Scarface (reboot)

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by octagon

What exactly is 'the story' of Scarface and what about it precludes either quirkiness or subtlety?

It's the story of someone working their way up through the mafia in a violent and over-the-top fashion and their subsequent downfall. It's as blunt as a sack of bricks.

Originally Posted by octagon

Tony (Comonte, Montoya, Tomayto, Tomahto) is a pretty standard tragic hero who's story has been told many different ways by many different people in many different places for at least 2,500 years.

He's not a "tragic hero" and I would see he's not even really an antihero, but a full on villain protagonist, I'd argue.

Actually the story has been told twice, in 1932 and 1983. I don't buy into the line that there's only [insert small finite number here] different plots.

Originally Posted by octagon

'The story' of Scarface doesn't begin and end with Brian de Palma and Al Pacino.

Well, it begins with Howard Hawks and Paul Muni, and in fact does end with Brian de Palma and Al Pacino. I'd argue it should stay ended there but, you're right, it may well not end there. I just wish that, if it must continue, it was continued by someone who respects what they are continuing. And, preferably, someone who's style is in some way similar to it.

Originally Posted by Gremal

If you can name better screenwriters than the Coens I'd love to hear it.

This is a purely a matter of opinion, but as far as big names go, Tarantino, Coppola, Stone, Mamet, Shrader, Anderson, and many, many more.

Honestly, I don't really care for their style at all; they are at their best, imo, when adapting work of others. But movies like The Hudsucker Proxy and O Brother Where Art Thou and Hail, Caesar are nearly unwatchable, due in large part to the awkward scripts, imo.

[TheLaughingMann]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

It's the story of someone working their way up through the mafia in a violent and over-the-top fashion and their subsequent downfall. It's as blunt as a sack of bricks.


He's not a "tragic hero" and I would see he's not even really an antihero, but a full on villain protagonist, I'd argue.

Actually the story has been told twice, in 1932 and 1983. I don't buy into the line that there's only [insert small finite number here] different plots.


Well, it begins with Howard Hawks and Paul Muni, and in fact does end with Brian de Palma and Al Pacino. I'd argue it should stay ended there but, you're right, it may well not end there. I just wish that, if it must continue, it was continued by someone who respects what they are continuing. And, preferably, someone who's style is in some way similar to it.


This is a purely a matter of opinion, but as far as big names go, Tarantino, Coppola, Stone, Mamet, Shrader, Anderson, and many, many more.

Honestly, I don't really care for their style at all; they are at their best, imo, when adapting work of others. But movies like The Hudsucker Proxy and O Brother Where Art Thou and Hail, Caesar are nearly unwatchable, due in large part to the awkward scripts, imo.

Fargo, Raising Arizona, Big Lebowski, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink, Blood Simple?

And technically, O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Hail, Caesar! ARE adaptations. The first is based on the Odyssey, the second is based on Jesus Christ's story. And I find Hudsucker Proxy a guilty pleasure flick among the Coen Catalog.

[klauswhereareyou]

Too bad they aren't directing.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

This is a purely a matter of opinion, but as far as big names go, Tarantino, Coppola, Stone, Mamet, Shrader, Anderson, and many, many more.

Yes, it is purely opinion but there are ways to try to quantify it, such as putting Woody Allen in the top spot with 15 Oscar nominations for best screenplay. I think the only reason Coppola appears in your list is because of Puzo.

Honestly, I don't really care for their style at all; they are at their best, imo, when adapting work of others. But movies like The Hudsucker Proxy and O Brother Where Art Thou and Hail, Caesar are nearly unwatchable, due in large part to the awkward scripts, imo.

I'm not a fan of Hudsucker but it seems like your complaints are more with the genre. O Brother and Hail Caesar may not be your cup of tea but along with No Country, Barton Fink, Fargo and Lebowski, the diversity and original themes show an inspired craftsmanship in generating scripts that go beyond anyone else working today.

[YankydoodleDandy]

In other news, i'm rewriting the Force Awakens

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by YankydoodleDandy

In other news, i'm rewriting the Force Awakens

May the farce be with you!

