The similarities and differences between the opening sequence, final sequence, and five examples of dialogue scenes in two "Cape Fear" films, which were made in 1962 and 1991 with the same names, are discussed in this paper.
Cape Fear (1962) is directed by John Lee Thompson, a director belonging to the classic style of cinema history, and it is an adaptation of J.R. Web’s screenplay from the novel by John de McDonald. This film was remade in 1991 by Martin Scorsese. In the later version, the director has used Wesley Strick’s screenplay. The weaknesses of the original version prompted Scorsese and Strick to turn the novel’s thrilling storyline into cinematic language and make it a realistic and believable film as expected. Thompson’s film has flaws such as turning the novel text to cinema language sentence by sentence without observing cinema directorship rules, the poor choice of filming location and uncertainty of actors in the final scenes, the unsolid narrative structure on today’s realistic relationships, and many similar cases.
I will use this background to express the similarities and differences between the two films.
In this section, the preview, decoupage, dramatization, treating different forms of the opening sequence, and changing it over the past three decades in these two films are explored.
There is a difference in the introduction of these two films to the approach of the filmmakers of these two films in dealing with the audience.
In the first version, the filmmaker reports a documentary without any additional view. In expressing the initial events of the film until setting the foundation of the story, the story is narrated in a completely linear method without referring to the characteristics of the film. The views are arranged like breaks used in the construction of a wall. This work has completely focused on maintaining the place and time, adhering to the original and classic definitions of the sequence.
However, in the later film, until founding the narration in the story, by repeatedly changing the place and time of the event in the initial sequence, it tries to create a discreet characterization, in the style of the postmodern era, without observing the rules of classic cinema narrative to narrate the story by creating a slight confusion which is now decreased for the modern audience who are familiar with the cinema rules.
In both films, the opening sequence continues until the viewer becomes aware of the film’s story, in which the antagonist continues to take revenge on the protagonist who imprisoned / increased his sentence.
The decoupage patterns in the first film follow the classic rules of cinema. The opening titling of the film is on street images that show the place and time of the event.
This start at the beginning of the film creates a dichotomy between the name of the film and the film itself; A very busy street and beautiful sunlight shining on the city.
building: the court.
After a short time, we notice that the camera moves, which follows its subject to reach a building, the camera stops on the plate that introduces the building: the court. We enter the building with the character we have been following for a while in the crowd. He smokes a cigar and is looking for a person named Sam Buden; he finds the intended room by inquiring and he breaks his cigarette before entering the room.
Using the big shots, emphasizing the character of Sam Buden, as well as employing Gregory Pak for this role, the viewer recognizes the film’s first character. Sam Buden is a lawyer and is defending his client. But the character we have been with since the beginning of the film is introduced after the trial when Sam Buden is sitting in his car, and a hand gets into the car and picks up the car key. A symbolic movement that brings with it an onslaught. This way of characterization, which is also chosen in Scorsese’s film, makes the viewer curious to get acquainted with this character. He is Max Kidi, a criminal who was accidentally identified by Sam Buden and handed over to the police and spent eight years in prison on rape charges. Now that he has been released from prison, he intends to take revenge on the person in charge of his imprisonment. In this section, just before that the story line becomes clear for the audience, we get acquainted with the next key character who, we now know, is the antagonist of the story. In this part, the viewer does not clearly know the story of what happened in the past, and this part of the narrative remains a mystery for a few minutes until Sam Buden narrates the story for his family and in fact retell the story to the viewer. This is a mistake that will not go unnoticed by Scorsese, because despite choosing an older girl, the protagonist of Scorsese’s film avoids creating anxiety in the first phase of Max Kidi’s threat by not raising the issue with his family. But the beginning of Scorsese’s film uses different elements. The titling of this film is written on the waves of water, which helps the viewer put the possible events of this film beside the name of the film and predict the environment of the final season.
The film’s opening sequence until the viewer becomes aware of the story and the main storyline is established is longer than Thompson’s. In this film, different scenes have been written and performed to identify the characters, so that when we encounter the story, we know all the characters.
The film begins with an image of the eyes of Daniel, the young daughter of Sam Buden, where the image becomes graphically red and then ice.
