Scarface and the Cinema Gangster Scarface and the Cinema Gangster Zachary Waters Communications 304: History of Film Shepherd University 1 Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 2 Never has there been a film released by one of Hollywood’s major production
studios (MGM, Walt Disney, Paramount, and others) that has not been under a specific
genre class. Most films are seen as an Action/Adventure film, Comedy film, Drama film,
Horror film, Musical, Science Fiction or Western film. By organizing by their genres, the
studios advertises films to certain viewers who enjoy certain types of films. Tudor (1977)
has stated, “To call a film a ‘Western’ is saying it’s important. To fit it into a
[classification] of films suggests we presumably have some general knowledge about it.
If a film is a ‘Western’, it is to say that is shares some indefinable [qualities or
conventions] with other films known as ‘Westerns’” (p.16). When a collection of films
share particular factors including the plot, themes and thematic ideas, settings, characters,
iconography, and motifs, then those films will probably be seen as a specific genre, even
though there might be significant differences among them.
The gangster film genre will be analyzed and observed within this paper. Starting
with some of the earliest films to outline the genre, leading to the breakthrough movies
that redefined the genre to “modern day films that continually reshape the genre, the
gangster film has been noteworthy and commercially viable for the almost a century
now”(Kirby, 1). The genre applications of the cinema gangster will be looked into
thoroughly while trying to attempt what exactly the genre is and how audiences
throughout time perceive it. The film that the student will analyze is Scarface: Shame of
the Nation. This film was chosen not only because it was a film viewed in class, but also
because it is considered a culturally important and complete film in the genre of “Cinema
Ganster”. The significance of the film was brought to modern audiences’ attention
recently when in June 2008, the American Film Institute (AFI) had named both Scarface:
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 3 Shame of a Nation and Scarface (1983) to their list of the Top 10 films in the gangster
genre. While there have been many films classified as a “gangster” film, both Scarface
films are seen as two that really stand out in the genre as the “absolute best” (Kirby, 2).
Movies have their own language in which only certain groups of viewers and
followers are able to understand. Schatz (1981) has said “The commercial Cinema is a
communication system: it structures and delivers meaning” (p.18). “The communication
of films make them comparable to verbal communication” (Schatz, 1981). The field of
semiology, developed by de Saussure, views the significance of language and how it is
important to a cultural meaning. When a person goes to the movies to watch a film,
whether the genre is horror or western, that person has an expectation as to what will
happen. This viewing and perception is known as a communicative event. Kirby states,
“The expectations and knowledge that come from these beliefs are fundamental elements
of our ability to evaluate and critically analyze both films and genres” (p.4).
The “gangster immigrant” is a very important element used throughout the
gangster film. It is used in Scarface: Shame of a Nation, as well as other important past
gangster films. The importance of where the main character originates from shows that
distance from other characters as well as the audience member. In Scarface: Shame of a
Nation, Tony Camonte, the main protagonist, hails from Italy. While this clearly reflects
the time period in which the film was made, it could also serve to further distinguish the
film and the genre conventions present in the film from one another.
The movie Scarface: The Shame of the Nation (1932), which is roughly based on
the life and times of infamous gangster Al Capone, is set during the time of Prohibition
(the 1920’s). As mentioned earlier, the film centers on Tony Camonte, an immigrant from
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 4 Italy living in the slums of Chicago with his mother and sister, and his rise to power and
fall from grace within the criminal organization, headed by boss Tony Lovo. As he works
for Lovo, mostly bootlegging alcohol for the business, Camonte starts to gain wealth and
reputation within the crime syndicate. Camonte begins to have “aspirations of grandeur”
(Kirby, 9) that Lovo does not seem to care about. When Camonte becomes too much of a
threat to Lovo and his business, he tries to have Tony “whacked”, but is severely
disappointed when Camonte escapes and ends up killing him instead. Tony’s one
important flaw as a character is a tremendous over-protective nature over his younger
sister, which becomes his inevitable downfall. After discovering that his sister has had a
man in her apartment for weeks without leaving, Tony confronts the man, who ends up
being his most trusted friend Guino, and shoots him. Only, he is too late to find out that
they had been married all along. The police, who have been looking for the perfect
evidence to arrest Camonte with, find out about the murder. The film ends with a
shootout between Tony and the Chicago police at his apartment complex, where Tony is
shot down and killed. There is also a more censored version of the film where Tony does
not die in the shoot-out and is taken to court where he “is then sentenced to die by a
judge, and the film ends with Tony dying by hanging” (Kirby, 10).
