150W: Zelig

Short reviews for clear and concise verdicts on a broad range of films...

Zelig (Dir. Woody Allen/1983)

Before Forrest Gump was Zelig. Feeding a fictional character into history is central to the story of Leonard Zelig. Prior to Christopher Guest and his popular use of mockumentary in This is Spinal Tap, Woody Allen was there in 1983 (Allen’s Take the Money and Run from 1969 is one of the earliest uses of mockumentary in cinema). This is the story of Leonard Zelig (Woody Allen), a fictional character in the 1920’s dubbed a chameleon due to his extraordinary skill in changing form when stood next to a different man. If stood next to Native-American’s – he turns into a Native American. Zelig is innovative, confident and intriguing but it lacks a sense of pace or urgency. Once you know the skill, the consequence is less fascinating. Charlie Chaplin, Clara Bow and Adolf Hitler all appear but Zelig is uninspiring. Shouldn’t he be the most interesting? Turns out, he isn’t.

Rating: 4/10

Superman III (Richard Lester, 1983)

"Never underestimate the power of computers."

Introduction

The Salkinds seem to be key to all the problems surrounding the original series of Superman. It was the Salkinds who pressured Richard Donner during production of Superman and it was Alexander and Ilya Salkind who chose to stop production of Superman II after it was almost 75% complete. The documentaries that feature on the boxsets highlight how these producers take almost all the credit for the best elements of the series - but always pass the blame to others for the problems. Margot Kidder openly stated how badly the Salkinds treated Richard Donner and, consequently, her role was reduced to a cameo in Superman III. Gene Hackman refused to even appear in the film as he was so angry with them. Then - and here is a perfect example of a bad production team - when watching The Tonight Show, Richard Pryor's enjoyment of Superman II meant a quick-casting arrangement whereby Pryor became a lead role in the third installment. Hardly a strong start. At least Warner Bros turned down Ilya Salkinds first script ... whereby Braniac raised Supergirl and incestuously, fell in love with her, only to be rebuffed as Supergirl loves Superman.

The Fear of Technology and Returning to the Past

Crucially, the films opening seems to set a jarring, uneven tone. On  the one hand we see poverty-stricken, jobless Gus (Richard Pryor) rejected at the benefits office shortly before he sees an job advert looking for IT skills. Face a-glow, Gus decides to train in computing ... whilst Superman is introduced as a hero who saves the world from its own foolishness as an entire (what must have been choreographed) slapstick routine leads to Superman saving a man from drowning inside his car. The tone shifts within moments from potentially-serious narrative "Gus looking for a job" (a comment on the early 1980's US recession?) to a joke-hero who uses his powers to help/not help blind-men and their dogs and phone boxes falling down in succession.

Despite this clearly uneven tone, Richard Pryors character becomes a bit of an anomaly with regards to his morals. On the one hand, he uses the computers to steal pennies from everyone to make himself a fortune - perking the interest of Lex-Luthor-clone Ross Webster (Robert Vaughan) who manages to convince Gus to use his computer skills to adjust satellites. Gus is a strange character because he loves Superman and seems to only want to do the right thing - but also make a little bit of money for himself. He is constantly reluctant to get too involved and, inevitably, changes side in the final act to help Superman.

The flip-side to the story of Gus is Superman himself as he harks back to his past - revisiting Smallville for a school-reunion and falling for Lana Lang (Annette O'Toole - the actress who went on to play Martha Kent in Smallville). Inexplicably, Gus manages to use his computer-skills to re-configure Kryptonite but, improvising with the ingredients, he substitutes a key item with tar from cigarettes. Handed to Superman in a bizarre ceremony in Smallville when Superman was due to visit Lana's son Ricky, this kryptonite turns him 'bad' and he begins to care little about others - and happily blows out the Olympic torch.

So Much Potential...

