Introduction
Next year marks the 40th anniversary of Brian De Palma’s Scarface. Recognized today as an iconic touchstone in the history of the gangster film, it along with The Godfather (1972) and Goodfellas (1990) form the tripod upon which subsequent American contributions to the genre have been built. Yet, Scarface couldn’t be more different in tone and style from those other two films. The story of its journey from concept to screen is interesting in its own right.
The Beginnings
Believe it or not, the beginnings of Scarface, date back some 50 years earlier…to the very dawn of the sound era in Hollywood. That’s when famous multi-millionaire Howard Hughes set out to make a realistic gangster film that would pull no punches while depicting the violence associated with prohibition. He bought the rights to a book named “Scarface” which was written in 1929 by a young scribe named Armitage Trail.
Hughes brought on one of Hollywood’s all-time famous scriptwriters, Ben Hecht, to work on the film. He also hired another up-and-comer named Howard Hawks to direct. The script had already run into trouble when it was shown to the censors, but Hughes told Hawks to ignore their protests and to shoot the film as it was set down on paper. He also told his director to “make it as grisly [and] realistic as possible.”
Hawks was only too happy to comply. He also filled the 1932 movie with his own unique touches. These included finding interesting ways to insert a cross or “X” into every scene whenever someone is murdered. On the set, Hawks even offered monetary awards to crew members who could think of inventive ways to add this visual metaphor. As a result, there are literally dozens of bodies and “X”s scattered throughout the film.
Howard Hughes vs. The Censorship Boards
Back in the early 1930s, there wasn’t yet a production code for Hollywood films. Most movies were submitted to individual censorship boards on a state-by-state or local basis. When Scarface was finished and screened for them, many rejected it outright. In addition to the violence, many censors objected to the film for the way it supposedly glorified the lifestyle of a gangster.
To appease the censors, Hughes cut down several objectionable scenes, gave the film a new subtitle (“Shame of a Nation”), and added a disclaimer. But even then, many of the review boards still refused to budge. Rather than admit defeat, Hughes decided to just ignore them. He went back to his original version and in 1932 released the film in its entirety to those areas of the country which lacked strict censorship laws. This turn of events is worth keeping in mind because as we shall see, history has a way of repeating itself…even in Hollywood.
Scarface was an immediate sensation, and quickly became one of the biggest hits of the early 1930s. Word of mouth practically forced its showing in many areas of the country which had previously banned it. However, the film’s notoriety was also a contributing factor to the production code which was instituted two years later. The new guidelines prohibited much of the content that Scarface reveled in. As a result, the film was rarely seen for decades after its original run.
The 1983 Version
Fast forward to the early 1980s. One night, producer Martin Bregman (Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon) was up late watching television. After catching the 1932 version of Scarface, it suddenly dawned on him that no one had recently made an “over-the-top” gangster film that didn’t shirk from depicting on-screen violence.
So, Bregman called up two individuals he had collaborated with on his previous films to gauge their interest. One was Al Pacino, who was immediately attracted to the idea of playing the title character. The second was director Sidney Lumet. The latter suggested bringing the story up to date by featuring a Cuban tough guy who trafficked in the cocaine trade.
Enter Oliver Stone
The next step was developing a script centered around that concept. So, they turned to writer/director Oliver Stone. To bring authenticity to the picture, Stone traveled to Miami and Dade County in Florida to meet with local police officials. They opened up their case files and showed Stone the most grisly pictures imaginable of what happens when rival gangs battle for control of the drug trade.
Subsequently, Stone also flew to Ecuador and Bolivia in order to conduct further research. There, he got to meet some actual drug lords. After being upfront about what he was doing, some of the cocaine traffickers were glad to (anonymously) describe their operations, and talk about what it was like to run a drug empire.
Tony and Joe Montana
One of Stone’s earliest decisions was to name the main character Tony Montana. Why? Because Stone was a huge fan of the San Francisco 49ers and their star quarterback Joe Montana. From there, he peppered the screenplay with ideas lifted both from the original 1932 film and some of the stories he had come across during his research. The final draft was laced with graphic violence, nudity, and what might euphemistically be called “colorful language.”
When Stone finally delivered his screenplay to Bregman and Pacino, they both liked what they saw. However, director Sidney Lumet was totally aghast. He wanted a movie that was thoughtful and political in nature…not one filled with such unbelievable excess. It was at this point that Lumet excused himself from the project.
Enter Brian De Palma
That left the team in need of another director. After a quick job search, they found Brian De Palma. Famous for his homages to Alfred Hitchcock, De Palma already had a strong reputation in Hollywood as a unique visual stylist with pictures like Sisters, Obsession, Carrie, and Dressed to Kill. De Palma told Bregman and Pacino that he wanted to make Scarface an “operatic” vision of the American dream gone wild. Something not only larger than life, but with a “heightened sense of reality.”
The rest of the production on Scarface soon began to come together. John Alonzo, the Director of Photography, approached De Palma and asked what kind of look he wanted for the film. De Palma responded:
“Give me the most beautiful pictures you can. I’m going to place violence inside of them.”