The first and foremost manifestation of the gangster film came about due to the
public’s interest with notorious and infamous real-life gangsters of the late 1920s and
early 1930s, such as Al Capone, John Dillinger, “Baby-Face” Nelson, and others. The
acts they committed were the perfect stories the media could find, so they ended up being
national news. “Gangsters in the 1930s received more publicity than the President of the
United States” (Nash & Ross, 1985-7). Capone became the center for the main characters
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 5 in films such as Little Caesar and Scarface (both 1932 & 1983) and the “archetype for
the gangster genre” (Ruth, 1996). The gangsters and criminals were popular among
audiences because they saw these men as men who could “rise above the ordinary
criminal by committing crimes with bravado” (Gardaphë, 2006, p. 3-4). The fame of
these criminals made them obvious choices in which to base characters. Also, the violent
nature of these violent gangsters helped the mysticism of the performance. Shindler
(1996) claims “The violence (in relative terms at least) of the gangsters was felt by many
to be a healthy American trait, as if the lawlessness and rough personal justice of the days
of the Western frontier were to be transplanted to the urban frontier of the twentieth
century” (p.118). By that, Shindler means that these criminals may have been reverting
back to the late 1800s by committing their own justice however they see fit without the
permission of law enforcement. In a way, one can argue that the Cinema Gangster could
easily classify under a combination of both a “Western” film and a “Superhero” film. At
least, they see themselves that way. When one is to look back on the American history, it
can be seen that violence has played a major impact in the shaping of this nation, and
most American heroes were violent types. This hero (according to Kirby) achieved heroic
status through violent action; therefore, the American Gangster can also be seen “as an
almost modern day hero” (p.13).
Throughout the years, the classic ‘gangster film” has gone through many different
makeovers. Karpf (1973) defines the classic “gangster film” as a “storyline concerned
with criminals distributing physical violence, operating in organized fashion during the
1920s and ‘30s.” Rosow (1978) also states, “The movies that make up the genre are more
than simple action-packed dramas about violent criminals driven by dreams of success.
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 6 Everything in a gangster movie represents a superstructure of values and ideas that make
up a self image of America’s advanced capitalist society.” Karpf’s definition gives a
more objectified view of the genre as a whole, but Rosow sees it a little differently,
noting the depth of it’s significance as well as its cultural importance. Hossent (1974)
states that while violence is an important aspect of gangster films, romance can also be
just as important. While viewing a film, a person may see the character as someone he or
she wants to aspire to be. The audience member romanticizes that particular character and
his or her lifestyle. Audiences want to be that either the gangster/bad guy or the heroic
cop/good guy.
Munby (1999) has said that the introduction of sound during the 1930s has played a
major impact on the popularity of films (including gangster films) and cannot go
unmentioned. The significance of sound is not the sole reason gangster films became so
popular; simply, it emphasized them. The poor and oppressed citizens of cities across the
country looked onto the screen at the cinema gangster, heard him speak, and instantly
heard the same social problems and obstacles that they faced in everyday situations. It
was often very uncommon to view the poor and desolate bums of the lower middle class
on the cinema screen, so gangster filmmakers really took advantage of relating to these
people and showing the masses who had been truly devastated by the Great Depression.
This is undoubtedly the motive that led to the public turmoil from the Hays
Office. Characters of these dastardly films were becoming more and more appealing to
the audiences of that time. By showing that wealth and success and riches were often
achieved due to a lack of law enforcement and blatant dishonesty, alarm throughout the
censors and the Hays Office ensued. In 1935, a halt of the production of all gangster films
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 7 made sure that that there would be no more for the time being, and the ruling became one
of the “earliest examples of artistic censorship” (Kirby, 14). Major studios still produced
“gangster films” even after the decree, but it is important to note that “[these studios]
exposed the degree to which an established system of moral compensation had broken
down in Hollywood” (Munby, p.20). What is meant by that is there was no moral code
left in Hollywood (he should watch some modern films). This verdict or ruling can now
be seen as one of the first acts of rating a film that is still used today.
