Auteur List: Howard Hawks - Discussion and Defenses

[knives]

And now the sound films that made Hawks a director worth caring about.
The Dawn Patrol really brings home how much Hawks needed sound to succeed. This film has a lot of the aesthetic features which make early sound pictures a slog, but the brilliant acting and use of sound develop a powerful greatness. In particular a sequence which seems to have served as inspiration for Grand Illusion uses a very simple presentational style which becomes a deeply affecting look at people's desire to see others as people thanks to a subtly drawn set of performances. In particular young Fairbanks does amazing work here that caused me to not be able to look elsewhere whenever he was on screen. Has Fairbanks ever done a better job?

Now that I've stated what a wonder this picture is I might as well as air my reservations. They're small in the grand scheme of things, but I think decisive in assessing the film's quality. In short that structure of the script and how the film plays that out renders it the weakest of the lost generation at war films which were essential in this period. The pair of Whale films, Journey's End and Hell's Angels, in particular make the film seem a disappointment. They likewise have a more removed sense of the horror of war then something like The Last Flight which is just a death march. Whale is excellent at developing pressure and making the decisions of the commanders an exhausting whine. The later film's action sequences are also simply better. Hawks actually tries something interesting here easing into the action by having the first offscreen so that we get in the right mind of suspicion for when we finally get to them. This prevents them from being a pure entertainment, though they are entertaining as we know death will follow. Hawks doesn't seem ready for such a herculean task though as that action balances out into something disposable which Whale and Hughes avoid entirely. In fact I'd go as far to say that the remake starring Flynn is ever so slightly better.


Following that up, The Criminal Code is a fire punch of a movie and far and away the best thing Hawks made up until this point. Like the best jail movies this explodes like a pressure cooker as you wait for several shoes to drop. The political relevance is sadly so obvious that a blind person could clearly see it. While this succeeds mainly as a result of ignoring histronics and allowing the plot to settle its points, think Clarke's Scum, the unique way it handles it's three characters is probably the best lens to explain the film socially and as entertainment.

Most important of these three and above the title is Walter Huston. He's both a villain and a hero for the piece representing compassion and strict judgement within the law. He heroically leads reform as the warden, but the film never lets us forget he's a politician with political needs and a history of indiscriminately pursuing the law. His opening scene is a powerful summation of this as Miller and Niblo's script uses him in a Shakespearean light ala Aaron explaining to the audience what we can expect as why. Huston's curt explanation that if he was playing defense the boy wouldn't stand a day in jail is a horror that prevents him from ever truly being the hero.

Boris Karloff is easily the most interesting character directly as a result of his eerie performance. Every second he's on screen it's a new kind of captivation as he seems like the spark that's eventually going to ignite the theater. What makes him especially frightening and probably why he of all people was cast is how easily one could imagine this soft spoken, lisping, tall, box like figure being a cheery gentleman like an especially gay George Arliss. In film it took 32 years of prison fro a drink to make this Jean Valjean a dragon hungrily waiting for his moment to strike. He's never more frightening then when dressed as a simple butler. For Karloff prison is the heavy mountain turning him through pressure into this deadly diamond. What makes this even more effective is contrary to the characterization of Huston we're introduced to Karloff on fairly friendly grounds. The camera frames him relaxed in bed while the script shows him a supportive and loyal friend. Some one who can lend necessary support for surviving this drudgery. Hawks seems to like him and wants us to like him so that the slow understanding of danger makes for conflicting emotions.

Finally there's the ostensible lead who really is just a bland tool for the script played blandly be an actor who I don't know the name of. That works though as this is really the point of the film's polemic by simply illustrating the ways the justice system can and does work. He becomes ragged and healthy to fit the needs of the story. I am sympathetic if someone wanted to see this as a negative, but to me it is so necessary to the structure to have a successful prisoner that I'm forgiving of him being a puppet.

[therewillbeblus]

Your reading of Huston's character is puzzling to me, as I didn't find Hawks to be that charitable at all to his character. In my view he represented the compromised individualist who threatens camaraderie, and even becomes a pawn reinforcing anti-American values in Hawks' definition, by refusing to budge in his own code that doesn't value humanity as much as constructed rules and self-gain. I suppose you could argue that his reform position is in allowing the step-down to valet, but I didn't feel like he was invested in this avenue so much as following what his own professional aide or daughter considered 'best practice' to appease them and/or himself within the confines of his egoist credo. I'm thinking I need to go back and see it again though, because that's different enough from your interpretation to warrant a second look, and I probably missed some shades of grey in his characterization that could impact my reading on the film's themes (though we agree on esteem for the film itself, as well as all your other points).