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMann

Fargo, Raising Arizona, Big Lebowski, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink, Blood Simple?

Fargo is better directed and acted than written. Still, I will acknowledge it's a case of the Coen's style working well.

Raising Arizona is awkward to listen to and only really works because of Cage's virtuoso performance.

I dislike The Big Lebowski. Mostly due to the writing, although Bridges is kind of annoying in it. I know a lot love in though.

I haven't seen Miller's Crossing in years, but I remember finding it it just fine and not special in any way - not very good, not bad, not too Coen-y, just an adequate crime film.

Barton Fink is pretty awesome in every way, I'll give you that.

Blood Simple is also great. That being said, it's their first film and if you saw in in isolation, you would not be likely to guess it was from the same people who made their other films.

Originally Posted by TheLaughingMann

And technically, O Brother, Where Art Thou? and Hail, Caesar! ARE adaptations. The first is based on the Odyssey, the second is based on Jesus Christ's story. And I find Hudsucker Proxy a guilty pleasure flick among the Coen Catalog.

You don't even have to find it a guilty pleasure as far as I am concerned; love it unironically and without guilt. I do this for many films, such as Deadfall and Suicide Kings and Death Sentence. Anyways, I hate the film, and the script it a large part of that, although I am not a fan of screwball films in general.

The Coen's had never read the Odyssey when they wrote the script and so that's about as loose of an "adaptation" as has ever been made. As for Hail, Caesar!, I did not know that, but that's also about as loose as anything.

Originally Posted by Gremal

Yes, it is purely opinion but there are ways to try to quantify it, such as putting Woody Allen in the top spot with 15 Oscar nominations for best screenplay. I think the only reason Coppola appears in your list is because of Puzo.

Is it pure opinion or can you quantify it? There's not exactly a middle ground here.

And yeah I didn't mention Allen but he is up there, although a lot of his recent output has rubbed me the wrong way (for instance, I found Café Society was nearly unwatchable). But I would not put him at the #1 spot by a long shot.

Using the amount of Oscars Allen has been nominated for only works if you commit: You rank ALL screenwriters according to that criteria. So you'd also have to put Billy Wilder, Fellini, John Huston and Beckett over the Coen's, for example.

Personally, I'd rather just go by my own opinion.

As for Coppola/Puzo, I don't see Puzo listed as co-writer on Patton, The Conversation or Apocalypse Now....

Originally Posted by Gremal

I'm not a fan of Hudsucker but it seems like your complaints are more with the genre. O Brother and Hail Caesar may not be your cup of tea but along with No Country, Barton Fink, Fargo and Lebowski, the diversity and original themes show an inspired craftsmanship in generating scripts that go beyond anyone else working today.

Yes, my complaint with Hudsucker is largely that it is in an irritating genre, I'll acknowledge that.

Yes they have a variety of styles, but quality is as important, if not more important, than quantity.

~

And even if I were to say that all their scripts were great and they are inspired, that still would not qualify them to write a Scarface remake.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Fargo is better directed and acted than written. Still, I will acknowledge it's a case of the Coen's style working well.

I don't think you can separate the writing from the directing from the casting here. The whole thing was conceived for specific actors in some of the parts. Actors like Clooney will tell you that the Coens' gift as directors is to guide the actor along in a way that makes them think the actor's choices are what's working for the character, but according to Clooney those choices are really the Coens' all along and they manage to bend the performances to their vision. While that takes a lot of skill as a director and as a producer to bring it to the screen, the real brilliance lies in the conception--the writing.

Raising Arizona is awkward to listen to and only really works because of Cage's virtuoso performance.

It's uneven, for sure. It takes big chances that the Coens were probably not mature enough to execute but it's just a silly film any way you slice it.

I dislike The Big Lebowski. Mostly due to the writing, although Bridges is kind of annoying in it. I know a lot love in though.

Probably their most cohesive script. They riffed on the GHWB quote about drawing a line in the sand and set up west coast vs east coast type of personalities in a way that was sort of a crazy homage to Raymond Chandler. I'm sure you think you've given it enough of a chance but I promise you if you keep watching it the screenplay will become hugely relevant to you -- to the point where you can carry on entire conversations by simply quoting lines from the movie. Its social commentary is the search for male identity in Gen X society. It's beyond brilliant.

