My blog pal Cheryyl just gave me the heads up, that a two month old post of hers has had some action a month later. I wonder if any one has any insight to this topic? Her and I got pulled across the coals for our simple perspective on Castro and Cuba.
Here is her original post and the two month period of comments: Pitbull compares Castro to Hitler while wearing a Scarface t-shirt.
I must have seen Scarface about 200 times, it was one of my very favourite movies in the 80's. It absolutely died in the theatres had a pathetic box office. I bought it as soon as I could when it came out for home viewing. It was immediately adopted by the punk and goth culture. The story depicts an illegal immigrants journey from poverty to wealth. The production had all kinds of controversy and was not even allowed to be filmed in it's actual location of Florida, because Cuban Americans rejected it's stereotype portrayal of Cubans as drug dealers and gangsters. The script was written by Oliver Stone and directed by Brian Da Palma who was awarded a Razzie for worst director that year for Scarface.
The film has moved from the hearts of film students, artists, punks into the worship of hip hop and rap artists into mainstream assimilation. One can find blankets, t-shirts, coffee mugs and ties with Tony Montana on them.
The journey of Tony Montana has two world views. For some it is a rags to riches story. The twist is, that the wealth is absolute corruption. Tony Montana one time says "all a man has in this world is his balls and his word." What happens to his sense of honour during the film? The rise from poverty to wealth is adopted as a kind of forgiveness: His wealth often hints to some viewers that he is forgiven by society for his crimes and murder. But the deep theme of the movie suggests that the ruthless desire for status and wealth is a form of evil. Yet, we love Montana, we love to study his ascent and his descent. We feel for him because we too want to be rich and we have been taught to believe that is all of our true potentials. The image of sucess is first always, a huge mansion, beautiful clothes and bling, lots of toys.Scarface is the ultimate zen buddhist movie. The famous sculpture in his foyer says "The World Is Yours" yet his world is a complete illusion. It's an ironic symbol and decoration perhaps misunderstood by the greedy. The wealth and power never brought him any peace or any kind of life in the world. His dreams are illusions dangerous if manifested, representing money and power as a kind of slick cool deathwish.
No, idolizing Scarface without acknowledging it's cautionary tale is an insult to it's beloved place in contemproary culture. Scarface is a spiritual movie, not a gangster manifesto.
Frank Lopez: Hey, Tony. Remember when I told you when you first started working for me, the guys that last in this business, are the guys who fly straight. Low-key, quiet. But the guys who want it all, chicas, champagne, flash... they don't last.
Tony Montana: [scoffs] You finished? Can I go?
Frank Lopez: Yes, I'm finished.
[Tony exits, shrugging with indifference]
9 comments:
I watched Scarface for the first time in 1996, when Red and I first met, and she worked in a video store (free rentals!). I was amazed at how bad it was!
It must be said that I mostly don't like De Palma, with one or two exceptions, and I thought it was the beginning of the end of Pacino's career, funnily enough.
Indeed, when you look at the movies he's been in since then, over the course of 23 years, there's barely half a dozen that are worth sitting through.
Heh heh *, that's hilarious. Um, well, I guess I see Da Palma, ingeneral as a little should be in a category of "camp". He really plays up the sensationalism of costumes, lighting and sets. I adore him. I think he is like Douglas Sirk...and either one enjoys Sirk's sensibilities or not.
I see Da Plama as embracing the illusion of film. Of using the fact that it'sa ll fake, he plays with pushing realism and histrionics and intense emotional and visual delivery.
He has probably taken more hits than any other director. People usually hate him or love him. I'll see anything he makes.
Now, I am going to go analyse Pacino's career choices and performances...I'll get back to you. Very interesting of you to point out his career as defined before Scarface and after.
Okay, Al Pacino's career.
I counted aprox 33 films since Scarface. (I didn't count the ones not yet released but in post production, for obvious reasons)
Now I admit, I happen to be a huge Pacino fan. He freaks me out I think he is so good.
I made a list of movies where I believe every bit of his acting is out of the ball park. Forget about other actors, they don't even come close.
