Film Summary CDLXXXIII (Scarface)


Scarface; At this point it's become a foundational Cornerstone for an entire genre of film. Heck, at this point it might just sit up there with Citizen Kane for how I feel when she'll it is. It doesn't quite have the star power or the memorability of Citizen Kane, but I think a lot of that comes down to not being as well received within film schools.
On a personal note I think most people would enjoy this movie a little more than Citizen Kane.

But that's not really what I wanted to bring attention to. World's big enough for both of those movies to exist. Besides which they have over 10 years a gap between the two. So it almost feels a little unfair to try and compare them.
Scarface is a great example of a film that utilises all the eggs in the basket. The camera movements, lighting effects and more than average detail given to set pieces make for a surprisingly captivating movie.

Ironically this is the third film in a row I've watched this week that has Ann Dvorak in it. She just keeps popping up and all these films and oddly enough she ends up being one of the best parts of them.
In this case she plays Tony sister. A kind of rambunctious girl who has the same hot headed and awkward Tendencies as her older brother.
The chemistry between her and Paul Muni (the guy who played Tony) is really quite something to see. Especially given how oddly incestual the whole thing feels. Scarface film of the 80s would play up on this angle.

Once again I hit that impenetrable wall of; ''What can I say that hasn't been said by a hundred other people on thousand times.''
Well not much. I'm surprised at Howard Hughes was involved in the film. I kind of forgot that he had a massive involvement in films before he went on to suck all the money out of the US via aeroplanes and some other business endeavours.

I find it kind of funny that this movie was made with the intent (or at least it perceived to be made with the intent) of bringing awareness to organised crime.
So that people take action to combat it*.
But in reality it just ended up glorifying organised Mobsters more so than anything. It's kind of like The Godfather. Except that movie was romanticise from the start. There were people back in the day that took umbrage with this movie existing to begin with. They wanted to censor the whole thing because they already felt it was was way too glorified. In a way they're kind of right. This movie made monsters look entertaining, interesting and it away almost whimsical.

Now that doesn't mean that I agree with the censorship or think that the film have to somehow alter its story, just so it can send out the right message to a bunch of brainless dolt.
I've always held that it's not media's job to educate the public.
I think the media has the ability too but only on there own initiative
But I don't think they're beholden to anybody to have to tell people how to think. Really all of this comes down to a problem of Education which is a much bigger issue than anything to do with entertainment.

I'm surprised looking back at my archived films and realising that I hadn't talked about this movie. \
I hesitate to say reviewed.
As half the time I don't ever talk about the plot and this time to0 is one of those occasions.

It's just not a movie where I have to do that.
Everybody already knows the story. Heck the movie so popular that I already assumed they'd seen it. But looking back I realise the only thing I ever talked about was Little Caesar. Which is in the ballpark of this movie but not the same thing.

*I think it would have made more sense to put the disclaimer at the end of the film. That is if they actually wanted to send a message about the Folly of crime. Otherwise he's going to remember what happened over an hour and a half ago. Especially after watching such a gripping and entertaining story.

Comments