Skip to content

Temple Grandin

December 8, 2010:  Temple Grandin

I’ve known of Temple Grandin, though not by name, for a few years since my wife read her autobiography and talked about it a bit.  When watching the Emmy awards this past fall, the HBO made-for-cable feature adaptation of her life story was winning a number of awards so we figured it was worth taking a look.

In a nutshell, Temple Grandin grew up in the 1960s and is autistic.  Though late to start speaking and never able to relate to people in typical ways, she also has a gift – she sees in pictures.  This was an academic ball and chain until she was relocated to a school which could accommodate her, and there she flourished as she discovered that she could envision and design industrial machines and systems better than most engineers.  She went to college and then went to work in the beef cattle industry, designing feedlot and slaughterhouse systems which achieve humane and efficient results due to her ability to process the chaos and also to look at things from the physical and mental perspective of the cows, work which she continues to do today alongside her work with groups supporting autistic people.

Claire Danes, though not bearing a strong physical resemblance to the real Temple Grandin, portrays her convincingly in the movie, pushing beyond what I’ve always considered to be limited acting range and fully immersing herself in the role.  Supporting performances by Julia Ormond as her mother and Catherine O’Hara as her aunt received critical praise but didn’t strike me as being particularly noteworthy.  David Strathairn as Temple’s teacher brings his “mellow and sensitive” style (as opposed to his “tough no-nonsense” persona which he rolls out when appropriate) to the proceedings.

This is a great story for the visual medium of film.  We are taken into Temple’s mind with 3D line drawings of things she sees in the world, rotated in space and altered to make mechanisms more efficient and designs more simple.  Apart from that, the period production design is straightforward but nothing spectacular, as befits a movie with a TV-level budget and it’s just fine.

HBO movies can sometimes be too light, as in the case of Barbarians at the Gate (1993) about the RJR Nabisco takeover, or The Late Shift (1996), about the early 1990s late-night talk show host scuffle between Jay Leno and David Letterman (a conflict which had an unfortunate and eerily similar follow-up this past year as Conan O’Brien was effectively ousted from The Tonight Show by NBC and Leno).  However, Temple Grandin is engrossing and covers a range of emotions from defeat to triumph.  Temple ran into not only discrimination because she was autistic, but also chauvinism because she was a woman in a man’s world of 1970s feedlots and slaughterhouses, though her autism prevented her from being grossed out by the slaughterhouse details.  Her approach is very pragmatic but also curiously sensitive and common-sense; as she points out, even if we’re just raising the cows for meat, we should still treat them with dignity while they are alive, especially since it can make the whole process easier.  She regrets that she’ll never be able to feel emotional connections the way other people can, which is heartbreaking (particularly to her mother), but it’s something Temple has simply had to accept.  Temple Grandin is a remarkable woman who has overcome tremendous adversity to become a leader in her professional field and an inspiration to thousands facing the same barriers, and this film is a fitting tribute to her.

Triumphant story of a brave woman.

Black Swan

December 7, 2010:  Black Swan

I knew I was seeing two movies this day (having just seen 127 Hours), but I wasn’t sure whether I’d be seeing two good ones.  I’d been wary of Black Swan because of the ballet dancing and Natalie Portman, but the bold vision of director Darren Aronofsky came close enough to making sense this time around that I found myself impressed far beyond my expectations.

Natalie Portman plays Nina, a devoted New York ballet dancer whose time has come to take over as the next big star.  She’s technically proficient and undeniably graceful, but as the casting proceeds for the opera company’s mounting of Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake, she can’t seem to find her dark side, which she will need in order to passionately portray the character of the Black Swan.  The director continues to goad her until she finds the darkness deep inside, but perhaps at the ultimate cost.

