In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Ask FlickChick
DVD Tuesdays: Why Scarface Slays Us
I love talking about movies, but I've never been able to organize movie-night get-togethers. So this is the next best thing: On Tuesdays I'm going to spotlight a DVD and suggest some virtual-discussion starters
We all know the drill: Sequels are never as good as the originals. And it's true, except when it isn’t: That's why I devoted a whole chapter of my book, Movie Lust: Recommended Viewing for Every Mood, Moment and Reason, over to remakes that defy conventional wisdom, including Jonathan Demme's 2004 version of The Manchurian Candidate (1962), What Price Hollywood (1932) and the musical remake A Star is Born (1954) and Brian DePalma's Scarface, which updated Howard Hawks' 1932 gangster drama Scarface: The Shame of a Nation (inspired by the rise and fall of Al Capone) to then-contemporary Miami.
Scarface is newly available in a "Platinum Edition" whose additional features lean heavily to the jokey, reflecting the fact that over the course of some two decades the film has gone from being so shocking that it nearly received an X rating to being a sentimental favorite of gangsta rappers, wanna-be players and Miami Vice-era nostalgists. The extras include a scoreboard that lets you count the number of times the word "f**k" or variations thereupon are uttered (hint: a lot) and keep track of the bullets fired (a whole hell of a lot), and a montage of especially foul-mouthed scurrilous scenes from the original film in their tidied up TV versions. I leave you to imagine what Tony Montana (Al Pacino) really said before it was redubbed to "This town is like a great big chicken, waiting to be plucked."
Joking aside, De Palma and screenwriter Oliver Stone took former newspaperman Ben Hecht's original screenplay and updated it without changing much more than the names and the locales. Contemporary reviewers all remarked on how much more violent it was than the original, but if you go back to the original reviews of Scarface: The Shame of a Nation, you'll find that in 1932 it was deemed horrifyingly brutal.
Tony Montana comes to the US as part of the Mariel boatlift, Tony Camonte (Paul Muni), the antihero of Hawks' film, is an Italian immigrant.
Montana traffics in cocaine, Camonte traffics in alcohol, which was just as illegal in Prohibition-era America. Both claw their ways to the top of criminal empires and fall because they lose sight of the fact that there's always someone younger, hungrier and just as ruthless waiting in the wings.
Camonte and Montana share old-country mothers and near-incestuous relationships with their sisters (respectively Ann Dvorak and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio). Both films draw an explicit relationship between the ruthlessness of criminal entrepreneurs and businessmen who remain within the bounds of the law (because what they sell is legal) but are equally morally corrupt. Even a detail like Montana's enthusiasm for his "leetle friend" echoes Camonte's glee at seeing his first Tommy gun: "They got a machine gun you can carry around – I gotta get me one of those!"
But there are also distinct thematic differences that reflect the way in which the America of the 1930s had changed by the 1980s. First and foremost, Camonte is a classic immigrant striver who aspires to be part of the American elite – he wants to be respected, not looked down on as a peasant with dirty hands and an accent. His origins appear to be working class, not criminal, and he sells bootleg liquor because it's a lucrative business that's open to people like him. For Camonte money is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Montana, by contrast, has contempt for the social elite and their affectations to gentility – he's proud of coming "from the gutter." He doesn't want to be one of the elite: He them to be afraid of him and to feel small by comparison. That's why everything Montana owns has to be the biggest and the best – vastest house, most expensive meal, most powerful gun, biggest mound of cocaine, most desirable woman (Michelle Pfeiffer) – and why acquisition of such material signifiers of wealth and power is itself an end. And unlike Camonte, Montana helps precipitate his own downfall by breaking the rule he himself made famous: "Don't get high on your own supply. Camonte never becomes a drunk but Montana winds up a cocaine addict, with all the paranoia and volatility that implies.
Things to consider:
Why has Tony Montana become a perverse role model?
What fuels moviegoers' aparantly insatiable hunger for mafia movies in all their permutations: Irish mafia, Russian mafia and so on?
Are the operations of gangs truly a mirror of American capitalism at its most ruthless?
Are there other remakes you think oare the equal of the films that inspired them?
Remember: Send your movie questions to FlickChick.
