Cape Fear vs. Cape Fear - Page 2

Maybe I misspoke. But I certainly get the impression that the original Cape Fear is made with loftier intentions than what the final product ultimately delivers. (Then again, many films are guilty of this - so I should quit while I'm ahead) I'm probably wrong... After all, Thompson was one of the most unpretentious directors.

I guess what it boils down to is that I don't find the original Cape Fear all that interesting. But Scorsese definitely did interesting things with the material. There's something to be said for the fact that the remake eclipsed the original in terms of cultural impact. And I know that's not necessarily an indication of a film's quality but maybe the fact it resonated more with audiences speaks to its effectiveness as a modern thriller.

Let's not get into the issue of cultural popularity being equivalent to effectiveness, or we'll get into that whole Avatar mess again.

But seriously, the remake had a cultural impact because it's recent, and people remember it. Modern audiences, by and large, don't watch old movies. A newer film is always going to have a greater cultural impact than an old black and white one. Since we weren't around when the original was released, it would be difficult to make that comparison. Certainly, the original had an impact on DeNiro, since he was the main force getting the remake off the ground.

This is something I didn't know. I was always under the impression that Spielberg talked Scorsese into doing the remake. (I think I read somewhere that Spielberg was attached to it initially, and he thought it would be perfect for his buddy Marty)

What I knew of De Niro was that he originally wanted to try for the hero part and have Max Cady cast against type. But maybe I have that story wrong too. I'd appreciate that being cleared up.

Anyway, you have a point about the original not having the same impact on audiences because it's old. But there are old films that retain their impact from one generation to the next and I was just trying to say that Cape Fear is not one of those films. Whereas, almost 20 years on, Scorsese's remake is a movie people still remember.

My preference also probably cuts to the fact that I think Scorsese is a better filmmaker than J. Lee Thompson, but that's neither here nor there.

Maybe we should put this argument to bed and at least agree that the best version of this story is actually Cape Feare. Discuss.

Or the one on The Simpsons.

*rake*

*shudder*

*rake*

*shudder*

I think the original movie wants to show Peck as an unambigious do-gooder, but iirc there's some pretty fishy behaviour going on there - Peck getting special treatment because he's a good guy, Mitchum getting kicked around in a way that wouldn't really scan as ok as treatment for an ex-con these days.

Cape Feare IS the one on the Simpsons. haha. And I also think it's a nice nod that they renamed the family The Thompsons in that episode.

I never thought about that. That is so subtle, but you're right!

But that scene where the Feds are going over the principles of the relocation program with Homer and explaining to him how his new name is Homer Thompson and he just doesn't understand... That is one of the funniest things ever in any sitcom.

Hello, Mr. Thompson.

.....I think he's talking to YOU.

I miss the days when episode titles were actually shown. I know the Star Trek episodes.

What are you using to measure this cultural impact? I'd make the argument that the original had just as much impact, if not more, than the Scorsese version. After all, if if made no impact, there would be no remake. Something resonated with the new generation enough to want to remake it. I can pull up just as much anecdotal evidence that people do still remember the first one. Especially Mitchum's performance. More anecdotal, the I've wowed many people showing them the original, to the point that they like it much more than the remake.

Yeah, we're both throwing around unsupported arguments here, but you're very wrong about the original having no impact on future generations. I'm part of that future generations, and it's one of my favorite movies. I know people like to marginalize it as just a B thriller, but it's one of the most effective B thrillers I've ever seen- in terms of performance, sneaking in a message, and just lean efficiency.

I should say I have no problem with the remake, it's also a fine piece of entertainment, but shit, give me Mitchum and Peck's interpretation any day.

Trouble for the original Cape Fear is also that Mitchum's psycho performance, fine as it is, will always end up getting compared to the one in Night Of The Hunter, which as far as b pictures go is a hell of a lot more impactful and unique.

That's an interesting point too. As villains go, Mitchum in Night Of The Hunter is more iconic than his Max Cady. Again, though, I'm not saying he isn't awesome as Cady... He definitely is. One thing Keith and I do agree on is that the two leads are gangbusters.

What I'm using as a barometer of Cape Fear's cultural impact is the same anecdotal evidence. I can only use my own circle as a reference. I was a young film buff when Scorsese's remake came along, and the name Cape Fear sounded familiar, but it wasn't the kind of film like the work of Hitchcock, that I had heard tons about. It's almost like I became aware of its existence in a vivid way thanks to the remake.

But it will be impossible to measure the relative cultural impacts of each version until another generation comes and goes. The remake will have to have as much time to be forgotten as the original.

I like them both equally, but to me, neither are great. They both have their flaws, but in different categories.

Mitchum is incredible in the original, and agreeing with Ripoll, more terrifying than DeNiro's Cady. Although his "I AM LIKE GOD" speech in the alley was outstanding.

As for Peck, he did well enough, and is a fine actor, but whoever recommended his other films needs to take Duel in the Sun off. That movie is plain awful. No redeeming qualities.

As a big John D. MacDonald fan, I gotta say I was disappointed when I finally read THE EXECUTIONERS, although it helped me appreciate what the first film managed to make of it. In the novel, Sam is even more of an upstanding citizen type, a regular paragon of virtue and 50s white upper-middle-class values, and the grayer areas of the "law" working in favor of the well-to-do citizen well connected in the community largely go unexamined, almost taken as a "well, of course that's the way it is."

Cady's mostly the same, though each film made his crime increasingly more brutal. And the ending is pretty much the setting up of Cady to home-invade so Sam (and the police!) can execute him "legally," without a Cape Fear 3rd act. The plan goes off with hardly a hitch, though Cady just gets winged, runs off through the woods he was sneaking through, and bleeds to death off stage to be found later. I was really surprised by the lack of tension and action in the climax.

There's some thought as to what it does to a person to kill a man in cold blood, but the ultimate moral is A Man's Gotta Do What A Man's Gotta Do To Protect His Family, and all wounds heal. Still a great premise, the villain getting revenge on the hero through mental games and using the law to his advantage, so I can see why of all the early MacDonald pulps this was picked up. But it's definitely a case of the film(s) improving on its source material.

There's a scene in Cape Fear (1962) where Mitchum cracks an egg over Peck's wife's breasts, and starts to rub the yolk into her chest. He then tells her that if she says she consents to him raping her, he won't rape her daughter.

FUCKING TERRIFYING. There's no doubt that Night of the Hunter is better and may even feature the better Mitchum performance, but it doesn't affect me like it does here.

I really like the remake, for the pop-horror thriller that it is, but the original really gets under my skin. It's really nasty. There's a scene where Mitchum is chasing Peck's daughter through the basement of a building (her school?) and that sequence ends with her being hit by a car. It's a shame that the editing gets really sloppy at times, especially towards the end. From George Tomasini, who edited Psycho and North by Northwest no less!

On his absolute best day, J Lee Thompson was no Hitchcock. I mean, 10 To Midnight has its moments, and I love me some Battle For the Planet of the Apes, but let's call it what it is. That editor might not have had the material he needed.

That's what Dre said on twitter. Reminds me of the part in When The Shooting Stops, The Cutting Begins...where Rosenblum said that only the people who shot the film can tell how good an editor really is.