Scarface: A Vergonha de uma Nação

Action-wise, this movie was 60 years ahead of its time, at least in terms of the amount of action in it. I think it's safe to say most classic films, including the crime movies, are much slower in pace than today's fare. Not this one.

Since they didn't show much blood in these old films, it isn't gory but it is action- packed with few lulls. Paul Muni, as "Tony Camonte," the head gangster, is compelling and fun to watch. He's tough-as-nails until the end. The women n here - Ann Dvoark and Karen Morely - are interesting, too, as is one of Muni's sidekicks, a big dumb guy who was funny. Don't be fooled by the billing of George Raft and Boris Karloff. They got it because they turned out to be big names later. In this film, they have very small roles.

This is Muni's show, though, all the way and few actors could ham it up in his day like him. It's a wild ride for the full 93 minutes.

p.s. To anyone misreading my opening remarks: more action doesn't always mean more interesting. Some times it does; some times it doesn't.

I just watched "Scarface" for the 3rd or 4th time, and was surprised to find out that I no longer find it utterly perfect. Vince Barnett's vaudevillian comic bits are too long, and the constant underscoring of the film's anti-violence "message" is awkward. But I still think the film has a lot of great things in it, and I would definitely recommend it. As everyone else mentioned, Paul Muni is excellent as dopey gangster Tony Camonte, and this time I was knocked out by Karen Morley's performance as a no-nonsense moll; I hope I can find some other films of hers. I'm not sure the movie works as the anti-violence film it claims to be: Although Tony Camonte has a lot of faults, the non-gangster characters are mostly undeveloped and dull, if not downright problematic, like the police inspector who apparently likes to beat up arrestees. Edwin Maxwell's tough-talking Chief of Detectives has the right idea about the "lice" who shoot innocent bystanders during their crime sprees, but his character is a bit too one-note to compete with Paul Muni and George Raft. In fact, I think George Raft's character is subtly made into the hero of the film, despite all the illegal things he does. Interestingly, the film is probably just as violent as many modern pictures--there are an awful lot of gunshot victims--but because it's in black and white, and each killing goes by quickly, audiences of today might find it rather tame. But Hawks makes excellent use of sound to try and convey the horror of some of the crimes: a woman screams chillingly, a dog barks in the distance. Did this film help rouse the public against Prohibition-era gangsters, or did it just continue the public's romance with them?

This film is based on real events that happened in the criminal career of Al Capone, although Capone's criminal career had already ended with his conviction on charges of tax evasion six months before this film was released in April 1932. You know you're watching a Howard Hughes production when, during the first scene, a bar employee is sweeping up after a party held by one of Chicago's big gangsters and finds a bra among the confetti. The film shares some aspects with its gangster film predecessors - Tony Camonte is motivated by a desire for power just as Edward G. Robinson's Rico was in "Little Caesar", and also like Rico takes over the gang from a boss he perceives as weak. However, Camonte doesn't seem to have the pent-up rage of Public Enemy's Tom Powers. When Tony performs acts of violence it is usually related to gangland business. The actual deaths are strictly business, but the execution of the killings themselves are something Tony takes pride in - a sort of work of art on his part.

Like Tom Powers, Tony Camonte is given a family background, but unlike Tom Powers, Camonte's family is a completely dysfunctional one. What is unique in this gangster picture is Tony's trio of love interests. He wants his boss' girl, Poppy, as a status symbol. He also seems to have a love affair going with the machine gun, acting like he has discovered America the first time he shoots one. Finally, Tony is in love with his own sister Cesca. Tony's only true fits of rage occur when he sees her with another man, and it is this loss of emotional control over this one issue that is ultimately his downfall. George Raft, an ex-gangster of sorts himself, is terrific as the smart and level-headed Guino Rinaldo, Tony's right-hand man. Finally there is Vince Barnett as Tony's extremely inadequate secretary in a bit of comic relief turned tragic at the end of the film.

Many purists would jump at this as being the definitive "Sacrface," but so much had changed in the fifty-one years between the two movies that it is nearly impossible. Whereas the Al Pacino cult classic spanned close to three hours and included almost every imaginable cause of death, this version is a mere hour and a half, give or take a few minutes, and unlike the remake, takes place entirely in Chicago.

Made as an anti-gangster film, with a message buried under the many bodies that pile up, this is a surprisingly brutal movie for its time, and got a reputation as such. This was just before the so-called "Golden Age" of cinema, and in a time like that, chances are a movie this unapologetic wouldn't get made. But it is a masterful gangster film.

Paul Muni is Tony Camonte, a pseudo-Capone psycho who believes in doing the dirty work himself, is a sleazebag. He talks in a lisp that holds him apart from the gangsters of Cagney and Bogart as a man who, even then, seems ethnic. To boot, his "secretary" is an immigrant who is only semi-literate and can't hear people well on the phone. Boris Karloff shows up as an Irish gangster, Gaffney, who falls under Camonte's gun. Aside from an entire segment where Camonte goes seemingly from point A to point B with the same tommy gun and kills off the competition, this is a brilliant milestone in the gangster genre, and probably the best of the era. Even now, it proves what people could accomplish by mere suggestion, sparing much of the language that is in movies (and, indeed, used in real life) today.

Inevitably, Scarface will be compared with the near-contemporary gangster films, Little Caesar and Public Enemy, and Paul Muni with their stars Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney. What does it tell us about that era: that all three careers took off with portrayals of gang leaders? The three performances significantly differ. Robinson rises to the top by the use of a crafty intelligence as well as violence; Cagney by a type of shrewdness and personal charisma. Paul Muni's Tony Comonte is neither intelligent nor personable; his manners are crude; and at times he is almost childlike in his behavior: for instance, when he is enjoying a play and is interrupted after the second act, summoned to do another killing,and leaves a henchman behind, who can tell him later how it came out, then is delighted to hear that the "guy with the collar" didn't get the girl; rather, the rougher suitor. He can be described as cunning and animistic: a young wolf who eliminates any rival who stands in his way; finally the leader of the pack One can be moved by Robinson's last words, "Is this the end of Little Caesar?" or by Cagney's body falling through the open door of his family home, he having been killed off-screen. Comonte's death is that of a trapped or cornered animal, wordless in a beautifully staged sequence,as brutal as his life, depicted for the audience in every detail. Of the three portrayals, Muni's comes across to me as the most chilling, in its enactment of instinctive evil. How ironic that He would later win his greatest fame for his performances as Emile Zola and Louis Pasteur.