The premise about Bowden having wronged Cady as his lawyer.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Cape Fear
al666940 — 10 years ago(July 16, 2015 05:28 PM)
The premise about Bowden having wronged Cady as his lawyer.
Right up to the point where Cady is forcing Sam to confess to his crime, he suddenly yells (in his defence) that Max bragged to him about beating two previous aggravated rapes, and that thus he was a menace.
That bit of info undermines everything because every profession where confidentiality exists (doctor, lawyer) has a rule about being REQUIRED to report to the police if their client/patient is an immediate/ongoing threat to other people.
Max bragging about such thing would definitely qualified him as such and relieved Bowden of his oath.
In fact he could even be held liable for Max if it ever gets out he knew about his priors (lawsuits). Just google how shrinks have testified against their own patients in criminal trials.
So the second Sam says that, Max has no leg to stand on nor is Sam really guilty of any wrongdoing against Max (he went about it the wrong way, but still did the right thing).
Why was that line kept? It's absurd:- NOBODY ever brags about sexual assaults against women in jail, it only makes you a target and gets you no respect at all.
- Why would he tell this to Sam, I mean what for? It doesn't help his defence one bit, Sam didn't ask him for that (otherwise Sam wouldn't have said "Max bragged").
Without that line, the movie totally works. With it, it comes apart.
-
cajayson8301 — 10 years ago(July 17, 2015 06:33 PM)
That's not the issue Cady hadit was due to the fact Sam concealed pertinent evidence to his defense, i.e. his victim was promiscuous. Not only could this have curtailed Cady's punishment but perhaps got him
acquitted
.
I can tell you that, having a paralegal certificate and currently working in the legal field, that hiding evidence of that magnitude is
SIGNIFICANT
grounds for a lawyer's disbarment
When God made Tom Cruise, he was only joking. -
al666940 — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 07:46 AM)
"That's not the issue Cady had"
That's the legal issue. But if you follow the movie's logic you'll see that Max's true beef is that Bowden looked down on him and felt superior/better than Max and thus decided to blow his defence instead of just recusing himself.
Max himself says so several times, that Sam still thinks he's better than him.
"Now you and I will truly be the same, counsellor!!"
Clouding the details of Max's one time offence (we don't know why he raped/beat her) makes Sam's many transgressions (serial cheat, disengaged parent, corrupt in his daily work, etc) almost equal his, and thus giving credence and weight to Max's outrage of Sam pretending he's moral superior enough to judge him.
Making him a serial rapist undermines that theme, making Sam indeed better than Max and his decision to screw him over justified in most people's eyes. -
cajayson8301 — 10 years ago(July 18, 2015 11:37 AM)
Nope. The primary objective for Max is getting revenge on Bowden due to the latter withholding evidence that augment his defense. It had little to do with Bowden reporting him to the authorities, although that probably elevated his vengeance personality. Still, it was
not
the source of it.
When God made Tom Cruise, he was only joking. -
al666940 — 10 years ago(July 19, 2015 05:06 PM)
"It had little to do with Bowden reporting him to the authorities"
What? Sure you ain't confusing the original here, where Sam reported Cady to the cops instead of blowing his defence?
I'm just saying that without that personal component, Max would most likely not have gone so methodically/sadisically/personally after Sam (even if it meant burning his bridges as in making himself a suspect in several murders and thus ensuring his demise regardless of whether he succeeded or not), instead he would've just killed him outright and moved on. -
monroea3 — 10 years ago(September 11, 2015 12:26 AM)
What you're not realizing is that, while he's definitely the fire fueling this story of revenge, Max Cady is not a protagonist so it's not a paramount concern of ours as to whether or not he is justified in his retaliation. He's psychotic and has a bone to pick. We're not supposed to root for Max Cady.
-
franzkabuki — 10 years ago(August 03, 2015 12:39 PM)
"Not only could this have curtailed Cady's punishment but perhaps got him acquitted".
I still don't get how on earth would that work? How does the victim's alleged promiscuity render rape and especially battery anything other than what they are? Don't make no sense.
"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan -
al666940 — 10 years ago(August 13, 2015 08:45 AM)
"How does the victim's alleged promiscuity render rape and especially battery anything other than what they are? Don't make no sense."
Consider yourself lucky to live in a progressive time. Back in those good old days (before rape shield laws and such):- husbands could rape their wives with impunity (rape in such context was simply nonexistent legally speaking)
- hookers had pretty much nil protection against rape (occupational hazard)
- rape victims would get the "she was asking for it" treatment not only by the defence attorney, but also from the cops and prosecutors (watch The Accused to get a good example).
