Loosely based on the life of Al Capone, Howard Hawks's SCARFACE is one of the most shocking and powerful gangster films ever made, setting the standard for Hollywood screen violence for years to come. Tony 'Scarface' Camonte (Paul Muni) is an enforcer for Johnny Lovo, an ambitious gangster who wants to combine all the liquor .. Read more
| Starring | Paul Muni, Ann Dvorak, George Raft, Boris Karloff |
|---|---|
| Director | Howard Hawks |
| Genres | Drama |
loading...
The greatest gangster movie of the 1930s — and that means the greatest ever. It was produced by Howard Hughes who told director Howard Hawks to make it as realistic, as exciting, as grisly as possible. Hawks happily obliged, though Hollywood's moral watchdog, the Hays Office, interfered throughout the shooting and later insisted the ending was softened and a subtitle was added —Shame of the Nation. The story is a thinly disguised biography of Al Capone, with Paul Muni as Tony Camonte, a monster who lusts after his own sister, Ann Dvorak, yet whose business acumen embodies the American Dream. Hawks saw it as the Borgias in Chicago and it's filled with m oments that define the gangster genre — terrific shoot-outs, psychotic characters and George Raft spinning a coin. Seventy years after it was made, Scarface remains a bracingly violent and subversive tragicomedy that says crime pays and that mowing people down is fun. It was remade by Brian De Palma in 1983.
Obviously modelled on Al Capone, with an incestuous sister thrown in, this was perhaps the most vivid film of the gangster cycle, and its revelling in its own sins was not obscured by the subtitle, The Shame of a Nation.
Its seminal importance in the early gangster movie cycle outweighed only by its still exhilarating brilliance, this... read more on Time Out
Prior to 1934, American cinema was free and unecumbered by any censorship restrictions. What this meant in practice was that as far as filmic subject matter was concerned, anything was permissable - drugs, sex, nudity, violence and general amorality. Of all the films from this era, Scarface (1932) was perhaps the most celebrated. It was considered to be so outrageously violent for its time that it prompted the introduction of the Hays Code, a 'moral' code that all films were required to adhere to which didn't disappear until 1968. Scarface (1932) is without question one of the great masterpieces of cinema. Although Little Caesar & The Public Enemy had already been made, this particular gang-banger pushed the life of a hoodlum into the realms of epic territory. Still very theatrical, but encompassing many sub-plots within the major one to make it much more than just a rise-and-fall. Many of the elements of the Brian De Palma remake are here including the incest overtones which are actually MORE pronounced here than the 1983 version! (i.e. she's into it). And then there's the terrific humor. Dig the fake Italian accents! And the character who plays 'Tony Camonte's secretary' has to be one of the great comic performers in history - he's hilarious! And how does Scarface (1932) compare to the remake? Well, the De Palma version chiefly benefits from the unmatchable charisma and intensity of Pacino but basically it's just a remake of a classic, in the true sense of the word. Scarface (1932) pretty much justifies the invention of cinema alone.
Scarface came last in the cycle of early 30's Hollywood gangster films but it easily outstrips them in sheer energy and violence. Delayed by the censors for two years, the film is more authentic than its predecessors using newspaper crime reporters and underworld types to provide director Hawks information on mob procedures and techniques. The gangsters are depicted as brutal,ignorant and remorseless individuals who behave like children when presented with new toys like a tommy gun. The visually dynamic mayhem is spectacular (real bullets were used in some scenes) and the enforced hints of moralisation are eclipsed by Paul Muti's frenzied and ruthless performance in the title role. Scarface was years ahead of its time, a forerunner of the modern gangster film. De Palma's 1983 film isn't a straight remake but is vastly inferior to this.
If you think that old movies cant keep up with outrageous violence, intense action and hard-hitting drama, then think again. The original Scarface will shoot you in the chest and leave you breathless with just as much shock value as its 1980s remake. This is the gangster epic and it was considered so brutal and at the same time so glamorous, that it was held by the censors for two years and fiddled with in the editing suite before it could be released. All of this comes as no surprise however when you realise that Howard Hawks was behind the camera and that Howard Hughes was the man behind him.