What frustrates me more and more with the series is the potential of a strong film that always seems to drop in quality within seconds of the opening. Superman III could've been a film that tackled the social-state of the US, using Richard Pryor as a catalyst to become corrupted by the capitalist-core of the 1980's. Instead, Pryor is comic-relief to the obvious "big bad" Ross Webster. Superman III could've been a film that toyed with the duality of Superman as he is constantly fighting against the good role he should play - and the evil role he could play. Instead, it is a short-lived period in the middle-act that bad Superman figths Clark Kent (the 'good' Superman?). Imagine, a new crystal could be found that simply corrupts Superman as we watch a film whereby Kal-El struggles with a moral dilemma - to use his powers for good or evil. Superman III could have shown us a time whereby the power of technology begins to self-control and become an enemy unto itself - akin to The Matrix. Instead, it is simply a weapon briefly used by the villain to attack coffee plantations (???). So often, it seems to hint at an interesting subtext without truly gaining the scope or scale that it needs to create to explore the issues it wants to discuss.

Truth, Justice and the Anti-Capitalist Way

Superman and Superman II managed to always squeeze in a very Pro-America agenda - the immortal line "I stand for Truth, Justice and the American way" in Superman and the flag, renewed on the White House at the end of Superman II manage to clarify this. But Superman III is not as clear as he saves Colombia's coffee industry and straightens - and re-corrects - the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The anti-capitalist element in Vaughan's greed and obsession with more - alongside Pryor's attempt at doing the wrong thing for the right reasons - all seem to hint at another interesting meaning, which never pays off.

In true form, the final few scenes clarify where the confused-heart of the film lies. Or, at least muddies the water so that any interpretation remains unclear. Superman carries Gus Gorman to a coal-mine and hands him over, with a mighty-good reference ... only for Gus to wave goodbye to Superman, and then say goodbye to the job. It seems, he doesn't care for a job after all. Then, almost to add salt in the wound, Clark Kent woo's Lana - not through gentlemanly romance, but through the gift of a humongous diamond ring. It seems, at the end of the day - you do need money to get the girl and jobs are no-big-deal.

Christopher Reeve is incredible and, as it ended with "Superman will return in Superman III" at the end of the previous film, I half-expected to see such a promise again. But alas, no promise - and the next film from our favourite producers was Supergirl (which I shan't be analysing...) in 1984 before they sold off the rights to Cannon Films, who promptly made Superman IV: The Quest For Peace in 1987. The fact remains that this was a film whereby the Salkinds had complete control from the get-go - no Richard Donner to stop them from making the series 'campy'. They made the Superman film they had dreamed about and promptly stopped producing films completely... 

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (Richard Marquand, 1983)

"Your over-confidence is your weakness"

Introduction

Like The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas funded it himself and was keen to look to a range of directors to helm the final film in the trilogy. He considered David Lynch and David Cronenberg and, had Lucas not left the American Guild of Directors, even considered Steven Spielberg. He settled on Richard Marquand, a young director from Wales. Time's had changed since The Empire Strikes Back. Harrison Ford was now a worldwide star - the role of Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark secured him of that success, whilst the merchandising on the previous Star Wars films continued to be widely sold. Lawrence Kasdan was brought back on board to adapt Lucas' story - but certain decisions Kasdan and Marquand initially made were shut-down immediately by Lucas: Han Solo due to be killed off at the start of the film as a form of self-sacrifice; the Millenium Falcon assisting on Endor; the finale would see our heroes meet the Wookies civilisation. Whether due to a business-mind on Lucas's part - creating new teddy-bear-like characters called Ewoks - or having a passion for the story itself, these ideas were rejected.

At any rate, much like Han Solo himself, the audience were frozen since The Empire Strikes Back but were well aware that a concluding chapter would arrive. Question is, would it fulfill all the expectations people had...

Luke has become a Jedi...