Previous DVD blogs:
Slither
Sunset Blvd.
In Cold Blood
Brick
Also: This Week's New DVD Releases
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Nov 1, 2006 9:49 AM
|
Remakes that I think are as good as (or superior to) the originals:
The 10 Commandments
Ben Hur
Blow Out (Blow-Up)
Never Say Never Again (Thunderball)
The Italian Job
The Magnificent Seven
The Punisher (by default because the original sucked SO hard)
The Blob
The Mummy (yeah, I said it!)
His Girl Friday
Outland (does that count?)
Heaven Can Wait
The Man Who Knew Too Much
Cleopatra (the first half anyway)
Oliver Twist
Peter Pan
Invasion of the Body Snatchers
The Maltese Falcon
One Million Years B.C.
To Be Or Not To Be
My Fair Lady/West Side Story/Show Boat (do these count?)
The Fly
Dead of Winter (My Name is Julia Ross)
Holiday
A Christmas Carol (I like most of 'em)
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde
Casino Royale (OK I haven't seen it yet, but, come on)
The Thing
Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (Bedtime Story)
Brewster's Millions
Cape Fear
Psycho (just kidding)
|
|
Nov 1, 2006 1:46 PM
|
I disagree on some of these titles, notably Cape Fear -- I flat-out love the original and find Robert Mitchum more disturbing than Robert De Niro -- and Blow Out. I think Blow-Up is just about perfect (except for that mime tennis sequence at the end -- concidentally, the original UK poster has been my screen saver for the last few months. I also have to concede, though, that Blow Out is a more immediate movie, and that the characters are far more warmly developed. But Blow-Up's coldness is one of the very things I like about it.
I think you're right on the money with a lot of the others, including Ben Hur, One Million Years B.C. and The Blob -- I know that last is genre heresy but really and truly, the original Blob isn't a great movie. It's a great idea, and that's not the same thing. I do love watching Steve McQueen squirm his way through it, though.
|
|
Nov 1, 2006 2:50 PM
|
Why has Tony Montana become a perverse role model?
I think the whole idea of the "little guy" taking down "the man" is always appealing to a large group of people. I also think Pacino exudes so much cool, that the individuals that love Scarface (I'm talking about a lot of the gangsta rappers), really just love Pacino.
What fuels moviegoers' aparantly insatiable hunger for mafia movies in all their permutations: Irish mafia, Russian mafia and so on?
For me personally, part of the reason I'm always attracted to mafia movies, books, documentaries, etc. is because of the whole secret society aspect of it all. The whole mystique of an organization that basically lives above the law (while also interacting with the regular community) is just really fascinating. Anything that explores the inner-dynamics of that microcosm has a certain cool-factor to it all. Plus, the mafia, as opposed to street gangs, has a weird code of ethics (or at least, it did -- how much of that has changed in the post-Gotti era is up for debate) and morality, in spite of all the crime and murder. And I must admit, the amount of control mafia groups exude over their governments (this is certainly true of the current Russian mob), totally goes along with the whole "sticking it to the man" factor I alluded to in my earlier comment.
Are the operations of gangs truly a mirror of American capitalism at its most ruthless?
I would honestly say no. Just going off of what I have read (and what is portrayed in film and books), the familial bond that exists in a mafia is completely non-existent in almost any facet of American capitalism. There is no "do it for the greater good of the Family" mentality in business -- everyone is ultiamtely out for themselves. Wall Street, one of my favorite movies, EVER, is a perfect example of this (and it always cracks me up when I find guys in my finance classes who idolize Gordon Gekko, totally oblvious to the actual point of the movie -- which is an assault, not an homage to capitalism). Until very recently, it was rare that you would ever see a snitch for the mafia make a deal -- but in business, people can't speak up fast enough (which is why Michael Milken is making millions upon millions right now instead of serving hard time for bilking the stock exchange of like a bajillion dollars). You see this in other types of street crime, but rarely in organized crime.
|
|
Nov 1, 2006 11:35 PM
|
I leave you to imagine what Tony Montana (Al Pacino) really said before it was redubbed to "This town is like a great big chicken, waiting to be plucked."
