Talk:Scarface (1932 film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Sex

was there some creepy sex stuff in this movie?

Since it was made in the 30's, likely not... 81.232.72.53 23:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, it was Pre-Code. --Nelson Ricardo 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No but there was creepy subtext. Tony is shown to love his sister in a not entirely brotherly way --213.155.214.19 19:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Al Capone

Did he see this movie? I bet he did, as it is about him and all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.143.232.224 (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I doubt that "Al Capone liked the movie so much he owned his own copy of it". since Al Capone was known to kill people for calling him Scarface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.233.100 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Code

I was wondering, what makes this film pre-code? Wasn't the code written in 1930? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.8.14.232 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Production Code went into effect in 1934, and it compelled Hollywood to produce kinder, gentler films, historical biographies, adaptations of classic and modern novels and plays, and romantic comedies. Telegonus (talk) 10:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Alternate Ending

The section on the alternate ending makes little sense because the original ending is not described anywhere in the article; I don't think the writers should assume most Wikipedia readers are familiar with a 1930's film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.47.218 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

~~This film was, for probably legal reasons, unavailable for showing on tv for decades. I did finally see it at a rep theatre in 1980.~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opusv5 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Crime?

Since this is a crime/gangster film, shouldn't this be under the WikiProject Crime banner?--Paleface Jack 16:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

George Raft Image

I think that having a photo of George Raft from another film's trailer is irrelevant. He, specifically, is barely discussed in the article. This image doesn't add much to the article so I am going to get rid of it and replace it with something a little more applicable. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Questionable information

I decided to, for the time being, delete the sentence stating that Capone's associates were hired on as consultants to the film. I asked professor of American and film studies at University of Warwick, J.E. Smyth (who has written journal articles and information in books on the subject of Scarface) about my issue finding sources to support this claim about Capone's henchmen. She said that this was a claim that Hawks made and can be found in some pressbooks, but that Hawks was not always the most reliable source. Due to the fact that I have read many books about Scarface and have yet to see this information included anywhere, I had gotten rid of it for now. If I come across it later in a reliable source, I will gladly put it back in. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed category

I removed the recently added category "American black comedy films". This film was pre-WWII and not intended to be a comedy. The overacting in general in older films to us can sometimes appear comedic, because we are not used to that style of acting in modern film. All categories added must be backed up with a source. If you see a reliable source that says it was a black comedy, add it to the article, cite it, and add the category back. Thanks so much! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I should clarify: yes, Hawks used some elements of black comedy, because that was his directing style, but the film itself isn't categorized as a black comedy according to the majority of sources. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Scarface (1932 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: JohnWickTwo (talk · contribs) 03:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Assessment may take a day or two to prepare. It might be interesting in the meantime to hear how you chose this old film to improve and what your background interest is for you to write such an extensive Analysis section for this film. JohnWickTwo (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• JohnWickTwo, thank you for your willingness to review this article; I have spent a lot of time and energy on this project. I work in the L.Tom Perry Special Collections department in the Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University. We hold the Howard Hawks collection and we have been working on articles related to Howard Hawks and his films. Scarface is one of three Hawks movie page I am working on currently. Upon doing more research for this article, I became pretty passionate about the movie after having learned more about it and I realized how culturally significant the film was and still is. The film epitomized Hawks' film style and life during the time period. It also influenced the censorship battles of the time as well as the gangster movies of the future. I suppose in writing this article, I recognized my interest and passion for film. I look forward to working with you on this review. Thanks! Skyes(BYU) (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Initiate full assessment

0 Lede section

Does Capone's name need to be invoked twice in the first paragraph here. Also, your phrasing, "is regarded as one of the greatest ", could read better as "is regarded as among of the most significant..." JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

1 Plot

Nice images in this section with useful captions. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

2 Cast

Adequate to article. Some editors like to add short descriptions of why actors were selected for certain roles as an option. Also, you could mention any 'similarities' to suggested persona such as Capone, as another option. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

3 Production

3.1 Background and development

Filmmaking is one word at Wikipedia and can be linked to the article as well. Separately, "...to hire Fred Pasley", is more conventional wording than what you use. Hughes-Hecht-Hawks is a formidable trio. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