One year following The Empire Strikes Back and it seems we are back to square-one. R2D2 and C3PO wander the desert of Tatooine, much like A New Hope, searching for Jabba The Hut's palace. In a long sequence, one by one, it seems that everyone gets captured: Han Solo is already trapped in carbonite; C3PO and R2D2 engage in comedy sequences as we see robots torn apart and C3PO act in horror. Even Princess Leia, in disguise, finds herself turn into a slave for Jabba the Hut. An iconic image that will remain in the minds of Star Wars fan-boys for the future - parodied countless times in Friends and How I Met Your Mother amongst many other programmes. As I noted in The Empire Strikes Back, it is as if the filmmakers wanted to see how low these characters could fall. The situation is bad enough at the end of The Empire Strikes Back without having to start off the next film with the characters all becoming captured or turned into slaves - even Luke, when he arrives, fails to stick-to-the-plan and finds himself fighting a rancor beast.

From the strength of The Empire Strikes Back, it is a real shame that the film dramatically drops in quality. A sequence that seems to drag on too long, reveals nothing new and devlops the story in no way at all, with appalling music to boot (apparently, the new music and creatures on the special edition is superior to the original music, but that can't be saying much...). Shockingly, we even finish the sequence by completely robbing Leia of her female independence and reducing her to a slave sex-object. The only redemption is in the devlopment of Luke himself.

His entire demeanour is a far cry from the teenager we first met during A New Hope. He appears stronger, calmer and almost like Vader himself in his cloak and confidence. You can see, merely by Hamill's acting, that he has completed his Jedi training. As the film rests firmly on Mark Hamill's shoulders, it is his role in Return of the Jedi that places this film ahead of the weaker films in the franchise - no other Star Wars film has Luke exude so much confidence. It also prepares us for the finale as we know that it is not a case of the underdog attempted to "win", the question is whether Luke will be able to resist tempatation.

Change of Perspective

"Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Obi-Wan tells Luke as he returns to the franchise for his final "words-of-advice" sequence. The vast majority of the conflict between the prequels and sequels was discussed in the previous post on The Empire Strikes Back, except this time, Obi-Wan explains, in detail, what happened. On the one hand, his retracting of statements he made in the previous films seems a little forced: even Luke seems confused at the change in the 'galaxy'. But as Lucas has expertly shown us so far, rather than have this a merely tacked-upon measure to clarify the plot, the whole idea of persepctive is in fact ingrained within the story. Indeed, a change of perspective is what we are expected to clearly observe in the film - Darth Vader turning to the Dark Side shows us how a change in perspective is made, with huge consequence. The tension lies in Luke himself and whether he will even consider a change in perspective on The Empire. As he witnesses the trap the Empire has created to ensure the defeat of the Rebel Alliance, you can see the final option becoming that much clearer. Darth Sidious reminds us that his anger is what leads him to the Dark Side. He teases him and taunts him - the thin line between good and evil is becoming dangerously close to Luke. A thin line between the perspective of what is good and evil - and what defines the abuse of power and control.

Now we combine the two themes - an obsession with power and control the Sith seek, whilst both Vader and Sidious hold completely differing perspectives on the purpose of Luke ... if he was to join the force. Sidious tells Luke as he fights Vader -

"Good! Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take your father's place at my side!"

But Vader tells Luke that he has a different purpose - 

"Luke, you can destroy the Emperor. He has foreseen this. Join me and together we will rule the galaxy as father and son."

It is clear to us, and Luke, that at its most powerful, the Empire is at a conflict with itself and to how it can continue. The lack of perspective and desire for power comes full circle.

What is more interesting is the further parrallels to the prequels as Anakin ultimately turned to the Dark Side himself as he couldn't trust Obi-Wan. Luke has the same struggle as Obi-Wan has lied to him also (when will Obi-Wan learn?) and only through seeing the contradictions within the Dark Side, does Luke realise what is right. The theme of over-confidence is also brought up again. We know that Anakin's fatal flaw was his arrogance and pride - his expectation to become a Jedi Master and assumption that he could save Padme. His over-confidence is what destroyed him - so Luke's awareness of this vice becomes a major asset as he confronts the Emperor with the statement "Your over-confidence is your weakness". Ironically, the Emperors' response that his "faith in his friends" is his, recalls a lack of perspective on The Emperor's part. Cast your mind to Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. Anakin ignored advice and instructions off everyone who attempted to help him - ironically, Anakin's over-confidence and lack of faith in his friends and the Jedi, is what destroyed him.

