Scarface

We have said in this class that every decision made in film is intentional, from casting, to costumes, to the individual choices actors make, and the ones that their directors and producers impose upon them. Therefore, when a theme is repeated in a film, it should receive extra attention. Let’s explore the casting decisions first, beginning with the infamous protagonist, Tony Montana. First, why cast Al Pacino? He’s an Italian-American, and Tony Montana is Cuban. As far as I’m aware, Al Pacino has no connection to Cubano culture; his main acting shtick is as an Italian mob man, so they likely casted him as Montana to emphasize connection to organized crime, since he is a drug kingpin. This plays right into the contemporary political narratives, such as the war on drugs and the persistent race tensions following the Mariel boat-lift, which brought some of the first non-white Cuban exiles. 

However, as O’Brien points out in her analysis, Pacino’s “ridiculous accent” and his “brown face makeup” seem more of a “mockery” than a realistic portrayal of Cubano culture and linguistic development. However, as O’Brien notes, his character became a pop culture icon among ethnic minorities due to his confrontation of the “white capitalist system,” present in the characters of Elvira and the banker. I would also lump Frank in this category, even though I am unsure of his ethnicity, because he played by the rules of the aforementioned white capitalism. His rules, which Elvira cuts short, are the rules that “rule-abiding” drug dealers (there’s an oxymoron for you) use. Those rules kept him safe for (presumably) a long time, until he met Tony, who shows complete disdain for any constraining rules of conduct and behavior. In the end, Frank’s scruples are useless against Montana, but Montana’s ruthlessness and disregard for order become his downfall. By the final montage, he has broken every rule in the book. 

In addition,  Tony’s quick temper and tendency towards violence, juxtaposed with Manny’s forward flirtatiousness and the calmer demeanor of Montana’s henchmen, exhibit a stark contrast to the default: a respectful, law abiding, and white citizen. This is a character-driven motif present throughout the film. Tony, Manny, and crew continually disturb the peace in an entirely white, suburban background. First, Tony kills the Colombian in the street, while all the white folks are standing on the sidewalk and out of the way. Second, Manny disturbs the peace at the pool with his tongue trick, while the watching eyes of the whites look with disdain from their chairs. During the clown scene, it is Latin henchmen that disturb the peace in a coordinated, unsuccessful hit on Tony Montana. The image of this tranquility is depicted by the broad-smiling white woman positioned right between the two henchmen, who are business-like and unamused with the Venezuelan trope of the clown. The other audience members do not see the thinly-veiled threat of the Uzis, which successfully destroy the club and miss their intended target. 

However, no disruption is more tense than the “bad guy speech” in the fancy restaurant. Here, a drunken Tony and (probably not) sober Elvira get into an argument and drinks are thrown. Then, Tony delivers the most profound monologue of the film: saying that those people in the restaurant (who are all white and wealthy) need people like him to blame as the cause of evil in the world. However, Tony contends that they are evil too, but they choose to hide theirs and he doesn’t. Colonialist legacies, espoused by US interference in Latin America and and the murky stance of the US in matters of legality amidst profit, build a compelling case for Tony’s claim. Throughout the film, we see both a corrupt cop who deals with Frank and Tony, and the US and Bolivian government officials at Sosa’s meeting who over Tony an extralegal method to resolve his legal charges. Clearly, there is dirt on both sides, but one is much more conspicuous. 

Morally, the positions of almost every character are problematic. The film delivers two competing moral messages: first, that crime is acceptable if money is needed quickly to solve financial or personal stress. Implicit in that claim is the idea that money solves more problems than it creates, but we see from the decay of Tony Montana that this is not true. Even if he remained a poor dishwasher, he, his sister, and his friends would still be alive. I believe this interpretation was obviously unintended. Second, this film could be interpreted as inherent justice in capitalism; ergo, those who cheat the system always lose. In this way, Scarface is the embodiment of a counter-ethic with similar principles to the Castro clip that begins the film. Using this analysis, the thesis of Scarface functions as Castro’s words: if someone doesn’t want to join the revolution, we don’t want/need them. Therefore, Montana and crew are exiles both of Cuba and America, since they refuse to follow the moral, legal and political rules of either country. The only person of morally defensible character, according to this American, Christian, Protestant ethic, is Mrs. Montana. She believes wholeheartedly in the American Dream and the power of honest work. She will never reach the level of wealth of her son, but she will be continually rewarded for her work long after her death.