Tony Camonte

Scarface: The Shame of the Nation (1932) directed by Howard Hawks, chronicles the rise and fall of an Italian gangster, Tony Camonte. Released by United Artists, Scarface: The Shame of the Nation was the most violent gangster-crime film of its time. Howard Hawks depicts violent gangsters as children playing games, having fun, deflecting emotion from brutal violence to easier comedic, ironic or subtle touches. The Pre-Code era film tells the tale of gang rivalry, control over turf, and the interference of the government. This glorification of the “gangster threat” to me was not apparent. However, during the 30’s, the film may have been seen as a glorification of the gangster life. Tony seemed like a nice guy down the wrong path. The film did not actually detail how gangsters truly were at the time.

 

 

 

 

 

Scarface- Joe S

It was very interesting to see the differences and parallels that exist between current films and films made at the beginning of the industry. The oldest movie I’ve ever seen (and watched the whole was through) is probably from the eighties, maybe a few older ones here and there but nothing comparing to the original Scarface. That being said I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it and how well done it was. I have to admit I expected much less.

The production of the film and it’s use of sound was very well done. It helped to add a feeling of perspective on the events. Because it was one of the first movies to use sound I think that extra attention was paid to it. It could be that I was just focusing in on that in particular this time but I don’t remember watching a movie and hearing the same use of it as I did in this one.

The character of Tony was interesting in the use of comedy and the sort of brash way he carries himself although he always manages to control himself and manipulate the people around him. For instance his boss, who he gets along great with all the while planning on taking his job. He doesn’t represent to me the typical gangster but neither does his boss. That was defined for me in movies like the Godfather in which the characters acted a bit more reserved compared to Tony. Although Sony was very headstrong sort of like Tony (in Scarface) he wasn’t ultimately able to control himself like Tony is able to at this point in the film.

Scarface-Camonte (Jon M)

The 1932 movie Scarface is a very interesting movie in how it gives a very accurate look at gangsters in the 1930s.   The character of Tony Camonte is perhaps one of the most interesting characters in the whole movie.  In a way he is exactly what someone thinks of when it comes to gangsters from the 20s or 30s, i.e. someone who looks professional yet tough as well as someone who seems to have a complete disregard of authority which Tony demonstrates when he ignores Guarino’s  demands to follow him to the police station, he shows his disrespect further when he lights a match on his badge.  He also seems to be able to stay calm no matter the situation for example after he shoots Louis he show remarkable calm by whistling as he walks away.  Despite these traits Tony also seems to have a more caring side especially when it comes to his sister Cesca from the part of the movie I’ve seen it seems as if Tony cares for her more then anyone else.  Tony also knows when to stand down when a situation could be bad, which is shown when he agrees to go along with Guarino knowing it wouldn’t be a good idea to hit a police officer.  As to whether or not the movie glorifies violence and gangsters, while I don’t think it glorifies violence the way it portrays people like Tony and the way he disrespects authority yet still appears to get away with to me seems to glorify gangsters if not violence. 

Response to Scarface, 1932 and Tony Camonte

After having seen many old movies from this era, the film Scarface, which was made in 1932 and was directed by Howard Hawks and Richard Rosson, was undoubtedly a violent movie for its time. Nevertheless, I was drawn into the movie immediately. I especially liked the opening photography sequence as you await a murder and also thought that the dialog was very funny and entertaining. I do not believe that the film was trying to glorify violence intentionally. I believe Hawks was simply attempting to show an accurate portrayal of what gangs were really like in Chicago at the time. The movie would not have been believable to viewers, without a portion of it containing some violence.

In my opinion, the main character “Tony Camonte,” who is played by the very talented Paul Muni, has so far given an amazing performance in the movie. He uses of facial expression and mannerisms really give you the impression that he is a gangster. Not only is he fearless enough to disrespect everyone he meets but he feels he is above everyone including the law. The character of “Tony Camonte ” is also very smart, cunning, and somewhat charming. In one scene you see how his confidence and presence allows him to capture the attention of his fellow gang members away from his boss, Johnny Lobo who was desperately trying to established himself as the new gang leader and makes a fool of him in front of everyone. In addition to the character traits I have just listed, Tony is also very outspoken, funny and stubborn.
I am grateful to this film and other directors like Hawks, who have the courage to be different and express themselves artistically however they see fit. It is because of directors like Hawks who have made it possible for people to have the option of either watching networks such as HBO and Showtime, which sometimes show controversial films, or changing the channel. When a person’s ability to makes decisions for themselves is taken away, in a sense, their basic human rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being robbed from them. And in my opinion, that is the real crime that we should be talking about.