Calclus in the centre, confused as someone to be worshipped

Influences and Recalls

I am aware that a further connection to Tintin may appear false, but it strikes me as too similar to be completely ignored. C3PO, especially in Return of the Jedi seems to recall Professor Calculus from the Tintin comic strips. Calculus, like C3PO, is incredibly intelligent and additionally a little dotty and clumsy. Both characters have a similar figure - slim build, tall - and, in both Return of the Jedi and Herge's Prisoners of the Sun, both characters are mistaken for a God to be worshipped within a leafy, rainforest-like context: South America in Prisoners of the Sun, Endor in Return of the Jedi. It strikes me as more than possible that, as Spielberg - and Lucas - prepared Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, the reference to Tintin following Raiders of the Lost Ark, assured both filmmakers read the comic books. Inevitably, ideas from the books - Tintin in Tibet in The Empire Strikes Back (assuming the comics were read by Lucas prior to production on Raiders) and Prisoners of the Sun in Return of the Jedi - managed to creep into the script choices.

The very idea of influencing and recalling the past is touched upon as C3PO tells the story - or legend of Star Wars - to the Ewoks (who, in this instance, represent children). At this point in 1983, Lucas wants closure on the franchise, and he wants us to do the same by showing this sequence. As we have followed C3PO in the original trilogy, we also are expected to continue to tell the story to our own children and continue the fascination in the saga. Lucas is proud of the films created - but the stories are expected to be told and retold rather than built upon further, time and time again. But, ironically, the speed racers that appear in the same section of the film closely resemble the podraces in The Phantom Menace. On a thematic level, it is as if Luke has his fathers knowledge of podracing in the closing chapter of the franchise. Strange to think that Lucas was oblivious to the connection this sequence would have to his filmmaking decades later.

Filling that Hole...

To close these essays, it is worth highlighting how the final film reveals a recurring theme of incompletion. The Death Star itself is incomplete, both Vader and Luke are physically incomplete as they both have missing hands whilst Luke is expected to only "complete" his training as a Jedi by defeating Darth Vader.This could relate to a number of interpretations - the idea that everyone has a spiritual and emotional need that requires 'filling'. It could be filled with the force - with God and faith - as Luke attempts, but it could equally be filled with love or evil. Han Solo, at no point, learns the power of 'the force', but his need is filled by his love for Leia. Vader and the Emperor both crave power and control - and manage to fill this need by turning to the Dark Side. The closing statement I believe Lucas is saying - and all six-films connect to this - is regarding our own morals and outlook on life. Everyone wants to lead a fulfilling life - but how they do this, is dependent on the influences, experiences and support by people around them. Whether they will turn to the 'Dark Side' and lead an immoral life or whether they lead a moral and 'Jedi-like' life, it is worth noting the fine line between what constitues good and evil - and how easy one can turn when tempted by power. Luke is challenged and nearly turns, whilst Anakin is seen to become one of the most dangerous villains the galaxy has ever seen - despite his good intentions.

I do believe that the finale of Return of the Jedi is brilliant. Connecting all six films by seeing the entire galaxy celebrate - Corsucant, Cloud City, etc - is recalling the entire six-film journey you have been on. Even Hayden replacing Sebastian Shaw as the ghost of Anakin I believe is well-suited. No offence to Shaw - he was fine - but as an actor, cleaned-up, he has no connection to the scarred-Anakin Luke speaks to - he is so damaged that you can barely make out the actor himself - or the many versions of Vader we have seen up until this point. At least Jake Lloyd didn't show up.

