FILM ESSAY: THE TRADITIONAL CHARACTER ARCHETYPES IN FILM-NOIR

When film scholars think about the Film-Noir genre, many would think of the classic black-and-white mystery crime dramas from the early 40s to late 50’s. These films would rely heavily on shadows to create an uncomfortable mood and atmosphere unlike other films at the time. Two of the best examples of films that represent the genre are “White Heat” and “The Big Heat”. Aside from having the traditional look and feel that’s expected in a Film-Noir, they both contain similarities when it comes to the character archetypes that are usually seen in the genre, despite their plots being completely different from each other.       

WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

 

The protagonists in Film-Noirs were usually cynical loners who were despised by authority for their attempts to achieve justice in a matter that the law system couldn’t allow. In many cases, the protagonists that would be shunned by the law were seen usually working for the force themselves, as either cops or detectives.  Both protagonists in these films are no exception. Sergeant Dave Bannion in “The Big Heat”, played outstandingly by Glenn Ford, is a prime example of the typical Film-Noir protagonist. He’s a detective who doesn’t listen to his superiors when trying to solve a suicide case after discovering that he didn’t kill himself because of ill health as his wife had suggested. He believes that there’s a whole conspiracy behind the suicide involving the crime boss who practically runs the city, Mike Lagana (Alexander Scourby). But his snooping gets him into bigger trouble when a failed assassination attempt gets his wife killed by bomb planted in his car (a tragic death that would be duplicated in “The Godfather”). After losing someone so dear to him, this drastic turn of events makes his mission to solve the case personal knowing that the person responsible for the car bomb is the one trying to prevent him from getting to the bottom of the suicide. Because of his personal vendetta, he snaps at his superiors for suspecting them to be taking bribes from Lagana, which consequently costing him his badge. But even without it, and receiving little to no help from the authorities, Bannion still pushes forward to prove that Lagana is connected to the suicide and the loss of his beloved wife.  

 

The hero in “White Heat”, Hank Fallon (Edmond O’Brien), though not the focus of the film or having personal vendetta against the antagonist, still carries similar traits. He’s an undercover agent who is sent to a prison as an inmate (under the alias of Vic Pardo) to get a criminal to confess his real crimes in order to put him away. This means that no person of authority in the prison knows who he is, and therefore will treat him like the hardened criminal they believe he is. The only person that can help him is the criminal he’s conning to get information out of Cody Jarret. And in order for him to gain Cody’s trust, he must do whatever he tells him to do, which means taking part in unlawful actions such as breaking-out of jail or assisting him in a robbery, that may result with people getting hurt in the process. Participating with Cody in his schemes isn’t good enough for Hank to keep Jarret oblivious to who he really is. He still has to find a way to contact his superiors to catch Cody before he commits his crimes without raising any suspicion, and if he’s caught trying to sneak-away from Cody he must use his wits to fool him into thinking that he’s leaving for sentimental reasons, and has to use whatever resources he can to get the attention of the police. Hank must also be careful not to encounter any of the previous criminals that he’s locked away. If he is spotted, the whole plan falls apart where he is just as good as dead when dealing with the likes of a psycho like Jarret.

                            

The antagonists in Film-Noirs were criminals that were dangerously ruthless and unfeeling towards their fellow men and lovers. They were the kind of villains who pushed past the limits of what Hollywood could get away with at the time due to film censorship. It had been 18 years since film actor James Cagney has shocked people with his tough guy approach in "The Public Enemy". He's done classic gangster films after that such as "Angels with Dirty Faces" and "The Roaring Twenties", only this time he would take his tough guy role to a more lighthearted level by having him befriend kids and a priest, or use the power he has from his criminal empire to please a girl he deeply loves. This was because that the gangster films following after “The Public Enemy” were made when the infamous Hays Code went into effect, censoring films to not be as violent or vulgar as they were in the early 30s. Film-Noir gave Cagney the chance to stun audiences again when given the role of Cody Jarrett, only ten times more bloodthirsty and mad than he ever was as Tom Powers. He was the kind of antagonist who showed no remorse or hesitation towards the people he killed for how mentally unstable he is. If anybody gets a good look at his face, or hears his name when holding them-up, he'll simply shoot them to avoid being identified. From the moment someone steps-out of line when speaking to him, no matter who the person is, he'll hit them. If a person gets badly injured to no longer do him any service, he'll hire one of his guys to finish him off so that he won't be carrying any dead-weight on his shoulder. The only person he shows genuine love for is his Mother, as everyone else in his eyes are just pawns for his crimes or personal pleasures.   

