The Daughter's age - Cape Fear (1962) Discussion

[–] novastar_6 14 years ago

To me she looks about 10 years old throughout the whole movie, even though she's supposed to be 14, she doesn't look 14 at all.

reply

[–] grock82 13 years ago

In real life she was 15. "She's getting to be as juicy as your wife!" Ha I couldn't believe that line.

reply

[–] atomicstuffing 13 years ago

OP, Lori Martin was about 14-15 at the time of filming but I can see what you mean. In certain scenes she looked even younger than that.

They did try to make her look older though and gave her a fancy "womanly" hairstyle (her hair looked more touched up than any other girl around her) and put her in scandalously short shorts. I'm sure that was more than enough to satiate Cady's hungry eyes.

It's funny that Kubrick's "Lolita" came out the same year as this film.

reply

[–] hollyjoy13 13 years ago

I couldn't believe her dad let her out of the house in those shorts! My daughter will not step out the door looking like that. She looked about 12 to me..

reply

[–] miriamwebster 13 years ago

Ditto! One of several big WTF moments in film was why, after learning Cady was hot for their teen/tween daughter, they would leave her alone to paint boat. . .while wearing a pair of the tightest short-shorts in screen history. (Then, in other scenes, she was as demurely dressed as a Leave It To Beaver extra, even when she was chilling out at home.) Made NO sense!

reply

[–] krdement 8 years ago

Having lived through the era depicted in the film, I think I can set you straight on a couple of misconceptions. I thought all of the costuming was extremely accurate. The filmmakers didn't embellish anything for effect. Women and girls both had real hairdos, and there was quite a bit of variety in those styles (unlike today). Women (and girls) used a lot of Aqua Net! While some girls certainly imitated the styles of older girls or women, there were plenty of younger styles that "mom" never would have worn. As a guy, I still miss all of those great hairdos!

As far as the short shorts are concerned, they were actually worn that short. They didn't even catch my attention in this film. I had to rewind the DVR to see what some posters here thought was "scandalous." I just chuckled. That was simply the style for a few years. A pop band of the day, Freddie and the Dreamers, even performed a song, "Short Shorts," about those very shorts. Because they were just the girls' fashion we grew up with, I'm not sure we guys thought they were anything but normal. I grew up in Texas, and we wore bathing suits a lot of the summer anyway, so those short shorts were actually not particularly extraordinary compared to girls' bathing suits.
John 3:16

reply

[–] krdement 8 years ago

Having lived through the era depicted in the film, I think I can set you straight on a couple of misconceptions. I thought all of the costuming was extremely accurate. The filmmakers didn't embellish anything for effect. Women and girls both had real hairdos, and there was quite a bit of variety in those styles (unlike today). Women (and girls) used a lot of Aqua Net! While some girls certainly imitated the styles of older girls or women, there were plenty of younger styles that "mom" never would have worn. As a guy, I still miss all of those great hairdos!

As far as the short shorts are concerned, they were actually worn that short. They didn't even catch my attention in this film. I had to rewind the DVR to see what some posters here thought was "scandalous." I just chuckled. That was simply the style for a few years. A pop band of the day, Freddie and the Dreamers, even performed a song, "Short Shorts," about those very shorts. Because they were just the girls' fashion we grew up with, I'm not sure we guys thought they were anything but normal. I grew up in Texas, and we wore bathing suits a lot of the summer anyway, so those short shorts were actually not particularly extraordinary compared to girls' bathing suits.
John 3:16

reply

[–] Stratego (30124) a year ago

No, you are wrong. The daughter was definitely dressed to look more feminine. I don't care about what you claim girls looked like in your area, she did not like the average 14-year girl in a Hollywood movie at that time.

reply

[–] Drmccormack (743) 7 years ago

Just saw this last night and I agree, that is so wrong!!

reply

[–] DracTarashV 12 years ago

I wasn't familiar with Lori (the actress who played the daughter) when I first saw the film, so I assumed she must have been in her late teens but with a very youthful appearance. That's maybe a bit of a stretch because she was noticeably smaller in size compare to the other actors--and her looks were that of a girl in her early teens (maybe 12?)... but the way she was used in the film (what she wore in several scenes, ect) really surprised me, especially for early 60's standards. And Cady's "she's getting to be as juicy as your wife" completely caught me off guard...a line like that would have the same affect today, I guess. But this was one of the many reasons this film was controversial at the time, right? Lori was 15 at the time anyhow.

reply

[–] Popcorngal (4660) 3 years ago

So true, I only saw half of the film, but that line shocked me as well.

reply

[–] noveltylibrary 12 years ago

the weird hairdo screwed it up for me, couldn't pinpoint an age.

reply

[–] IloveMuggy 12 years ago

Agree that the hairdo was odd--it's like they were trying to make the character out to be some sort of hybrid woman/child. Creepy.

reply

[–] Dfree52 12 years ago

I thought the same thing! I think the squeaky voice and her height, whatever it was gave the illusion that she was younger . She actually was 14-15 when movie was filmed. I think the at times provacative dress was on purpose, and got the appropiate, leering response from Cady.

reply

[–] artistathome 12 years ago

I am watching it right now and i see what u mean. She doesnt look even 5ft tall. And when she had her pjs on talkin to her mother she sounds like an adult.

Why use someone like that? It cant be becuz mitcham or peck were short. They were both tall!

Maybe they thought she'd seem mire vulnerable if she was tiny. Also as i recall. Didnt she play velvet brown in a remake of national velvet?

So she was popular in the 60s.

reply

[–] ecarpenter23 12 years ago

When it comes to height keep in mind Gregory Peck was 6'3. A lot of people look short next to him. My guess was around 14.

reply

[–] Skye_Reynolds 12 years ago

She looked like she was 15 trying to play 12. I have no idea how old she was supposed to be. She clearly had breasts and some of the shots seemed somewhat suggestive, although they're arguably justified in that they could be argued as being from Max Cady's perspective - and we all know what kind of a man he is.

I want to say that she was probably meant to be in the 12 to 14 age range even though the actress was 15 at the time. It's also possible that she fell into the trappings of how "young" characters were depected at the time. Give her a naive possitive outlook and some girlish curls and you're good to go. I'm assuming her actual age is addressed in the novel.

reply

[–] ApesTogetherStrong 11 years ago

I thought it looked like she had a huge head.

reply

[–] blondcutie1972 10 years ago

The first time I saw this movie I thought she was 13 or 14, but then when she went into her car i was thinking she just looks very young for her age. -

reply