Scarface: Review By slysnide

In the pantheon of gangster movies, one film stands out among all else, and it's enlightening to say it still stands tall on its own rather than just because it may have been the first to accomplish something, which in this case may be the violence. Though eight decades later, this film is as enjoyable today as it was then. And that's thanks to the brilliant performance of Paul Muni, the directing of Howard Hawks & Richard Rosson, and the producing of legendary innovator Howard Hughes. Now that's one awesome dream team.

In 1932, cinema in the age of sound was still in its infancy. The quality was typically so bad that a film would do better silent, as evidenced by the many films of Buster Keaton whose career didn't lavish like so many other silent film stars. With this film however, the sound was better than it ever had been. The audio wasn't too fuzzy, background noise didn't become an acoustic annoyance, and actors' voices didn't carry a low base echo as they talked. And this was all before the remastered versions. So right away, this dream team was determined to hit gold.

Based on the 1929 novel of the same name by veteran roaring twenties crime writer Armitage Trail--who sold the film rights for a staggering $25,000--this gangster picture doc*mented the rise & fall of Al Capone, though in a more colorful, less citywide corruption sort of way. The violence was deemed so intense that the subtitle "The Shame of a Nation" with additional intros had to be added to make the point that the filmmakers weren't glorifying the gangster lifestyle, despite that Hughes demanded Hawks "make it as realistic, as grisly as possible" in response to rewrite demands from the Hays Office. Even an alternate ending had to be shot to make sure Johnny Law won out in a morally appealing, "law abiding citizen" sort of way--but don't worry, that ending is long lost to the surviving prints. As if that weren't enough, the real Al Capone sent guys to screenwriter Ben Hecht to make sure the film wasn't based on Capone's life, yet what started as a threat became a great source of accuracy for Hecht who made the glorification all the more truthful and less Hollywood thanks in part to the rewrite demands. So the old saying stands, truth is stranger than fiction.

Paul Muni stars as Tony Camonte, a lieutenant in an organized crime ring which seeks to takeover the South Side, whereas he intends to take the city. His intimidating, and somewhat disturbing mental twitch which sets him off like a rocket drives the performance. So it's not so much what Muni does as Camonte, but what he reacts to which drives the character, whom in turn drives pretty much all the events in the film. Sporting a scar on the side of his face, you can tell the real scar is a mental one as his flaring temper and unpredictable rage-a-thons catapult him into new heights of power, and along with it new heights of trouble. A true hypocrite to the bone, he's overly protective of his sister Francesca (Ann Dvorak) who continually attempts to date criminals against his wishes. Tony sports the intelligence to realize she'd have no future with them, but he can't recognize that same fate for himself despite how committed he is to getting her and his mother (Inez Palange) better lives. Given how the film doesn't feature some sharp psychotherapy in which Tony would acknowledge that he's doing these things for his mother and sister, or how he's overcoming his hypocrisy, then you can tell Tony loves the thrill of it, is a true hypocrite, and just lets power go to his head. This is what makes Muni's performance so captivating. Same with the film, for if Tony were just some boring gangster who was rising through the ranks out of pure loyalty, then there would be no tension as the few shootouts would be expected. Here you know what Tony's ultimate goal is, but the way he goes about it is so random, so unpredictable, and so menacing that you can't help but remain glued to the screen. Muni was that good.

The film was notable for beginning a few traits you'd see in most gangster films which followed. First and foremost was the intense violence. No longer could you just walk someone to their car knowing their fate, or just kill someone with a single shot. No. Now it had to be bigger, more explosive, and excessive. That last one's key. There's a whole lot of excessive violence in this film. Secondly, the main character couldn't just be some boring gangster. Or if he was then he'd have to be surrounded with creepy people. Or at least guys with bizarre personalities and twitches like Tony Camonte. Only a select few gangster films like "The Godfather" (1972) got away without it, though compensated with an epic arc. Thirdly, were certain trademarks signaling either the upcoming death of a character, or that the character would meet their end at some point in the film. Here it was accomplished through both X's being on screen, or Tony whistling while he flipped his coin. Certain trademarks and the same ones even have been used repeatedly in the genre, whereas before nobody really thought about these things. Now they were clever clues for eagle eyed or sharp eared viewers to let them in on a little big secret. So these three things certainly benefitted the genre overall. And with Hawks handing out Ben Franklins to the first guy who could come up with the best way to create another X than that just gives you an idea of just how many deaths occur in this film. So you gotta love that.

While George Raft, Boris Karloff, Ann Dvorak, Karen Morely, Inez Palange, and Osgood Perkins all gave nice performances, it was really Paul Muni who stole the show. And while I'm not one for name dropping, I have a feeling in this particular case that it was the dream team of Hughes & Hawks which made this film as great as it is today. You can still really enjoy the film for being a great gangster movie rather than just because it started trademarks in the genre. If only it featured Tony's beginnings then it would really play upon the idea of realizing the american dream, which the 1983 remake capitalizes on. And on that note, you'll be surprised at just how fast paced this film is in comparison to the remake without losing baggage. No really, it's not that you feel you've not lost anything, you really don't. This film hit all the marks of the remake without being as slow, nonchalant, or anywhere near as long being seventy minutes shorter. The tension and pacing never let up in this movie, and that's what makes it great. I was so happy that this wouldn't be like "Psyco" (1960), "The Exorcist" (1973), or "Gone With The Wind" (1939) which all have amazing reputations for all the wrong reasons. They don't stand tall today. They're only given credit for starting genres or being the first to do something. Here you have a film which begins a lot for an entire genre, but isn't remembered for that. Rather it's remembered for being one damn fine piece of early cinema.