        

Lee Marvin as Vince Stone in "The Big Heat" doesn't nearly have the same amount of screen-time as Cagney did, but is just as savage, if not as mentally insane. He's an under-boss for Lagana, who without mercy will do whatever he can to make sure that Bannion won't find the papers that could expose their crimes, not caring if civilians get hurt in the process. His cold-hearted nature is effectively demonstrated when he's around women, given that those are usually the moments when we see him perform his dirty deeds on-screen. During a dice-game at a bar, when Vince sees that a bar-fly woman is picking up the dice too soon, he harshly burns her hand with a cigarette without any warning. But as bad as her hand may be, it's a pinch compared to Vince burning his girlfriend's face with a boiling pot of coffee, resulting with the left-side of her face being as permanently disfigured as Two-Face. And the worst part is he enjoys it.     

                 

And speaking of women, the women seen in both films stand-out as a great example for Femme Fatales. Women in Film-Noirs were usually gorgeous and seductive in their nature, who fell in love with the wrong kind of men and would become victims. The character of Debbie Marsh (Gloria Grahame) in "The Big Heat" perfectly suits that character trope seen in these kind of films. She dates Vince for his money with the belief that “rich is better” after once being poor, but is always in constant danger due to his violent nature. Things take a more drastic turn when she starts taking a liking to Bannion, and when her boyfriend finds out and suspects her of giving him information, she receives one of the worst of kind of abuse in Film-Noir history. This results with her fleeing to Bannion for protection and getting close with him. Fearing that Bannion may kill the woman who has hidden information about the gangsters, she kills her to protect him from going to jail, and later tries to kill Vince after giving him a hot taste of his own coffee.                                     

 

Sharing a similar attraction for hooking up with dangerous men is Verna Jarrett (Virginia Mayo) in "White Heat". Verna is married to Cody Jarrett, who she admires for his tough-guy charm and successfully scoring big bucks from his heists, but is neglected by Jarrett and half of the time falls victim to his physically abusive nature. Much like Debbie, she too eventually attempts to betray her lover, not once but twice in the film. She first hooks-up with Cody's right-hand man Big Ed (Steve Cochran) who's in charge of the gang while he's locked away in prison, with complete faith in Ed's attempts to have Cody killed as he's serving time. She herself gets her hands dirty by killing the only true person that Cody ever loved, his own Mother. Once Cody breaks-out of prison, kills Big Ed, and forcefully reclaims her as his own, Verna in the last scene of the film tries to persuade the authorities surrounding Cody that she can help them make him surrender, promising to do anything they ask her for in order to save her own skin from her former lover and being locked away after being apprehended for fleeing from the crime in the getaway car. Her attempts fail.

Film-Noirs may not be the same after the late 50s, but the genre will always be remembered by film historians and filmmakers for how they changed film by providing a stylized and realistic grim-reality of the time, as they would challenge their audience through their dark and mysterious plots, tough characters who weren’t sanitized by Hollywood, and shocking use of violence and sex appeal. While “White Heat” is more of a gangster picture, “The Big Heat” follows under murder-mystery; the lone protagonists working above the law, the sadistic criminals, and the flirty women who would become victim to the people they choose to be with, are all greatly shown in both films at the genre’s finest!                                                                                                        

LEPRECHAUN 3

Compared to other holiday reviews that I do annually whether it be doing horror films in October, Holiday (mostly Christmas) films in December, or reviewing a film or sequel from Spielberg's unofficial Monster trilogy on the 4th of July; my reviews for St.Paddy's Day have usually been on and off. I suppose that may have to do with there not being too many St.Paddy's related films as there are apparently more bad than there are good, which is part of the reason why I don't make it as consistent as my other holiday reviews. It could also be that I don't really celebrate the holiday as much as others do, which is why I often overlook writing reviews for it. Where it all comes down regarding reviewing St.Paddy's Day movies is I only review them if I have the time and the interest, and this year I most certainly do. This St.Paddy's Day I'm going to take a look at...