I haven't seen Miller's Crossing in years, but I remember finding it it just fine and not special in any way - not very good, not bad, not too Coen-y, just an adequate crime film.

It didn't work for me, and I'm mafia/crime is my favorite genre. The whole "look deep in your heart..." Turturro thrust was just off. Close, but no cigar. I know what they were going for, but the genre eluded them. I think they could nail it if given another chance and that's partially what excites me about the prospect of Scarface.

Barton Fink is pretty awesome in every way, I'll give you that.

Agreed. Their most inspired (and autobiographical?) film.

The Coen's had never read the Odyssey when they wrote the script and so that's about as loose of an "adaptation" as has ever been made.

News to me. The first line in O Brother, "Sing in me O Muse . . ." is lifted directly from the first line in Odyssey and most of the situations are a direct link. There's a list on imdb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190590/trivia

As for Hail, Caesar!, I did not know that, but that's also about as loose as anything.

It's tightly written with ingeniously funny social commentary on capitalism vs communism, gay vs straight, faith vs faithlessness and many other issues that define our times, all set to "the golden age" of cinema, with plenty of self-effacing humor that doesn't hit you over the head as making fun of the Coens themselves until the credits roll. Everything from the "no dames" choreography to the "would that it were so simple" repetition is just written and delivered to perfection.

Is it pure opinion or can you quantify it? There's not exactly a middle ground here.

And yeah I didn't mention Allen but he is up there, although a lot of his recent output has rubbed me the wrong way (for instance, I found Café Society was nearly unwatchable). But I would not put him at the #1 spot by a long shot.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I am beyond bored with Allen.

Using the amount of Oscars Allen has been nominated for only works if you commit: You rank ALL screenwriters according to that criteria. So you'd also have to put Billy Wilder, Fellini, John Huston and Beckett over the Coen's, for example.

Personally, I'd rather just go by my own opinion.

As for Coppola/Puzo, I don't see Puzo listed as co-writer on Patton, The Conversation or Apocalypse Now....


Yes, my complaint with Hudsucker is largely that it is in an irritating genre, I'll acknowledge that.

Yes they have a variety of styles, but quality is as important, if not more important, than quantity.

~
And even if I were to say that all their scripts were great and they are inspired, that still would not qualify them to write a Scarface remake.

Why not? Were they qualified to make a True Grit remake? It was better than the original by far. They're hugely talented at bringing inspired vision to the screen and that's a lot more exciting than uninspired dreck.

[P-Rock]

They have written a couple of scripts that they haven't directed. Crimewave, Gambit and Unbroken. I don't see them doing this themselves and they will probably base it on the original version, not the De Palma remake.

The 1983 version is really mediocre imo. Pacino hamming it up with a terrible Cuban accent which makes it seem like a comedy at times.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by Gremal

I don't think you can separate the writing from the directing from the casting here. The whole thing was conceived for specific actors in some of the parts. Actors like Clooney will tell you that the Coens' gift as directors is to guide the actor along in a way that makes them think the actor's choices are what's working for the character, but according to Clooney those choices are really the Coens' all along and they manage to bend the performances to their vision. While that takes a lot of skill as a director and as a producer to bring it to the screen, the real brilliance lies in the conception--the writing.

Okay. Either way; I acknowledge I like the film, and it's a case of their style working.

Originally Posted by Gremal

Probably their most cohesive script. They riffed on the GHWB quote about drawing a line in the sand and set up west coast vs east coast type of personalities in a way that was sort of a crazy homage to Raymond Chandler. I'm sure you think you've given it enough of a chance but I promise you if you keep watching it the screenplay will become hugely relevant to you -- to the point where you can carry on entire conversations by simply quoting lines from the movie. Its social commentary is the search for male identity in Gen X society. It's beyond brilliant.

I've seen it three times in my life. It didn't really go up or down in my estimation any of the times. I am aware people love this film and have such conversations; I imagine if I actually liked the film I would find this endearing. AFAIK I qualify as a millennial so maybe that's why its social commentary doesn't resonate with me.

