Cape Fear (1962)
After watching the remake on its initial release, we went back to watch the original and I was stuck at the difference in characterization where the events in one come to a head because of the players' stupidity and, in the other, by a quickly formulated and executed, (flawed, but still effective) plan. Watching it again after a few decades, I started doubting myself: Surely I must be remembering it wrong! Have I been unfair to the remake?
Since in the intervening years, I have been a victim of an infamous stalker, my viewer focus this time was a bit different, (other than vague threats nothing ever happened, but by keeping tabs on the guy I learned he was eventually beaten up at a Trump rally after throwing marked dollar bills in the air - you may still find reports if you look for them - after which he disappeared from my radar,) and so, this viewing instead emphasized the impotence of the law against a situation where crimes have yet to be committed.
The story deals with an ex-con who stalks the witness (now a small-town attorney) who caused him to be imprisoned and attempts to seek revenge by raping the man's adolescent daughter. With this nasty premise, was the ramped-up, graphic violence of the remake even necessary? By leaving more to the imagination, the original is much more disturbing.
The attorney, feeling threatened, contacts the local law asking for special favors which initially results in harassment of the ex-con by the cops. When he 'lawyers up', the law admits they can't do much beyond that, and advises the victim to get a private detective. That's also helpful only up to a point, and the detective then suggests seeking help from local thugs who beat up the ex-con, an action which backfires when the thugs are arrested and questioned.
Unfortunately for his victim, the ex-con studied law while imprisoned and learned to exploit its weaknesses.
In a scene that reminded me of the trailer of a Hulk Hogan comedy (which implied that suing someone was a then sign of the times), rather than responding violence with violence, he responds with a lawsuit and begins the process of disbarring him.
Finally, a more subtle approach with a baited trap is utilized, (still with some law enforcement support).
The casting of Gregory Peck, (Atticus Finch, himself,) might 'clue us in' that this is a lawful and highly moral man, but his character is quickly revealed to be not much concerned about asking for special favors or even resorting to breaking the law himself. Not that he is not justified, (after all, he is looking merely to protect his family,) but he, for example, is in a privileged position he doesn't mind exploiting. What if, like me, the victim was a regular guy without connections to law enforcement?
The film addresses this even while admitting the inadequacy of the law under the circumstances, (is the option to punish thoughtcrimes a better one?)
Is this not an early instance of vigilantism in film?
Robert Mitchum is chilling, (good God, man! was The Night of the Hunter not enough for you?) even while still remaining a charismatic character. Unlike in the remake, his easy pickup of a random barfly doesn't make her stupid, it's reasonably understood she's impressed by his bad boy, cocky demeanor which still does not reveal the true darkness beneath.
I'm not certain if this qualifies as authentic Film Noir this late in the game, but the photography, with its deep, inky blacks, is well suited to the genre. Knowing beforehand where the story is headed, just the strains of Bernard Herrman's composition during the title credits begin to generate suspense.
With Polly Bergen, Lori Martin, Martin Balsam, and Barrie Chase.
A classic of suspense.
Check it out.
After watching the remake on its initial release, we went back to watch the original and I was stuck at the difference in characterization where the events in one come to a head because of the players' stupidity and, in the other, by a quickly formulated and executed, (flawed, but still effective) plan. Watching it again after a few decades, I started doubting myself: Surely I must be remembering it wrong! Have I been unfair to the remake?
Since in the intervening years, I have been a victim of an infamous stalker, my viewer focus this time was a bit different, (other than vague threats nothing ever happened, but by keeping tabs on the guy I learned he was eventually beaten up at a Trump rally after throwing marked dollar bills in the air - you may still find reports if you look for them - after which he disappeared from my radar,) and so, this viewing instead emphasized the impotence of the law against a situation where crimes have yet to be committed.
The story deals with an ex-con who stalks the witness (now a small-town attorney) who caused him to be imprisoned and attempts to seek revenge by raping the man's adolescent daughter. With this nasty premise, was the ramped-up, graphic violence of the remake even necessary? By leaving more to the imagination, the original is much more disturbing.
The attorney, feeling threatened, contacts the local law asking for special favors which initially results in harassment of the ex-con by the cops. When he 'lawyers up', the law admits they can't do much beyond that, and advises the victim to get a private detective. That's also helpful only up to a point, and the detective then suggests seeking help from local thugs who beat up the ex-con, an action which backfires when the thugs are arrested and questioned.
Unfortunately for his victim, the ex-con studied law while imprisoned and learned to exploit its weaknesses.
In a scene that reminded me of the trailer of a Hulk Hogan comedy (which implied that suing someone was a then sign of the times), rather than responding violence with violence, he responds with a lawsuit and begins the process of disbarring him.
Finally, a more subtle approach with a baited trap is utilized, (still with some law enforcement support).
The casting of Gregory Peck, (Atticus Finch, himself,) might 'clue us in' that this is a lawful and highly moral man, but his character is quickly revealed to be not much concerned about asking for special favors or even resorting to breaking the law himself. Not that he is not justified, (after all, he is looking merely to protect his family,) but he, for example, is in a privileged position he doesn't mind exploiting. What if, like me, the victim was a regular guy without connections to law enforcement?
The film addresses this even while admitting the inadequacy of the law under the circumstances, (is the option to punish thoughtcrimes a better one?)
Is this not an early instance of vigilantism in film?
Robert Mitchum is chilling, (good God, man! was The Night of the Hunter not enough for you?) even while still remaining a charismatic character. Unlike in the remake, his easy pickup of a random barfly doesn't make her stupid, it's reasonably understood she's impressed by his bad boy, cocky demeanor which still does not reveal the true darkness beneath.
I'm not certain if this qualifies as authentic Film Noir this late in the game, but the photography, with its deep, inky blacks, is well suited to the genre. Knowing beforehand where the story is headed, just the strains of Bernard Herrman's composition during the title credits begin to generate suspense.
With Polly Bergen, Lori Martin, Martin Balsam, and Barrie Chase.
A classic of suspense.
Check it out.
statistics: Posted by hermanthegerm — 2:48 PM - 1 day ago — Replies 2 — Views 277