Or maybe not.  Delirious visions and hallucinations abound, and it becomes clear that the audience doesn’t know any more than Nina knows what’s real and what’s not.  Mila Kunis plays a competitor in the ballet troupe who ends up being Nina’s understudy but with questionable motives in getting to know her better.  And Nina’s overprotective mother, who pressures her with the ferocity found only in a parent who failed to reach the pinnacle of the same profession, might be ultimately helpful or might be the cause of her downfall.  Subtle visual effects shots, as we weave in and out of the visions, serve to blur the line between definite reality and definite dreams as Nina appears to go through a slow physical transformation.  I’m not typically into films which explore the supernatural, but Black Swan leaves enough possibilities open that the suggestion of that as one of the options seems entirely reasonable.  It slowly becomes clear that Nina was born to play this role and has had it in her mind and her body the whole time, and she just needed to find it within herself.

I’ve never been able to decide whether or not I like Natalie Portman.  She burst onto the scene in 1993 in Leon: The Professional as an orphaned 12-year-old who becomes an assassin, but it seems to me that she’s been coasting directionless pretty much ever since then, into romantic comedies where she showed promise and stuffy dramas where she’s clearly out of place, and let’s not even get into the disastrous Star Wars prequels.  She has always hinted at having greater range but rarely seems to show it, with Closer (2004) being one of the only times I can recall such a departure.  And so I felt again for the first third of Black Swan, but she brought a real passion to the transformation in the second half of this film and while she might not be my first pick during awards season, I can understand the sentiment as the Oscar buzz picks up.  We’ll see what the competition turns out to be.  She’s still got a lot of acting years ahead of her, and I’d say that she still has some dues to pay.  But then again, hasn’t she already exceeded the capabilities of 2005 Best Actress winner Reese Witherspoon?

As for Darren Aronofsky, he made a lot of non-fans with Requiem for a Dream in 2000, and The Fountain (2006) was not exactly a comprehensible follow-up, but he made his concession to the Hollywood machine a couple of years ago with Mickey Rourke’s comeback in The Wrestler, and he’s spent that Hollywood capital putting together a passionate story he’s been pursuing for a number of years.  I’d like to see him get his due recognition for fearless filmmaking and Black Swan is a great example of that, but in this Oscar year with big entries from David Fincher (The Social Network) and Christopher Nolan (Inception), he probably doesn’t stand a chance, with his bold effort not quite a masterpiece.

Impressive growth by two promising artists.

127 Hours

December 7, 2010:  127 Hours

I wrote recently about the odd career path of Danny Boyle, when I reviewed Millions (2004).  For his first feature since his Oscar win a couple of years ago for Slumdog Millionaire, Boyle brings us 127 Hours.  A recent standout on the festival circuit, this film interprets the true-life story of Aron Ralston, who became trapped by a boulder during a weekend trip into the canyons of Utah, and ultimately was forced to remove his arm in order to escape.

So how do you spice up a movie about a guy standing in the same place for several days, unable to move?  Well, Boyle’s your man.  He lives for strange POV effects shots, extreme close-up zooming, split-screens, and eliciting sympathy for unsympathetic characters.  Hey, wait a second!  Of course those first three points are all relevant, but what of my classification of Ralston as unsympathetic?  Isn’t this a guy who got trapped and needed help and was essentially doomed through no fault of his own?  Well, not quite, and Boyle’s sensitive portrayal of the character and the circumstances helps the viewer to put the whole situation into perspective, accepting our protagonist’s strengths and weaknesses alike.  You see, Ralston goes on a Saturday day-trip, leaves behind a few important pieces of equipment because they are not close at hand, recklessly rides his mountain bike down steep hills, even falling and nearly getting shredded by a prickly bush in the desert before he even gets to the caves.  So, he’s unprepared and he’s not careful, but does that make him a bad person?  Does it make him deserve his fate?  Of course not, but to paint him as an entirely innocent victim would not be true to the story.

Ralston’s strength of character really begins to shine through after his arm becomes stuck due to a freak accident in which an apparently immovable boulder is dislodged (he does check it for stability before he steps on it).  Once trapped, he goes through the understandable initial panic, but quickly settles down and thinks clearly, saving his water and prioritizing his strategies for escape.  It occurred to me that he was probably going through the 5 stages of grief (denial/anger/bargaining/depression/acceptance), coming to the conclusion fairly quickly that he’s doomed unless he is miraculously rescued.  He has occasional angry screaming breakdowns, but who wouldn’t if they were forced to stand in place for several days with barely any food or water and knowing that their chances of survival are miniscule?