As I reviewed the 2nd Leprechaun movie, as ridiculously stupid as it was I was surprised with how much it surpassed the original. It wasn't slow moving, the settings were more appealing, a few of the characters weren't as annoying as the ones from the original, the kills didn't feel lackluster, and Warwick Davis was given more screen-time without feeling the need to play up a silly concept for legit scares so that he can ham-up his performance as much as he wants. I was expecting the second film to get dumber, and in some respects, it was, given the logic and not trying to attempt to be scary, but it wasn't as absurd as the idea of having the Leprechaun go into outer space or da hood. This film however, would be the start of the Leprechaun going to unusual places by having it set in Las Vegas, as well as being the first direct-to-video film in the series which tones down the quality. But as odd as it may sound, is this film the right kind of fun stupid entertainment, or is it just stupid? ON WITH THE REVIEW!

A nervous old man missing a few limbs pawns off a statue of the infamous Leprechaun with an amulet around his neck (I'm not going to bother questioning the continuity of the connection between these films, considering that this film clearly establishes that it's non-exist in this series), for money to get out of Vegas, warning the shopkeeper (Marcelo Tubert) not to remove it. Of course, the shopkeeper doesn't listen, and the Leprechaun (Warwick Davis) is set free from his stoned prison taking back his pot of gold that the man just found. The Leprechaun accidentally leaves one of his gold coins behind and goes back to the shop to reclaim it. After killing the owner, the gold coin is founded by a soon to be college student named Scott (John Gatis), who discovers that the coin can grant a wish (contradicting the film's own logic that only a Leprechaun has the power to grant wishes if you take his gold). Vowing to get it back, the Leprechaun roams through Las Vegas to find the coin killing anyone who stands in his way.

Setting the film in Las Vegas may sound as absurd as the set-ups to the later movies, but when you really think about it, it's the best place for him to be. Vegas is an atmosphere as flashy and vicious as he is, that's all based on luck and greed, and is filled to the brim with money, drinks, and sexy woman. It's a much better place for him than Ireland because he can blend into the surreal atmosphere without anyone raising an eyebrow, take all the money he wants with his powers, get away with murder, and can drink himself to eternity. In less than a month, he could own this city. Exactly how the previous film captured the spirit of St.Paddy's Day, this film nicely showcases the sinful party atmosphere of Vegas. It's clearly not on the same level of visual awe as say "Casino", but as far as low-budget horror films go, it doesn't do bad of a job. The only downside is the film is restrained from a large number of possibilities for him to explore. Can you imagine seeing him kill the pirates during the stunt show at "Treasure Island" only to discover that the gold in the chest is fake; have a magical showdown on the towers of "Excalibur" and accidentally destroying the Merlin statue as audiences think it's a show; or people at "Circus Circus" mistaking him for a performer as he searches for his gold? It would be awesome. However given the budget and being filmed in only 14 days as cool as it would be, the chances of it going all out is not going to happen. And for what we have, there's still enough activities that we see the Leprechaun do, such as gambling, participating in a magic show, going against gangsters, and encountering an Elvis impersonator.

Warwick Davis has always been a riot to watch in the previous films no matter how bad they were, and how ridiculously not scary he was despite how hideous he appears underneath that awesome make-up. And I have to say, as much as the second film was an improvement to the first for letting him not take his role so seriously, this is the film where he's by far at his funniest, and I mean that in a good way! He looks like he's having the time of his life of shooting scenes in Vegas that involve him killing people and interacting in the city as he says some of the most vulgar rhymes with such glee, and occasionally wearing different outfits that get sillier every time he alters his appearance. He has so many priceless lines, and numerous scenes for him to play around with that he never runs out of steam. There are plenty of stupid laughable scenes like when he counter tricks a magician, walks inside the hospital oddly unnoticed in a nurse outfit, and turns a mobster into a human slot-machine. But for me, the best bit is when he interacts with an Elvis impersonator. You would expect him to use his magic to kill him, or bite off a piece of his flesh, but instead they both comment on each other’s looks, that's followed by the Leprechaun impersonating his voice and posing with him, and the scene ends with him dancing like the King. The chemistry between them and watching Warwick Davis do a bit of Elvis is so priceless and yet so cool that it makes me wish that the film's finale ended with him taking over Vegas and doing a duet with the guy impersonating Elvis to celebrate his victory. Beyond that, it's the most likable that this character has ever been, where it appears (and strictly judging by the logic in this film) that if you stay away from his gold and don't anger him, you'd have the time of your life hanging out with him.