The last line shared between Luke and Anakin are Lukes ever-optimistic "I will save you" as Anakin responds "you already have...". It is unfortunate that this feeds so nicely with a Christian interpretation of the films. As if to highlight that his final moments will ensure his 'saving' in the afterlife perhaps? At any rate, ignoring this interpretation, the hole everyone has needs to be filled with love - love for each other, love for you enemies and the love for your friends. Throughout Return of the Jedi and, one of the twists [that still works in the context of the Saga] at the end of The Empire Strikes Back is the connection telepathitically between Vader and Luke. It is not an external consciense Vader has - it is his responsibilities, his child, who taunts him and slowly chips away at his armour. Rather than arguing with a heavenly - or messianic figure - who directs Vader and/or Luke. It is their awareness of each other than forces them to face each other again. Luke has a responsibility to support his Father, whilst very slowly, Vader realises his duty is to protect his Son.

This is what concludes the Saga. Not an automatic-saving through grace or faith, but rather an awareness of love and responsibility for each other. Luke forgives his Father and stands by him - it is only the Emperor who feeds both characters hatred by taunting them both in the final duel. This is the never-ending battle - the choice to listen to your heart and 'save' those you love from harm and danger. A theme that we know from the very start - Qui Gon Jin saving Anakin from a life of slavery in The Phantom Menace, Anakin and Obi-Wan protecting Padme in Attack of the Clones, Obi-Wan's protection and saving of the baby's Luke and Leia in Revenge of the Sith - and Luke's protection and love for his friends since A New Hope. This is what continues our own existence and our future.

Rumble Fish (Francis Ford Coppola, 1983)

"You ain't got your brother's brains. It's nothing personal, Rusty James, but nobody would follow you into a fight because you'd get people killed - and nobody wants to be killed."


Introduction

I watched The Godfather trilogy at 15. I watched Apocalypse Now at Uni when it was very late and it was the redux' and I fell asleep and had to watch it again the following day. I had not seen this, but remember a conversation (ooo, a pun considering...) with friends Chris and Wes whereby the two followed a discussion about The Godfather by saying that Rumble Fish was brilliant. Embarressed, I never even knew such a film I kept my eyes peeled for it - always finding it in obscure shops like Music and Movies costing £10 plus ... a ridiculous ... until, as I was making my way for a till in HMV I found it for £3. I could now watch this 'brilliant' film and, in the future, take part in such conversations about Francis Ford Coppola. Then again, I haven't seen Jack so maybe I have a long way to go yet ...

What I reckon ...

It does look stunning - thats for sure. Its shot in inspired-by-Fellini-and-Bergman black and white. Then again, looks like and arty-version of West Side Story with a man-on-man fight to begin also. The obvious link is also Bogdanovichs' The Last Picture Show - a teenage story, shot in black and white. Made in 1971. This whole style reeks of influences moreso - a film-noir look enhanced with Lawrence Fishburne as this friend who dresses like a detective, thin-tie included, furthering this film-noir style as he walks along with his friends in alleys and leaving smokey silhouettes in the backdrop.

The story follows Rusty James (Matt Dillon) a not-so-clever, but popular character. In the same way I watched Toy Story and profiled Sid, Rusty James is influenced easily and is not the quickest of cats - maybe indicating SEN (Special Educational Needs). He looks up to his brother - the Motorcycle Boy (Mickey Rourke who looks alot like a young Bruce Willis) - a menace to society, we are led to believe. Thing is, we only see the policeman who despises him and the difficult upbringing the boys have had under their father, played by Dennis Hopper, a single parent who is an alcoholic. Wea re told of the 'stories' The Motocycle Boy knows of, but are now entirely shown his menace. Until we see him at the end as a character who is not just a menace - but mentally unstable.
The Motorcycle Boy is quite a tragic character. He is colourblind and is, bit-by-bit, destroying himself and ultimately does - but luckily does not destroy his brother.