Alonzo thought this was an unusual approach for a film, but he had help from a dedicated visual stylist named Ferdinando Scarfiotti. Between the two of them, they were able to create a gorgeous series of set designs that just pop off the screen. Tony’s mansion, the Babylon club, and various other locations… all feature a neon, acrylic, vibrant look that is completely at odds with the dark, muted “film noir” style of previous gangster films.
Scarface Production Challenges
But not everything associated with the shoot went smoothly. The original intent was to film Scarface on location in and around Miami. But the local Cuban community got wind of the subject matter and literally ran the production out of town. Besides all the protests, there were acts of vandalism and physical threats made against various members of the crew.
De Palma and his team were forced to pack up and move back to Los Angeles. After things calmed down, they flew to Florida for two weeks to get some crucial location shots, including the exteriors featuring the Art Deco buildings along Miami’s South Beach. But the vast majority of the film was shot in Southern California.
There were other problems during the shooting of the film’s famous climax when Tony engages in a fierce gun battle with the South American hit squad sent to rub him out. In order to get the flash of the muzzle from Tony’s M16 machine gun to appear on camera, it was synchronized with the film camera’s shutter speed. This meant that it would only work at certain intervals. This caused no end of frustration for Pacino, who felt hamstrung by the prop when it didn’t always fire when he wanted it to.
At one point, Al Pacino badly burned his hand against the casing. The injury took over a week to heal. While Pacino was away from the set recuperating, De Palma focused on the other shots needed for the firefight. As word got around about the elaborate sequence being staged, even Steven Spielberg stopped by the set to watch all the fun. Later, they spent two entire days filming the final shot where Tony is blown away with a shotgun and falls into the fountain pool – creating a literal “bloodbath.”
Similarities Between Each Version of Scarface
In comparing Oliver Stone’s script for Scarface with the 1932 version, it’s amazing how many parts of the original story have been left intact. Most obviously, there’s the reworking of the key scene in which Tony confronts his boss, Frank, and the damning phone call that clinches the latter’s fate. Both films also allude to Tony’s inappropriate feelings toward his sister.
Additionally, there are other lines from the 1932 version of Scarface that are repeated verbatim in De Palma’s remake. There’s also the “The World is Yours” sign. In 1932, it was part of an advertisement for a travel company. In 1983, it’s on the Goodyear Blimp.
Scarface’s Tony Montana: A Likable Anti-hero
In addition to the elaborate violence, there might be another reason why Scarface remains so popular. It’s the character of Tony himself. He may be an ambitious, murderous thug, but he also possesses a tremendous amount of integrity. As Tony himself says:
“I never done nothing to nobody that didn’t have it coming.”
Tony is also honest. In the restaurant scene during which he gets intoxicated, Tony is only too happy to tell his captive audience that he may be a bad guy, but he:
“always tells the truth… even when I lie.”
Sosa, the drug kingpin agrees. When he first meets the aspiring gangster, he tells him:
“I like you, Tony. There’s no lying in you.”
In De Palma’s film, Tony understands the principles of fairness and treats people accordingly. An example of this is in the scene where he spares the life of Ernie, one of Frank’s foot soldiers. He even offers the poor guy a job.
Rating Woes For Scarface
But before Scarface was released, there was still one huge hurdle to overcome…the Motion Pictures Association (MPAA) Ratings Board. Bregman, Pacino, De Palma, and Stone knew that their hyper-violent movie was going to be controversial. However, they never realized just how tough the battle was truly going to be.
In order to qualify for commercial or television advertising, movies at the time needed to obtain an “R” rating. But when they submitted Scarface for review, it immediately received an “X.” So, De Palma cut the movie down and re-submitted it. Once again, the result was another “X.” The film then underwent a third surgical procedure. With the same result: a third “X.”
It was at this point that De Palma finally threw up his hands. Despite intense pressure from the studio executives, the director categorically refused to cut the film down any further. He subsequently stated that to do so would destroy the film’s integrity.
Pushback
Bregman asked the Board to provide a description of the scenes that they found the most objectionable. To De Palma’s dismay, the list they got back was both all-encompassing and unbelievably nit-picky. It included such mundane things as counting how many times a clown was hit by bullets during a gunfight at a nightclub.
Bregman and De Palma began to feel like they were being played. Almost as if approval was going to be withheld no matter what they did. So, to put pressure on the Board, De Palma contacted several of his friends who were journalists. They began running stories in the local Hollywood trade papers which highlighted what was going on.
At the time, this touched off a huge debate about the power of the Board, the feasibility of the rating system, and the very nature of censorship. Still, the Board refused to budge. So, having reached an impasse, both sides agreed to submit the film for arbitration. A 20-member panel would hear both sides of the argument and decide what rating the film would get.
Arbitration For Scarface
Bregman had prepared for this arbitration hearing like it was an actual trial. He lined up a series of witnesses. Said witnesses included homicide detectives as well as the head of Miami’s organized crime bureau. Further, they testified that there was nothing in the film which couldn’t directly be related to real-life drug wars.
