Okay, controversial discussions are really starting to crop up at this time, and this one may be another. I finally obtained the single DVD of this Howard Hawks film, and to tell you the truth, though I liked it, I think I enjoy the DePalma 1983 re-do with Al Pacino a bit more. Some thoughts...
I have often lashed out against the idea of remakes, and finally I think I've come across the perfect single film example of why right here with SCARFACE (1932). Because there's always the possibility that a newer version can "replace" the old and become more popular, perhaps even more definitive. For me, I saw Pacino's SCARFACE in the theater in 1983 when I was 21, and I really had a great time with it. To me, this was "Scarface". But I also love old movies, and especially the 1930s ( I bought Warner's Gangster DVD Collection, and I loved every film in the set) ... so I was excited about seeing this Paul Muni classic at long last - and all the while I found it necessary to keep in mind what period the movie was made, and how powerful and important it was for its day. I had to review it within its proper perspective.
As a 40-something today it's very rare, if ever, that I am able to step inside the shoes in the sense of how a young kid might feel today when watching "old black and white movies", and yet that's exactly how I felt a lot of the time while watching the 1932 film! It was definitely exciting, full of over the top action and gunplay, and I'd imagine quite a shock for its day! But at the same time, I couldn't help remembering how I felt in the theater 25 years ago thrilling to DePalma's "epic". It seemed like the 1983 version really enhanced and yup, even improved on certain aspects of this now somewhat "dated" (and I hate that term) 1932 classic.
Some of the acting here was really way-out theatrical style. I often had to struggle to try and understand what Paul Muni was saying, and sometimes the really fast-talking old gangster dialogue, "see", kind of eluded me. Much as I love Boris Karloff, he's just not very convincing to me as a gangster this time, and I think here was another example where it looks to me like he's "acting", and it doesn't come off as natural. I thought all the scenes with Tony's "young" (she sure as hell didn't seem so young!) sister were pretty poor, and I think they were bested in the '83 film (although some of them at the end of the Pacino film bordered on absurdity too!).
When Muni angrily "offs" his friend, I didn't get anywhere near the emotional jolt I felt in the '83 movie; it just didn't seem to me that their friendship had been played up long enough or deeply enough to feel the anguish of the lead character. Which brings me to the feeling that, in general, most of the characterizations in the DePalma movie were more realized, better drawn.
Now, I am a believer in trying to judge a movie as its own entity... but now and then there is no denying that this type of situation arises where a remake, a sequel, or whatever else you'd care to use as an example, comes along and "spoils" the full intended impact of an original earlier classic, depending on when you've seen it. It's a rarity for me, I've found; this is not something which happens to me with any degree of regularity. It happened with the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (I caught the '78 remake first, and then the '56 original seemed trite by comparison). Other than this, I can't recall a single other example... I recall liking the 1991 CAPE FEAR, but when I saw the 1962 original it was still strong (owing greatly to Robert Mitchum).
One last thing for now -- I haven't seen the Pacino SCARFACE in several years now, but the last time I did it didn't even hold up as well as I'd remembered either ... I thought it had become kind of like a parody or satire, in a way. Sometimes my rating on movies may change, and I think the last time I saw the 1983 version I gave it three stars, too - just like I am giving the Paul Muni movie (I'd have to revisit the DePalma film to be certain). Be that as it may, two movies can get the same amount of stars but yet one can still be "preferred" over the other. It's not that I didn't enjoy this Howard Hawks film; it's just that I couldn't help thinking I would have loved it much more had I never seen the 1983 one. I know this isn't really fair, in a way, but our reviews are at least partly a reflection of ourselves and our past experiences and influences. *** out of ****
I have often lashed out against the idea of remakes, and finally I think I've come across the perfect single film example of why right here with SCARFACE (1932). Because there's always the possibility that a newer version can "replace" the old and become more popular, perhaps even more definitive. For me, I saw Pacino's SCARFACE in the theater in 1983 when I was 21, and I really had a great time with it. To me, this was "Scarface". But I also love old movies, and especially the 1930s ( I bought Warner's Gangster DVD Collection, and I loved every film in the set) ... so I was excited about seeing this Paul Muni classic at long last - and all the while I found it necessary to keep in mind what period the movie was made, and how powerful and important it was for its day. I had to review it within its proper perspective.
As a 40-something today it's very rare, if ever, that I am able to step inside the shoes in the sense of how a young kid might feel today when watching "old black and white movies", and yet that's exactly how I felt a lot of the time while watching the 1932 film! It was definitely exciting, full of over the top action and gunplay, and I'd imagine quite a shock for its day! But at the same time, I couldn't help remembering how I felt in the theater 25 years ago thrilling to DePalma's "epic". It seemed like the 1983 version really enhanced and yup, even improved on certain aspects of this now somewhat "dated" (and I hate that term) 1932 classic.
Some of the acting here was really way-out theatrical style. I often had to struggle to try and understand what Paul Muni was saying, and sometimes the really fast-talking old gangster dialogue, "see", kind of eluded me. Much as I love Boris Karloff, he's just not very convincing to me as a gangster this time, and I think here was another example where it looks to me like he's "acting", and it doesn't come off as natural. I thought all the scenes with Tony's "young" (she sure as hell didn't seem so young!) sister were pretty poor, and I think they were bested in the '83 film (although some of them at the end of the Pacino film bordered on absurdity too!).
When Muni angrily "offs" his friend, I didn't get anywhere near the emotional jolt I felt in the '83 movie; it just didn't seem to me that their friendship had been played up long enough or deeply enough to feel the anguish of the lead character. Which brings me to the feeling that, in general, most of the characterizations in the DePalma movie were more realized, better drawn.
Now, I am a believer in trying to judge a movie as its own entity... but now and then there is no denying that this type of situation arises where a remake, a sequel, or whatever else you'd care to use as an example, comes along and "spoils" the full intended impact of an original earlier classic, depending on when you've seen it. It's a rarity for me, I've found; this is not something which happens to me with any degree of regularity. It happened with the 1978 version of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (I caught the '78 remake first, and then the '56 original seemed trite by comparison). Other than this, I can't recall a single other example... I recall liking the 1991 CAPE FEAR, but when I saw the 1962 original it was still strong (owing greatly to Robert Mitchum).
One last thing for now -- I haven't seen the Pacino SCARFACE in several years now, but the last time I did it didn't even hold up as well as I'd remembered either ... I thought it had become kind of like a parody or satire, in a way. Sometimes my rating on movies may change, and I think the last time I saw the 1983 version I gave it three stars, too - just like I am giving the Paul Muni movie (I'd have to revisit the DePalma film to be certain). Be that as it may, two movies can get the same amount of stars but yet one can still be "preferred" over the other. It's not that I didn't enjoy this Howard Hawks film; it's just that I couldn't help thinking I would have loved it much more had I never seen the 1983 one. I know this isn't really fair, in a way, but our reviews are at least partly a reflection of ourselves and our past experiences and influences. *** out of ****