MovieChat Forums > Scarface (1932) Discussion > the remake is obviously 'better'...

the remake is obviously 'better'...

posted 14 years ago by nakuk
70 replies | jump to latest

Come on people! While I enjoyed the 1932 original, I do not see how anyone can possibly judge it as a better film than the remake. The 1983 version is much more absorbing; there is much more development and depth to the characters; the physical violence doesn't look ridiculously fake (those 1932 punches and slaps...LOL); the acting is much more professional (Muni was good but some of the other performances were pretty awful by modern standards)

The original may have been ground-breaking for its time, but it is clearly inferior by today's standards. However, it is fascinating to watch as a period piece.

[–] Thrift_Store_Junkie05 11 years ago

Most people that prefer the remake do not watch many old films. Therefore, it is only natural that they pick the dumbed-down, tackier version of Scarface, which would be Di Palma's. The complaints about the acting in the pre-code version are also baffling, for the remake features more over-the-top, laughably hammy performances (as well as corny dialogue) than in the original. In fact, Karen Morley and Ann Dvorak were two of the most underrated actresses of the 1930s.

[–] claudja777 11 years ago

Well,after reading a lenghty interview to Hawks I found out that they were NOT even ACTRESSES. Karen Morley was chosen by Hawks cause she was dating a friend of him (He doesn't name him, But is Charles vidor, Another director)and he found her "attractive" (pratically he chased her giving that part!)and Ann Dvorak was a MGM dancer.George raft was next to hawks at a Fighting matc and he liked his way (raft was really a somehow mafioso 2 kid,or at least was near them, million of stories about this) and Paul muni too was a noone.this was not a studio film,was the only succesfull movie of howard huges.they did it in an abandooned lot and all the extras were electricians gaffer and other kids from the productions.

[–] ezh_1999 10 years ago

As someone who watches a lot if older films (one my favorite genres is film noir), I have to say De Palma's is better. I have a feeling that all the folk who viciously defend hawke's version(such as yourself), are nothing but a bunch of grumpy old men who only dislike modern cinema, because the sight of blood and other realistic occurrence hurt their feeble old minds. Saying the performances in De palma's version are 'laughable' is *beep* There's a good reason the 83' version is rembered over the 32' one.

[–] KobraX14 9 years ago

I'm 19 and I prefer the 1932 over the 1983 version any day. The performances in '83 are nothing but camp. Scarface '32 has subtlety and mystery and has better characters all of which is done in 93 minutes unlike the overblown '83 Scarface. The only reason the '83 version is remembered is that most of America is stupid and culturally illiterate.

[–] sandroalgra 10 years ago

the physical violence doesn't look ridiculously fake

I beg to disagree. Do you remember the shootout scene at the club, when those two extremely conspicuous gunmen try to assassinate Tony? They just keep spraying bullets all over the place without even looking (no wonder they cause so much collateral damage). Tony then shoots them in the legs causing one of them to fall back shooting mindlessly in the air until a lamp falls on top of him. That's Looney Tunes violence!

I still love Depalma's Scarface but looking back, I have to say it's not aging very well. The acting, the colours, the fake accents and even the edits are too 1980-ish. It even has an 80's montage featuring Push it to the Limit.

On the other hand, Scarface needs to be contemporary, which is why I don't oppose the new version being produced at the moment. Maybe they should do a Scarface film every few decades to reflect how our perception of organized crime changes.