Honestly, the only part I liked a lot was when the cop berated Lebowski for a minute on end, because it felt like an irritating schlub was being called on it. Of course, nothing really comes of this.

Originally Posted by Gremal

It's tightly written with ingeniously funny social commentary on capitalism vs communism, gay vs straight, faith vs faithlessness and many other issues that define our times, all set to "the golden age" of cinema, with plenty of self-effacing humor that doesn't hit you over the head as making fun of the Coens themselves until the credits roll. Everything from the "no dames" choreography to the "would that it were so simple" repetition is just written and delivered to perfection.

Glad it worked for you.

Originally Posted by Gremal

Why not? Were they qualified to make a True Grit remake? It was better than the original by far. They're hugely talented at bringing inspired vision to the screen and that's a lot more exciting than uninspired dreck.

I very much dislike John Wayne so I don't doubt it was much better, although I admit that is one Wayne film I have not seen, and probably never will. That film has its diehard fans, though, who do not like the remake.

So I am not in a position to say if they were qualified to make the remake, you'd have to ask a fan of the original, who also is fan of Westerns in general

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Actually the story has been told twice, in 1932 and 1983.

Even if we apply the narrowest of filters, the same basic story was told the same basic way three times in 1931/32 alone. The Public Enemy, Little Caesar and Scarface were all pretty much the same movie. Even if we ignore all the rise/fall gangster stories in the intervening half century the best you can say is that De Palma was the fourth guy to film this same story.

You might prefer his version but I don't see how you can grant him any sort of squatter's rights to the story itself.

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

And even if I were to say that all their scripts were great and they are inspired, that still would not qualify them to write a Scarface remake.

Well, sure, not just anyone can hammer out a screenplay as blunt as a sack of bricks.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by octagon

Even if we apply the narrowest of filters, the same basic story was told the same basic way three times in 1931/32 alone. The Public Enemy, Little Caesar and Scarface were all pretty much the same movie. Even if we ignore all the rise/fall gangster stories in the intervening half century the best you can say is that De Palma was the fourth guy to film this same story.

Fair enough. That just is further evidence for my overall point, however.

Originally Posted by octagon

You might prefer his version but I don't see how you can grant him any sort of squatter's rights to the story itself.

I'm granting "squatter's rights" to the original (and, I guess, the other ones you mentioned). It just happens that De Palma respected those rights, in view of the fact he respected the original film(s) and had an established directing style that was such that he could be trusted with the material.

I don't see why people are so desperate for a Coen bros reboot; I admit I am more cynical about remakes than some, but even so, I don't get this. And I like several of their films, including The Ladykillers, which is very Coen-y, and incidentally also a remake. They have done nothing in the past to indicate they are in any way capable of handling this material.

Which is fine; I don't go to Michael Bay for treatises on the condition of man, and I don't go to Woody Allen for political thrillers. Heck, David Lynch is my favourit ever, and I wouldn't go to him for a romantic comedy.

Which is not to say directors should not do different things; the Coens have handled a few genres very well. And, who knows, maybe they could handle a Scarface remake. But they should prove themselves first by making something that would indicate they can handle the material. Personally, I think this is something they could not do, but I'm willing to give them a chance. This jumping right in feels extremely disrespecful to the source material; which it is - as others noted above, the 1983 version is being treated as a "joke" needing a "modern update."

But yeah; a few paragraphs ago, I really said it as best I could: I honestly don't see why people want the Coen's to do this, and anyone who does probably does not even like the first one.

Let's consider a much better remake (I know the new Scarface is not out yet, but it won't be as good as this one), 2009's My Bloody Valentine. Again, a remake of an 80s films, not needed, not asked for, but whatever. However, they hired an established horror director to direct it, and establisehd horror screenwriters to write it. None of these guys had the highest pedigree (in fact, I'll go ahead and admit the Coen's ouevere is more impressive than their combined ouevre prior to 2009), but they all obviously liked horror movies, and knew what they were doing, and respected the original film. And look what happens: The greatest of all horror remakes from the 2000s era of horror remakes, a film that is great in its own right and respects the original classic, and a situation where everyone goes home happy. In fact, the same team springboardedf rom that to even higher heights when they worked together on an original property, Drive Angry, another modern classic.