An important part of the film is that Daniel becomes the narrator, a 16-year-old girl who emerges from the opening scene so important that the viewer realizes that Max Kidi’s crime was raping a 16-year-old girl. Despite its simplicity, this subject was another structural arrangements of Scorsese, which did not exist in the original version of Cape Fear,
but in the final sequence it caused frequent questions. Of course, the structural and logical flaws of the first version do not end here, such that there are countless examples until the end of the film whose logic does not exist in today’s world, but as the body of the film is not the subject of this article, they are not explored here.
A point taken into account in remaking this film is that, given the audience’s possible awareness of what happened in version 1962, at the beginning of the film, the young girl in the family talks about the unfortunate experience that happened to her family. It also makes the film narrative so that if the viewer remembers the first version of the film, the events and the deadly ending will be bearable for them.
Scene and costume design in this section help us a lot in dealing with the characters. From the prison door and wall, with photos reminiscent of the concept of equality, and legal books in the interior view of the prison which lead in with the camera movement
which is full of justice-seeking tattoos, while exercising; At the end of this scene, when the prison guard asks Max whether or not to take the books, he answered by I have read all of them.
So far, we are a little familiar with the character who is released from prison. A character who has studied many books and is well-trained and has born the pain of tattoo on his body for the sake of justice.
The characterization in this film seems to be disconnected in the opening sequence, because after this scene, we are taken to the wife and daughter of Sam Buden to get familiar with them. Here are two key points: Lee, Sam’s wife, is a designer, and a creative woman with a high level of social intelligence, as well as the fact that the family keeps a dog at home that they are very interested in.
After this short scene, we go to Sam Buden in the yard of the courthouse. A very short scene where we find out that Sam is a lawyer and has a case that concerns the private life of his colleague and his daughter, and will
probably do his best for them and will circumvents the law, if necessary.
But another important scene that helps characterize the film is the scene inside the cinema that begins with Max’s arrival. At first, her lighter-shaped like a woman’s body is showing off, and then the nervous laughter and cigarette smoke upset the Buden family, forcing them to change places.
In a scene outside the cinema, the information that can be concluded from the family’s words is that Sam is also an athlete and a boxer. This balances the film’s final conflict. Of course, Lee sarcastically tell the most important dialogue of this episode to Sam, accusing him of a cowardly fight, especially for making money. This scene ends with Sam knowing that the cost of that night was paid by Max, a person who does not still know. This payment of money is repeated again in the middle of the film in terms of structure where it is intended to show the high-intelligence and awareness of Max in recognizing a detector employed by Sam.
The next scene is where the viewer becomes subtly aware of Sam’s possible betrayal to his wife. He apparently has a non-working relationship with his colleague.
This betrayal is very important in the characterization of Sam, because in the same scene after Ms. Lawyer’s departure, Sam gets in his own car, but in the form of the first version of the Cape Fear, Max picks up Sam’s car key and talks to him. A small introduction in the first film after this scene of the conversation, Sam’s dog is killed and Sam explains the story to his family, but in Scorsese’s film after this conversation, the film shows the love and affection of Sam and Lee, and the other difference is that Sam in Scorsese’s film, tells the story to his colleague.
All of these scenes were added to the original version of the film to narrow down the horror film instead of the artificial explanation of Sam Buden (Gregory Pak) to his wife and young daughter.
However, in the Scorsese’s film the clash and introduction to the police was not as in the first film. Sam was set as the lawyer of Max and by hiding a document that could have reduced Max’s sentence by seven years, he caused Max to spend a long time in prison; an event that deserves severe retribution.
The difference between the characterization of the first and second films is this issue, according to the above arguments, in the first film the characters are either black or white, but the characterization in the second film is completely gray and neither Sam is perfectly good nor Max is a very evil human.
After the explanations that I gave about the structural form of the opening sequence, Scorsese, unlike Thompson, is expected to use modern decoupage patterns in his film. The use of long shots in different scenes to reduce the rhythm, even in dialogue scenes, using more long shots and using bracketing techniques, which I will mention in the film’s finishing section, are the reason why the decoupage of Scorsese film is placed in modern category.
