be the same: a half-witted character who had his uses but would never be capable of causing trouble for Uncle Joe and his gang because he'd never be smart enough to figure out when something was going on that wasn't on the up-and-up.

Thus, trashing Weaver for being "over the top" misses the entire point of Uncle Joe having a half-witted night man in his employ, in the first place!


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

reply

A few minutes after the first 'night man' scene was when I turned the movie off. I couldn't take it anymore. It was boring. The characters were really bad. I didn't like this movie at all.

I'm not into camera angles and lighting. I'm just a normal viewer who likes to be entertained. And this movie had nothing for me.

reply

I'm not exaggerating when I say this might be the worst acting performance I've ever seen. The second act was already starting to fall apart, but he sunk the movie to depths of pure atrociousness that I'm not sure I've seen before. The movie is somewhat saved by a decent ending and a strong opening, but Dennis Weaver's attempts at comedic relief were a horrible failure. I actually felt contempt for what I was seeing. The silly, childish gang didn't help matters either. Or Charlton Heston as a Mexican.


Poetry don't work on whores.

reply

The character would have been played the same with or without Weaver in the role. As I stated above, "Uncle Joe" and his shady operations going on behind the closed doors of his legitimate motel business required someone who could perform the simple tasks involved in maintaining the motel while being too deficient to have his suspicions aroused. Put in a different actor, and you still have a half-witted nightman who's utterly clueless and childlike and poses no liklihood of sniffing out Uncle Joe's criminal activities that are taking place right there in the premises.


I cannot for the life of me understand why so many posters here are so damned apoplectic on this point, nor why apparently virtually NONE of them have read any responses (including mine) to their posted complaints about Weaver's portrayal.


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

reply

Dennis Weaver's Night Watchman character is definitely over the top. I don't think he was supposed to provide comic relief, as much as he was supposed to be creepy. This is a classic case of where less could have been so much more. He had too much time on screen and overplayed his role. The scenes did make me think of Norman Bates from Psycho played by Anthony Perkins, who also quite famously stalked Janet Leigh around a motel a couple years after this film. If they had used a character more subtle, like Norman Bates, they would have been much more successful at creating a creepy feeling, rather than a comedic tone. I think the one funny part is when he screams after sniffing the joint. I think it represents the public hysteria of the time towards Marijuana.

reply

It definitely ruined the for me. After his desastrous performance you tend to concentrate on the other actors overacting as well. The whole Motel set up with Grandis boys and Janet Leigh and the Night Man was hard to get through. Everyone was terrible in those scenes, including Heston as the raving husband. But nobody beats Weaver as the moron clinging to that tree and babbling nonsense.

reply