Over the weekend I caught a bowdlerized version of Thelma And Louise on TV. This time Thelma shoots the guy in the parking lot because he tells her to "clean my clock". Who could take such an insult lying down? Reminds me of the first time I heard "freakin" as a substitute. Such changes just sound so stupid and contrived that sometimes I think I'd prefer a good old-fashioned bleep.
I'm with you, FlickChick, about Cape Fear though I think Acheyfakey makes some good points about remakes. But, I'm not always sure which "orginal" is being cited.
Take one of my all time favorites, 1940's His Girl Friday. It's had numerous turns in the barrel. One of the most recent-Broadcast News-doesn't even come close to the Russell/Grant version if that's what's being considered the original. What is usually considered the original-the 1931 The Front Page-is just about as good. I found the 1974 Lemmon/Matthau version a big letdown-Billy Wilder directed or not.
Remarkably, if I read him correctly, Chris Wehner a film critic for the Movie Review & Screenplay Database says that the same story-based on a Kipling poem-was also the basis for Gunga Din, a film with its own line of remakes. Speaking of Din, I'd like to see the original silent version with Ronald Coleman. The 1939 Gary Cooper version was pretty good but I'd like to see how the two stack up against each other.
Similarly the Doug/McClure Telly Savalas version of Beau Geste was better than one might think the cast would indicate but Ray Milland, Gary Cooper, Susan Hayward, Robert Preston and the under-appreciated Brian Donlevy in the '39 version (what a year for movies huh?) are tough to beat.
And if the comparison of The Italian Job is being made to the French Bob Le Flambeur then it's no contest. Both the French Bob and the Michael Caine verison beat the recent one (which wasn't bad) hands down. The similar Touchez Pas Au Grisbi starring my all-time favorite actor, Jean Gabin, is worth catching and comparing. Nick Nolte's Bob had its moments too.
Gabin also stars in Pepe Le Moko which director John Cromwell sometimes seems to have matched shot for shot in his Algiers with Charles Boyer. Both are worth catching but few actors own the screen like Gabin and Le Moko has a bit of a harder tone. I give it a definite edge.
Although I'm not part of the Wizard Of Oz cult I think the 1939 Judy Garland version absolutely has it over the 1925 pastiche which stars its director Larry Semon as the Scarecrow and Oliver Hardy as the Tin Woodsman.
I haven't seen Seven Samurai all the way through (at least not in a long time) and I'd be willing to give it the edge over the McQueen/Coburn The Magnificent Seven. But I'd have to put that one above the 1998 remake if only for Eli Wallach's contribution in the 1960 one. It's a little hokey yes, but the actors are all at the top of their game and one can't help but be drawn into the admittedly sentimental story. But I'd bow to the modern sensibilities of those who prefer the '98 flick.
Nobody's beaten the Lugosi Dracula or the 1922 Nosferatu although Herzog's version of the latter did cause me to sleep with the lights on for a while.
I love Mel Brooks but I still prefer the Lubitsch/Benny version of To Be or Not To Be.
I think that Errol Flynn and Michael Curtiz own Robin Hood. And that means over the Fairbanks version and every single subsequent take on the character. Don't even get me started on the Costner travesty or the boring Robin And Marian, a dud despite its cast.
In The Adventures Of Robin Hood Flynn's first appearance in the film, his face taking up most of the screen, just defines "movie star-ness". I'm a big fan of Black And White, almost to the point of prefering it to color but this films seems to have been made with the purpose of showing how gloriously dazzling a color film can be. Besides, how ya gonna beat a film that features both Flynn and Trigger as Maid Marian's mounts?
If you are in a mood to catch originals then by all means rent the BBC's Traffik. The Michael Douglas Traffic was okay but the original is miles ahead in its presentation and its message.
What fuels moviegoers' aparantly insatiable hunger for mafia movies in all their permutations: Irish mafia, Russian mafia and so on?
From dime novels to The SopranosAmerican readers, filmgoers and TV watchers have always loved gangsters.
Going back centuries to the first tales of people like William Tell and Robin Hood the world has also loved outlaws with which gangsters are sometimes confused.
We especially like those who, like Robin and Tell champion the little guy over the system. We like those who are basically just trying to get along but are forced outside of the law by corruption and injustice.