[–] franzkabuki 10 years ago

Undeniably, De Palma does make concessions to style at the expence of "realism" - nowhere moreso than in the climactic battle - but it`s always pretty ferocious... which Looney Tunes are not. And while I see nothing wrong with the prevalent 80`s vibe, I don`t quite see how it manifests in acting, colors or editing (not to mention the "fake accents" which, according to many Cuban Americans, aren`t so fake at all)? The color palette does look kinda pale, but is it that much an "80`s thing"? Same with editing - like the preference for slowly gliding camera, especially when a new scene is introduced; it was even sort of unusual for De Palma around that time.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] dannieboy20906 10 years ago

"The Looney Tunes are not ferocious"? How extreme does violence need to be to meet your definition of "ferocious"? If Wile E. Coyote plummeting hundreds of feet to the dessert floor, then being shot back into the air with such force that his skull breaks off the cliff face, and then he plummets to the dessert floor again where he is crushed by the falling cliff face, what more can be ferocious? If Bugs Bunny blowing off Daffy Duck's bill with a shotgun is not ferocious, how can you consider a few dozen little 5.56 mm bullet holes ferocious? If that same Bugs Bunny turning Yosemite Sam into a smoking column of ash is not ferocious, then nothing is.

I am being facetious and having fun with your post, but I also have a point. How can people realistically compare the two movies on a qualitative basis? Brian De Palma's version would never have existed without Howard Hawk's version. He even included the same technique of folding cartoon type (Looney Tunes) events to defuse the violence as he was taking it to extremes. The silliness of the gangster shooting down the chandelier to cause his own death was, I think, a deliberate homage to Looney Tunes type cartoons and meant to be funny.

There were fifty years of study, invention, and improvement in scripting, acting, and filming between the two movies. The 1983 version should resonate better with today's audiences than the original, and the remake would never have made it to the screen under the movie codes in 1932. Of course, the cars, the weapons, and many other aspects of he remake would strike 1932 audiences as science fiction if they were able to sit through it.

I think both films are well done, stand the test of time, and are great to compare to see how much culture has changed, and how much it has stayed the same.

[–] dick-409-354965 10 years ago

Great analysis "dannieboy" I have watched the Pacino Scarface and for the first time the Muni Scarface on TCM last night. I would say one is not better than the other they are just different as they were made in different eras. I liked both.
Ann Dvorak and Karen Morley were quite attractive btw!

[–] kevin-bergin 10 years ago

Love Al Pacino but his acting here is so over the top here.

[–] jrl0726 10 years ago

You can't compare Pacino to the most complete film actor ever. This great film set the standard for these types of movies. Muni was in a class by himself and single-handedly carried this film to it's place at the top of the genre. By contrast, Pacino is limited and lacks the "stuff" to carry such a role like the great Muni. Compared to Muni's role, Pacino's is almost a caricature.

[–] gluserty 10 years ago

I like both films, and I don't have a favorite between the two either. Both tell the same story, except the original was filmed during the prohibition era (also in an early age in hollywood), and the 1983 film focused on the significant rise of cocaine. Some say that the 1983 film is too long, but its length has never bothered me (enjoyed the film's vibe and journey).
Also, another poster commented that all four main actresses in the two films were beautiful, and I agree (though I enjoyed the performance of Karen Morley over Michelle Pfeiffer, simply because I felt her character was more flirty and fun).

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jackal2744 9 years ago

I prefer the original personally. I wouldn't say that the remake is an objectively better film at all. For starters it's hypocritical of itself.
The original was much more concise. The remake hit all of the exact same plot points of the original, but it stretched it over an excessively long 3 hours... The remake had a lot of style, but had no additional substance. It could have just as easily been an hour shorter, and would probably have been a lot more effective of a film. The screenplay makes a note of criticizing excesses and was meant to criticize and parallel the excesses of Hollywood at the time. Yet the screenplay itself is excessive. Not to mention, Brian De Palma's maximalist style being on display grander than ever. It's just a big gaudy, excessive picture that somehow has the gaul to criticize excess... WTF?
Anyway, the original tells the exact same story, same plot points, same characters, in less than half the time. I enjoy the remake, but I don't think it's anything special. It's certainly not BDP's best work.

[–] maxi13 8 years ago

absolutely!
the performances of nearly all actors were just horrible!
especially at the beginning.
it felt if they read their lines which stand on a sheet of paper

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]