Since its release in 1986, Robert Harmon’s The Hitcher has been on quite the journey. Initially panned by many critics, the film is now seen as an undisputed cult classic, featuring one of the late Rutger Hauer’s greatest performances. The film pits young man Jim (C Thomas Howell) against the deadly John Ryder (Rutger Hauer) after he innocently picks up the hitchhiker. This thriller come road movie is a never-ending descent into tension, and looking back it is hard to imagine how anyone found faults with it.
Despite The Hitcher’s rise in popularity, the film has been horribly left out of the physical media loop, until now. Whilst the film exists on DVD and Blu-ray, the version that is available is of subpar quality due to the transfer used as its source. Now though, Second Sight have acquired the film and have spent literal years painstakingly restoring The Hitcher to glorious 4K resolution. The limited edition disc is out on Monday 30th September.
Ahead of the release, THN were able to speak with the film’s director, Robert Harmon, to talk in greater detail about The Hitcher’s lasting power and exactly why this Second Sight release is the definitive version of his feature debut.
We’re here talking today ahead of the Second Sight 4K restoration of The Hitcher, this is a project that has been many years in the making. How has the process been?
Well, first of all, it’s about time. I’m very, very happy about it. The process of working with Second Sight has been fantastic. From everything I’ve seen, they’ve done a great job and I’m thrilled with it. I’m continuously astonished that a movie this old still generates this kind of interest. It’s fantastic.
Second Sight has a reputation for creating some of the most in-depth and beautiful physical media discs; would you say that this is the definitive version of The Hitcher?
I certainly would think so. I know a lot about what all these additional materials are, and they sound great. I’ve supplied some behind-the-scenes photos and all that. So my impression is that it’s going to be wonderful, although I haven’t seen the final product. I don’t imagine in another 40 years there will be something even better done. It seems impossible to me. Definitive sounds like the right word.
When it was first released, some critics didn’t quite get the film the way that it was intended, but opinions from critics have definitely changed over the years, the same with the audience. What do you think it is about this film that means we are talking about it all these years later?
Let me work backwards. First of all, you’re being very delicate about what some of the critics had to say. I still remember Roger Ebert for example, he didn’t just not like it… I don’t know if you have ever seen his rant about it. He was absolutely incensed. It somehow struck him as, I don’t know, almost criminal. He loathed it with a passion that I still can’t quite understand.
But to get to your central question, I think that we just hit right on the money for how unexplained the Rutger Hauer character is. If you go too far and you explain nothing, then it can just be “what’s going on here? This is ridiculous!”. But I think through all kinds of means, including Mark Ishams’ pretty wonderful score, we let the audience know everything they needed to. Sort of putting an arm around them and saying, “don’t worry, you will learn what you need to learn, but no more.”
There was a lot of pressure to explain John. Luckily, Ed Feldman, our producer, was a very well-known producer. He had just done Witness, the Harrison Ford film, and Ed was the real thing, and so he had a certain amount of power that I certainly didn’t have as the first time director. Ed really stood up for us and really saved the film from certain people. It has a mysteriousness to it that hits the right note.
John Ryder would become one of Rutger Hauer’s most iconic roles. What was it about Hauer that made him perfect for the part?
Because there’s something about him. I was so nervous because I made one short film, he had just come off Blade Runner. I thought it was an incredible coup to get him into this movie. Luckily he really liked the short that I made, but I really think Rutger carries something with him, as some actors do, and he cannot shake it. Needless to say he was an extremely talented actor, but there’s something not of this Earth about him. It’s partly his appearance. His eyes are like crystal jewels set in his face. He doesn’t have to say a word and you go, “oh, okay”. He was into it, very, very deeply into it. He really loved the part.
The first encounter between Jim and John feels as if it could be a stand alone short film. This being your first feature, do you think that maybe you somewhat subconsciously approached the sequence in that way?
I’ve never thought about that. I wasn’t aware of it. I think that was a very evocatively written scene and they were both terrific in it. I was very green in terms of Hollywood experience, but I knew enough to know that if I’m given a feature film to direct and I completely blow it and it isn’t any good, I will never have a career. So I was anxious that every bit of it be as good as possible. The same kind of rather intense attention to detail and planning was applied to even just two guys in a car, talking to each other, in the rain, I really wanted it all to be something.
As much as The Hitcher is a thriller, it’s also a road movie. Audiences seem to be fascinated, no matter the genre umbrella they rest beneath, people seem to love them. Why do you think audiences are drawn to these stories?
I don’t know, but it so happens that the short that I made was also a road movie. I still remember when various producers, and Ed Feldman particularly, were screening my short to try to determine whether he had any interest in hiring me. I knew when he was screening the film. I knew exactly what time that screening started. And I remember looking at my watch and thinking, “boy did I make the right short for these guys!” It’s like Hitcher Jr or baby Hitcher. Completely different story, but it’s also in the desert and blah, blah, blah. It was just the perfect short for that film.
I like the form too very much, but trying to explain why? I don’t really know. It’s that weird picaresque, not, picturesque, but picaresque kind of storytelling in which the characters travel and have a series of adventures on the road. It goes back thousands of years. But you’re right, there’s something about it that’s inherently appealing, almost no matter what happens. I think of a really wonderful movie that didn’t get the credit it deserved, a movie called, The Green Knight, which is just a wonderful movie, and it’s also of that style.
Some of the critique at the time of release surrounded the truck stop scene with Nash. Some argued that the viewer needed to see what was happening to her. Why did you decide against showing the violence? It was released in the 80s afterall when the video nasty era was in full effect.
Sure. It was not my taste. I don’t know what Eric [Red] would have done had he directed the movie, but nobody fought me on it. I just had no interest in showing it because there was no way to show it without being a grotesque note of horror that just didn’t seem to have a place in the movie. I don’t recall any demand from TriStar that we show it. What we did fight was the demand that the whole scene be cut and that not happen to her. That was a constant thing that was going on, all through production, trying to get us to change and let her survive. We were all, including Ed Feldman and Eric, and everybody else, were adamant that was not going to happen.
Why should fans of The Hitcher put this Second Sight edition on their ‘to buy’ lists?
Oh well that’s easy because the original transfer done from the original – back in the day in the 80s was so completely inept and incompetent and horrific. I remember, again being green, after the film had been released and a little while went by, I called my agent said, “I should probably be involved in the transfer” and he said “yes, of course you should, let me get on that,” and he called me back a little while later and said “whoops, we’re too late. They’ve already done it.” When I saw it, I just literally freaked out. It was just awful, and it’s been that awful all these years, until now. There’s been nothing competent, or anything that resembled what the film really looked like. It was only that one transfer; they are still showing it on HBO.
I was a photographer for many years before I got into the movie business and how my films look is extremely important to me. It bugs the hell out of me when some simple thing, like ‘why don’t we do the transfer right’ isn’t done, and it’s been that way for I don’t know how many years, it’s been, but decades. I’m thrilled about this release. I was very involved in the colour timing and all the other aspects of the restoration of it. I’m very happy that people who have only seen that horrific transfer that was done originally get to see this version.
The Hitcher is available on 4K UHD and Blu-ray Limited and Standard Editions from 30th Sept via Second Sight Films.
