Post by Prime etc. on Jun 30, 2021 2:10:04 GMT
I saw the remake first and really liked it.
When I saw the original-at first I felt well, it is ok but dated. The 1962 Cady cannot be shown beating up the drifter --we have to hear dialogue to fill in what he did or imagine what he did.
However, looking at it since then, I see that the relationship between Peck and Mitchum is more physically suspenseful--because Mitchum is big and dangerous.
He doesnt have to do anything to be threatening. His expression is enough.
Scorsese's version is different--in that case DeNiro is a kind of Satan figure--so he isn't meant to be big and dangerous--he's supposed to be compact and the family problems are such that he can manipulate them.
The moral issue with the lawyer--that was interesting--it is kind of Frankenstein-like.
I think Scorsese did a really job with that interpretation--except in a couple of places I think it went over the top but this is the only film of his I can think of where the characters change.
Cady we are told-was an illiterate hick and he becomes totally different.
And Bowden and family-they come together thanks to the Cady involvement--and the daughter-who is the central character, not her father, she shows resourcefulness and maturity.
The wife also changes.
So I like the remake--it isn't the same kind of dynamic-as soon as you see DeNiro standing opposite Joe Don Baker and also Gregory Peck-you can see how small he is.
But that is where Scorsese is smart--he uses tricks to make Nolte seem physically less threatening --the weight loss--despite his greater size. I think it works.
One thing though--that victim attack--on Illeana Douglas--is very hard to watch. Her acting carries that way beyond the same character in the original movie.
Why don't we have acting like that anymore?
And why are southern accents associated with evil?
When I saw the original-at first I felt well, it is ok but dated. The 1962 Cady cannot be shown beating up the drifter --we have to hear dialogue to fill in what he did or imagine what he did.
However, looking at it since then, I see that the relationship between Peck and Mitchum is more physically suspenseful--because Mitchum is big and dangerous.
He doesnt have to do anything to be threatening. His expression is enough.
Scorsese's version is different--in that case DeNiro is a kind of Satan figure--so he isn't meant to be big and dangerous--he's supposed to be compact and the family problems are such that he can manipulate them.
The moral issue with the lawyer--that was interesting--it is kind of Frankenstein-like.
I think Scorsese did a really job with that interpretation--except in a couple of places I think it went over the top but this is the only film of his I can think of where the characters change.
Cady we are told-was an illiterate hick and he becomes totally different.
And Bowden and family-they come together thanks to the Cady involvement--and the daughter-who is the central character, not her father, she shows resourcefulness and maturity.
The wife also changes.
So I like the remake--it isn't the same kind of dynamic-as soon as you see DeNiro standing opposite Joe Don Baker and also Gregory Peck-you can see how small he is.
But that is where Scorsese is smart--he uses tricks to make Nolte seem physically less threatening --the weight loss--despite his greater size. I think it works.
One thing though--that victim attack--on Illeana Douglas--is very hard to watch. Her acting carries that way beyond the same character in the original movie.
Why don't we have acting like that anymore?
And why are southern accents associated with evil?