In the first film, the opening sequence creates a completely classic dramatic beginning by creating realistic, neutral and far from any unusual events. The only feature of the original images in this film is creating a question in the viewer’s mind to arouse suspense and curiosity. But in the reconstruction of this film in 1991, these rules are broken. The scenes are not neutral, and unusual event, like a scene in cinema, and then a scene where Max pays the cost of that night takes palace. In one case, he ignores realism, and this is where at the end of the scene when Buden family goes to the cinema, Max escape from where he had parked his car at a glance. Regarding the way of introducing the four components including place, time, character and event, according to Daniel’s explanation at the beginning of the film, the W rule is reversed as we first find out what happened, then who included it and later we know the time and place of the event. Everything mentioned in this section indicates the modern dramatic beginning of Scorsese’s film. The dramatic features of the opening sequence of this film include things like unexpected events and creating a question in the audience’s mind to arouse suspense and curiosity. Daniel’s initial conversation with the camera informs the viewer regarding the central position of the story.
Different forms of the initial sequence:
Starting in the opening sequence of the first version of Cape Fear, as mentioned earlier, is character centered. The camera first tracks Max’s movements until he reaches the court and meets Sam.
After this scene, until the story line is established, it deals with the main and secondary characters of the film in its own way.
But beginning in remaking this film is thematic and character-oriented. At first glance, when Daniel in front of the camera telling the story of what happened to them in the last summer, the subject of the film can be guessed. By expressing the main theme, this section first introduces the film thematically and then, like the original version of the film, the sequence is started with the main and secondary characters of the film, and considers each of them specially.
The difference between the two films regarding the opening sequence:
One of the differences between the two films is the way the filmmakers view the role of the viewer in understanding and analyzing events and shaping the coherence of the story in their minds. The continuity of events throughout the first sequence of Thompson’s film shows this. In such a way that the unity of place and time has been preserved.
This kind of view of receiving the audience is not only about the time of making the film, but also about the style of the filmmaker’s activity.
. Many films have been made in previous years, but they need the viewer’s understanding to be aware of the interconnectedness of the film’s shots
. Another important difference is that the owners of Hollywood film studios asked the directors to tell the story in a way that the audience would fully understand and not need too much attention.
This request was made to boost film sales.
Looking at this sequence in remaking this film, we notice a huge change in the way the audience pays attention and stabilizes the event. The disintegration of events, the breakdown of the unity of place and time, the existence of scenes of less than 30 seconds and jumping to the next scenes, and finally the disconnected characterization in the film’s narrative form show the special anticipation of Scorsese and Strik from their audience. This course has developed a way of presenting content in cinema over time, and as movies become more up-to-date, so does this way of presentation.
In the following sections, in reviewing the final sequence, I will examine one of the important scenes of the film,
which is related to this issue. This form of narration continues in both films and they adhere to their routine until the end.
The dialogue scenes between the two films differ in terms of content, dialogue, decoupage, and generally directing, as well as the location of the actors. For this reason, except for one case, I will ignore the analogy between these scenes in two films and I will deal with the directorship of these scenes separately. To remind you of the conversation scenes, an image of each is placed in a separate folder.
Conversation scenes from the Cape Fear 1962:
In this film, Thompson has used the least amount of cuts in conversation scenes among directors of his generation. Views are fixed as long as there is no need to correct the frame. In most cases, the camera has the least amount of mobility, and Pen or Tilt is used to correct the frame in the conversation views. When there is a need for more mobility within a frame and the purpose has not been achieved by modifying the frame, he used a match cut; however, he has been unable to perform this technique properly in most cases. In the dialogue scenes, if there was a cut, it was for reaction view, and it was never done for visual diversity. In these cuts, too, the look lines do not match blatantly. If the film belonged to art cinema, I would have found a reason for it, but given the film’s classic nature, it takes a lifetime to find out why the director is so weak. With this explanations, I will examine the structure of the dialogue scenes of this film. Hopefully, there will be some thought behind the director’s reasons in choosing this decoupage style. In most of the dialogue scenes, the camera is placed in a fixed location, and the dialogue scenes are like theatrical performance of a decoupaged show. Perhaps the reason for this preparation was the adaptation of the screenplay of this film from a novel.