[knives]

The film makes it seem like he takes it further then others in charge are comfortable with such as in the shaving scene. Though even that has him guarded as he requests the safety blade. His big confrontation in the yard as well I figured was intended to highlight his wildcard nature wherein within his political sense makes him able to work in a non-adversarial way with the criminals. At the very least he's the most sophisticated figure of authority.

[swo17]

Well...this is an excellent segue into the offer I was about to make! I wanted to make sure I got a factory-pressed version of the TCM Vault Karloff: Criminal Mind set that includes The Criminal Code so I ordered multiple copies from third-party sellers and ended up with a couple extra that I can verify are pressed. If anyone here would like a copy for $40 shipped, please PM me. Condition is pretty good--the cardboard boxes are a little rough in spots but not too bad and a couple of discs have some minor scratches but nothing that should affect playback. I can PM pictures if anyone wants

[Rayon Vert]

Fig Leaves (1st viewing). I was curious to see such an early work. I share twbb and knives’ reactions – I was also more impressed at how developed a film director Hawks already was here, rather than by the quality of the comedy. Olive Borden does a good job, though, and hey didn't you know that the first dinosaur in Hawks isn’t actually in Bringing Up Baby!


Scarface (revisit). Paying close attention to this aspect, it did strike me how ambivalent the film is towards the violence, meaning far from endorsing it. The very first murder has no fun about it whatsoever, and there is a quality of sheer awfulness about it. The kinetic thrill comes more through in the fast-paced drive-by shooting scenes, really incredibly shot by Hawks, or in that gleeful moment when Tony first shoots the machine gun, that Feego described. There’s also that moment when Hawks inserts a comedy moment with Angelo/Vince Barnett at the phone booth during one such scene of mayhem. On the other hand, there’s moaning and groaning from those killed, so there’s this constant duality. But by film’s end there really isn’t any sense of whatever “fun” there was left, and, especially, we’ve seen what Tony’s violence does to characters we’ve grown to like.

Tony really isn’t a figure evoking admiration – we are somewhat impressed by his fearlessness and how it gives him the status he achieves, but it feels like an unreflecting “courage”. My impression of his likeability was different than Feego’s to some extent, as especially in those beginning scenes I just found him ridiculous. He becomes a bit more likeable as the film progresses, but always within limits, and he continues to evoke a mixed response from me throughout. There isn’t the same level of intelligence at play as in the character Pacino later plays.

At some moments the acting in some corners of the film can be a little rough, at others it’s quite strong, especially those scenes with Dvorak, who’s really good here in her seduction scenes with Guino. Actors like Karloff (I forgot he was in this!), Raft and Barnett are pretty good too. There are some really terrific bits of film-making throughout, for example that cut to the bowling pall pins to symbolize what’s happening at the moment.

Maybe it’s the blu-ray that’s making me notice this for the first time, but Tony’s scar is quite obviously a cross matching the recurring cross symbolism.

[knives]

Scarface, which, just wow, after two films designed to drain you emotionally this is a real release with Hawks and especially Muni driving us around like madmen at the funnest party possible. Hawks continues to have an impressive eye for tension and Muni is genuinely creepy, but my big take away from the film is how uncomfortably hilarious it is with Muni sometimes coming off as a dangerous Gracie Allen. The pencil gag wouldn't be out of place with the Three Stooges! His talent for whimsy in the darkest corners had me laughing harder then some comedies and reminded me in an odd fashion of It's Always Sunny.

That's not to say the film is primarily a comedy or anything like that, but that over the previous nine (well I've only seen six of them) features the question of comedy and drama has always been there for Hawks. This film allowed him to step up into the next level and really earn the status of a great director rather then one who could make great films because that classical difference of the most basic pair of genres is gone. Comedy is drama and vice versa. This is also probably the hardest part the replicates had to deal with in subsequent years with the likes of Little Caesar, for example, leaning too hard on the humour to be fully effective as drama. Hawks, Hughes, and Hecht figured out that balance perfectly though.

[Rayon Vert]

Yeah Robin Wood placed the film in the category of the comedies in terms of the themes it shares with those rather than the adventure films, but I was struck also this viewing on how it plays tonally like a comedy at least a strong amount of time, I'd even say for a majority of the time, especially with the frenetic pace it gets into. But it's a dark, "uncomfortable" comedy, as you put it (and again Scorsese made use of this ambivalence a lot, e.g. GoodFellas), and there are nevertheless some purely dramatic, gut-wrenching moments as well (what happens to Guino & Tony's sister, for one thing).

[knives]

Yeah, there were a lot of points that reminded me of the Pesci characters. The am I funny gag even gets a quick seed presented.