3.1.1 Ties to Capone

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

3.2 Casting

Your phrase "and petition at the Supreme Court", might look better as: "and to win a petition presented to the Supreme Court ". JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

3.3 Filming

Your wording "for the time period", might read as: "for films made in the early 1930s". Accidents and head injuries are usually not covered in the Filming section of film articles. I'm not sure those comments belong in the Filming section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

3.3.1 Censorship

You might want to mention that these were pre-MPAA years with no "R"-ratings, etc. Is this material really a part of "Filming". JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

3.3.1.1 Alternate ending

Deeply indexed section. Is this level of nesting of sections really needed and can it be simplified. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

3.4 Cultural references

Adequate to article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4 Analysis

This section is interesting though very long. There should also be a link to the Gangster films Wikipedia article as a See also here in this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.1 Major themes

For this section as a whole, you might want to look at the Wikipedia film articles for Gone with the Wind, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Silence by Scorsese as examples of how long in length Analysis sections normally are for GA-film articles on Wikipedia. One option might be to develop some of the more general material you present here by placing into the Gangster Films article at Wikipedia which I mentioned above. That way the article here would more closely resemble other Wikipedia GA-film articles for the Analysis/Interpretation/Themes section.JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.1.1 Excess

If this is moral excessiveness or non-moral excessiveness then it might be worth calling it that in the section title and your supporting text. "Immoral excess" or "Amoral excess" are phrases I have seen used for this subject matter, though you should choose your own preference to describe it more precisely. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.1.2 American Dream

American Dream also has its own article at Wikipedia which should appear as a See also in this section. By looking at that article, you might then be able to trim some of the material in this section as well, or move some of it to the American Dream Wikipedia article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.2 Minor themes

"Secondary themes" or "Other themes" or "Sub-text themes" might look better here as a choice of section title. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.2.1 Territorialization

"Gangster territory" is a more common description of this topic in this context. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.2.2 Fear of technology

The destructiveness of machine gun technology was a major issue in WWI. Possibly mention this at the very start of this section along with the WWI legacy. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.3 Motifs

If you are talking about dark comedy here or 'gallows humor' or dark humor, then you should call it that and link the term to the already existing Wikipedia article for it. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.3.1 The gang and the gangster

Institutional forms of crime is a major topic in formal political theory as well as in literature. I'm not sure that this section is conveying this fact in its current form. I imagine its even more evident when films like "The Godfather" enter the scene in the 1970s. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.3.2 Family

Your point on "directly due to" is I think a little overstated here, since so much of your article have talked about the numerous defects in Tony's character and general immorality. The wording should be adjusted. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.3.3 Isolation

Several of the subthemes you are introducing in this section look like they would be better treated in the "Gangster films" article which I previously mentioned above. It might also make this Analysis section a little shorter and more concise for the purposes of being more reader friendly by not being so long in length of exposition for a Wikipedia film article. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.4 Symbols

Symbolism is again a very general topic in film theory and some of this material may already be covered in other literary and film articles already in Wikipedia. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.4.1 "The World is Yours"

More than adequate to article. See comment above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.4.2 Tommy gun

See my comment above on machine guns. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

4.5 Style

Yes its dark and violent, and you might also mention that much of the film is depicted as taking place at night. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

5 Release

Could you mention something about the special features and special featurettes on this film which are often included on DVD releases. Were there any notable "voice-over" commentaries of the film which are available? Who did the voice-over versions, etc. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

6 Reception

You also mentioned earlier in the article that the film was withdrawn from release because of censorship pressures. Did this influence the reception of the film, and should it be mentioned in this section more prominently. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

7 Awards and honors

You might call this section "Industry reception" as done in the Wikipedia article for Gone with the Wind. It might then be included within the Reception section directly above it at present.JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

8 Legacy and influence

This section might be simply called Legacy. It might also include the material from the Related films section directly below it at present, since it already mentions Pacino's version at the very start of this section. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

