A film maligned upon release,Scarfacewas perhaps ahead of its time in 1983. It captured the glossy neon aesthetic and overbearing capitalist hunger of the 1980s, but perhaps it was just too bloated and immersed in excess for audiences to consume. As our understanding and fascination with the criminal underworld expanded, along with itsreappraisal in the hip-hop community,Scarface, like its protagonist, indelibly played byAl Pacino, Tony Montana, rose from the bottom and ascended to modern classic status. However, theBrian De Palmaremake will never rise to the same greatness as the originalScarfacefrom 1932 byHoward Hawks, a timeless and formative classic of the gangster genre.
In 1920s Chicago, ambitious Italian immigrant Tony Camonte, known as Scarface, ascends the ranks of organized crime with ruthless determination. As he gains power and wealth, he struggles to shield his sister from the criminal underworld, leading to tensions and conflicts that threaten his empire.
‘Scarface’ Embraced the Pre-Code Freedom of Hollywood in the Early 1930s
It is no wonder why period films about Golden Age Hollywood are so alluring to contemporary filmmakers. In particular, the era before theestablishment of the Hays Codein 1934, a censorship board that restricted obscene content in Hollywood films, is romanticized as anOld West environment where magical storytellingruled above all. While “old movies” in the public consciousness represent a thematic and artistic craft deemed more wholesome and less provocative by today’s standards, Pre-Code films oftenpushed social boundaries by depicting acts of violence and sexuality. The classic Warner Bros gangster films such asThe Public EnemyandLittle Caesarfirst demonstrated that the bad guys could be perversely sympathetic protagonists. The"sex films" of the period,includingBaby FaceandRed-Headed Woman, deployed shock value through promiscuity while showcasing female empowerment in male-dominated environments.
Howard Hawks’ScarfacestarsPaul Munias theAl Capone-inspired gangster, Tony Camonte. The film, about a ruthless gangster rising to the top of the criminal underworld, champions the transgressive quality of Pre-Code Hollywood. Hawks, best known for hisdiverse portfolio of films, established himself as one of the first recognizable auteurs in America. Whether he was directing a screwball comedy, mystery noir, or a Western, he maintained an autonomous voice in his craft. Hawks was a master of genre manipulation.The Big Sleep, a tried and true film noir, deeply resonates as a love story — one that served as a breakthrough for theon and off-screen relationship betweenHumphrey BogartandLauren Bacall.Rio Bravo, a familiarJohn WayneWestern withsheriffs protecting a town from bandits, is far more witty than anyone expected under Hawks' direction.
Hawks established his knack for genre deconstruction, as well as a demonstration of his sharp visual palette, early on in his career withScarface, produced by eccentric business tycoon,Howard Hughes. You can see why screenwriterOliver Stoneand director Brian De Palma were drawn to a new rendition of the film in the ’80s. For Stone, the violent portrait of a man tempted by greed and power serves as apunishing allegory for the American Dream. For De Palma, the psychosexual tension and paranoid dread stemming from Tony perfectly complemented his visual and thematic idiosyncrasies. By nature, gangster pictures are associated with crime and mayhem, but audiences were not prepared for the sheer perverseness ofScarfacein 1932.
Howard Hawks' ‘Scarface’ is Unflinching in Its Depiction of Crime and Violence
InScarface, violence isnot implied or done behind closed doors.Hawks pits the viewer in the crossfire of gun shoot-outs and physical combat. Tony Camonte is defined by hisruthless savagery and drive for power. This sentiment is not watered down by a Robin Hood-like nobility in the depiction of his crimes. Hawks' direction of Tony and his crew’s hits on the rival gang, particularly the assassination inspired by the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929 in Chicago, leaves no uncertainty regarding the morality of the characters. The iconography of the letter “X” is prevalent throughoutScarface, as it isused to signal death.In a brilliant stroke of filmmaking, after Tony executes six rival gangsters of the O’Hara crew, the camera tilts upwards to a bridge beam that features six wooden panels each formed in the shape of an “X.” The balance of the visceralrawness in the Prohibition violencealong with Hawks' formalist flourishes has helpedScarfaceage impressively well. Equally praiseworthy is the film’s ability to reflect on Prohibition-era Chicago and the criminal underworld synonymous with the period while Prohibition continued in real life.Scarfacecontains the full grasp of the era. It is as if the film was made decades later with a more concise understanding of the historical context.