Even though Warwick Davis' performance lights-up the screen as much as Vegas does, there is one performance that to my surprise is closer to stealing the spotlight away from him than Sandy Baron as Uncle Morty in the last film, and that's John Gatis as the film's protagonist Scott. Now when I first saw him enter the film, I despised him for his annoying bland acting as this young socially awkward dweeb, making me wish that Cody from the second film was back to take his place. It didn't help that the character fell under the same stupidity as most of the characters from the other films did by asking what the creature attacking him is (Do people not know a Leprechaun when they see one), and calling the authorities by telling them the truth that they're obviously not going to believe. I knew he was going to survive, so I hoped that in the very least the Leprechaun would give him the same brutal treatment as he gave Ozzie in the first film, but he didn't...he did something better than maiming him or killing him. During a struggle, Scott gets bitten by the Leprechaun as some of his green-blood gets mixed with Scott's. This results with him going through a slow werewolf-like transformation, only instead of turning into a hairy beast, he turns into a taller version of the Leprechaun. I don't think I can count the many times I laughed at Gatis doing an impression of Warwick Davis. His phony Irish accent, and awkward over the top line delivery, as he's making such wild expressions through such terrible make-up had me laughing hysterically. Even when he acts serious when still resembling a sillier version of the Green Goblin from "The Amazing Spider-Man 2", the laughs only increase for how incredibly hard it is to take seriously from the way he appears. I take the Leprechaun more seriously than I ever will with Scott. Supporting the goofy nature of this subplot are the gags showing his changes that give a good chuckle or two for how awkward they play out, but the funniest scene is when he's taken to the hospital, that also contains impressive make-up when showing Scott's body, Gatis’ terrible acting of being in pain, and a good jab at US health care.

Seeing that Scott has turned into the Leprechaun's equal, it would seem appropriate for them to have some kind of magical show-down in the end. Well, that cool opportunity gets buried under the same dock that killed the super shredder in "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2". Thankfully that's made-up from the number of deaths that this film has. The second film offered kills that were uniquely goofy and cartoony when prior to it the only kill that was memorable was the Leprechaun hoping on a guy's stomach with a pogo stick. This film takes these comical deaths to a higher level of laughable insanity. We're watching this little green devil kill a man in front of a crowd people cheering for him thinking it’s a magic show; and using a similar trick of killing a victim with the power of seduction by creating sexual fantasies in a way that's more weird and extreme than he did with turning a pair of spinning blades into boobs in the second installment. I totally fell apart and almost died with such disbelief when he inflates a beautiful woman's body to the point where she looks like a duck before exploding. These are some of the craziest deaths that these films have to offer, and having Warwick Davis interacting with his victims is half of what makes them so hysterical. Does every death in the film work; I wish I could say yes. There are indeed plenty of ones as anti-climactic as the film's climax. One particularly involves the Leprechaun hitting two guys with his little cane, that isn't brutal or all that funny. The biggest issues the film has with these scenes are how some of them keep cutting away to an entirely different scene taking place in the movie. For example, when the Leprechaun encounters his first victim of the movie, right when things are getting intense, we suddenly cut back to Scott interacting in Vegas, to returning back to the struggle, to once again going back to Scott. Because the tension always comes to a halt whenever it gets exciting, it becomes extremely difficult to be invested for how random the cutaways are, and how these two separate scenes don't flow together due to their difference in tone. Scott’s scenes are relevant to the story, but the editing for it makes his scene as annoying as commercials for how they abruptly appear during an engaging part of the movie that ruins the ride.