I will agree that maybe each particular movie may not be as strong as what it takes to make it to really outstanding movies...but even taking that into account. I found 26 out of the 33 movies that are fine movies, and even some are exceptional. And Pacino's characters and acting are incredible. I will allow that some people may scoff Dick Tracy. I liked it, loved the cinematography, and Pacino stole the movie. And Frankie and Johnny is a little love story, likely denegrated to "chick flick" but Michele Pffifer and Pacino are lovely together as two bitter misfits working ina greasy spoon.
So here are movies that deliver exceptional acting and good stories starring Al Pacino since Scarface...
Insomnia(slow yes, but an okay movie)
Two For The Money (poor box office, awesome premise and good story)
Angels In America
Heat
Merchant of Venice
Any Given Sunday
The Insider
Devils Advocate(campy movie but brilliant acting)
Donnie Brosco
Carlitos' Way (needs no defense)
Scent of a Woman
Frankie and Johnny
Godfather Part III (as good if not better than previous ones)
Dick Tracy
Sea of Love (disturbing to this day)
Glen Gary Glen Ross
Pacino has taken roles others are afraid to touch, unlikeable or too over the top. I forgot about RichardIII. He rocks. In Devils Advocate he is brave despite the potential type casting, he works with it, he goes into the heart of darkness without holding back. It doesn't matter it's campy. Once youa ccept the bizarre premise, it's actually quite a good movie. Sea of Love with John Goodman is two actors working off each other and developing edgy difficult characters again.
Sean penn could spend the rest of his life trying to catch up to Pacino. I think the only younger actor close is Johnny Depp.
Asterisk, I love how different we see movies though, and you always make me think and challenge my own opinions. I do respect your insight and I think you are a more reliable film critic because you are able to tap into what people generally like. But man, Pacino just keeps on giving, on that we shall have to disagree.
I agree though, he has taken roles in movies that didn't make it box office wise, but if you take the time to check them out...his work is always very very good.
Exploring the Cuba comments - I've not been to Cuba, though I would love to go because I am nuts about 40's movies - and some really cool ones were about being in Cuba and the culture and I just want to go, like I want to go to Graceland - its there - but I worked for a non-profit and our IT person was from Cuba, trained there, and a nice guy, and capable. He came here on a raft. He was a very bitter, pained young man, and he said it was because he felt as if half his life was "lost" because of the oppression he lived under in Cuba. I got the impression Cuba was not a happy place to say the least. I hope his grief period has ended now and that his life is much happier here.
Dollface, I have always thought about going to Cuba too. Its a popular destination for Canadians in the last ten eyars especially. Castro came to Canada when Prime Minister Trudea died for his funeral. President Jimmy Carter also attended the same funeral...and that made for some interesting pohoto ops since US banned travel and trade to Cuba so long ago, the idea of these powerful men being in the same function was surprising. I respect that your co-worker was oppressed there. And that gives me pause. It really does.
I don't know what it would be like to live there. I have heard many mixed reports. I understood that medical care and education was available to everyone. That may be an exagerated account.
I too am fascinated by old films of Cuba and the buildings and music.
I think to clarify my feelings about Scarface and it's iconocalstic position in hip hop and rap and the perhaps very different metaphors of its earlier fans lies in the genre.
Scarface demystified the rags to riches story.
I think thats why it's a great movie.
The irony of Tony Montana representing someone escaping oppresion is that once he started living his dream of wealth, bling, women and power, he had accomplished those dreams by being an oppressor himself.
The image of overthrowing one oppressing system or lifestyle by being an oppressor oneself adopted by struggling people is a challenging one. A disturbing and misguided notion.
Hey Candy. Thanks for humouring me, and for your kind words about my opinion! And I totally respect your opinion, not least because I know you watch a lot of films and have studied the artform. It's great to have this deabte.
I'll respond here, restricting my comments to the films you highlighted.
Insomnia: bought the DVD blind; almost hated everything about it
Two For The Money: not see it, but it seemed vaguely interesting
Angels In America: my life's too short for a 6-hour miniseries...
