The Silver Screen Oasis

Which version do you like better. The Peck - Mitchum version, or the DeNiro - Nolte mess.

You said it all by calling it a mess. DeNiro (who I normally like a lot) was a little too over the top on this one. He turned Max Cady into a caricature. Mitchums' performance was subtly menacing throughout until the end when he planned on getting down to business. Until the houseboat scene, you really didn't know for sure what was going to happen. Even in his treatment of Barbara McNair, she had said something (can't recall what) that set him off, so you didn't know if his menace was just directed at her or if he was really going to carry it over to Peck and his family.

But right from the beginning, you knew DeNiro was a loon, as well as a vicious guy - Mitchum was more the embodyment of evil.

Anne

Mitchum in Cape Fear was frightening, and part of the menace that gripped me is that there are people running around roaming the earth that are such an embodiment of evil.

Like the Reverend in Night Of The Hunter, the cold-blooded stalker is never an easy role to execute. The fine line between the caricature and the character role determines whether, to borrow an analogy from Paul Newman, you have a hamburger at 5:00 or a steak at 7:00.

Mitchum's meaty roles as the fearless sociopath are riveting, and when I want a good "fright" movie, I usually turn to one of Bob's performances in these two movies, rather than to a traditional horror flick.

Both films are essentially mood pieces with the accent on escalating terror. So then it becomes a question of black & white versus color. In that kind of contest the winner will invariably be black & white. As entertainment, I feel that both are fundamentally dull, although Mitchum's performance in the original is far more interersting (not to mention believable) than DeNiro's.

mrsl wrote:You said it all by calling it a mess. DeNiro (who I normally like a lot) was a little too over the top on this one. He turned Max Cady into a caricature.

That was one of the many problems with this version. Mitchum was scarier because you could imagine he was for real.

I've never seen the original. I saw the Scorsese version. I mentioned seeing it to a couple I knew. The wife has never spoken to me again since I didn't leave after DeNiro attacked Nolte's mistress.

MikeBSG wrote:I've never seen the original.

It's a superb film. Very scary. Not scary by 1962 standards, scary by any standards. Mitchum is amazing.

Wasn't it amazing the way Mitchum could re-invent himself so easily to accomodate the demands of the character he was playing, whether sympathetic (OUT OF THE PAST, CROSSFIRE, HOLIDAY AFFAIR, etc, etc) or downright evil (NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, CAPE FEAR, etc). His effortless demeanor had a tendency to camouflage the fact that he was a supremely gifted actor with the courage to tackle any role, no matter how unflattering to his image.

Mitchum also liked to pretend that he didn't take acting seriously and didn't have a high opinion of his own talent. I suspect he actually took acting much more seriously than he let on. He was a remarkably subtle actor, who could do more with a lifted eyebrow than most actors could do with ten pages of dialogue. And at least as late as 1975, when he made the very underrated Farewell, My Lovely his talent was undiminished by the passing years. Plus you have to admire a guy who contemptuously turned down the role of Dirty Harry.

I'm so glad my favorite guy is appreciated by so many. Too bad his talent wasn't recognized when he was alive. Whoever said he adapted to all his roles was so right! I was always sorry he and Jane Russell didn't do something together later as John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara did in McClintock. It's hard to believe he was not nominated, let alone win for either Cape Fear or Night of the Hunter.

Anne

mrsl wrote:It's hard to believe he was not nominated, let alone win for either Cape Fear or Night of the Hunter.

It's the flashy performances that win Oscars, not the genuinely deserving ones.

The original is one of the scariest movies I've ever seen, and I used to watch a lot of scary movies. Mitchum is creepy and he's sexual at the same time, which is really disturbing on so many levels. That scene in the hotel room with the girl is one of the most horrifying I've looked at---without actually showing much. It's what you imagine must have happened that sends you reeling. And how he gets so into what he's saying when he describes to Peck what he did to his wife when he got out of jail...yikes! DeNiro is just a thug. He lacks the piercing intelligence of Mitchum, who is truly one of the most underrated actors.

Not only is DeNiro just a "thug", he's over-the-top psycho.

Which I think brings us to the whole matter of some of the ill-conceived changes in the story when the remake was made.

Why are the Bowdens very much more a dysfunctional family in the remake than in the original? I mean, how does that add to the story? it seems to be one of the many gratuitous changes made to the original.

And what about the scene where DeNiro bites the girl's cheek off?
That pretty much did it for me. I stopped paying close attention to the movie at that point. That was about 10 years ago. Haven't seen it since, don't intend to.

The original wins hands down.

I kept wanting to compare the films. DeNiro is so over-the-top, and maybe that fits his character, but it comes up short compared to Mitchum.

Mitchum is so calm. I remember in the fight scene with Peck near the end Mitchum, at one point, looks annoyed that Peck is bothering him. It's a terrific scene.

The later version is just too long. Also, when characters die they shoud stay dead. (Also ruined "Fatal Attraction.")