 The story of Max Cady and Sam Bowden has been told three times. First is a pretty interesting book The Executioners by John D. McDonald. Four years later it was adapted by James R. Webb into the film Cape Fear, although the film was an almost direct adaptation of the book, director J. Lee Thompson envies claustrophobia and elements of film noir to tell a compelling and frightening story about how far a good man will go to protect his family. I feel like this movie had a lot of potential that couldn't be reached. The Motion Picture Association of America operated under strict rules until 1963, just one year after this film was released. So some of the more gruesome elements of the story couldn't be shown. However, that potential was reached almost 30 years later with a new script held by Wesley Strick with collaboration from Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese and even Robert De Niro. This isn't to say that the original is bad. It's an interesting story that perfectly captures the upper-class angst that was building before the rise of counterculture. The most interesting aspect of the 1962 version is how it subverts the revenge film. In it, Sam is a witness to a crime Max commits. Sam testifies against Max in court and upon being released from prison, Max terrorizes the Bowden family and pushes Sam beyond his moral limits. The movie succeeds in deconstructing a lot of the tropes, which were and still are, associated with classic family values. The film was released in an intermediary stage after the 1950s, but before the rise of counterculture. The movie took ideas of hard work doing what is right in family values and turned them on their head. Sam does all these things. He follows his civic duties and responsibility, saves a woman's life and then testifies on her behalf. He did everything right both morally and in terms of the law. Despite that, he still comes face to face with this monster. He tries to handle the situation within the law, but once that fails, he is forced to take the situation into his own hands. This is exemplified by Gregory Peck, the actor playing Sam, who for the majority of the 1950s and early 60s made a career of playing well-to-do, good-hearted and hardworking men. Cape Fear challenged all these stereotypes, making the audience question what they would do if they were in that exact same situation. Jumping ahead 30 years, this idea of a perfect protagonist wasn't going to cut it. With Scorsese at the helm of Cape Fear, he wanted to take a different approach to the characters of Sam and Max. It's no longer a story of good versus evil. At every point in the movie, we want Katie to fail. We want the Bodans to live, but it isn't as black and white as that. Nobody in the movie is pure like we saw in the original. Everyone is flawed in one way or another. That was, I guess, the biggest change we made in the original script. Really made that change, the original script that the family was very much like, very wholesome together family. But at the same time, nobody is truly evil. Scorsese creates compassion for all of his characters, even Katie, who is a monster. Somebody we hate, he's the most vile thing that you could construct. But take a look at this scene. We watch as Sam hides behind a dumpster and watches three hired and armed thugs try and beat up the defenseless Katie. Ask yourself, who are we supposed to be rooting for? The three men who we have no emotional attachment to, the man cowering behind the dumpster, or the man who is attacked, fights off the three armed men coming after him, and then knowing where Sam is, chooses not to attack him. Councillor? Throughout the movie, but especially in this scene, Scorsese creates moral confusion. We hate Katie and everything that he represents. Despite that, we feel compassion for him. It's in our nature to want to root for the underdog, and this scene is an underdog story. One way in which Scorsese creates this underdog mentality is making Katie embody everything that Sam doesn't. Although we as the audience are supposed to root for Sam, that doesn't mean we have to like him. He isn't a good person. He's an adulterer, bends the law to fit his beliefs, and doesn't show his wife and daughter the attention they need or deserve. Sam's faults, however, are Katie's strengths. Katie is not a good person. He's a horrible person, but he is honest. If he says he's going to do something, he is going to do it. The two men are polar opposites. In this contrast, is in part what makes a great villain. Writer Michael Hegg defines the antagonist as the character who most stands in the way of the hero achieving his or her outer motivation. This is exemplified by the relationship between Sam and Katie. At every step of the story, Sam wants to protect his family, while Katie is trying to harm them or at the very least, take away their innocence. What this movie did so well was intertwine the two men's narratives. Sam is only protecting his family from the imminent threat of Katie who is only acting out because of vengeance, a vengeance that we understand. When Katie was in prison, he studied law, philosophy, religion. He became smarter, stronger, and in theory, a better human with a better understanding of the world around him. I can now learn you, I can now read you, I can now thank you, and I can now philosophize you. Despite that, he still chooses to attack Sam and his family. The law is on Katie's side. With the resources he has, he could have used the information he has against Sam, made him give up his legal practice, sued him, taken everything away from him, but that wasn't good enough for Katie. Look, I realize that you suffered him. There's no question of suffering. You don't know what suffering is, Councilor. If he were to go after him legally, he wouldn't make Sam suffer as much as he did. Well, what shall be my compensation, sir, for being held down, sold to miles by full white guys? One final aspect that defines Scorsese's adaptation is its use of fear. Saved for this scene, which happens to be the best in the movie, fear is lacking from the original movie. Obviously, there is a certain uneasiness of all the characters feel in scenes full of tension, but there is a huge difference between that and legitimate psychological fear that is found throughout every scene in the 1991 version. The movie suggests that fear is what leads to freedom. It's only through his fear that Sam is able to rid himself of Katie. It was only through his fear did Katie enlighten himself, setting himself free. And it's only through fear does Katie corrupt Danny. In the theater scene, we see someone who truly understands what Danny feels, somebody who felt just as trapped as she does, and somebody who knows how to manipulate her because they were both trapped by the same man. Instead of trying to connect with what she relates to, Katie instead connects with her through fear. He lists off everything that she is afraid of, and through this, he sets her free. This is something that nobody in the movie seems to accept except for Katie and Danny, and fear instead forces characters on the run. Every decision that is made is rooted in fear. Pay attention to the relationship between Katie's actions and Sam's reaction, as one escalates as does the other, all the way until the very end. All of the reactions are driven by fear. Katie first goes after the people and things closest to Sam, and as they become closer and closer to Sam, his fears escalate and as do his actions. But perhaps more importantly, this slow escalation helps to build fear within the audience, as we realize how horrible the man Katie is, how powerful he is, and the realization that only one thing will stop him. Hey everyone, I hope you enjoyed. I think Cape Fear, both versions, deserve more discussion. They both perfectly capture the eras in which they are set, or full of great performances and offer interesting discussions about how far somebody will go for the people they love. I definitely prefer Scorsese's version because it's much more realistic and fleshed out characters. And all around, I feel like it's an objectively better movie, but there is nothing objective in film. It's all personal. So be sure to drop a comment and get your thoughts out there. If you haven't seen it yet, here's a link to my last video that looks at some of the biggest issues in Alien Covenant and another link to my playlist of discussions of Martin Scorsese's films. Thanks for watching and I will see you next week.