Heat: one of the most disappointing movies in recent history; probably because it's Michael Mann!
Merchant of Venice: not seen it
Any Given Sunday: subject not interesting to me, despite having Cameron Diaz in it
The Insider: enjoyed it
Devils Advocate: again, life's too short
Donnie Brasco: okay little derivative Mafia flick
Carlito's Way: needs no defense -- agreed
Scent of a Woman: "Hooo-aaah". No thanks.
Frankie and Johnny: not my bag
Godfather Part III: for me, the worst of the three; would gladly forget it was ever made
Dick Tracy: see bits; I was embarrassed
Sea of Love: bit dull; dumb ending
Glengarry Glen Ross: a classic; great performances all round
As mentioned previously, my view was about the number of films worth watching, rather than Pacino's performance within said picture, even though there is likely a degree of crossover. There are also other films that I note you neglect to mention: S1m0ne, anyone? Puh-leeeze!
I pretty much stand by my comment, which i know you probably expected. Indeed, I probably believe it even more now!
Re De Palma: I really like the "idea" of De Palma. i like his adventurous spirit in film-making. Unfortunately though it seems to fail him more times than not. Shame. Fortune is supposed to favour the brave, isn't it?
Penn has some great moments, and I think his hit rate is better than Pacino's in terms of films that interest me. Ditto Depp.
Personally, I think it's time for Pacino to hang up the gloves and stop drowning everyone in spit when he shouts. Did you see City Hall? What a disaster!
Okay, I see that his choices in movies, for the most part have not had subject matter that interested you. That is completely different than him wasting our time, or picking poor movies.
His own tastes and interests are more expanded than when he was younger.
I understand American football not being of interest. I get that. But Any Given Sunday was a very good movie. Frankie and Johnny was a genre busting chick flick. Instead of a standard economically viable crsewball comedy(which I also enjoy) this was a down and out. And acted and written with a fair amount of care.
I was just surprised right now to see Pacino's age looking up something. I think he seems as if he's never had as much fun acting in his life as in the last ten years. And although many of his movies may not have been universal in appeal, almost eveyone of them was very well made.
(uh, oh, I enjoyed City Hall...not Apocalypse Now, but an interesting take on the machine...)
You're partly right that it's his choices, but when i started this debate with the words "there's barely half a dozen [movies] that are worth sitting through", I also meant in terms of subject at least as much as quality -- films that don't inspire me to sit through them by their very nature.
A broad range of subject matters is fine -- commendable, even. What concerns me, though, is when an actor starts taking on roles so diverse as to be confusing to the viewer. This seems to happen a lot as they get older: De Niro, Pacino, Nicholson... I see this as a desperate last-ditch attempt to make loads of movies solely for the money before they can't do it anymore. It's also a sign that they are losing any sense of discernment, I think.
Tarantino said it best about De Niro. There was a time when every De Niro movie was an event; that ended with Backdraft. But the same can be applied to all these guys. (Women less so, because they are generally given short shrift in movies anyay.) Indeed, De Niro was probably the first of his generation to go down this road. He also never used to give interviews, then suddenly he started; and that's when we all realized that, rather than being silent and brooding, he is in fact just a really boring man.
So I guess my point was unfairly aimed at Pacino, and should have really been aimed at all those once-great '70s actors. That said, I still think it's valid about Pacino.
Personally, I think De Niro's career started going downhill with Angel Heart.
I like me a bit of Al. And for all the OTT "hooo-aaahing" in Scent of a Woman, I'd pay good money to be able to dance a tango like that.
Sea of Love was not a great film, but Al put in a great performance. I love it when he says, "I feel like a fucking teenager again", having rediscovered the pleasures of the flesh with Ellen Barkin!
Frankie & Johnny was also not great, but again, fab performance, totally believeable.
And it was Al Pacino who single-handedly made Carlito's Way the film it is.
I think Al Pacino is a great of modern cinema. A much better actor than De Niro, actually.
Post a Comment