One can easily side with DeNiro's young Vito Corleone who comes up against pure evil and flagitiousness in his native Italy and in his adopted America, with bigotry added to the mix when he reaches the Stat Unidi.
But he's not alone in the experience and his first major conflict comes with the neighborhood Don whose criminal career may also have come about for semi-noble reasons. By the time
Vito bumps against him his corruption is so complete that we have no problem enjoying seeing Vito give him what he deserves. At that point we think we may be dealing with Vito more as Robin Hood than Capone but in time he becomes less and less noble. By the time the torch passes to Michael we have an outright hypocrite who, Hamlet-ic inner conflict aside, is a pretty bad human being.
Still, we (myself included) react to the Corleones,the Sopranos et al as heroes and root for them to prevail despite the fact that they are murderers and exploiters. I'm not certain that this is a good thing. Are there those who root for them because of their sins rather than in spite of them? Sure, one feels justified when young Vito Corleone rights a few obvious wrongs and avenges the murder of family members but he does go a bit far, no?
I think it's notable that the characters in New Jack City and the outstanding Kingpin mini-series with Yancy Arias, no less conflicted, didn't seem to inspire similar sympathetic sentiments. Ethnic considerations have anything to do with it? Maybe. But the creators of The Wire do a pretty good job of presenting the young black criminals of their Baltimore as multi-dimensional and sometimes quite deserving of empathy.
A final point: There is also a certain respect for the Mafia's 'code of honor' despite the fact that in fact and fiction it's constantly being broken-epecially by the fictitious families mentioned above. The supposed sacredness of family is a frequent casualty too. Just ask Fredo.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 4:01 AM
|
I would honestly say no. Just going off of what I have read (and what is portrayed in film and books), the familial bond that exists in a mafia is completely non-existent in almost any facet of American capitalism. There is no "do it for the greater good of the Family" mentality in business -- everyone is ultiamtely out for themselves.
You make some great points filmgirl. But from what I've read, given events including and preceding the St. Valentine's Day Massacre up through the recent happenings in Naples, Italy, in real (not "reel") life
the Mafia "code" is probably or mostly, a myth.
The oaths and codes probably have their origin in the need for self protection amongst the mobsters. After all, what's going to keep a continual succession of upstarts from wrecking the status quo? You have to invoke something powerful and foreboding that gives them pause before they start thinking too much in favor of their own ambitions. And you have to reach into a vulnerable psychological place to do so. Making the family off-limits (which young Vito Corleone found and which Michael proved is not always so) at least gives some feeling of security.
Some mafiosi reach all the way back to ancient Rome for inspiration. And we know how often family ties and codes of honor in that time and place were disregarded in favor of greed and or ambition.
I totally agree with you in your assessment of the business world which also has a long history of corruption. The film Revolution-often wrongly criticized for Al Pacino's undiluted New york accent which, I have been told, was already somewhat common even then-highlights the unscrupulousness of entrepeneurs who sell bad food and faulty arms to our own troops whose cause they supposedly support.
And boy were you right aboutWall Street and those fans who didn't quite get the point. And about that thieving crumb Milken too.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 5:41 AM
|
DaMess, for "His Girl Friday" I was thinking of the Front Page. I need "Hildy" to be a woman in that storyline. That's why I like Switching Channels more than either of the Front Page-s.
I hate gangster movies. I am not sure why. I think it has to do with people who I see as setting themselves apart as an elite group. Usually, I have a strong aversion to those storylines (everything from Platoon to Lock, Stock & 2 Smoking Barrels comes to mind).
I love (earlier) Scorsese. But I have never seen Goodfellas and I just don't intend to. It's really not for me--no matter how acclaimed it is. I have never seen ANY of the Godfather flicks. And I don't regret that decision. I don't care how good the filmmaking is. I just have no interest in "celebrating" these characters (regardless of their eventual comeuppance).
OK, now for the disclaimers:
I really enjoyed Casino. But Bobby D. wasn't *really* a mafioso in that flick. So it worked for me.
And I absolutely adore Scarface (the second... not able to make it through the first). I don't know why I am able to love that flick and get so turned off by the thought of the others I mentioned. It's just one of those films that you can't turn off (even when it's sliced and diced for regular TV).