The film is now introduced - at the censors instruction - with a public message that the 1930s movie goer was so well used to. It states that this film was a damning indictment of organised crime in America and of the Governments seeming unwillingness to tackle it. This message runs throughout the feature and we are even given a public service announcement from one of the main characters as he steps out from behind his desk to wag his finger and tell us how it really is.
Watching Scarface it easily becomes clear why the censors at the time needed to put these little messages in to allow the film to be released; it is chock full of some of the dirtiest characters (not least of all Paul Munis Scarafce), some of the craziest gun fights, some of the fastest chase scenes and some of the most glamorous women of the era. This makes it a force to be reckoned with when the public get to sit with it in their theatres, for they start to become affected in their lives and their thoughts by what they see on screen . They start to be taken in by the glamour of Hollywood; and thats why afterwards, in 1934, the censors set up the Hays Code to stop such immorality spreading throughout cinema and across the country.
This also gives the movie instant classic status as it gives us something that the industry had never seen before and it was delivered with so much style. The acting is superb throughout the whole film, from all major leads. The action is gripping and intense, the characters are vivid and well exposed, the climax (original ending) is nothing short of brilliant; there just doesnt seem to be a moments let up for the entire ninety minutes.
I wish there were film-makers along the lines of Hawks and Hughes still out there today. People who wanted to use cinema to its fullest capacity and who wanted to expose life on screen as well as entertain. As a film that pushes boundaries and challenges the audience to expect more from their movie, this is exemplary. Pure Hollywood entertainment; the kind that the industry was built on.
Scarface came last in the cycle of early 30's Hollywood gangster films but it easily outstrips them in sheer energy and violence. Delayed by the censors for two years, the film is more authentic than its predecessors using newspaper crime reporters and underworld types to provide director Hawks information on mob procedures and techniques. The gangsters are depicted as brutal,ignorant and remorseless individuals who behave like children when presented with new toys like a tommy gun. The visually dynamic mayhem is spectacular (real bullets were used in some scenes) and the enforced hints of moralisation are eclipsed by Paul Muti's frenzied and ruthless performance in the title role. Scarface was years ahead of its time, a forerunner of the modern gangster film. De Palma's 1983 film isn't a straight remake but is vastly inferior to this.
If you think that old movies cant keep up with outrageous violence, intense action and hard-hitting drama, then think again. The original Scarface will shoot you in the chest and leave you breathless with just as much shock value as its 1980s remake. This is the gangster epic and it was considered so brutal and at the same time so glamorous, that it was held by the censors for two years and fiddled with in the editing suite before it could be released. All of this comes as no surprise however when you realise that Howard Hawks was behind the camera and that Howard Hughes was the man behind him.
The film is now introduced - at the censors instruction - with a public message that the 1930s movie goer was so well used to. It states that this film was a damning indictment of organised crime in America and of the Governments seeming unwillingness to tackle it. This message runs throughout the feature and we are even given a public service announcement from one of the main characters as he steps out from behind his desk to wag his finger and tell us how it really is.
Watching Scarface it easily becomes clear why the censors at the time needed to put these little messages in to allow the film to be released; it is chock full of some of the dirtiest characters (not least of all Paul Munis Scarafce), some of the craziest gun fights, some of the fastest chase scenes and some of the most glamorous women of the era. This makes it a force to be reckoned with when the public get to sit with it in their theatres, for they start to become affected in their lives and their thoughts by what they see on screen . They start to be taken in by the glamour of Hollywood; and thats why afterwards, in 1934, the censors set up the Hays Code to stop such immorality spreading throughout cinema and across the country.
This also gives the movie instant classic status as it gives us something that the industry had never seen before and it was delivered with so much style. The acting is superb throughout the whole film, from all major leads. The action is gripping and intense, the characters are vivid and well exposed, the climax (original ending) is nothing short of brilliant; there just doesnt seem to be a moments let up for the entire ninety minutes.
