best film: Scarface (the 1932 version with Howard Hawks at the helm of course) is superior to I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang – enough at least to emerge here as Paul Muni’s best film. The opening act of Hawks’ film, so atypical of his normally quiet directorial approach, is so audacious. This is the best of the early 1930s prohibition era gangster films (beating out Little Caesar and The Public Enemy) from the two years prior with Edward G. Robinson and James Cagney respectively. Muni does much of the heavy lifting in Scarface after Hawks’ daring opening. Scarface is a very fine film, but this category is not a particular strength for Muni.
best performance: Scarface and I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang are neck and neck here again. In both films, Muni plays a fugitive from the law – but they almost could not be more different. In Mervyn LeRoy’s film Muni plays an everyman (not something he would do often – he usually plays historical figures or larger than life characters) and there is such pathos and sympathy here. His James Allen character is a man who cannot catch a break – and he is up against a ruthless system and poor luck. In Scarface, Muni is busy chewing up the scenery and bathing in the warm glow of the camera’s attention – certainly inspiration for Al Pacino’s famous turn roughly a half century later in Brian De Palma’s 1983 version of the same name.

Paul Muni as Tony in Howard Hawks’ Scarface in just his third (3rd) big screen performance – and his confidence is staggering.
stylistic innovations/traits: Paul Muni was born in Austria-Hungary in what is now the Ukraine. This was before the turn of the 20th century (1895). Muni was one of the original acting chameleons. This is an important acting approach in cinema history. Technically, the lineage sort of starts with Lon Chaney – known as “The man of a Thousand Faces” – but Chaney uses so many masks it is hard to sort of compare him with what Muni was doing. Muni did not need a mask (though he could have single handedly kept a studio’s makeup department in business during a stretch in the 1930s). With Muni’s range, he is able to play different nationalities and characters. This is in an era when this just did not happen. Muni would be a gangster, an inventor, an everyman, a then a world leader political figure. Assuredly, this type of acting family tree would proudly be picked up by modern day chameleons like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Daniel Day-Lewis, Gary Oldman, and Christian Bale. Muni had just over twenty (20) total film credits and racked up an astounding five Oscar nominations during his career – a crazy high ratio. The seven (7) archiveable films are light (though he is the star of all seven films), but Muni serves as a fundamental archetype in film acting history. The era where Muni dominated only spans a few years from 1932 to 1939 and ended abruptly there with Hollywood’s golden year. The many faces and range were tough for the studio to market (think of how well Cagney and Edward G. traded on their gangster roles and images) and clearly Muni had different aspirations. Muni tragically (at least for him) turned down the Roy ‘Mad Dog’ Earle Humphrey Bogart role in High Sierra (1941) – an interesting what if for both actors. It was not to be of course.

Muni was an actor’s actor – challenging roles, a wide range – and all within a small stretch of the early sound era from 1932 to 1939. Here from Mervyn LeRoy’s I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932).
directors worked with: William Dieterle (3) and all biopics, Mervyn LeRoy (2), Howard Hawks (1)

here Muni plays Emile Zola – in just a few short years, Muni would showcase his shapeshifting skills by playing a French microbiologist (The Story of Louis Pasteur), a Chinese farmer (The Good Earth), a Mexican president (Juarez), and an Italian American gangster (Scarface).
top five performances:
- Scarface
- I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang
- The Story of Louis Pasteur
- The Good Earth
- The Life of Emile Zola
archiveable films
1932- I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang |
1932- Scarface |
1933- The World Changes |
1936- The Story of Louis Pastier |
1937- The Life of Emile Zola |
1937- The Good Earth |
1939- Juarez |
He has 6 Oscar nominations. But only 4 of them are official I think.
@Lionel- Yes, researched this- could be 4, 5 or 6 depending on how someone interprets it
I’m sorry it doesn’t look right to me that Muni is above Cagney and Robinson.
I haven’t given enough thought to where exactly I would rank him, but I’m very happy to see him here. He was a very talented actor and I feel he’s kind of been lost in the shuffle over the years, maybe because, like you said, he doesn’t have that big masterpiece to carry him. Still, you cannot talk about the history of acting in Hollywood without mentioning him.
Scarface is visually Howard Hawks’ greatest work (if it isn’t then what is?) and he is one of the seminal American auteurs of all time. How did either of you (Drake, David O.) determine that its masterfulness is insufficiently big?
Scarface is visually Howard Hawks’ greatest work (if it isn’t then what is?) and he is one of the seminal American auteurs of all time. How did either of you (Drake, David O.) determine that its masterfulness is insufficiently big?
@Frodo- Thanks for the comment here- not sure I fully understand the question enough to attempt an answer. Sorry.
The idea that Scarface is not a masterpiece is in my opinion unsound. I was wondering if you.could elaborate on why you think it is just “very fine” y’know that’s all
@Frodo- Understood- I could be wrong of course (I hope I am) – been awhile since I had a chance to revisit and study Scarface. But I believe the film’s moments of genius (again- that opening is noted above) are not sustained or prevalent enough (fitting of a masterpiece at least).
I apologize if I phrased it strangely
sorry compulsive repetition
much like the producer of Scarface incidentally
Ok thank you for the clarification. I would first respond by asking how you have decided that Scarface is not sufficiently ingenious for it to be a masterpiece but for instance Bringing Up Baby is (I adore Bringing Up Baby but I will make this argument for the sake of a principle) As far as I can recall the latter does not contain a stylistic idea that holds a candle to the opening of the former: It puzzles me that one could hold it in higher regard Furthermore I disagree that Scarface’s ambition is not sustained after the opening because there is such inventiveness in the way that Hawks’ conveys the brutality of his subjects without ever showing a drop of blood: the incorporation of the X motive tells the viewer exactly how little these gangsters care about life in that they see their targets as items on a checklist to be crossed out and forgotten. (the letter X is a familiar symbol for death, true, and Dies irae is a familiar symbol for wrath- it is the starkness of the symbol that makes it work in my opinion so this should not be mistaken for unoriginality). The depiction of the assassinations in silhouette is another way of communicating their impersonalness, and though this may be obvious now in 1932 film noir was just under a decade in the future and German expressionism hadn’t really been used this way yet (to depict the horrors of the real world and not a surreal metaphorical one). Other things like the decision to follow the bowling ball in the Karloff assassination scene are indelible in a way that overt violence never is except in the hands of Scorsese and very few others. You are correct when you write that Hawks’ style is usually muted: there is taste and calculation in every shot and to me it is always obvious that I am seeing the work of a master but there is little in the way of daring strokes like the Good the Bad and the Ugly showdown or 2001 match cut. Scarface is his only film that has both qualities and I express this view while understanding its capacity to provoke
this turned into an essay because I wasn’t expecting to be contradicted and this caused me to panic and write an essay
also to elaborate a little more- it is true that the use of the X motif and shadows as I describe them are present in the opening scene; my contention is that their usage does not become less inventive as the movie carries on. I think the main thing that lifts the opening scene above the others (and above almost every scene in cinema history) is Hawks’ ability to enhance the vividness of a sequence by providing ancillary details through fluid camera movement. If these details were not provided or if they were provided through normal cuts then the scene would be less immersive and striking
@Frodo Great share- really well said- makes me want to go out and try Scarface again. I’ll try to prioritize further study here. To answer your question on Bringing Up Baby, the thought process is that if this is not an overall strength of Hawks (which you put forth a great argument here that it is- at least in one circumstance), then we’d have to go to other evaluative criteria when ranking his body of work.