Scarface & Camonte -kate

The original Scarface has proven to be an interesting movie thus far. I think most of my fascination with this movie is based on the controversy it caused, rather than the actual plot of the film. The film is very simple and in today’s culture it would not be considered controversial. The slides which are put in would not really have any effect in a movie made in recent times. I think this is in part due to the fact that the government and the film industry have very little ties today. I do find the slides amusing though. Although they were put in to smooth tensions with the government as a form of censorship, they clearly are a form of attack against the government. The slides prove to defend the film industry, while they ridicule the government for not taking any legal action against gangsters. I think the presence of the scenes which were taken out would have made this movie far more interesting. I therefore understand why the Al Pacino version is more widely known and appreciated. The Al Pacino version did not have the same restrictions and pressure from the government as the 1932 version. I was also surprised to find out that the plots of both Scarface movies are very different.
I was pleasantly surprised at Howard Hawk’s filming techniques. His camera positions and attention to sound were progressive for his time. His used low key lighting and angles to create and enhance the mood. Movies are made better by the correct use of technique.
While watching gangster films, I tend to side with the gangster. I found Tony’s blatant disregard of law enforcement to be very appealing. His disrespect for authority is not only cool, but it is also hilarious to me. Just because most people tend to side with the anti-hero in these movies, I don’t believe that they glorify gangsters. Rather, they give a realistic look into the life in which gangsters lead. I more so feel that our culture glorifies gangsters, not the film industry. The untouchable vibe that gangsters possess is very appealing and they will always be glorified. Films simply provide documentation on how their lives were lived; the glorification is done by the viewers not the producers. Many films can have this effect on viewers though, not just gangster films. If gangster films were really trying to glorify characters such as Tony Camonte, he would never be punished for his crime in the end. However, since it’s a movie based on the life of Al Capone, I’m going to assume that ultimately Tony gets caught and imprisoned.

Scarface- Camonte-Laura M

The beginning of the 1932 version of Scarface shows the luxuries life of a gangster with Big Louis Costillo’s party and then quickly shows the dangerous life of a gangster when Costillo is shot. I liked how it implied that the murderer knew Costillo when he said hi to him and it shows that you can be backed stabbed whenever there is an opportunity.

Tony Camonte’s character seems like a very relaxed cool person. When he was taken in by the police he seemed like he was doing it on his own terms. He was acting innocent in front of Detective Guarino and moving very slowly. It was amusing when Tony lit his match on Guarino’s badge, showing him he has no respect for the law. Other aspects of Tony’s character seems like when he wants something, he gets it. When Tony sees his sister Cesca kissing a man he tells her not to see other men and gives her money, which seemed liked she complied with. Another example of getting what he wants is when he was selling alcohol and basically forced the person to buy alcohol from him and no one else.

I don’t think the film glorifies violence and gangsters because it shows the dangerous life they lead. People are forced to do things they don’t want and work for people they don’t like. It may show a gangsters life as being wealthy and powerful, but people will kill for that power and I don’t think that is something to glorify.

Scarface- Comonte (Denis Baya)

        Scarface is one of the major films that defines the American gangster genre in the 1900’s.  Scarface was violent and humorous from the beginning; the movie was also controversial.  My point of  view of the movie was that it was boring at the beginning, but as the movie progressed it started to get more interesting. Some scenes made the movie seem unreal, for instances, the punches that have been thrown  looked fake, as if the fist made no contact which the face.

       I think Paul Muni (Tony Camonte) did a great job of conveying his character’s personality and really making it seem like he was real. With that being said, I could tell that Paul Muni’s character, Tony Camonte’s, is rude, arrogant, over protective and sarcastic.  You can really tell what a character is thinking just by the way they portray themselves and the expressions they do.

    Tony Camonte is a gangster who knows he can get away with anything; Tony is very arrogant and his conduct towards the police officer in the movie was very rude.  When the officer tells Tony to come with him to the police station, Tony moves very slow and portrays his innocence.  He was also very disrespectful when he lit a match on the officers police badge. Another scene shows Tony Camonte being vey over protective of his sister. In the scene Tony spots his sister Casca, making out with a guy.  He got very angry and grabbed her. After he yelled at her, he told her that from now on she will obey him. Later, he gives her money and the mother sees Tony giving it to her and she tells Casca to give it back. She disapproves because she knows the money is dirty. She tells Cesca that Tony is not a good person and that she is starting to become just like him.  In another scene, Camonte works for a man names Johnny Lovo, but by the look of things, Tony wants to run the illegal alcohol business in town and is just using Lovo to get to the top. The film must be glorifying violence, because as Tony beats up people or kills them, he is getting respect and power. With respect and power he is a feared man. I think the film is giving us the impression that in one point in history, gangsters got away with crimes and government officials did nothing about it. 