I just can't see any of this happening with the Coen's doing Scarface.

I don't know who I'd hire to write a remake, because I don't see the need for one, but someone like Andrew Dominick, David Ayer or Taylor Sheridan, would be a better option.

Originally Posted by octagon

Well, sure, not just anyone can hammer out a screenplay as blunt as a sack of bricks.

You can make fun of my awkward choice of words all you want, but you know exactly what I meant.

And, frankly, even as I said it, it's not wrong. The Coen's are by their nature, cutesy, wry, eyebrow-arching, gimmick-infusing manhandlers. I don't think they are capable of putting out a "sack of bricks."

There's a time and a place for that kind of thing, but Scarface is not it.

~

As an example:

I would not even be a little surprised if they remade the "Say goodnight to the bad guy" scene, but Sam Elliott was one of the patrons at the restaurant, and he says, "Do you really have to curse so much" and Tony says "F**k you motherf**ker" and beats him down or something. That would be exactly the kind of cute callback the Coen's would do, which has no place in Scarface.

[Shingster]

The Coens are professional filmmakers who have found great sucess as directors and scriptwriters across about as broad a spectrum of genres as any other long-running filmmaker in Hollywood. They are fully qualified to make ANY type of film they want. Not that this matters, because currently they're only planning to write the script! You know what the previous two films written by the scriptwriter of the 1983 Scarface were? Conan the Barbarian and The Hand!

"oh they're not qualified to remake Scarface" what the **** does that mean anyway? Was Brian De Palma known for his period gangster films before he remade the 1932 classic? No, and he didn't remake it as a period piece, and if anything his reputation as a filmmaker back then was far more "cult" than the Coens of today.

Is there any point at all in arguing with someone who thinks Tony Montana was the leader of the Mafia and that the Coens have never even read The Odyssey (they delight in making apocryphal statements, you can't trust a word they say, just watch the bloody film and you'll know whether they read it or not!)? I suppose Fargo was a true story as well!

[P-Rock]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Fair enough. That just is further evidence for my overall point, however.


I'm granting "squatter's rights" to the original (and, I guess, the other ones you mentioned). It just happens that De Palma respected those rights, in view of the fact he respected the original film(s) and had an established directing style that was such that he could be trusted with the material.

I don't see why people are so desperate for a Coen bros reboot; I admit I am more cynical about remakes than some, but even so, I don't get this. And I like several of their films, including The Ladykillers, which is very Coen-y, and incidentally also a remake. They have done nothing in the past to indicate they are in any way capable of handling this material.

Which is fine; I don't go to Michael Bay for treatises on the condition of man, and I don't go to Woody Allen for political thrillers. Heck, David Lynch is my favourit ever, and I wouldn't go to him for a romantic comedy.

Which is not to say directors should not do different things; the Coens have handled a few genres very well. And, who knows, maybe they could handle a Scarface remake. But they should prove themselves first by making something that would indicate they can handle the material. Personally, I think this is something they could not do, but I'm willing to give them a chance. This jumping right in feels extremely disrespecful to the source material; which it is - as others noted above, the 1983 version is being treated as a "joke" needing a "modern update."

But yeah; a few paragraphs ago, I really said it as best I could: I honestly don't see why people want the Coen's to do this, and anyone who does probably does not even like the first one.

Let's consider a much better remake (I know the new Scarface is not out yet, but it won't be as good as this one), 2009's My Bloody Valentine. Again, a remake of an 80s films, not needed, not asked for, but whatever. However, they hired an established horror director to direct it, and establisehd horror screenwriters to write it. None of these guys had the highest pedigree (in fact, I'll go ahead and admit the Coen's ouevere is more impressive than their combined ouevre prior to 2009), but they all obviously liked horror movies, and knew what they were doing, and respected the original film. And look what happens: The greatest of all horror remakes from the 2000s era of horror remakes, a film that is great in its own right and respects the original classic, and a situation where everyone goes home happy. In fact, the same team springboardedf rom that to even higher heights when they worked together on an original property, Drive Angry, another modern classic.