The gangster film of the 1930s depicted the world as dark and filled with doubt and
fear. These films showed the attitude and mood of America in a near-perfect way with the
interpretations of the protagonists, showing how they were constantly moving among the
shadows and always hiding in the dark. The Great Depression also helped to establish the
scenes as dark and fearful, adding to the popularity of the genre. This gives another
reason as to why the major movie production studios and companies, as well as the Hays
Office, vowed to end the life of the Cinema Gangster. Even though production studios
continued to show these film gangsters as scum and “rot of the world” (even against
demands of the director), audiences still viewed the real life gangsters and saints and
heroes. Shindler (1996) pretty much hits the nail on the head:
“If justification for illegality were needed, the crumbling nature of the economic, moral
and institutional framework of the country provided it. To those people whose minds
were unable to fathom the ways of high finance, it simply appeared that money, which
they had deposited, had been stolen by the banks. Capone’s tirades against bankers met
an echoing roar of approval. Now, perhaps more than ever, there was a widespread
genuine, if grudging, admiration for the gangsters who carved their own fortunes out of
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 8 the fortresses of power and wealth with their tommy guns. They at least were doing
something besides worrying how to pay the grocery bills, how to find another job, how to
keep up payments on the mortgage” (p.122).
The criminal of the 1920s and 1930s had quite a life, with Capone and his cronies
always showing the American people that this capitalist society is broken and can be
easily manipulated. They were able to cut corners and live by their own rules, and in the
long run, become rich and famous. Even though the public hailed the life of the gangster
and, more or less, sympathized for him, American film studios were unable to show the
life of the gangster in a completely positive way. By doing so, American cinemas would
not only show the obscenities never shown on screen, but they also might throw the
nation into a world of chaos and anarchy. If the “bad” guys were to win, America’s
financial problems during the Great Depression would be affected tenfold (and most
definitely not in a god way). This is why, years before Shame of a Nation even hit
screens, the Hays Office took it upon themselves to make some changes in the film. For
just about nine months, the Hays Office argued with director Howard Hawkes, trying to
get him to show Camonte as a low-life degenerate who should never be seen as a hero,
but as the criminal that he was. A message was added before the film, informing
audiences that the gangster is evil and that the real good guys in the film are actually the
brave policemen whose mission it was to take down the notorious gangster. Also, scenes
were redone and there were bonus scenes “that Hawks wanted nothing to do with”
(Kirby, 19).
“The gangsters of the 1930s films (Robinson, Cagney, etc.) were dramatized as
psychopaths, sick loners who would strike out against a society that was essentially made
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 9 up of wholesome, innocent people” (Jameson, 1979). Sarris (1977) explains, “He
represents a lower order, in contradiction to the morally marginal hero, who teeters
between good and evil as he strives for money, sex, and power” (p.6). It is known that the
gangster character depicted during the 1930s matches this depiction, including Tony
Camonte. Durgnat (1977) states, “And as he [Tony Camonte] has no qualities deserving
anything but contempt, one can only wonder how a yellow rat like Scarface managed to
become so powerful that the studio was nervous about showing the picture” (p. 18). The
police, other law enforcement, and judges and justices see Camonte as that “yellow rat”,
but they are unable to pin him with any sufficient evidence of crime, semmingly making
them look more and more like antagonists to Tony.
Gardaphë (2006) has stated, “Early films often showed gangsters as degenerate
and overly feminized men losing their independence in the new capitalist society, but
later films recast them as men who wielded power through sexuality and guns” (p.4).
