[See my September 20 entry on the 1991 Cape Fear. Edits and additions done 9/24/12.]
Last night I started watching the 1962 version of the film, and was struck by a few details in this film that did not correspond with what was said about it on the DVD for Martin Scorsese’s 1991 version. For instance, while Max Cady talks about “eight years ago” in the 1962 film, though that doesn’t necessarily mean his jail term was eight years, I’m pretty sure six years is what is referred to as Cady’s 1962 jail term in comments on the 1991-film DVD. [Not so sure where "six years" came from; checked 1991-film DVD on this.]
More notably, while the character of Sam Bowden is referred to on the 1991-film DVD as having been the prosecuting attorney in Cady’s trial in the 1962 film, in the actual 1962 film, it is clearly indicated a few times that Bowden only happened to be in Baltimore, where Cady got arrested for what we would today call sexual assault, and was a witness to the crime, even though by profession he was an attorney. So Bowden was only a witness against Cady in the 1962 film, not a prosecuting attorney.
The Wikipedia article on the 1962 version (and that on the 1991 version) do not engage in the confusion about what Sam Bowden was (witness versus prosecuting attorney) in the 1962 film. (Am not sure how much I mis-heard what was said on the 1991-film DVD, which certainly presented a lot of details I tried to follow carefully.)
Aside from this kind of detail-oriented stuff, the 1962 film is an amusing, if dark, kind of noir. Robert Mitchum seems to have a field day with his insouciant walk (almost a swagger) and posture, with Panama hat and big cigar, and his insinuating, spaced-apart eyes that seem perfect for a character who scares away a waitress in a bowling alley with his lewd sort of hint as he pays for his drink.
This movie should probably be seen before you view the 1991 version, if you're interested in the latter. The 1962 is both dark and yet shows what kind of bare-bones story there was on which the baroque beast of 1991 was based. The 1962 script is fairly simple about a rather brutal story, and while the film may seem amusingly old-fashioned today, we can appreciate how it was boundary-testing for its time. Interestingly, Bernard Herrmann's score--which overall is somewhat second-rate for him, yet still above-average for film scores of his time--gets to its crudest and creepiest in three scenes involving Cady's menacingly approaching the three main women of the film: "drifter" Diane Taylor, Sam's wife, and Sam's daughter: the music is basically cellos playing creepy, simplistic music, muddily recorded. It's as if the film aspired to nothing more than a basic B picture about a tacky subject, for making people wet their pants at a drive-in. And yet, perhaps as a reflection on how movies write their own history, we can see it as a classic today.
This movie should probably be seen before you view the 1991 version, if you're interested in the latter. The 1962 is both dark and yet shows what kind of bare-bones story there was on which the baroque beast of 1991 was based. The 1962 script is fairly simple about a rather brutal story, and while the film may seem amusingly old-fashioned today, we can appreciate how it was boundary-testing for its time. Interestingly, Bernard Herrmann's score--which overall is somewhat second-rate for him, yet still above-average for film scores of his time--gets to its crudest and creepiest in three scenes involving Cady's menacingly approaching the three main women of the film: "drifter" Diane Taylor, Sam's wife, and Sam's daughter: the music is basically cellos playing creepy, simplistic music, muddily recorded. It's as if the film aspired to nothing more than a basic B picture about a tacky subject, for making people wet their pants at a drive-in. And yet, perhaps as a reflection on how movies write their own history, we can see it as a classic today.
I took lots of notes, but need not say more about this film.
Still, we can appreciate how, when it comes to issues like stalkers, we have to be right about all the important details.