1. The scene of conversation between Sam and Max at bar:
This scene is one of the few dialogue scenes in the film in which there is a segmentation of scene, and for this purpose, the views of Over the shoulder, the internal view and master view have been used. According to the black and white characters mentioned earlier, the reason for using the Over the shoulder view and combining these two together if is not a technical limitation to take the whole view with one plan, is to create visual diversity which is very rare in this movie. But the point that I have to mention in this section is that the angles of the internal views in this conversation are designed based on the rules of power sharing. Views in which the camera’s angle is upward are used to film Max, and scenes that are aligned with the angle of view are for Sam. Throughout the film, Thompson has shown that he has an understanding of views and senses created by the scenes in terms of size and angle.
2. Scene of Sam and Lee’s conversation:
The scene, in which Sam speaks of his intention to kill Max before the scene begins, starts with Lee’s surprise. This is difficult for Lee to understand and she does not want to agree with Sam on this topic. What happened in the segmentation of views in this scene is that the symmetry between the scenes is disturbed and we see the whole scene with two views. An internal view of Sam and an over the shoulder view of Sam that we see Lee. Disagreement in this scene is the reason for designing this scene in this way. The mistake that has happened in this scene is the mismatch in the look lines of these two players. In a part of the scene, Lee leans toward the table, but when he cuts into Sam’s internal view, Sam looks up as before.
3. Scene of a four-person conversation at the police station:
In this scene, Max hires a lawyer to reduce the police’s repeated harassment. They start a conversation, but Max does not have a dialogue in this scene, and there is a conversation between Sam, the lawyer and the police chief. In this part, Sam is on one side and three people are sitting in front of him. The reason for grouping in this way may be to change the opinion of the police chief at the end of the film, but in the current situation of the film in this scene, it would be better for the police chief to be grouped with Sam and Max with his lawyer. He has been successful in the segmentation of views in this scene. A scene with 25 views and 7 setups which include two-person, three-person, master and over the shoulder groupings which is a good combination to create visual diversity. In decoupage of this scene, he follows the classic rules of cinema by observing the hypothetical line at every moment. The camera stays on one side of the characters until the end of the conversation, and this line does not break even with movement.
4. Scene of a three-person conversation between Sam, police chief and private detective:
In this scene, as in the previous scene, a person plays the role of an accessory in the scene and only Sam has a dialogue with the police chief. But the point to be made here is that Thompson has committed himself to segmentation in the design of decoupage of the screenplay for the conversations of more than two people. The scene begins with a long scene that takes place in a mental segmentation. The scene begins with police chief close shot, and as moving toward Max, we reach a key frame over the shoulder, where we see Sam in the background. This view continues until the detective enters the frame with a step in. This view has a good variety considering its long duration. After this view, we will see the reversal, and in this way this conversation ends with the addition of several internal views. The scene was filmed with a moving view and three setups. This number is very low according to the current filmmaking standard, but with the mobility of the actors in it, this number is less visible. But the problem with Thompson’s performance in these scenes is that they do not re-enact the scene in the internal views, and this causes an error in matching the actors’ look lines. In this scene, when the police chief moves and comes towards Sam, in the next internal view, Sam still looks at the previous place of the police chief.
5. The scene of Max's conversation with the head of the Flight Services Office:
The scene consists of a motion view that ends in over the shoulder view of Max, and a reversal view of this view. But the point of this scene is that there is a column in this place. The viewer does not see it in the main view, but it is observable in the reverse view. If we saw it in both views, there would be a jump; the jump is prevented through this arrangement and shifting the reverse view in relation to the main view. But the reason for choosing this scene is the difference between this scene and its equivalent scene in the second film. Max and the flight attendant have no relation with each other. Scorsese decided to take all the shots of the scene in internal mode. Of course, the first scene of this conversation begins with a dolly - this begins towards the lady, which creates this suspicion for the viewer that this view is a point of view, but with the entry of Max into the image, this suspicion is removed.