Long, slow scenes put the audience in touch with Ralston’s love of the landscape, which is the reason he comes out to this rugged area.  Soaring overhead shots contrast with those of his new microcosm deep in a crevasse, and he appreciates the sun and the wildlife and the geological formations even as they torment him.  The tedium of the days is broken by his daily videos, which he records for posterity, humbly admitting to his mother that he wishes he’d picked up the phone when she called that first morning before he left, and told her or someone else where he was going that day.  His manic energy comes out in these videos, and they incidentally provide some good narrative material so that the film’s trailers make sense.

James Franco is on centre stage throughout the film.  He’s an actor who has shown promising range, from his supporting role as a villain’s son in the Spider-Man films (2002, 2004, 2007), to brilliant comedic turns in the likes of Pineapple Express (2008) and Date Night (2010), to his dramatic turn as Sean Penn’s sometime lover in Milk (2008).  He was a significant player in Judd Apatow’s teen angst comedy/drama TV show Freaks and Geeks back in 1999-2000 as a lanky heartthrob.  He’s totally up to the task here, with a face which can go from looking haunted one moment to delighted the next.

Much has been made in the press of the inevitable and ostensibly pivotal scene in which Ralston finally cuts off his arm in order to escape.  Boyle knows where to push the buttons but also where to back off in order to keep his audience on the edge of their seat but also grounded in reality, so he keeps the gore to a minimum but throws in a few particularly jarring moments (I’m sure we’ve all thought about the process of cutting off an arm, but it didn’t even occur to me that the worst part of it would be having to cut through a nerve bundle).  I’m typically not squeamish when watching this sort of thing in movies, and for the most part it was not an issue, but it really did effectively drive home the agony of the process as well as the courage required to go ahead with it.  The youths a couple of rows back and across the theatre who were chattering through the entire film didn’t fare so well during this scene, and I was hoping at least one of them would puke on the others, but no such luck.  The sequence is well handled, but be warned that it’s there.

127 Hours was certainly a viewing event at the time I saw it, but I find it fading in my memory aside from a few memorable moments.  I’m glad to have those moments with me, but I might not make an effort to see the film again soon.  There’s Oscar potential for James Franco’s performance, and I’d be perfectly happy with him taking home the prize.

A real filmmaker tackles real life.

Love Story

December 4, 2010:  Love Story

I’ve seen Love Story (1970) before, but not for quite some time and I was ready to revisit it.  My wife had recently read the book and was interested in a comparison with the film, so we watched it together.  Is it a good thing or a bad thing that I found it hard to distinguish whether this film was moving or dreadful?

I won’t get into details about a couple of significant departures from the structure and intent of the book, but Erich Segal adapted his own novel for the screen so one might assume that the changes were in keeping with his wishes.  However, the nature of the film business is such that Paramount Pictures executives probably had something to say about how things were put together, so it may not be obvious whose wishes were respected.  Keep in mind that I’m reviewing the movie and not the book.

In short, this is the story of two college kids who fall in love at first sight, and manage to make it work despite some personality conflicts between them, their very different backgrounds and the reservations of their parents.  Then tragedy strikes, as it always must in a movie destined for smashing box office success.  And this was quite the low-budget sleeper hit in its time, before the days when Steven Spielberg and George Lucas forever changed the way commercial moviemaking was done.