Bregman also brought in a series of psychiatrists and mainstream news reporters. They all made the case that the content in Scarface was real and that in order for people to understand the consequences of the drug culture, they needed to see all the violent activity that went with it. The production team won the arbitration hearing hands down. The final vote was 18 to 2. Scarface was going to be released with an “R” rating.
“Watch Me…”
However, when it came time to hand over the print, Brian De Palma suddenly had an epiphany. At this point, there were three versions of the film. Each one is branded with an “X” rating. If the first version got the same rating as the third, De Palma reasoned, there was nothing stopping him from submitting his original cut for release.
When De Palma told the studio what he intended to do with regard to Scarface, Universal told him “You can’t do that!” But just like Howard Hughes 50 years earlier, De Palma basically replied “watch me.” He released his original cut. And no one stopped him.
An Unrated Version of Scarface?
For years, people have asked about the “Unrated” version of Scarface. After all the publicity connected with the arbitration hearing, it was assumed that the theatrical release was edited down. But the fact is, what audiences first saw in 1983 IS the definitive version of the movie. As well as the subsequent DVD and cable releases. (There are some other deleted scenes floating around, but they were never intended for inclusion in the final version).
“Skin Me Alive”
When Scarface was released in 1983, it did respectable business at the box office, and more than met Universal’s financial goals. But to say it didn’t meet with initial critical success would be an understatement. Most everyone else gave it negative reviews after witnessing all the violence and profanity that the picture contained. Years later, Brian De Palma remembered what the reaction was like:
“Believe me, you didn’t want to be around for the preview of Scarface…People were outraged – you saw people running up the aisle. I remember the opening night party. I thought they were going to skin me alive.”
Actor Steven Bauer remembers attending the New York premiere of Scarface and sitting behind Oscar-winning director Martin Scorsese. Midway through the film, Scorsese turned around and stated to Bauer:
“You guys are great, but be prepared, because they’re going to hate it in Hollywood. Because it’s about them”
A Critical Reassessment of Scarface
Despite the film’s initial negative reception, the reputation of Scarface has grown over the years. It’s now recognized as a bona fide cult classic. Nearly forty years after its release, the film’s iconic poster is still in production and continues to sell well. The American Film Institute lists it among the Top Ten American gangster films, as did Entertainment Weekly in their list of top cult films. There are also several popular video games based on the characters from the movie.
Brian De Palma once said that one of the legacies of directing Scarface is that every time he auditions a male actor for a part in a movie, they always want to show him their version of Tony Montana. (“Say hello to my little friend!!”) For his part, Oliver Stone says he knew he had finally “arrived” when he heard random people quoting lines from his screenplay on an almost daily basis while riding the New York subway.
Even many of the critics have come around. Perhaps the best summary of Scarface comes from Newsweek’s David Ansen, who wrote:
“If Scarface makes you shudder, it’s from what you think you see and from the accumulated tension of this feral landscape. It’s grand, shallow, decadent entertainment, which like all great Hollywood gangster movies, delivers the punch and counterpunch of glamour and disgust.”
Postscript
As mentioned above, if you’ve watched Scarface on cable or DVD, you’ve already seen the original, definitive version. But in the interest of full disclosure, you should know that there is another cut of the movie you may have run across as well. After the movie was released to the home video market, Universal studios approached Martin Bregman. They wanted to create a version of Scarface which would be suitable for airing on network television.
When Bregman heard about the intention to sanitize the film for a mass audience, he told the studio execs they were crazy. He pointed out that even if they could get around all the violence and the nudity, nearly every piece of dialogue was full of profanity. The film, for example, includes the “F” word over 200 times. “We can do it. We can do it,” was the studio’s reply. With that, their team of editors set to work removing over a half hour from the film and re-working large segments of the dialogue.
Creative Re-phrasing
If you’ve seen the “network” version of Scarface, it’s entertaining on a whole different level. Take a look at these following pieces of dialogue from the re-dubbed film, and try to figure out their original context:
- “How did you get that beauty scar, tough guy? Eating pineapple?”
- “Why don’t you try sticking your head up your toilet.”
- “This town is like a great big chicken waiting to be plucked.”
- “You have a look in your eye like you haven’t been touched in a year.”
- “Hey, Jose…who, what, where, when, and how I make it is none of your business.”
- “I’m going to wipe you all over this filthy place.”
- “You think I’d kill two kids and a woman? Not that…I don’t need that stuff in my life… You’re dead butcher!”
When Bregman saw the final product on network TV, he was positively shocked. But had to admit that in some strange, weird way, the studio had actually pulled it off.
![Pinterest](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=https://cinemascholars.com/the-story-behind-scarface/&media=https://cinemascholars.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Scarface-Poster.jpg&description=Cinema Scholars explores the story behind the making of 1983's "Scarface," starring Al Pacino and directed by Brian De Palma.){kind=link}