Discussion scene of the Cape Fear 1991
In this film, Martin Scorsese has dealt with very flexible conversational scenes and has not only relied on understanding words to convey the sense of conversation. A viewer familiar with the rules of cinema will be able to understand the conversation, the intimacy between the parties and the power relations on stage without hearing the conversations. In this film, the same classic rules of cinema history have been used to cut the dialogue scenes, but their use is very different from the first film. By removing, repeating, and distancing the subject from the conversation, it has created sense. The proper use of feeling the scene and its decoupage can be seen in every single shot of the Scorsese film. Fast zoom is one of the most frequently used techniques used in conversation in this film. This technique has different uses in this film, for example, reaching the key frame as soon as possible, drawing attention to a specific subject and being surprised by a strange word are among these applications. By thinking very well in terms of technique and timing, it has created a unique tone. Prior to that, zoom was very softly used to approach the characters in the conversation, and Scorsese used it to create dynamic scenes at the end of the film, but the zoom was very fast which became the cinematic language of Scorsese in this film. In this film, as in the previous film, the hypothetical line is not broken in the scenes of conversation and cutting between the scenes. This subject is fixed even in motion and does not change the hypothetical line of a scene. That is why in these two films, the scenes cover at most half of the space.
1. Discussion between Sam and Laurie Davis:
After practicing squash, Sam and his colleague, Laurie, have a brief conversation in the office building, and after that, the conversation is drawn to the place where Laurie’s car is parked. After a few quick shots in the squash, this is the first time the viewer meets Laurie and is unaware of her relationship with Sam. Of course, in one of the squash plans, the viewer can suspect that there is a secret relationship between them, but Scorsese, with the decoupage that he designs for this scene, the relationship between them can be seen even without hearing a sound. Except for the first plan, which is designed as a master plan, until we reach the motion of both of them to the over shoulder key frame, all the internal plans are designed as shots from over the shoulder to over the shoulder. Therefore, the intimacy of them is displayed through the directorship of the scene. After this internal scene, their conversation continues outside and in an open area. The cut which is accompanied by a zoom-in to achieve the desired key-frame, which is the master view. In a very short conversation inside the building, the viewer notices Sam’s request from Laurie to get away from each other. The request was met with some opposition by Laurie. The decoupage of this scene starts with a master view, and goes back to over the shoulder of both sides, but it is not done symmetrically, such that the fourth view, which we should have seen Sam from the over the shoulder of Laurie, we see Sam from the internal angles. The concept which Scorsese created from this decoupage is the distance between Sam and Laurie, despite their will. The asymmetry in the conversation is a deliberate measure that will be repeated until the end of the film, which I will address.
2. Discussion scene of Sam and Tom in Tom’s office:
Tom is Sam’s colleague, and in this conversation, he is informed of the harassment and the reason for this harassment by Max Kidi. The decision that Sam made fourteen years ago in Max’s trial is of no value to Tom and is not justified, because in Tom’s view all human beings deserve the best possible defense in court. But this part of the screenplay had to be turned into a film that showed their distance from each other. This distance is such that Tom’s presence in the film is eliminated. An important point in this conversation is choosing the Tom’s office. The large office which can show the distance between the two in the decoupage. Of course, this office, which is also influential in Tom’s characterization, is a very beautiful and generous office that shows he is a better person than Sam. In dealing with the decoupage of this conversation. In this section of Tom’s office, the conversation begins with a quick zoom that approaches Tom’s face and keeps him in size of a close-shot, after which all shots are cut to the speaker’s internal views. This is done in an obsessive way that in a scene, when Sam moves towards the camera and Tom is forced to be in the background, the focus is kept on Sam’s face by using the flow lens to make Tom’s image unclear until it comes in front of Sam with a match-cut and we can see Sam from Tom’s outlook. In this movements, it again focuses on Toms face to show the important issue that he is going to say.