I'm glad I have seen this and this is surely one of those films which too often gets unnoticed - Coppola makes some great films and this is ambitious enough to give a watch but, then again, it does at points drag. Looks too good to be seen as realism when the story itself has a connection to the audience that realism could have captured so well. Its based on the book by S.E. Hinton - an author I have read nothing of, but Coppola is a big fan of. To close, I think if films like Rumble Fish were more prevalent in cinema than the likes of the latest teen-rom-com than maybe cinema would be a better place.

Some great factors include a character Smokey, played by Nicholas Cage. This character is smart and provides a clear contrast to Dillons Rusty-James - you see how careless, clumsy and immature Rusty really is, while Smokey has more intelligence and is clearly mores street-smart than Rusty too.

Last point - Stuart Copeland provides the music and, funnily enough, I have got into The Police. Stuart Copeland is the drummer and, when you listen to a fair bit of The Police you realise how impressive that is. Copeland has also created the music for the stage adaptation of Ben-Hur (A show recently on in London's O2) and, I assume this was in the early days of soundtracks he created. So much percussion and business adds to the atmosphere and provides an incredible backdrop for The Motorcycle Boy and his brother Rusty.

Scarface (Brian DePalma, 1983)

"You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So... what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say good night to the bad guy!"

Introduction

For my birthday a friend of mine - shout-out to Rob - was an absolute 'playa' and bought me an Al Pacino boxset. In the boxset was the following films: 'Donnie Brasco', 'Sea of Love', 'Scent of a Woman' and - the incredible - 'Scarface'. At the time he gave me this smashing boxset I already owned 'Scarface' and 'Donnie Brasco' and swiftly popped down to the local exchange hop to swap them for other a Pacino movie, as Rob intended. They were swapped for 'Dog Day Afternoon' (with the intention of getting 'Serpico' at the soonest opportunity). Obviously, I am not going to go out of my way to own, let alone watch, 'S1mone' or '88 minutes' ... critically flawed Pacino movies. Anyway, Sarah and I then embarked on a Pacino-season in the household beginning with 'Dog Day Afternoon', moving onto 'Sea of Love' (Sarah then watched Carlito's Way as I only watched it a short while ago...) and then 'Heat'. We then visited Ireland and enjoyed U2 in Croke park and then returned and so, to fully immerse ourselves with Pacino again, we watched 'Scarface' (Nb. I have seen it before while Sarah had not) ...

What I reckon ...

As a teacher, there are a lot of kids who - to some extent or another- imitate Tony 'Scarface' Camonte (Pacino). Even when watching the film, I was sure that I had heard recently a pupil call another pupil a 'cock-a-roach', or say 'I'll bury them all like cock-a-roaches'. This is scary - because the fact that Tony 'Scarface' Camonte is flawed in every humanly possible way and yet is imitated and, dare I say it, seen as a contemporary Icon, is awful. Personally, I reckon the best 'speech' Camonte makes in the film would not be 'Say Hello to ....' etc, or any of the Lopez conversations or even the bathtub discussion pushing Manny and Elvira away - it would be when he is drunk and staggers out of a very elite, posh restaurant and tells all the customers that they need him as 'the bad guy', so they can 'point their fingers and say he's the bad guy' - leaving dramatically: "Say goodnight to the bad guy". Pacino at his best.

Nevertheless, it is - akin to Oliver Stone's 'Natural Born Killers' - a film steeped in self-satisfaction whereby the medium it is presented in (anti-hero, gangster rise and fall) contribute to a deeper subtext. So, although I am frustrated at the need-to-find-an-icon kids in society and their choice, it adds to the complexity of the film. So, like capitalism and how we view it - we are unaware of the horrendous effects it has on the world at large (we like watching Scarface and we like his charisma and his attitude even though is a complete bastard similar to liking the cheap and cheerful clothes Primark provides us even though we are well aware of the poverty-stricken countries used and abused to create these clothes). The second act is built upon capitalism and how Tony's attitude towards his drug empire is similar to any other businessman's. Tony is a 'distributor' and he uses legitimate banks to legitimise his company - even the bank tactfully ignores his industry.