 

The deaths may be hit and miss (though in this film's case, there are definitely more hits in that aspect when compared to the other two), but at least all of them (with the exception of one) are happening to characters that we were able to spend enough time with to form a connection, as opposed to half of them involving a random person simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And truthfully, as badly acted and over the top cliched as these characters are I found them to be more entertaining and tolerable than the cast to any of the previous films. Michael Callan is enjoyable as the flashy big-shot Casino owner who's not nearly as tough and cool as he thinks he is; Marcelo Tubert's laughable hokey performance as the cynical and greedy shopkeeper shares better chemistry with Davis as a rival than Scott does for how cruelly desperate he seems to want the gold; and the two hoods who extort the casino for money are so ridiculously non-threatening for how one is a strong idiotic jock-bully that feels like he's a wanna-be mobster, as the other one resembles a water-down Hans Gruber without the class, intimidation, and accent, that they're amusing to watch if not funny. The real enjoyment from a duo of criminals in this film goes to Caroline Williams as a woman working at the roulette table wising to be young and beautiful named Loretta (even though she looks striking for her age), and John DeMita as the lousy magician Fazio, for how out of place they seem. Much like how Alex and Ozzie felt like that they belonged in a whimsically corny made for TV family film, these two seem more appropriate as main antagonists for a quirky screwball comedy for kids, given their motivation to steal something to make them rich as they work off each other in such a cheesy comical fashion. They would blend in well if they were used as the villains for films like "The Chipmunk Adventure" or "Casper". The only character who comes close to being as bad as most the previous characters were before this film is Scott's love interest Tammy (Lee Armstrong), who's a bland character with little to do (the other girls at least did or tried hard to do something when going up against the Leprechaun), as Armstrong gives a performance just as riveting. But when compared to the constantly annoying performances from Jennifer Aniston and Shevonne Durkin, she's at least tolerable, so she’s a slight improvement if not a major one.

OVERALL THOUGHTS

Going into this movie, I thought I was just going to get a serviceable entertaining performance out of Warwick Davis, gain a few small laughs, and maybe witness one death scene that would stand-out. What I got instead was a Leprechaun film that was so outrageous than any of the films that came before it, that I found myself laughing hard and happily entertained by it! Warwick Davis is at his funniest; John Gatis (for the wrong reasons) becomes just as much as riot as Davis is when he starts to slowly turn into a Leprechaun; the cast of supporting characters are more entertaining and (at their worst) tolerable when compared to the cast of characters in the previous two films; the Vegas setting is oddly a perfect match for our little green protagonist; and half of the deaths are memorable for how extremely cartoony and unusual they are. It's still as incredibly dumb as the other Leprechaun movies were, but as far as these dumb films go, this is the most enjoyable for how hilarious it is. Being scared by this film is almost impossible (the only people who will find this scary are little kids or people who just don't like horror in general), but if you're just looking to have a fun time by watching a crazy Leprechaun kill people in an environment as strange as the monster and his methods for killing people are, then you're going to have a complete blast!

HAPPY ST. PADDY'S DAY EVERYONE!!!! 

FILM ESSAY: SCARFACE: THE EVOLUTION OF GANGSTER FILMS

When most people usually hear the title "Scarface", immediately what comes to mind is the 1983 gangster film directed by Brian De Palma starring Al Pacino. And it's easy to understand why given what a popular pop culture phenomenon it is with modern day viewers thanks to its visual style, quotable dialogue (the most quoted line being "Say hello to my little friend"), Al Pacino's memorable performance as Tony Montana, and its controversial violence and constant swearing. However, given that the film is so widely recognized, many people tend to overlook the fact that the film is a remake of an already successful gangster film of the same name back in 1932 that was considered to be just as controversially violent.



WARNING: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS!