3. Scene of Sam and Lee’s debate after the phone call between Sam and Laurie:
Lee is suspicious of the relationship between Sam and Laurie and argues with him for consoling Laurie for being hurt from Max. At first, she maintains her calmness and tidies up in front of the mirror, but she cannot continue to do so and reacts by attacking Sam. In this conversation, the tension between them is very high. For this scene, Scorsese has regarded many movements for Sam in this scene. The reason may be to escape reality and try to hide any non-Platonic relations between himself and Laurie. Sensationally, Lee is under a lot of pressure, so it keeps her fixed in place and only allows Sam to act violently. In this conversation, Sam is repeatedly separated from Lee, the camera cuts to Lee’s internal, and then when it is Sam’s turn to talk, it cuts to Sam, who moves from the background to the camera. This movement reaches Lee’s over the shoulder finally. When he is done talking, no symmetry is considered for over the shoulder and again Sam moves away from Lee and the previous movement is repeated. This event continues until Sam succeeds to gain a relative trust of Lee. At the end of this part, when these two come to a relative peace of mind, we witness the first signs of symmetry in the decoupage. The subject which requires peace of mind is the need of the scene to an ending with positive feelings because it started with a very negative feeling. In terms of narration, we absolutely need this calmness without unity, we cannot withstand the outer force. At the end of this episode, we approach Lee’s face with a zoom in. This zoom is when they decide to be united. Another of Scorsese’s corrections to Thompson’s film is mentioned in the conversation, and that is because Laurie does not complain about Max. Max’s intelligence in choosing Laurie is mentioned because Laurie is a lawyer and she does not say anything in the court against her own colleagues to maintain her own reputation. By so doing, Max hurts Sam and also Laurie who is a means for the repetition of Sam’s betrayal. This subject was not basically dramatized in the first movie.
4. Lee and Max’s conversation scene:
When Lee checks the mailbox, Max arrives with his own car and delivers him a dog collar. After a brief conversation, Max tells Lee that he is Max and Lee’s dog has been killed by him. Lee walks away from him and continues the conversation. Max says that due to the betrayal that Sam has done to both of them, he tries to break the union that Lee and Sam have with each other, but Daniel’s untimely presence causes Max to fail at this moment. In this conversation, from the beginning, when we see Max with a step-in from Max’s car in a frame where Lee is checking the mailbox, we do not have any other master views and in this scene, before Lee’s becoming recognizing Sam’s personality, we have several over the shoulder views from Lee which are asymmetrical and cut into the internal view of Lee but as soon as Lee’s recognizing Max’s identity, all the views are taken as internal. We have seen the inside of the car and the person standing outside before, once Sam is in the car and Max walking, and once the other way around; Scene of conversation number one was the same between Sam and Laurie, in all of these cases. The driver’s over the shoulder view is used many times. This type of using the over shoulder view is a link between these people, and it shows that these three people are gray characters and have a slight advantage over each other. But in Lee and Max’s conversation, it is totally different. Lee has a clean character, so she has no link with Max. Maybe if Daniel had called Lee for a phone call later, she would have agreed with Max and decoupage would have taken a different manner.
5. Scene of Max and Daniel’s conversation in the theater:
This scene is designed in terms of framing and lines perpendicular to the image in crooked and tilted mode. This scene is a mistake made by Daniel. Max deceives Daniel and introduces himself as a theater master. The lines and stage equipment that do the Parallax work and the door frame where Max sits are all perpendicular to the ground in a tilted manner. At the beginning of this conversation, there is so much space that they do not fit in a frame, but the closer Daniel gets, the more likely she is to be in a frame. Due to Daniel’s shyness, this event takes place later than the physical time. The beginning of their conversation is decoupaged in the form of master and over the shoulder views, but when Daniel learns of Max’s identity, the scenes are decoupaged internally, and also in this scene, the framing of the internal scenes taken from Daniel places Daniel in the center of the frame and leaves her back empty to show the gap between them. But Max succeeds to regain the Daniel’s trust and approach her. As they approach, the views become over shoulder again. But one of the few conversation scenes that have been remade with a great similarity is the initial introduction scene of Sam and Max at the beginning of the film, which starts next to Sam’s car with Max picking up the keys of Sam’s car. In the first film, this scene starts from inside Sam’s car and cuts into the hand that picks up the car key, but in the second film, we have a crooked image from the top of the car, and then the same view of picking the key is repeated. After this scene, over the shoulder’s view are repeated in both films until we reach the part where Sam is driven frustrated and intends to leave Max. In this section, they have acted in different ways, which is closely related to the different characters of Sam in the two films. In the first film, Sam has a strong personality and does not regret what he has done in the past. He is an honest man, so when he leaves Max, he pushes his car back and passes in front of Max with firmness. But in the second film, Sam has a shaky character, he has betrayed his wife and client, so when he pulls back his car, Max quickly puts his foot on the car’s brake pedal and asks Max about the whispered words. But Max ignores him and continues to walk.