This capitalist perspective is directly inspired by the American Dream and Tony has taken this on and ran with it, except he is clearly a criminal and is using criminal means to get his end result. But if America preaches its 'The World is Yours' attitude - if-you-work-for-it, you-can-achieve-it attitude, inevitably the same logic will be applied in other fields, such as criminal enterprises. Not to mention the inevitability in others being harmed in the process - Capitalism only works when their are others who purchase the products while you, yourself, sell it. His paranoia and obsession with security at the end is a product of his drug taking - ignoring Frank Lopezs' (Robert Loggia) number two rule: Don't get high on your own supply. Maybe he would have continued buying and selling, in larger and larger quantities if he didn't take his product because - as we are all aware - many products are unnecessary, even harmful, but is still sold. I'll re-read that paragraph because it goes on a little bit - there are bound to be some inaccuracies and contradictions.

Noting his paranoia, his first discussion of this is prior to shooting his boss Frank Lopez, whom he discovers has attempted to kill him. It is ironic that in this instance, his reason for killing Lopez was due to his lack of loyalty. Tony is waiting for the phone call to confirm Lopezs' fate, gun in hand, and when Lopez asks why he is carrying the gun, Camonte replies it i because of "how do you say it - paranoia". So Tony is using paranoia as a false excuse for his violence before revealing his true reason for carrying the gun - killing Lopez. But it is his actual paranoia - brought on by cocaine - that destroys him whereby he kills Manny (Steven Bauer) and Elvira (Michelle Pheiffer) leaves and then, to top it off, his lack of loyalty to Sosa (parallel to Lopez methinks) forces Sosa to completely obliterate Tony as Tony, high on cocaine, fails to stop them.

To close, it is worth noting how Tony is completely insane and a complete sociopath - he is a liar (lying to his Mother about his earnings), he beats women (hitting his sister and attempts to hit Elvira), he's a murderer (of not only a heap of people - but even his completely loyal friend Manny), he is disloyal (going back on what Sosa told him to do - even though we may agree with his decision, he still disobeys Sosa's instructions and murders Sosa's trusted bodyguard also!), he's a complete hypocrite (Though he won't kill children directly, he is oblivious to the lives he has destroyed indirectly - namely his sisters life), he drinks, smokes and takes a lot of drugs. There is literally nothing he has not done. He looks good though doing all this. Therefore 14 year-old's wear their 'Say hello to my little friend' t-shirt while playing the computer game.

Interesting link again to UNKLE (see review for THX 1138...) as that speech discussed in the first paragraph - "say goodnight to the bad guy" - is used by UNKLE on one of their albums: "Edit Music for a film". Shame UNKLE didn't do the soundtrack to 'Scarface' itself, as the music has dated so badly - maybe it works to some extent, accentuating the excess and tone of the eighties with the synthesizers. We have Giorgio Moroder to thank for that. (Also, turns out that the 'Omen [Reprise]' from The Prodigy's album Invaders Must Die was inspired by Vangelis and Moroder's Scarface soundtrack according to Liam Howlett himself! Check it out: http://www.vimeo.com/3467408)

It finishes so beautifully - as no doubt we all know - whereby Scarface is gunned down in excess, like his life. Prior to this he wanders out on his balcony and the cameras looks up and he looks as if he is in his own Greek tragedy - as indeed he is, killed inside his tower as he wanders on his Greek set seeing the 'cock-a-roaches' gather around.

After-thought

With all that discussion on the soundtrack I saw it in Fopp for £2. Initially hesitant, I thought that it was a great soundtrack that was purely eighties and set a clear tone. Rating 'Push it to the limit' with five stars it turns out that only that song is any good - the rest I have listened to very rarely. Shame.