Cape Fear 1991. When remakes actually work.

The amount of remakes floating about the cinemas these days really shocks me. Hollywood it seems can't leave a good thing alone. Recent examples could include The Thing ( just, why!?) and “Let Me In”, a remake of the truly brilliant Swedish vampire film “Let the Right One In”. Now, why would I go and pay to see that in the cinemas when A, I've already seen the original, and B, it's probably shit.And that's the problem with remakes. They might make tonnes of money ( which sadly seems to be their only purpose most of the time) but they very rarely turn out to be better films than the originals. I steadfastly refuse to watch the American remake of the Dutch film “The Vanishing”. Despite both original and remake being directed by the same man, George Sluizer, I just KNOW it can never be as good as the original.

I rarely watch remakes, though of course they are not all bad. Cronenberg's The Fly for example, is a great film. I must confess however, I have never seen the original, though I understand it to be vastly different to the Cronenberg version. Which is good. At least if you're gonna remake something, you might aswell put a different spin on things than in the original. Whatever ya do, don't take a leaf out of Gus Van Sant's book and remake a classic film shot for shot as he did in his pointless and rubbish version of “Psycho”.

That being said, I'm looking forward to David Fincher's upcoming version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.. Now before you tell me to pack my bags and leave you alone, allow me to explain. I have not seen the original. Which I hear is brilliant. But I haven't seen it. So it means nothing to me. If this wasn't the case, If I had actually seen the original, I'd probably have no desire to see the upcoming remake. But.... based on the trailer ( amazing) and the fact that it IS David Fincher, I'm willing to give it a chance.

Best Re-Make ever??

It's 1991. Martin Scorsese has released his remake of Cape Fear, starring frequent collobarotor ( or should I say one-time frequent collobarotor, for he seems to have been replaced by a younger, not as talented model in Leo Di Caprio) Robert De Niro in the role of crazed ex-con Max Cady.

The original Cape Fear is essentially a B movie, and fairly simple plot wise. Max Cady ( Robert Mitchum) is released from prison and immediately seeks out revenge against lawyer Sam Bowden( Gregory Peck) who witnessed and then testified against Cady who was charged for rape.

For the 1991 version, screenwriter Wesley Strick and director Martin Scorsese changed the plot somewhat. Commercially successful ( a must for remakes), It’s fast paced style made for an effective thriller, and this may have deceived some viewers into thinking that that’s all it is. However, upon second viewing it is clear this film is much more layered and deep. In fact, having watched both versions, I would view it as a separate film rather than a re make.

Compared to the original, this reincarnation of Max Cady is a much deeper more layered character, a very articulate and clever man yet also very violent and feral, with long hair, and a sinewy muscular body covered in tattoos that scream vengeance in biblical quotations and lightning bolts. The original portrayal ( By Robert Mitchum, a very fine actor) pales in comparison, where Max Cady comes across more so as a pissed-off drunkard than a genuinely insane murderer. Of course, in the 50's audiences may have drank less, and so I'm sure he seemed terrifying to the masses. In the 90's, it needed something else to scare people.

 Step up Bobby D.

In the opening shots of the film, he is working out in his cell, and the walls are covered in photos, the shelves in books. One of the photos is of Joseph Stalin. Stalin means Man of Steel, and through out the film Cady’s body certainly seems to be one of steel as he relentlessly marches towards his goal, an unstoppable force of nature. This is very evident in a scene where he is viciously attacked by three men armed with pipes and a chain, yet he somehow fights them off.

Another picture is a of a saint impaled with spears. A martyr. Could it be that Cady sees himself as a martyr? Or a martyr in the making? And he wants to judge Sam Bowden in the same way he was judged, and make him come out a better man because of it? The film has several other Biblical references, and this religious theme is new to the 1991 version.

In both films Cady is referred to as an animal, but I think in the 1991 version Scorsese uses this more in the plot. Cady appears much more feral in his version. One scene in particular has Cady metaphorically resembling an animal and I’ll explain why. In both films an important scene takes place involving Cady and Bowden’s daughter in a school. In the original it’s a simple old B-movie chase scene, however in the remake the scene plays out more like a seduction.

Danielle Bowden is approaching a strange stage of her life, she is becoming a woman. And Cady knows this, and the scene is interesting in that he kind of helps her understand herself a little more, initially at least. It takes place in the theatre of the school. The production design has the scene leading towards one of a fairytale in my opinion. The dark theatre shrouded in mystery, and a little house straight from a fairytale with a wild haired Cady emerging from it. This scene in my opinion, is like the well known Little Red Riding Hood. There are many interpretations of the fairytale, and one is that of sexual awakening. And I can analyse this scene using this interpretation of Little Red Riding Hood. The “ dark forest of womanhood” is the dark rows of empty seats in the theatre; Cady, with his cunning manner and wild appearance, is the big bad wolf that threatens her virginity with his seductie mannerisms and words. This is a very shocking and memorable scene in the film, and nothing like it takes place in the original. Bowden’s daughter in the original isn’t explored as a character at all.

The 1991 version is just so much deeper, and a rare case of a remake actually bettering an original. 

I suppose, a director of the skill of Scorsese is ALL it takes.

 Seldom is wonderful. 

Eh..... psycho...