The End of Cape Fear 1962:
The ending in this film is designed in a completely classic way. This ending is exactly in line with the screenplay structure from the beginning to the end of the film. A completely closed ending that removes all the ambiguities of the story. Max is shot and captured by Sam. Sam retells the threats that Max told Sam in the past. In this part, the difference between the cinematic expression of the past and the present is made clear to be that the viewer remembers Max’s sentences, but in this film, Sam emphasizes that Max has already given these sentences to him, and today’s audience regard this repetition and emphasis as explaining the already clear issues and a drawback of the film. At this point, the camera moves away from the two as a combination of crane-up and horizontal line movement, and the film ends. This movement has been used a lot in classical cinema and causes the audience to move away from the subject. The psychological effect of this movement is on the formation of catharsis, which the viewer considers these events for another one and separates himself from the events that happened to the actors. But that is not the end of the film. The studio policy was to finish the film in a very clear and happy way. For this reason, another scene is added to the end of it which Buden family return to their house on a boat in complete peace. The narrative structure of this film follows the pattern of order / confusion / order. It starts with the sun, drowns in absolute darkness and returns to the sun finally. The lighting and stage design of the film are also combined with the narrative structure of the film to create a harmony. The main feature of the end of this film is the victory of right over wrong. Sam, who represents the right in this film, overcomes Max, who is the representative of wrong, making the end of the film predictable for the viewer. The film uses suspension to enhance the viewer’s excitement. In such a way that the final scenes are completely calm and the tension is as low as possible. The views are very static. But the suspension works in such a way that the characters in the film try to hide from each other to strike a blow to the other side at the right time. This created a suspense that was very popular in classical cinema in those years. But the important point at the end of this film is that the writer and the filmmaker did not have any plans to finish this film. Poor environmental selection and worse introduction make Max’s attack on the Sam’s colleague to look very artificial. When the sound of water and the image of Sam’s colleague trying to survive is hidden from Sam’s eyes, it becomes more like silent comedies. Another structural point to note is that from the beginning of the film, the viewer notices Max’s threat against Sam’s family, but there is no mention of his special attention to Daniel, Sam’s daughter. This confuses the viewer with the decision Max makes in the final scenes. He sets Lee as a bait to take Sam to Lee’s room but in fact Max’s target is Daniel. Without proper explanation, this seems foolish. But for his main purpose, he did not consider a plan, and only brought him out of the hut without any plausible logic, in order to surprise Sam and attack him. Sam temporarily escapes from Max’s clutches and set his daughter free. If Max’s goal was to catch Sam, he would have had the opportunity to do so thousands of times since the beginning of the film. Of course, in this section, the narrative time in the film seems irrational. It is clear that when Max has reached Lee, has left her and Sam reaches Lee. Generally, time and place are not identical in the final part of Thompson’s film. The ending is fundamentally different from the one Scorsese has made for the later film, which may have been the reason for his decision to remake the film.