The 1932 "Scarface" tells the story of the rise and fall of the Italian immigrant gangster Tony Camonte (played by Paul Muni) who joins forces with mob boss Johnny Lovo to help smuggle alcohol in the South Side of Chicago during Prohibition, as they fight against their rivals on the North Side. However, as Tony moves up in the business, he begins to make some moves of his own that are against his boss' wishes, while also hitting on Johnny's girlfriend Poppy. When Tony goes too far, in spite of his success of rubbing out their rivals on the North Side and making more money on illegal liquor, a jealous and outraged Johnny orders a hit on Tony, but he luckily comes out alive, and has his boss killed as an act of revenge and his final step to reaching to complete power. But Tony's enjoyment for reaching to the top doesn't last for long. When he discovers that his sister Cesca is dating his best friend and partner in crime Guino (played by a young George Raft), he kills him out of jealousy for his incestuous feelings towards her, resulting with Cesca reporting this crime to the authorities that ends with Tony fighting against the cop in his apartment and eventually winding up dead during the shootout.

 

Gangster films were already considered to be a hit during the early 30s thanks to the success of films such as "Little Caesar" starring Edward G. Robinson, and "The Public Enemy" starring James Cagney, which caused screenwriter Ben Hecht to write an adaptation of a novel to film producer Howard Hughes and the film's director Howard Hawks. Considering that the film would not only be depicting the criminal activity that was going on with the mob at the time through the perspective of a criminal, but has also based the character on the real-life gangster (who was still in power at the time) Al Capone, as the film would recreate half of the crimes he's committed on the big screen (the most notable one being "The St. Valentine's Day Massacre") controversy from Capone's mob and the censors would arise to the people behind this film to prevent it from being released. Two of Capone’s associates approached Hecht to intimidate him about doing a film loosely based on their boss, but since Hecht was once a tough Chicago newspaper journalist, he wasn't intimidated by the thugs and was able to convince them to be consultants for the movie.

To Hecht, Hughes, and Hawks, Capone's thugs were nothing when compared to the powerful film censorship board the Hays Office. When the Hays Office saw the film, they found the film to be so violent and feeling that the film was glorifying the gangsters than it was dishonoring them that they demanded a large number of changes toward the picture in order for it to be released to the public. This forced the filmmakers to tame the violence. Put an opening scroll at the beginning of the film to inform audiences that the film isn't supposed to glorify gangster. Subtitle the film as "Shame of a Nation" instead of just calling it "Scarface". Shoot new scenes involving the press and the police discussing how gangsters are destroying America. And above all, demanded an alternate ending of Tony (this time played by a stand-in for Muni after refusing to do the scene) being hanged, since him being gunned down was demeaned to be too violent of a demise. When the censors took a look at the sanitized version of the film, they still weren't satisfied! After the amount of frustration of trying to screen the film, the film with its original ending was eventually distributed to states that had the desire to screen the film. Upon its release, the film became a hit with critics and audiences at the time. And Al Capone who was so skeptical about the film being loosely based off him loved the film so much that he would show his own print of the film to his friends and write a letter to Howard Hughes thanking him for the mythology.

As time went on, the art of film gradually changed, and the Hays Code that heavily censored films since the 1930s was lifted in 1965. By the late 1960s, films would take a much more risqué turn by having nudity, making the violence appear to be more grotesque, and adding swear words. And throughout the 1970s, gangsters films like "Mean Streets", "The Godfather", and "The Godfather Part II" would set a new-bar for film-making and be mimicked up to the very present. While films began to change, so did the real-life tough guys. When Prohibition was over and that everybody can now have legal access to alcohol, gangsters were seeking new ways to make money through the use of illegal products. They still made tons of money off of loansharking, prostitution, and gambling (especially through their Casinos in Las Vegas), but when the narcotics trade came into play, it heightened the risks for the mobsters where they'd be facing more years of prison than from any of their other illegal trades, but they would be making double the money that they're currently making. When Hollywood Producer Martin Bregman watched the 1932 "Scarface" on TV late at night when he couldn't sleep, he had an idea to remake the film. However, instead of setting the film back during the 20s, director Sidney Lumet (who later turned down directing the film after showing displeasure with the final script) gave Bregman the idea to set it in modern times.