Scarface-Camonte

    The introductory text added to the 1932 version of Scarface clearly interprets that it is the government’s fault that nothing is being done about the gangs on the streets, and that it is not the film-makers’ fault.  It seems as though they had to prove that they were not doing anything wrong in order for them to show this film.  The introduction implies that we, as citizens, should try to persuade the government to do something about the problem of gangs on the streets.  I agree with the film-makers when they implied that “This is the world, we’re just showing you what it’s like.”

            On the filmsite.org site, I was particularly interested in how Howard Hawks and Howard Hughes disagreed about the censorship of the violence of the movie.  I also found it very interesting that the film was not widely available until 1979, and that Scarface is only loosely based on the events that occurred involving Al Capone. 

            Tony Caponte has an “I don’t care” attitude in the film.  I think his attitude is typical of a gangster attitude, and this is how a lot of gangsters act.  He definitely doesn’t have that much respect for the police, which again, I think is typical of a gangster.

            Tony’s accomplice has a more nervous disposition than Tony, but I think that they make a good team.  Tony is, in a way, there to threaten the enemies for his accomplice. 

            Whoever created the rating system (Ex: Rated R) for movies should be credited.  The rating system didn’t take effect in this country until 1968, which is much later than this Scarface film was directed.  However, if the movie was such a controversy at the time, than only people of a certain age (seventeen, for example) should have been allowed to see the movie.  People of this age probably would have had enough common sense to know that the film was not glorifying violence and gangsters, but rather informing the audience on what was going on in the streets.

            Despite how the characters are portrayed and what occurs in the 1932 version of Scarface, it is just a movie, not real life.  There is nothing wrong with showing this type of violence in the movies. 

Scarface-Camonte

I am a fan of the 1983 rendition of Scarface and so it was very enjoyable watching the original which I had not known about. To be quite honest I expected a very amateurish production with over the top scare tactics via Reefer Madness, however this was not the case. My reaction to the film and analysis of the main character Tony Camonte is therefore in relation to previous reactions from watching the remake of the movie.

In both the 1983 Scarface and the original the viewer is for the most part fixated on the character of Tony Camonte (Montana). In both movies this character is played beautifully but I must admit with some surprise that it is in the original version where I find the character more appealing. The 1983Tony is also an engrossing character but in my opinion there was such a history of gangster films before the release of the 1983 Scarface that the characterization of gangsters in film, though by no means standard, could be argued to be formed in the same mold. In the original scarface we see possibly the film industries perception of what a gangster should be like from real events as opposed to what has previously been portrayed on screen. I think this reason gives the original Tony an even more unique persona than the latter, and the acting done by Paul Muni relies heavily on facial expressions which I think was more of an art form in older film than it is now.

I don’t believe the film glorifies violence and gangsters however it does portray them as individual people who can be liked and disliked based on their personality as opposed to one dimensional villains used to scare children.

My first impression of Scarface

            If I could use one word to describe my first impression of the 1932 Scarface it would have to be simple, but not in the way we would normally consider it today.  As an artist simplicity can be one of the most precious aspects of a film.  With this version of Scarface, many murders are just spoken about or even shown behind a curtain so the audience only sees a shadow of the action, but still gets the point.  Today, Hollywood is blowing up cities, having blood spilled all over the world, and making women run down the street from their killer half naked.  That can still make for good action, but sometimes it’s really enjoyable just to watch simplicity at its best.

          With all this being said I think it’s easy to believe that the film isn’t so much glorifying gangsters because we don’t see mass amounts blood or even shown murders right off the bat.  However, from what I have seen in the film thus far I do think the 1932 version of Scarface still glorifies gangsters in some way.  The first hint of this is through the character Tony Camonte.  I personally think of Tony’s as kind of ignorant, but on the other hand how can you not love how cool he is?   Paul Muni plays Tony so well; one instantly falls in love with his witty comebacks and overall defiance of authority.  Furthermore, the film is glorified by showing these gangsters as having a ton of wealth and power.  Obviously we haven’t seen the end of the movie yet, but from the beginning we are exposed to how good the life of a gangster can at best seem.