I just can't see any of this happening with the Coen's doing Scarface.

I don't know who I'd hire to write a remake, because I don't see the need for one, but someone like Andrew Dominick, David Ayer or Taylor Sheridan, would be a better option.


You can make fun of my awkward choice of words all you want, but you know exactly what I meant.

And, frankly, even as I said it, it's not wrong. The Coen's are by their nature, cutesy, wry, eyebrow-arching, gimmick-infusing manhandlers. I don't think they are capable of putting out a "sack of bricks."

There's a time and a place for that kind of thing, but Scarface is not it.

~

As an example:

I would not even be a little surprised if they remade the "Say goodnight to the bad guy" scene, but Sam Elliott was one of the patrons at the restaurant, and he says, "Do you really have to curse so much" and Tony says "F**k you motherf**ker" and beats him down or something. That would be exactly the kind of cute callback the Coen's would do, which has no place in Scarface.

Why would you think they would remake the remake? Knowing the Coens and their love for classic movies they'd go for the original.

[GasmaskAvenger]

If I were to go for a Scarface remake, I would honestly like to see a total reinterpretation of the themes juxtaposed to present day racial paranoia and prejudice.

Like...make the films "Tony Montana" proxy someone you wouldn't quite expect to be a ruthless crime lord, albeit not at all a Walter White but rather keeping the lead ethnic.

Maybe have the film centered on someone who fled North Korea at a young age and was initially quite innocent but throughout falling with the wrong crowd, racial profiling and whatnot comes the creation of a monster who takes the drug underworld by storm.

Could be really epic but also super topical and a warning to power hungry *******s who make scapegoats out of perfectly normal people.

[Buscemi]

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

If I were to go for a Scarface remake, I would honestly like to see a total reinterpretation of the themes juxtaposed to present day racial paranoia and prejudice.

Like...make the films "Tony Montana" proxy someone you wouldn't quite expect to be a ruthless crime lord, albeit not at all a Walter White but rather keeping the lead ethnic.

Maybe have the film centered on someone who fled North Korea at a young age and was initially quite innocent but throughout falling with the wrong crowd, racial profiling and whatnot comes the creation of a monster who takes the drug underworld by storm.

Could be really epic but also super topical and a warning to power hungry *******s who make scapegoats out of perfectly normal people.

The industry would never make it. Hollywood's run by social conservatives and only want things that appeal to Southerners and the more right-leaning parts of the Midwest.

Of course, this week's second and third biggest movies did not play to these audiences at all.

[Canada]

Hopefully it is like the original and not like the DePalma version.

[Talleyrand]

Originally Posted by Shingster

The Coens are professional filmmakers who have found great sucess as directors and scriptwriters across about as broad a spectrum of genres as any other long-running filmmaker in Hollywood.

Yes, and all their films have a Coen-y touch that is fine in and of itself, but antithetical to Scarface.

Originally Posted by Shingster

They are fully qualified to make ANY type of film they want. Not that this matters, because currently they're only planning to write the script! You know what the previous two films written by the scriptwriter of the 1983 Scarface were? Conan the Barbarian and The Hand!

Conan the Barbarian is exactly the kind of blunt, non-arched-eyebrow film I would expect from the writer of Scarface! That's the kind of pedigree you need. Also Oliver Stone is a beast.

Originally Posted by Shingster

"oh they're not qualified to remake Scarface" what the **** does that mean anyway? Was Brian De Palma known for his period gangster films before he remade the 1932 classic? No, and he didn't remake it as a period piece, and if anything his reputation as a filmmaker back then was far more "cult" than the Coens of today.

Yes, but Brian De Palma had made films that indicated he would be a good guy to direct Scarface. The overall tone and filmmaking style is consistent.

Originally Posted by Shingster

Is there any point at all in arguing with someone who thinks Tony Montana was the leader of the Mafia and that the Coens have never even read The Odyssey (they delight in making apocryphal statements, you can't trust a word they say, just watch the bloody film and you'll know whether they read it or not!)? I suppose Fargo was a true story as well!