- proven promiscuous women would not be believed when reporting rape even if they had been violently assaulted and had visible injuries (she was asking for it for sleeping around).
And worse things I can't remember off hand.
So yeah, you can bet all those details most definitely made a difference back in 1977 in Crackerland USA. Even Bowden admits it saying "you're probably right" when Cady states the promiscuity report could very well have gotten him off .
-
beierfilms — 9 years ago(June 10, 2016 12:37 PM)
Watching the film today, I don't think the moral gray area they were going for ever quite worked, even before we learned that Max was a serial rapist.
It's interesting to view this film in a modern context because these days, I think any lawyer with a conscience would have thrown out a "promiscuity report" because they would know that it isn't pertinent to the case. We're thankfully no longer in the days when men can rape their wives legally. Sleeping around does not mean a woman gives up her right to consent to a sexual encounter. I think many modern defense lawyers know this and would not include such a report because they would worry it could back fire and be seen as slut shaming (which is is).
The problem is that while the film clearly wants Sam's decision to bury the report to be seen as something ethically questionable, I don't think it reads that way at all to a modern audience. -
shaunodead — 9 years ago(November 26, 2016 11:01 PM)
Well, to me, the morally grey area is that Sam was Cady's lawyer, and it's a defense attorney's job to get their client acquitted whether they're actually guilty or not. Regardless of whether or not Cady is a serial rapist, Sam's job was still to defend him, but instead, he assisted in getting the conviction by throwing out evidence. As the defendant, Cady has a right to be angry at his counsel for not providing him with a sufficient case.
The film is asking the audience that if it was right of Sam to get Cady convicted or if he should have stuck to the books and tried his best to exonerate Cady, even though his client was a violent criminal who clearly "deserved" prison. That's what's interesting about this movie to me. Nobody's necessarily the "good guy" or the "bad guy". -
Ellie8336 — 9 years ago(January 23, 2017 03:57 PM)
Nobody's necessarily the "good guy" or the "bad guy"
You're kidding right? Max Cady is as bad as people can get. He rapes, tortures and murders people.
The fact that a victim's sexual history could have potentially exonerated a violent criminal is supposed to be unsettling. The fact that this is allowed as a piece of evidence in rape trials has long been a point of contention. Max had bragged about two previous assaults to his lawyer. Under the current system this (and any other convictions) would not be admissible as evidence, yet the victim's past is. It's a bit messed up.
My overall impression of the movie was that it was making a statement about the major flaws in our justice system. We have a scenario where someone has committed one of the most heinous crimes in the book, yet justice is only served due to the fact that a defense attorney's conscience got the better of him and he broke the rules as a result.
Under the same system the criminal is able to find, stalk and harass the defense attorney's family, kill their dog and rape/savage a colleague, all without the police being able to intervene. Sam has to result to criminal activities himself in order to prevent being killed and having his family fall victim to a serial rapist. -
danasider — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 03:28 PM)
I am pretty sure, people have gotten away with or lightened their sentences severely just this year in high profile rape cases. And a lot of the defense was undermining the severity of what the accused did, trying to cast the accused in a good light, and trying to cast doubt on the alleged victim's reputation.
Just look at what happened with the Derek Rose and Brock Turner cases. -
ericegg-11129 — 9 years ago(November 29, 2016 09:08 AM)
NOBODY ever brags about sexual assaults against women in jail, it only makes you a target and gets you no respect at all.
This is a myth, at least to a large extent. I've worked in the system, there is no "honor" in prison. Inmates are motivated by privileges and will generally not kick the ass of another inmate and risk losing them over something like that. -
TheManInOil — 9 years ago(January 02, 2017 06:41 PM)
You've misunderstood. He didn't say he bragged about raping women - he bragged that he'd beaten two previous charges. Nothing about that involves confessing to a crime or implying he might commit one again.
-
Ellie8336 — 9 years ago(January 23, 2017 03:27 AM)
The whole premise of the movie was how messed up and ineffective the law and order system can be. Max stalked a family, killed their dog and threatened them, yet it is he who was awarded a restraining order. A woman was raped and savaged, yet lied to the police about it as she believed the resulting judicial process would be too traumatic and a family become fugitives after having fled for their lives. The PI makes multiple statements about how ineffective law enforcement is when it comes to preventing violent crime and even the police themselves suggest Sam should settle what is a life threatening matter privately.
Sam threw out that evidence because he knew Max was guilty as hell and his conscience wouldn't allow him to let the guy go free. The idea that a woman's sexual history could be grounds to dismiss a violent rape charge is supposed to act as further evidence that the judicial system is messed up. The irony is that Max wasn't even convicted of rape, he was convicted of battery.