I wish there were film-makers along the lines of Hawks and Hughes still out there today. People who wanted to use cinema to its fullest capacity and who wanted to expose life on screen as well as entertain. As a film that pushes boundaries and challenges the audience to expect more from their movie, this is exemplary. Pure Hollywood entertainment; the kind that the industry was built on.
Prior to 1934, American cinema was free and unecumbered by any censorship restrictions. What this meant in practice was that as far as filmic subject matter was concerned, anything was permissable - drugs, sex, nudity, violence and general amorality. Of all the films from this era, Scarface (1932) was perhaps the most celebrated. It was considered to be so outrageously violent for its time that it prompted the introduction of the Hays Code, a 'moral' code that all films were required to adhere to which didn't disappear until 1968. Scarface (1932) is without question one of the great masterpieces of cinema. Although Little Caesar & The Public Enemy had already been made, this particular gang-banger pushed the life of a hoodlum into the realms of epic territory. Still very theatrical, but encompassing many sub-plots within the major one to make it much more than just a rise-and-fall. Many of the elements of the Brian De Palma remake are here including the incest overtones which are actually MORE pronounced here than the 1983 version! (i.e. she's into it). And then there's the terrific humor. Dig the fake Italian accents! And the character who plays 'Tony Camonte's secretary' has to be one of the great comic performers in history - he's hilarious! And how does Scarface (1932) compare to the remake? Well, the De Palma version chiefly benefits from the unmatchable charisma and intensity of Pacino but basically it's just a remake of a classic, in the true sense of the word. Scarface (1932) pretty much justifies the invention of cinema alone.
Scarface came last in the cycle of early 30's Hollywood gangster films but it easily outstrips them in sheer energy and violence. Delayed by the censors for two years, the film is more authentic than its predecessors using newspaper crime reporters and underworld types to provide director Hawks information on mob procedures and techniques. The gangsters are depicted as brutal,ignorant and remorseless individuals who behave like children when presented with new toys like a tommy gun. The visually dynamic mayhem is spectacular (real bullets were used in some scenes) and the enforced hints of moralisation are eclipsed by Paul Muti's frenzied and ruthless performance in the title role. Scarface was years ahead of its time, a forerunner of the modern gangster film. De Palma's 1983 film isn't a straight remake but is vastly inferior to this.
If you think that old movies cant keep up with outrageous violence, intense action and hard-hitting drama, then think again. The original Scarface will shoot you in the chest and leave you breathless with just as much shock value as its 1980s remake. This is the gangster epic and it was considered so brutal and at the same time so glamorous, that it was held by the censors for two years and fiddled with in the editing suite before it could be released. All of this comes as no surprise however when you realise that Howard Hawks was behind the camera and that Howard Hughes was the man behind him.
The film is now introduced - at the censors instruction - with a public message that the 1930s movie goer was so well used to. It states that this film was a damning indictment of organised crime in America and of the Governments seeming unwillingness to tackle it. This message runs throughout the feature and we are even given a public service announcement from one of the main characters as he steps out from behind his desk to wag his finger and tell us how it really is.
Watching Scarface it easily becomes clear why the censors at the time needed to put these little messages in to allow the film to be released; it is chock full of some of the dirtiest characters (not least of all Paul Munis Scarafce), some of the craziest gun fights, some of the fastest chase scenes and some of the most glamorous women of the era. This makes it a force to be reckoned with when the public get to sit with it in their theatres, for they start to become affected in their lives and their thoughts by what they see on screen . They start to be taken in by the glamour of Hollywood; and thats why afterwards, in 1934, the censors set up the Hays Code to stop such immorality spreading throughout cinema and across the country.
This also gives the movie instant classic status as it gives us something that the industry had never seen before and it was delivered with so much style. The acting is superb throughout the whole film, from all major leads. The action is gripping and intense, the characters are vivid and well exposed, the climax (original ending) is nothing short of brilliant; there just doesnt seem to be a moments let up for the entire ninety minutes.