Without a doubt, the most scandalous element of the originalScarface, which would be replicated in the remake, is the incestuous undertones of Tony’s protection of his sister, Cesca (Ann Dvorak). This theme suited De Palma’s affinity forpsychosexual paranoia and disturbed voyeurism, as alluringly exploited inDressed to KillandBody Double. He infantilizes his sister by treating any man who shows a romantic interest as a predator, even going as far as murdering his friend, Guino (George Raft), who he discovers sharing a room with Cesca. The formulaic approach to past and present crime films would be to juxtapose a gangster’s vicious lifestyle with an honorable affection toward his family. InScarface, Tony’s volatile personality, which makes him an imposing gangster, stretches to his familial relationships. This undermines the anti-heroic qualities of gangsters commonly embraced in pop culture.
Of course,shock value defined the 1983 versionofScarface, and because of that,it was lambasted by critics upon release. A film with obscene content such as the originalScarfacebordered on sacrilege in the 1930s. On the precipice of the adoption of the Hays Code,Scarfacewas a pivotal film that pushed Hollywood to overhaul the kind of content that was permitted on the big screen. This alonegives the original a weighty historical importance and influencecompared to its remake. Leading up to the film’s release in 1932,Will Hays, the namesake of the Hays Code, did not possess total powers of creative control over films. Regardless, the censorship board called for aless sympathetic portrayal of Tony’s life of crime, an explicit condemnation of his actions, and an alternate ending that punished the character more aggressively. The studio demanded the subtitle “The Shame of the Nation” to further illustrate their condemnation of the actions on the screen. Hawks received approval from the defiant Howard Hughes to make the film"as grisly as possible"in the face of censorship.
ForJack AlicoateofThe Film Daily,Scarfaceleft him with"the distinct feeling of nausea," further elaborating that the film, for its irreparable damages to the industry, should never have been made. It is a miracle that the film ever saw a major release, asScarfacewasbanned in certain citiesacross the country. The rapidly growing moral panic in Hollywood, perhaps reacting to thesocial progression boom during the Roaring 20s, retreated to enforcing a sanitized depiction of the world on the big screen with the adoption of the Hays Code in 1934. A lurid portrayal of the criminal underworld was not what the censor boards wanted to see, but it was a necessary storytelling decision on the part of both Hawks and Hughes. The intoxicating treatment of crime comments on how gangsters and other vigilantes become glorified and celebrated in the public. Decades later, this would become the thesis foreveryMartin Scorsesegangster film. Scorsese’s most explicit homage to the film isseen inThe Departed, with the visual motif of the letter “X” signifying the impending death of a character.
The Influence and Timeless Nature of the Orginal ‘Scarface’ Tops the 1983 Remake
While the importance of the original’s historical context is something out of the remake’s control, the pure filmmaking prowess of Hawks’Scarfacesoars above the admirable ambition of De Palma’s. If the remake is bloated and meandering, the original is lean and proverbially shot right out of a Tommy Gun in its pacing. Hawks' film is inherently rebellious and daring. While De Palma’s film follows the same loose story beats as the original,a certain vigor is lacking in this updated version of the source material, which shifts from a Prohibition-era setting of Italian and Irish gangsters in Chicago to Cuban immigrant gangsters in Miami during the 1980s. The conflict between De Palma’s sleazy exploitation sensibilities and Oliver Stone’searnest dissection of topical issuesin America is fascinating, but it often leaves the film in a daze. As a result, the remake ofScarfaceis more experimental, while the original, with a more concise vision, is alandmark text of Pre-Code Hollywoodand our understanding of Prohibition.
Al Pacino’s iconic turn as Tony Montanaowes plenty to Paul Muni’s indelible performance as Tony Camonte. Montana’s pervasive cursing is a timely update to the character, but his hostility and ability to fly off the handle at the drop of a dime are indebted to Camonte. Pacino does some inspired work in his performance — one that thoroughly masks the Pacino persona, but the farcical nature of the roleprevents it from being classical or timeless— even beyond the complexities of an Italian-American playing a Cuban man.Remaking a classic is challenging.This was likely the case withLuca Guadagnino, who recently revealed that he isno longer attached to direct a second reimagining ofScarface.
It is hard to fault Brian De Palma, who brought his usual virtuosic direction and intensified portrayal of violence when making his updated take onScarface. The only problem is that Howard Hawks beat him to the punch five decades earlier. The originalScarfaceis over 90 years old,and yet it still feels modern. The blend of pastiche and modernism in Hawks' film is why it is timeless. The film proved to telegraph culture’s relationship to crime in the popular media and the archetype of the anti-hero. De Palma’s remake is, purposefully so, entrenched into the style and current events of the 1980s. As shocking as the 1983Scarfaceappears to be, the onslaught of censorship thrown against the 1932 filmelevates it as a classic cinematic text.