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 12:27 PM
|
|
The Blob is such kitschy fun. I love the theme song.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 1:06 PM
|
Thanks for the post Acheyfakey. I used to have very similar feelings about the gangster genre. At least the modern one. I didn't see any of the Godfather flicks until the 1980's and then on video. And I refused to watch the Sopranos for a long time. Eventually I became a fan of both though I totally agree with your assessment of the elitism involved and the implicit celebration of thug mentality.
That being said I have come to be able to divorce subject matter from artistic achievement. At least most of the time. I think that's what's happening with you when you watch the Pacino Scarface. When I finally saw The Godfather I kind of filtered it through a Shakespearean point of view. That made it work for me. But I have total respect for your position on ther matter. And I do worry about what seeds are sown by the glorification of the Corleones and Sopranos etc.
Switching Channels! That's the one I was trying to think of. All I could remember was that Burt Reynolds was in it. I thought it was okay but His Girl Friday is darn near perfect to me and kindled a crush on Rosalind Russell that began when I was about 12 and lasts to this day. I can honestly say that her characterization of Hilda had a definite affect on my thoughts about women in general and in what I always saw as most attractive in a partner. That give and take, the capability and that sense of humor and brainpower were and are as attractive to me as a well-turned leg is to other men. And in the same way. It was years before I realized that Russell wasn't actually "beautiful". But like Hildy, she was and is to me. It took me a second viewing to really appreciate the Pat O'Brien/Jimmy Cagney Front Page but it definitely has become a favorite. I'm not sying it would be the same for you but another time through might leave you with a different conclusion.
In any case, I dig your posts. Ditto filmgirl and FelineFan55. Seems to be just about us few meeting with Maitland on Tuesdays but I enjoy it a lot and plan to stick with it as long as she does. Hope you all do too. There seems to be so little of substance written by most of the other columnists. FlickChick seems to be the only one who gives the brain cells a decent workout.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 4:39 PM
|
DaMess . . . I'm usually a reader, not a poster, but I can't resist the chance to agree with you on "His Girl Friday"! That is one of my all-time favorite movies, primarily b/c of the rapid-fire banter between Grant & Russell. And to think that there is someone out there who appreciates intelligent women! Makes my day! The original "Front Page" is good, but since I saw "His Girl Friday" first, "Hildy" will always be a woman character for me. Even though I don't post, I love reading everyone's thoughts and (intelligent) comments. Keep them coming . . . please.
Jenny D.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 4:59 PM
|
|
In addition to agreeing without reservation that His Gal Friday beats the stuffing out of Switching Channels, I also prefer it to the straight-faced Front Page. The sexual spark between Russell and Grant is just delicious, and I believe completely that her Hildy could get any story on Earth without mussing her make up. And my God, they talk fast -- and I say that a a born and bred New Yorker who doesn't mosey around my words.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 6:28 PM
|
Oh, and apropos the spirited discussion about legal vs. illegal business, I defer to Al Capone, who said that "A good lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than ten men with machine guns."
I'm not absolutely convinced he actually said this, but it's widely attributed to the original Scarface and if he didn't say it, I'm sure he thought it. After all, he's the guy who, after years of having an hand in bootlegging, murder, blackmail and a slew of other dirty doings, went to prison for tax evasion.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 6:36 PM
|
|
Maitland . . . thanks for loving one of my favorite movies! As for the speed of their dialog, I remember watching an interview (sadly, I can't remember who with) where they mentioned the amount of words per frame or some type of measure and it was considerably more than average! Does that ring any bells with you, Maitland? You always seem to be able to find out these little obscure items . . . just another thing to love about you! As for Hildy, she's who I wanted to be when I grew up! And still do. Jenny D.
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 6:40 PM
|
Jenny D, the numbers I see bandied about most often is that at time the actors speak at about 240 words per minute when the average in a movie is about 110-120 wpm. So they're talking more than twice as fast (as well as purposefully stepping on each other's lines).
Add to that the quick motions the actor make and the thing is an adrenaline rush! You need that interview scene in the jail (you know: "production for use") to catch your breath!
|
|
Nov 2, 2006 7:26 PM
|
|
|
