Scarface on DVD (1932)

johnny_friendly from London, England , 31/12/2005

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.

  5 out of 5 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Chester Dent from London, England , 13/09/2006

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.

  2 out of 2 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

Billy from Edinburgh, Scotland [Highly rated reviewer] , 31/03/2007

If you think that old movies can’t 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 it’s 1980’s 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 censor’s instruction - with a public message that the 1930’s movie goer was so well used to. It states that this film was a damning indictment of organised crime in America and of the Government’s 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 Muni’s 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 that’s why afterwards, in 1934, the censors set up the Hay’s 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 doesn’t seem to be a moment’s 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 it’s 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.

  2 out of 2 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews

drunkenmaster from Merthyr Tydfil, , 21/05/2007

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.

  2 out of 2 people found this review helpful

Read all reviews