Directed by Arthur Hiller, Love Story falls at a point in his career sandwiched between two films written by Neil Simon (The Out-of-Towners from 1970 and Plaza Suite from 1971), so it’s clear what the studio was going for – light comedy with characters who have realistic aspects but can’t be quite real.  And that’s pretty much what we get here, with hints at greater character depth which never really pan out, mostly because they don’t have to.  The young man has father issues, but they are sketched so broadly  that the interaction between them is clearly constructed for dramatic purposes and couldn’t have been the tone between two actual people in all the time they spent together day-to-day through two decades.  That contrasts with the fresh and modern (for the day) wordplay between the two young lovers, which was a big change from the typical film of the time, since by 1970 there had so far only been a handful of examples which broke that mold.  This is probably a big contributor to the popular appeal of Love Story, since the sappy story laid on top of unrealistic actions doesn’t really hold up to a critical examination.

So is this a great film or not?  I’ll go with not.  The snappy dialogue, while manufactured and unrealistic, is clearly deliberate and admittedly entertaining, but I have a hard time classifying it as brilliant.  I maintain similar reservations about Juno (2007), which gets a lot of praise for its stylisically deliberate but unrealistic wordplay among teenagers.  There’s also a bunch of handheld camera work in this film, which was not a terribly common technique at the time since those cameras still weighed a ton, but it lends a more intimate feel to the production.  Some strange dissolves between scenes and the horrible ADR looping are just indicative of the technology of the time.  So if I like the dialogue and the visuals, then why don’t I like the movie?  Well, I think the main character, played by Ryan O’Neal, just isn’t likeable or consistent, and I think we’re expected to ultimately like him.  That disconnect leaves me cold about the whole thing, wondering how this woman can stand to be with him for all those years, how his father can be expected to deal rationally with him, and how the audience can just ignore this part of his personality and get on with things.  It’s worth noting that from what I know about how this character is handled in the book, I’d probably like it better.  Ali MacGraw, as the young lady, does a great job bringing a certain energy and courage to her character, but it’s perhaps the less challenging role since she’s obviously supposed to be magnetic and sympathetic and doesn’t give us any reason to feel otherwise.  Love Story is a movie with some nice little moments which come from good writing and acting, and it’s a historically notable film for its box office success and the part it played in the modernization of Hollywood, but I might not go so far as to call it a “classic”.

Confounding entry in rom-com movie history.

Men Who Swim

December 1, 2010:  Men Who Swim

Telling the story of an all-male synchronized swimming team from Sweden, Men Who Swim is a great little documentary which is well-suited to the medium and its capabilities.

Anchored by a Welshman who permanently relocated to Sweden several years ago and now has a wife and children there, the film documents the coming together of a motley group of guys who can’t quite find a sport that suits them, so they decide to explore new territory by hiring an ex-synchronized swimmer to coach them at weekly lessons to keep them fit and keep them learning.  They make real progress but then hit a wall and stagnate, until they learn that men in other countries are doing the same thing and there’s an annual tournament bringing together teams from all over Europe for a competition.  They decide that they will compete, which gives them the goal and the focus they needed.

The men continue to struggle, but they stick with it and in the end they go to Milan for the competition and make quite a respectable showing.  What makes the film medium so great for this story is that synchronized swimming is so visual by nature, providing plenty of relevant images to bring to the screen, but it can all be supplemented by personal interviews in various places, and the facial expressions and comical banter of these people makes for a wonderful narrative of trying to find something a little different in life to be proud of.  Men Who Swim is well worth a look.

Makes good use of documentary form.

The Good, the Bad and the Bearded

December 1, 2010:  The Good, the Bad and the Bearded

The Good, the Bad and the Bearded is a student documentary which was presented in advance of the monthly Doc Soup screening, which is a year-round extension of the Hot Docs documentary film festival.  A short film showing the facial hair of a number of local guys and hearing some of their opinions about it, the timing was appropriate as the previous day had marked the end of “Movember”, a one-month moustache-growing effort becoming popular around the world as a way to generate awareness and funding for prostate cancer research.  This was a lightweight piece of work but perfectly fine, and it was created entirely by student interns who had worked at Hot Docs.

Promising student short film about hair.

Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer

November 24, 2010:  Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer

Eliot Spitzer was once the new sheriff in town, who came to New York state as attorney general and later as Governor, vowing to clean up the corruption and filth in the state.  And that he did for a number of years, making waves with groundbreaking investigations to bring Wall Street excesses under control, leading to prosecutions and new legislation designed to stand up for ordinary people.  Then, Spitzer got caught with his hand in the cookie jar, so to speak, and resigned in disgrace.  It was the only thing he could do, politically, but the whole story is not quite so cut and dried as that.

Spitzer was outed as a client of a high-priced prostitution ring.  Now, that sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t end the career of a politician, depending on how it is handled.  But Spitzer had cultivated a “Mr. Clean” image for years, bordering on the holier-than-thou, attacking corruption and systematic casual lawbreaking, indeed prosecuting the very escort businesses whose services he would later utilize.  It’s obviously a dumbass thing to have done, and I think it’s fair for that to have cost him his political career, but does it need to dominate and prejudice all discussion of Spitzer from this day forward, and negate the effectiveness of the work he did for all those years?

Through a series of surprisingly candid interviews with a number of people including Spitzer himself, this documentary explores some of the back story behind Spitzer’s time in power, the enemies he made, and the escort businesses at the heart of this scandal, those establishments being relevant by virtue of them being so closely tied to the expense-account spending of greedy and irresponsible Wall Street bankers.  From the start, Spitzer was fighting corruption in the system, but it’s clear that he may have been zealously overstepping his bounds in some cases, both politically as he pushed for much more radical change than the system was accustomed to (which was his prerogative as a strategy, and had its successes), as well as legally, as he fought tooth and nail as governor for certain changes and didn’t like to accept the authority of the state Senate as having a say in the matter.  This all suggests a certain megalomaniacal streak – necessary for such radical change, but it can undermine one’s credibility.  When Spitzer was exposed as a client of a certain escort service, he had no choice but to take the fall, or else he would be as corrupt and hypocritical as those he tried to prosecute for all those years.

But Client 9 delves further into the business back story, and that’s eye-opening.  A number of Spitzer’s “victims” are interviewed, big business tycoons who had some of their plans foiled and part of their oversized chunk of the pie reduced, and alpha-male characters like these tend to seethe with venom for anyone who gets in the way of them owning EVERYTHING.  A notable example of this is Hank Greenberg, who was the CEO of the bailed-out AIG insurance company.  He can clearly be shown to have pushed for the structuring of investments which led to the eventual downfall of the company, though he was pushed out by investigations spearheaded by Spitzer before the collapse.  Still, Greenberg and others were doing everything in their power to bring down Spitzer, including private investigations which led to the leaking of information which created the scandal.  To give a sense of the mentality behind a guy like Greenberg, the interviewer asks him how much his AIG stock was worth after the collapse.  He says “virtually worthless…about $100 million”.  Clearly I don’t play hard enough to play with guys like this.

So Eliot Spitzer is basically a well-intentioned, but seriously flawed and not necessarily likeable person, who through his own hypocrisy left himself open to being brought down by rich and powerful men.  He’s done some good work, but he’s also pushed further than he should have at times.  He’ll have to live with the fallout from this scandal and what it means for his credibility.  On a more distressing note, this film and my earlier film this evening (Fair Game) both felt almost like sequels to Inside Job, which I saw last week.  All three of these films tell ominous and eerily similar tales of rich and powerful people in business and government making sure that the little people don’t get too much of the pie, and that those who try to expose reality will be crushed.  It’s pretty clear that it’s the reality of the world, and people are starting to talk openly about it, but I wonder when any meaningful change will come.

They’ll manage to destroy your reputation.

Fair Game

November 24, 2010:  Fair Game

Based on the story of the deliberate leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003, Fair Game is a dramatization of that difficult period in her life.  Naomi Watts plays Valerie Plame and Sean Penn plays her husband Joe Wilson.