9 Related films

See my comment in the Legacy section above for possibly merging these sections. You already mention Pacino's version there and there are advantages to keeping this material together on this point. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

9.1 Remake

See my comment on merging this section above. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

9.2 Associated films

Rotten Tomatoes and aggregate scores usually appear at the top of the Reception section of Wikipedia film articles. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

10 See also

There are a few See also articles I have mentioned in the above sections. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

That should get things started. Ping me when you are ready to continue or if any clarifications are needed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Closing comments and closing assessment

The remarkable effort of the nominating editor over the last day was to take seriously the comments made in this assessment and to make what looks like 40-50 edits into the article over the last day to improve its writing and its general outline. The result is a much improved article with many new and useful links included in the article to assist interested readers. The article is well-written. The article is neutral in expression and is thoroughly researched with an extensive bibliography which is useful for future development of the article. The images and graphics in the article are well chosen and have informative captions and all check all the boxes. It can be hoped that the nominating editor will be able at some point in time to add further development to this article towards a feature article in the future and this article is passed. JohnWickTwo (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

A big thank you to anyone who has been making helpful edits to this page. I'm always happy to see edits for clarity and word choice as well as correctness, as sometimes it can be easy to miss the small things with your own writing. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

"Pre-code"

I'll do a thorough review of this article soon, but one immediate thought occurs: almost the first thing the lead mentions is that this is a "pre-code" film. The lead sentence is not the place for this information, and if it's important it should be spelled out exactly what this means in the lead - given a full sentence, rather than lumped in. A quick scan of the body of the article doesn't make it immediately obvious what it means either - it is mentioned but I think it needs to be spelled out more. Can someone just explain here what it means and what the significance is to the film? Popcornduff (talk) 08:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff, pre-code is a short era of film between 1929-1934, before the creation of the Production Code Administration (PCA) which served to screen and censor films. Films made in this short time period were a little racier, because although a Hays Code (precursor to the Motion Picture Production Code) was created in 1930, censorship wasn't strictly enforced until the creation of the PCA in 1934 and things such as crime, violence, sexuality, and innuendo were able to slip by easier. This explains why Scarface is a violent and racy film for the early 1900's, whereas the censorship of Scarface is explained by the existence of the Hays Office. If the PCA was in existence during the time rather than the Hays Code, it is unlikely that Hughes and Hawks would have been able to get away many of the things in the film they did, even though they were subject to some censorship which delayed the release of the film by about a year. I have been wondering for some time whether I should explain pre-code a little more in the article. After my explanation here, do you think the article would benefit from some extra clarification on Pre-Code Hollywood? Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I definitely think this needs some coverage in the lead (should be possibly to cover it briefly) and some better explanation in the body, as right now it's not clear. I can do that, once I understand it... But I'm still a little confused. If it was produced before the introduction of the production code, why was it censored, and who exactly censored it? You explain this above, I think, but I'm having trouble following it.

Hmm... maybe something like this (for the lead) is correct:

Scarface was produced before the introduction of the Motion Picture Production Code (MPPC) in 1934, which enforced regulations on film content. However, the Hays Code, a more lenient precursor to the MPPC, called for major alterations, including a prologue condemning gangsters, an alternate ending to more clearly reprehend Camonte, and the alternative title The Shame of a Nation.

Can you clarify? Popcornduff (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

I made some changes, let me know what you think. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I've done a bit of copyediting. Popcornduff (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Popcornduff, do you have any other suggestions for my article to make it more clear? I've done some more copy editing myself. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've made an initial stab at copyediting the article, but there's still a long way to go.

First impression is that this is very well researched, and clearly a labour of love. But from a writing perspective, it's extremely dense. There are a lot of needlessly complex sentences, and in some areas I lost the train of thought completely. The length and density might be why you've had some trouble attracting copyediting for the article. But there's definitely the makings of a great article here - it just needs trimming. I'll continue to work on it.

In the meantime, maybe you could take a look at the tags I've added - there are are a few points that need clarification. Popcornduff (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I attempted to address the tags. I would have removed them myself, but I would rather you see if the change was adequate before removing them. Skyes(BYU) (talk) 20:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)