No need to repeat the plot or dwell on consensus points. A few remarks about the movie's significance might be helpful, however. Harrington's quirky little film was part of a larger independent effort in the early 1960's to break away from studio domination and commercial conformity. The movement came along in the wake of John Cassavetes' groundbreaking Shadows (1960), and also at a time when European films from Fellini, Bergman and the French New Wave, et al, were expanding audience perceptions. Shadows proved that audiences were ready for a more daring product than what Hollywood of the 50's was producing. Perhaps more importantly, Shadows showed that a quality feature-length film could be done on a small budget ($40,000), with a non-union crew, get commercially distributed, and be reviewed in major publications (Night Tide, I recall, managed a good review in mainstream Newsweek). One or more of these factors had long prevented emergence of an independent film movement outside studio bounds. But by the early 60's, times had changed.
Night Tide remains an oddity, sort of a blending of Shadows and Roger Corman with the ghost of Val Lewton hovering in the background. The ending is unfortunate, something of a loss of nerve given Harrington's overall imaginative approach. What impressed me then, and still does, is the director's visual style. Most every frame amounts to a well-composed visual treat, even when taking in the flat side of Santa Monica's ocean front. It's a measured, near- lyrical style, well suited at capturing the poetical side of horror a la Lewton—a dimension sorely missing from today's bloodfests. Anyway, the movie shows considerable promise; I'm just sorry Harrington slipped into obscurity, never developing into the career I think his talent deserved. Meanwhile, the movie furnishes a look-see into what was then a fresh movement in film-making.
Night Tide remains an oddity, sort of a blending of Shadows and Roger Corman with the ghost of Val Lewton hovering in the background. The ending is unfortunate, something of a loss of nerve given Harrington's overall imaginative approach. What impressed me then, and still does, is the director's visual style. Most every frame amounts to a well-composed visual treat, even when taking in the flat side of Santa Monica's ocean front. It's a measured, near- lyrical style, well suited at capturing the poetical side of horror a la Lewton—a dimension sorely missing from today's bloodfests. Anyway, the movie shows considerable promise; I'm just sorry Harrington slipped into obscurity, never developing into the career I think his talent deserved. Meanwhile, the movie furnishes a look-see into what was then a fresh movement in film-making.