 

The 1983 remake of "Scarface" has the same story elements that the original film had, such as an immigrant who rises to power by distributing illegal goods and killing his boss, to slowly falling from power and getting killed in the end during a massive shoot-out. And the relationships that Montana has with his boss, love interest, best friend, and sister are nearly as identical as Camonte's relationship with the characters from the 1932 classic. The only major changes mostly come from adapting this classic gangster story to fit within the film's modern setting. Rather than Tony being an Italian immigrant living in Chicago, Lumet thought it would be more fitting to have Tony be a Cuban immigrant from the Mariel Boat Lift that brought the Cuban refugees to Miami Florida in the early 80s, since many of those refugees turned to a life of crime to achieve the American dream just like the immigrants during the turn of the century. And given how criminals in Miami Florida were selling drugs to make big money, Lumet felt that it would be a perfect substitute for alcohol.

Unlike the original, the remake wasn't based on any particular gangster, but most of the killings and how these characters organize their business was indeed loosely based on actual events. To give an accurate depiction of the cocaine world that was happening in Florida at the time, scriptwriter Oliver Stone interviewed attorney generals, lawyers, and ex-gangsters; and was granted access to criminal records (files, audio tapes, and videos of crime scenes) in places like the county of Miami, the Dade County, and Fort Lauderdale. Seeing all these files and hearing about what these criminals did to each other (like slicing each other up with a chainsaw instead of just putting in a bullet through their bodies) fascinated Stone so much that he was determined to learn more. While on vacation, Stone decided to visit countries like Ecuador and Bolivia to interview drug-kingpins who lived in big mansions and would wear lots of jewelry and flashy suits. These playboy figures were flattered to have their business and lifestyle be brought to the big screen and welcomed Stone to their homes. However, after getting high on the cocaine that Oliver Stone was offered, he mentioned one of the law enforcement officials that he had interviewed in Miami, and as soon as they heard the name of the authority figure he spoke with, their friendly faces dropped and began to suspect that he was an undercover cop posing as a filmmaker. Unlike how Ben Hecht negotiated with the thugs that threatened him, Stone did the opposite by heading back to America as quickly as possible.

 

Anybody who's seen the remake of "Scarface" will talk about how incredibly violent and vulgar the film is, and though there have been gangster films during this new era of filmmaking that had its share of blood and profanity, they didn't cross as many lines when compared to this flick. Gangster films before this film pretty much just had gun-fire, strangling’s, and moments where they would hit each other. But the new "Scarface" offered more than those kinds of violent elements that audiences would see in a gangster film. It had a guy being butchered by a chainsaw. A mafia man being hung from a flying helicopter. Numerous scenes of the characters excessively snorting cocaine. And more foul language and the constant use of the four-letter F-word than what any other mafia film before this film could get away with. Its extreme mature content was considered too much for the MPPA that they originally stamped the film with an X rating. Upon receiving such a high rating that would prevent many audiences from viewing the picture, the film's director Brian De Palma cut the film three times to please the censors. But every single time he handed in each of his cuts, the MPPA was still just as displeased with its graphic content as the Hays Office were with the original "Scarface". Refusing to cut any more scenes out feeling the film would at that point lose its dramatic thrust; De Palma called a few of his reporter friends to write numerous articles about the trouble the film was having with the censors. Bregman himself even fought against this outrage during a court case against the MPPA, where he brought in the head of Time magazine, the head of the Organized Crime Bureau of Miami, and three psychiatrists explaining how the film wouldn't affect the children for being an anti-drug movie and how important it is to release this film to a wider audience to inform them of what's happening in the cocaine world. Bregman won the case by a vote that was 18 to 2 in favor of granting this film an R rating, and when De Palma realized that his other cuts were given the same X rating as his edited version, he went ahead and released the original cut of his movie. The film wasn't an instant hit with critics at the time, but its legacy would continue to grow as the years went by.

Both the original and the remake of "Scarface" are in many ways alike from its story and controversy with the censors. But they're in many ways different for how each one reflects the time of film-making and organized crime. It’s needless to say that the version that's more popular with modern day audiences that even still continues to shock people with its violence, is the remake. But the legacy of the original will not only be lived on through its superior remake but also from film scholars and historians who remind us of the evolution of film. These two films are indeed pure examples of how far we've come from in film-making, and how the mafia is only getting worse as time goes on.