I wish there were film-makers along the lines of Hawks and Hughes still out there today. People who wanted to use cinema to its fullest capacity and who wanted to expose life on screen as well as entertain. As a film that pushes boundaries and challenges the audience to expect more from their movie, this is exemplary. Pure Hollywood entertainment; the kind that the industry was built on.
This Thirties film has a modern feel with its fast-paced action. The acting is clunky, though that may be compensated for by an interest in the fact that it is contemporaneous with the events that it is depicting. The fact that films do influence at least some of their viewers is beyond dispute (which does not stop a lot of people from trying). That said, this movie is so remote in time that it may have lost its ability to incite crime. Model-T Fords and spats are no longer must-have items.
Paul Muni is just great in the title role of this 1932 classic gangster film that was one of the first movies to upset the American picture board to the point where they realised they needed to start censoring films for violent or unsavoury content.
A majestic thrilling film that blows away its remake. A succint view into the gangster mind, reveals Hollywoods dark heart. Muni is magnificent as the character whose name escapes me. The symbolism is new and fresh and the film packs so much into its sub two hour running train you'll wonder why you ever bothered with de Palmas update(which is not without its charms, although the horrible horrible soundtrack) I love this film.
This is a strong gangster film but the charactor development isn't handled as well as the 1982 remake. There are some great car chase with tommy gun scenes in this film which is worth watching it for alone.TJK
Howard Hawks directs this harsh and frank and sometimes humorous look at a small time gangster's(Paul Muni) taste of success before his mob world crumbles around him. This is one of the best gangster movies of the 1930's. Very well written and full of terrific characters. Fast paced and free flowing story line.
My favorite scene is when the Muni character first gets his hands on a machine gun. This arrogant, violence driven mobster becomes child like with a brand new toy. Others in this fine crime drama are Osgood Perkins, George Raft, Ann Dvorak, Boris Karloff and C. Henry Gordon. Also notable are Karen Morley and Edwin Maxwell as the Chief of Detectives.
Ambition, greed and pride come before a fall. The mob way or no way is a tough way to live. Excellent flick.
Howard Hawks directs this harsh and frank and sometimes humorous look at a small time gangster's(Paul Muni) taste of success before his mob world crumbles around him. This is one of the best gangster movies of the 1930's. Very well written and full of terrific characters. Fast paced and free flowing story line.
My favorite scene is when the Muni character first gets his hands on a machine gun. This arrogant, violence driven mobster becomes child like with a brand new toy. Others in this fine crime drama are Osgood Perkins, George Raft, Ann Dvorak, Boris Karloff and C. Henry Gordon. Also notable are Karen Morley and Edwin Maxwell as the Chief of Detectives.
Ambition, greed and pride come before a fall. The mob way or no way is a tough way to live. Excellent flick.
The greatest gangster movie of the 1930s — and that means the greatest ever. It was produced by Howard Hughes who told director Howard Hawks to make it as realistic, as exciting, as grisly as possible. Hawks happily obliged, though Hollywood's moral watchdog, the Hays Office, interfered throughout the shooting and later insisted the ending was softened and a subtitle was added —Shame of the Nation. The story is a thinly disguised biography of Al Capone, with Paul Muni as Tony Camonte, a monster who lusts after his own sister, Ann Dvorak, yet whose business acumen embodies the American Dream. Hawks saw it as the Borgias in Chicago and it's filled with m oments that define the gangster genre — terrific shoot-outs, psychotic characters and George Raft spinning a coin. Seventy years after it was made, Scarface remains a bracingly violent and subversive tragicomedy that says crime pays and that mowing people down is fun. It was remade by Brian De Palma in 1983.
Obviously modelled on Al Capone, with an incestuous sister thrown in, this was perhaps the most vivid film of the gangster cycle, and its revelling in its own sins was not obscured by the subtitle, The Shame of a Nation.
Its seminal importance in the early gangster movie cycle outweighed only by its still exhilarating brilliance, this... read more on Time Out