This is true because earlier gangster films would show the main character as less of a
tough-guy, with the softer trait often leading to his downfall. Tony Camonte can be seen
as “feminine” due to a love for the finer things in life (being well-dressed, driving fancy
cars, eating fine dining, etc.). According to Kirby, “this showed the audience that the
angry and ultra violent exterior is merely a front and on the inside, these men are weak
and sexually confused (p.22). To categorize the gangster as “feminine” because of his
love for jewelry and pretty things depreciates the gangster and “serves to feminize the
role” (Kirby, 22). This is smart from a producer’s point of view because the audience
members (mainly men) see the role as too girly, therefore they no longer wish to be that
type of person. Pells (1973) states that “the hero of these films appeared angry and
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 10 violent only on the surface; underneath he displayed a peculiar capacity for tenderness
and idealism”(p.272). This then leads to theinevitable downfall of most cinema gangsters.
Even though the characters often died at the end due to tragic, unattractive flaws,
and even though the Hays Office did their utmost best to show the Cinema Gangster as a
low-life who is a criminal and evil-doer, audiences still saw these men as attractive
figures. This is obviously clear due to the release of many gangster films in the 1930s. In
just1931, they made 50 (more or less) gangster films. This was mostly because of the
success of Little Caesar that came out that very same year (Bergman, 1971). As of late,
gangster films have been shown with quite the negative style, despite huge box office
openings. Shadoian (2003) explains, “Despite the popularity of its films, the genre has
been generally held in low esteem. Critics and reviewers, high of tone and brow, have
been hostile” (p.3). As stated earlier, the gangster had always been appealing to the
lower-class viewer, but not so much with the upper-class viewer. This is most likely
caused by the setting of the character. The majority of gangster films follow the same plot
line: The main character is able to rise out of a life of degeneracy and filth and into the
life of a wealthy, respected man. They are able to do so out of violence and chaos.
Back in the 30s, the films themselves weren’t that bad compared to the gangster
characters within them. One can even say the same about the gangsters of the 1970s and
80s. Even though these films and genres were popular among audiences, it has been the
gangster protagonist (Tony Camonte, Tony Montana, Michael Corleone, etc.) that
audiences admire the most. It is not the gangster film, but the Cinema Gangster, that
becomes the cultural phenomenon.
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 11 References
Bergman, A. (1971). We’re in the money: Depression America and its films. New York:
New York University Press.
Durgnat, R. (1977 July-August). Hawks isn’t good enough. Film Comment, 13, 9-19.
Gardaphë, F.L. (2006). From wiseguys to wise men: The gangster and Italian American
masculinities. New York: Routledge.
Hossent, H. (1974). Gangster movies: Gangsters, hoodlums and tough guys of the screen.
Hong Kong: Octopus Books Limited
Hughes, H. (Producer), & Hawks, H. (Director). (1932). Scarface: Shame of the Nation
[Motion picture]. United Artists.
Jameson, F. (1979). Reification and Utopia in Mass Culture. Social Text, 1. 130-148.
Karpf, S.L. (1973). The gangster film: Emergence, Variation and decay of a genre,
1930-1940. New York: Arno Press.
Kirby, N.(2008). Humanizing the gangster: an examination into the character from
hawks' to depalma's scarface. Auburn, Alabama.
Munby, J. (1999). Public enemies public heroes. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Nash, J. R. & Ross, S. R. (Eds.) (1985-1987). The Motion Picture Guide. Chicago:
Cinebooks.
Pells, R. H. (1973). Radical visions and American dreams: Culture and social thought in
the depression years. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Rosow, E. (1978). Born to lose: The gangster film in America. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Scarface and the Cinema Gangster 12 Ruth, D. (1996). Inventing the public enemy: The gangster in American culture, 19181934. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press
Sarris, A. (1977). ‘Big funerals: The Hollywood gangster, 1927-1933’, Film Comment
13, 3:6-9.
Shadoian, J. (2003). Dreams and dead ends: The American gangster film. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Schatz, T. (1981). Hollywood genres: Formulas, filmmaking and the studio system. New
York: Random House.
Shindler, C. (1996). Hollywood in crisis: Cinema and American society 1929-1939.
London: Routledge.
Top Ten Gangster. (2008). Retrieved June 24, 2008 from American Film Institute. Web
site: http://www.afi.com/10top10/gangster.html.
Tudor, A. (1977). Genre. In B.K. Grant (Ed.) Film genre: Theory and criticism (pp. 1623). Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.