the two versions
which version do you think is more disturbing?
You mean between the 1981 and 1946 film versions?
I didn't like this version at all!!! I thought it was a sleazy version of the Lana Turner/John Garfield one. I got bored and lost interest in what happened with all of these horrible characters less than half way through the film.
However I thought the 1946 version was great. The characters were, in my opinion, a lot more interesting and a lot more believable.
If I could erase the hole experience of watching the Nicholson/Lange version from my head I would be truly happy.
So I guess, to me, the '81 version is not only more disturbing than the '46 one but it is also more disturbing than any film I've ever seen so far. That is how much I dislike it.
sleazy... yes you said it, true. as it should be, a movie about a drifter who gets with a man's wife under his nose and conspires to kill him after accepting shelter and livelihood from him... this is Cain, man, all the sleaze you please and why he was so shocking in print - Garfield & Turner weren't directed to do it like that, the '46 version was made as a noirish love story - if that's not a contradiction.. but they are designed to be pretty, and sympathetic. Nicholson was a greasemonkey & Lange was a disheveled kept woman at the end of her rope. Any way of course '81 is more disturbing.. the question is, which is the better ART? Which the better depiction of Cain's tale?
shareIm as conflicted as i was when i watched the 2 versions of Lolita back to back.
I don't eat animals. =D Woo.
I don't know why this 1981 version gets such a bad rap. True, it's not *quite* as good as the original, but it's still pretty darned good. I'd give the original 10 stars and this one 9 stars. Nicholson and Lange are sensational. The sex scenes aren't my cup of tea, but they take up limited time so that's okay. In the rest of it, you can't take your eyes off the acting. The lawyer guy was excellent, too. About the only thing I didn't like about this version was the ending: they made it too sappy.
shareThis ^ the Turner/Garfield version was seriously hampered by the Hayes Code and it's hit you over the head moralizing.
shareI think, you're overdoing a bit here. But for the concept, I agree with you. I consider a good part of the cinematography and some acting by Nicholson disturbing. Lange was okay, though, in her very women-like indecisiveness, first the Greek, then Nicholson (I don't understand why, and why him, but I never understand women) and then she loves him, then not, seems to care for her husband, then Nicholson again, and so forth. She's consistent only with her pregnancy. So that's the good part. Screw the rest. Oh, wait, Katz is well played, too.
Disturbing? What does that mean? With respect to society? The most disturbing and yet well-known part is the corrupt legal system.
Sex was probably inserted for the box office ROI.