This is a story of which I knew some details but not much of the background.  That is filled in here, with Plame’s and Wilson’s histories as relates to the incident, and the story arc of the film runs from just before the revelation (to establish Plame’s capabilities as an agent as well as the stresses it put on her family), through the most public part of the scandal, up to the point where Plame and Wilson decide that they will move on together from this dark chapter in their lives.  Based on books written by each of them about the scandal, I feel that I learned as much as I want to know about this episode and don’t care much about the story of the people beyond this treatment.  Perhaps that isn’t a great endorsement of Fair Game, but it is what it is.

Sean Penn cries, but he’s already got two Oscars so I don’t think this will be enough to get him a third.

I don’t know whether it’s deliberate, but Plame and Wilson appear to be rather inattentive parents throughout the film, constantly brushing off their children as they immerse themselves in their adult troubles.  It may have been the intention of the filmmakers to show that they still had their family during this trying time, but the impression I got is that while they do care about their children, these are two intensely career-minded people and their children will always be playing second fiddle.  Let’s hope that the situation has improved, for the sake of the kids.  Fair Game is a decent timewaster and the key point for me is the injustice of a government administration which can hang out to dry anyone who says a little too much of the truth.  However, telling the story from the point of view of Plame and Wilson makes it too melodramatic for my taste.

Important true story, but weakly told.

Napoleon Dynamite

November 21, 2010:  Napoleon Dynamite

I’ve been told for years that I should see this movie, although with the caveat that I might either love it or hate it.  I watched about an hour of the film paying about 70% attention, and that was not enough for me to understand the hype.  Was it too deadpan for me?  Was it maybe just not funny in a way that I understand?  I think it would be better to revisit Napoleon Dynamite (2004) some other time when I’m better prepared to accept it.

Gotta give this one another shot.

Scarface (1983)

November 19, 2010:  Scarface (1983)

If I happened to be a child of the 1920s, then I might have grown up under the influence of the 1932 incarnation of Scarface, a film accused of glorifying the gangster lifestyle and which suffered censorship in its day as a result but has gone on to become respected as a historically significant American film.  But I happen to be a child of the 1970s, so Brian de Palma’s 1983 remake of Scarface is the version on which I was brought up.

Now, that’s not to say I have always been a big fan of Scarface.  I was of course too young to have seen it upon its original release, but the home video boom of the 1980s brought this and many other films to young eyeballs years before they had the maturity to properly process them.  I have seen Scarface periodically over the years but never elevated it to the heroic cult status some kids do.  On the surface, the film is ripe for imitation and quotation, but perhaps these youngsters aren’t getting its message.

Scarface centres on the life of Tony Montana (played by Al Pacino in what he says is one of his favourite film roles that he’s played), a fictional Cuban refugee who arrived in Miami during the not so fictional so-called Cuban Crime Wave of 1980 when Fidel Castro allowed people to freely leave the country but added newly released prisoners into the mix of people flowing illegally across the border into the US.  This created an explosive situation in Miami as the dregs of Cuban society were all trying to make their way in the US, without any moral restrictions on how they were going to do that.  Tony commits a murder inside a refugee camp in return for his arranged release, and once he’s out, he gets into the drug dealing business right away, working for the man who got him released.  Tony aspires to be a kingpin instead of a foot soldier, and works his way up, but it’s clear from the start that he’s destined to fall.

There’s plenty more to the story in this nearly three-hour epic, but the key points are Tony’s relationship with his best friend Manny, as well as those with the women in his life – his sister and the woman he will eventually marry.  Tony is ambitious, but impulsive and a bit sloppy, and that colours his every interaction.  He is smart and can see the big picture and the politics that define the drug-dealing world in which he exists, and that makes him a great negotiator with the powerful men he encounters, but he is too proud and too hasty and only the men who can restrain those traits are the ones who survive for a long time in that business.  But the complexity of the Tony Montana character comes from this paradox, that his guts can get him noticed and get things done, but they can also make him overstep his bounds and get in trouble.  The kids who had/have Scarface posters on their dorm room walls see Tony as an underworld hero, but it could be argued just as easily and perhaps more convincingly that he’s simply a punk.  He’s an insightful guy – at the peak of his power he sits in a fancy restaurant with his wife and his best friend and wonders aloud what he’s doing all this for, since all he’s getting is more money and more luxury and more stuff, and the aggravation is increasing as well.  He knows in his heart that there’s a limit to how big a hot tub needs to be – but at the same time he’s compelled, as are many men of power, to always get more, to always defeat someone else and take their share.  He knows that it’s not possible for it to end well, but he seems to accept that he is who he is, which is why when his time comes, he definitely won’t go down without a fight but there’s no question in his mind about the fact that he’s going down.