Well, you are the one arguing so I don't know.

Okay, fair enough, I misspoke wrt Tony's job description, but it's pretty clear what I meant.

So they lied about NOT having read something? That's a bit odd, but whatever. Either way, the film has references to the Odyssey known to most, including those who have never read it. Frankly, you don't have to have read the poem to know what a Cyclops is or that they are "bad guys."

Originally Posted by P-Rock

Why would you think they would remake the remake? Knowing the Coens and their love for classic movies they'd go for the original.

But that's the point. The 1983 version is an excellent remake of the original precisely because they are similar. De Palma respected the source material and went and took it further, without fundamentally altering the tone, structure or style of the film. Even if you remake "the 1932 version" it will seem like a remake of the 1983 version as well, because they are inextricably linked.

Originally Posted by GasmaskAvenger

If I were to go for a Scarface remake, I would honestly like to see a total reinterpretation of the themes juxtaposed to present day racial paranoia and prejudice.

Asinine. Make a new movie altogether then, rather than totally reinterpreting the themes.

Originally Posted by Buscemi

The industry would never make it. Hollywood's run by social conservatives and only want things that appeal to Southerners and the more right-leaning parts of the Midwest.

Huh? I thought Hollywood was stereotyped as super liberal?

[Buscemi]

Hollywood stopped being liberal years ago. If Hollywood is so liberal, how come American Sniper got produced with a major studio involved and Selma had to be made independently (via UK producers and Oprah Winfrey)?

Also, nearly every Civil War film made in Hollywood, U.S.A. has been a Confederate apologist piece in the vein of Gone with the Wind. Sure, you have films like Glory but those are few and far between.

In short, it's all about empty-headed violence and family values. Conspiracy theorists simply like to paint a different picture as an excuse to argue.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Talleyrand

Yes, and all their films have a Coen-y touch that is fine in and of itself, but antithetical to Scarface.

I would say that element to their writing has matured immensely over the past 20 years to the point where the Coens proved they could channel it into new directions. No Country being the prime example.

So they lied about NOT having read something? That's a bit odd, but whatever.

In case you haven't noticed, filmmakers consistently either lie or mislead interviewers and the audience--particularly reclusive types like the Coens, who started off Fargo with the lie about the film being based on a true story. They put a lot of thought into the audience's approach and reaction.

Either way, the film has references to the Odyssey known to most, including those who have never read it. Frankly, you don't have to have read the poem to know what a Cyclops is or that they are "bad guys."

Ok, but it takes on rather new meaning when the film is made in the deep South and the Cyclops is a bible salesman.

But that's the point. The 1983 version is an excellent remake of the original precisely because they are similar. De Palma respected the source material and went and took it further, without fundamentally altering the tone, structure or style of the film. Even if you remake "the 1932 version" it will seem like a remake of the 1983 version as well, because they are inextricably linked.

And? In the hands of a more skillful writer, it could be linked more thoughtfully.

Huh? I thought Hollywood was stereotyped as super liberal?

Which brings us to...

Originally Posted by Buscemi

Hollywood stopped being liberal years ago. If Hollywood is so liberal, how come American Sniper got produced with a major studio involved and Selma had to be made independently (via UK producers and Oprah Winfrey)?

Also, nearly every Civil War film made in Hollywood, U.S.A. has been a Confederate apologist piece in the vein of Gone with the Wind. Sure, you have films like Glory but those are few and far between.

In short, it's all about empty-headed violence and family values. Conspiracy theorists simply like to paint a different picture as an excuse to argue.

Queue up Hail Caesar, because it addresses this very issue. Traditionally, the writers in Hollywood were basically communists, and many of the actors and directors were, too (I'm generalizing). They made films that were in many cases quite subversive. The whole "no dames" spoof of a musical from the '50s is hilarious. The studio heads controlled the means of production. They didn't care one way or another about the ideology of the film so long as they got a return on their investment in bankrolling the film. So there was always a schizophrenic element to Hollywood.