The ending of Cape Fear 1991:
The ending of this film, due to its structure, which has a beginning related to modern cinema where some features of modern cinema have been used; in combination with its classic narrative structure, it is placed somewhere between macro-plot and micro-plot. In this film, both the issue of storytelling is very precise and the issue of characterization is given importance in comparison with the first film. The characters in this movie are quite believable and the viewer identifies with them with knowledge. At the end of the film, he uses ambiguity as much as the novel allows. While Max is drowning, it is the point that the viewer is not sure if the Buden family will be saved. This uncertainty is compounded by the plan in which Sam washes his injured hand in the water and suddenly think that Max is underwater and will attack him, so that the viewer’s worries are not in vain. After this plan, Daniel, in the role of the film’s narrator, announces the family’s concern for several months after this incident. This means that by the end of the film, the story of the film is not over. The novel from which this film is adapted has a completely closed ending without any ambiguity, but the screenplay of this film with a very subtle change at the end of this film, has created a bit of ambiguity, which is one of the finishing factors in modern cinema. This is due to the balance between the initial and final structure of the film. But one of the most important features of modern cinema is the design of the beginning and the end in the same way, which was also mentioned at the beginning of this article. Visual bracketing is a technique that is applied from the beginning of the film with a very large image of Daniel’s eyes, which starts with red and then turns to ice. The graphics that we see at the end of the film, the camera approaches Daniel’s eyes with a dolly’s movement and after reaching the initial view of the film, it reaches a fixed frame and the colors, on the initial scene, first turn icy and then red, and with the precision in performing and changing the colors of the beginning and end of the film, the whole story of the film is placed in one bracket. Fix frame is another arrangement of the modern cinema that is present in most of Scorsese’s films and has become one of the hallmarks of his cinema. In contrast to Thompson's film, there is a balance between suspense and mobility and engagement in Scorsese’s film. The use of a steady cam in the boat has increased the movement in the final scenes. In the final scenes of the film, the internal rhythm of views and the cutting rhythm and connecting the views are increased such that the final conflict between Sam and Max, after that Daniel and Lee throw themselves into the water enhances so much that turns this scene to one of the fastest editions of its time. In 100 seconds, the view changes fifty times and the average of each view is 2 seconds. An event that did not happen in classical cinema. And with the change in cinematic expression, today we see an average of more than two views per second. It also depends on the audience’s understanding of the event. Today’s viewer is very quick to analyze the events of a scene. Although Scorsese’s film had a good speed compared to its time, this scene lasted only a hundred seconds, but today’s films are sometimes more than five or ten minutes long, with speeds several times faster than this scene. Let’s deal a little bit with the structure of this film. Scorsese years ago, in the movie Angry Cow, when in the boxing ring, he thought about remaking a scene of a murder in the bathroom of Hitchcock’s psychological film, showed how much he uses his intelligence and fixes the flaws that Hitchcock did not notice in his film. In this movie, we did not expect anything different from Scorsese. As a teacher, he was correcting a film that had an interesting novel, but with very bad screenplay and a worse production, it became an ordinary film. At the end of Scorsese’s film, Sam and his family are on a family boat. He used his house as bait in the previous stage, where he lost his colleague with Max’s trick. In the same episode, he made the first change by separating the ending of Thompson’s film into two parts. This is very effective in making the final scene believable. In the first film, although Max hurts the prostitute, the viewer is still unfamiliar with his face. But separating the ending in the second film makes the viewer and Daniel even more familiar with Max. Max’s character is well worked on in this film. The most important reason he tried to get close to Daniel was his interest in connecting with teenagers; he was imprisoned for years for violence against a teenage girl. Daniel was emotionally attached to Max, and this is shown in three scenes in the film. The first part of the film’s ending, which takes place at Sam’s house, reveals two things to the viewer: Max is driven mad and Daniel turns away from him. The second part takes place on Sam’s family boat. Sam takes his family to cape fear region but Max has come all the route together with them under Sam’s car. When Daniel turns her back on Max, it helps a lot in the second part of the film’s ending. Max is trying to rape Daniel to annoy Sam and Lee. Sam is very injured and his hands are tied with a handcuff. With the character we saw from Lee, she is incapable of making the right decision. The only thing she wants is to save Daniel from any harm but it is only Daniel who can think right in that moment. Probably, Max trusts her more than Lee and Sam. She is free and can temporarily save her family from this situation with a proper move. By spraying gasoline and setting his face on fire for a few minutes, she brings peace back to the family so that they can act more precisely. After this part, the control of the boat is disrupted and with the proper arrangement of events after this, it forms a completely believable event so that the Cape Fear 1991 becomes an excellent narrative structure with extraordinary characterization.