And what of the iconic images from Scarface?  Even those who haven’t seen the film are probably aware of the infamous chainsaw scene, which isn’t as grisly as it is often imagined to be but certainly includes its fair share of blood.  It’s a narratively important scene, though, since early in the movie it shows the character of Tony Montana facing imminent death, and even at such a moment, he is composed and still arrogant and not fearing for his life so much as he is enraged that he was bested by people he feels are his inferiors.  When he escapes, his anger exceeds his tact as he guns down his would-be murderer in the middle of the street in broad daylight.  Another set of images widely known from Scarface are Tony’s over-the-top cocaine indulgences, arranging a huge line of it roughly with his hands before snorting, and later on burying his entire face in a pile of it.  Interestingly, in all of the snorting scenes there is something placed between the camera and Tony so we don’t see the actual snorting, a device which I found to be glaringly obvious, but I suppose it’s an attempt to keep from glorifying the act any more than it needs to be.  And of course there’s the unforgettable “Say hello to my little friend” line from the climax of the film, as Tony makes his final stand with his M16 with attached grenade launcher, which has become the symbol of Scarface’s ultraviolence and Tony Montana’s chutzpah.  However, what people don’t usually mention is that three minutes later, Tony tumbles lifeless into a reflecting pool in the great hall of his house.  But he went out on his own terms.

I’d like to mention a few more important points about Scarface.  Key to the success of this story are the strong and real female characters inhabiting this chauvinistic world.  Michelle Pfeiffer as Elvira, a drug lord’s girlfriend and Tony’s object of desire (and later wife), along with Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio as Gina, Tony’s sister, are the only people in Tony’s life who dare to stand up to him, to really contradict him and challenge him in a way he can’t overcome with violence or scheming.  He respects them in a certain way, because while he believes he can defeat any man, he somehow doesn’t stand a chance with these women.  He tries to control Gina but knows that he really can’t – he can only threaten and control the men she interacts with.  And Elvira proves his equal in stubbornness and perceptiveness.  He’s up front with her right from the start, saying that he likes her and he doesn’t plan to let her get away, and she is immediately attracted to his confidence and his respectful approach, which she probably doesn’t experience very much in the drug-soaked world she lives in.  Of course, they have a rocky relationship and marriage, but it’s partly because they are both such strong personalities and increasingly because they are both under the influence of drugs and picking on the flaws in each other that they wish they didn’t have themselves.

Another noteworthy point is that Scarface was written by Oliver Stone.  This was before his breakthrough directorial effort on Salvador (1986) which led to two directing Oscars, for Platoon (1986) and Born on the Fourth of July (1989), but his magnetic screenwriting talent was well developed already by the time of Scarface, and in fact he had previously won an Oscar for the screenplay of Midnight Express (1978).  I liken this career path to that of Quentin Tarantino, who was writing stories and screenplays for successful films as his directing career was in the process of taking off, with the two men’s career trajectories actually intersecting on Natural Born Killers (1994) for which Tarantino wrote the story and Stone co-wrote screenplay and directed.

Also fascinating is the influence of Scarface on what was the fourth Grand Theft Auto video game, Vice City, which takes styling cues from both Scarface and the TV series Miami Vice to create a colourful but dangerous world of crime set in the 1980s.

Scarface is a must-see piece of the pop-culture puzzle of the 1980s, a film which wasn’t particularly appreciated on its initial release but has enough entertainment value and enough depth of character and story to have resonated with generations of youngsters and with more and more critics as time goes on.

Early 1980s gangster culture writ large.