The movie makes a great use of pacing as well. A lot of scenes play slowly with Raft in particular practically having a drawl. The cops are the only ones who consistently speak at screwball speed which further cemented them as a gimme to the censors while the real interest is with gaping at what Toni will do next.

Though the film's also very generous giving many characters like the illiterate secretary ample time to be the center of attention. It's probably the film's ultimate gag that during an assassination attempt we're stuck with that running gag.

[therewillbeblus]

I can get behind the 'uncomfortable comedy' aspects, though I could not disagree more on a reading of this film as intended to be the "funnest party possible." Hawks goes out of his way to expose his milieu of destruction in details populating his mise en scene, and the 'fun' tension is used to contrast with this overwhelming drainage of meaning, morality, and even personality. That is definitely channeled into an absurdist objective lens that gawks at how individualism is spinning the characters towards self-destruction while committing acts of violent destruction (toward people, places, things- anything in sight), and that tonal conflict balances humor and drama with a relentlessly engaging pace.. but beneath it all, any 'fun' we're having is not wholly with- but also ultimately at- Tony too. I agree with the genres blending into one another and expect this is due to an inner conflict for Hawks in finding the lifestyle both appealing and also disgusting- which channels into some depictions of fun with a sharp knot in the stomach. I agree with most of your reading (just reframing the intent for this to be a fun party) but I already wrote up enough about this one earlier to outline my reading more clearly in relation to where Muni's character displays and abandons the core principles of Hawks' code, driving him to admire and repulse simultaneously.

[knives]

I have to admit I don't understand a lot of what you just said. What I meant by fun though is that there is positive catharsis here. I'd usually call that thrill, not unlike a dinosaur rampage in Jurassic Park or a slasher picture . The two previous films had a negative catharsis based on a relatable and stressful situation.

[therewillbeblus]

I said it more in-depth in my initial writeup, so you can always look at that, but to clarify- I have a hard time seeing this as "positive catharsis" because Hawks seems to be so hypersensitive to showing us remnants of lingering consequences that signify destruction to me. For example, in a scene where they assassinate a group in a warehouse, the dust floats up into the air as the camera follows it for a lot longer than a typical 'fun' or forward momentum Hawksian Hero film. The camera gives attention to crushing bottles and details of destroying property, with scenes getting very involved with the grimy elements of the frame, to the point where these details of the chaos serve as subjects themselves. I don't disagree that there are thrills, as Hawks half-admires Muni's individualist and relentless agency in creating a code that does not necessarily fit in with a political one. But he also is afraid and uncomfortable enough around the unpredictability, and therefore weakness, of Muni's Code, due to his behavior that sacrifices stable communal engagement for self-gain, even if it means a bitter end. The attention to dust floating up forces the viewer to stay with the pain, and not move on to the next 'fun' positively cathartic moment.

There is some 'release' here, but I also sense an equal (if not more) amount of alarm in Hawks, who goes to great lengths to paint these actions as not rampages of fun so much as dirty, harsh, and fearfully unpredictable (rather than fully embracing any "madness"). If he wanted to make that kind of pure "positive catharsis" movie, I think he would have not taken the time and energy to leave all that stuff in and generally film the 'destruction' the way he does, but I agree with you that he's torn, which leads to the genre/mood bleeding together. He's definitely very interested in Muni's character, even if I think the negative attitude trumps the positive one.

[knives]

I figured the focus of the St. Valentine's day massacre was the row of Xs given how X is a symbol of death in the film. It's like allowing a leitmotif linger so that we can get an appreciation of what it stands for. Also a lot of slasher films, a deliberate choice for comparison on my part, do much of what you're talking about as well. The details of destruction are part of the fun not unlike the stock car races that Hawks so adored.

I suspect where we are differing is that horror and fun are not on opposing poles to me and I don't read the film as necessarily thinking that. You can view an action as scary and still get a sense of exhilaration from it. In the safety of the theater dirty, harsh, and fearfully unpredictable are great adjectives for an entertainment. Also I think perhaps you're seeing this too much through a Sarris-esque director as auteur lens. As important as Hawks is for the movie Hecht and Hughes are equally important and their perspectives were definitely over how best to make money from a picture which is the definition of entertainment. McCarthy has this wonderful quote from Hughes saying that he'll guarantee the film's success by more then doubling an opposing films body count of 8 into 20. The X motif as well seems to stem from Hecht's script as a way to keep count.

As for my confusion, it's just that statements such as, "...to the point where these details of the chaos serve as subjects themselves," and "Hawks goes out of his way to expose his milieu of destruction in details populating his mise en scene, and the 'fun' tension is used to contrast with this overwhelming drainage of meaning, morality, and even personality," don't make sense to me and I just don't understand your meaning.

[Rayon Vert]

I agree with your reading, twbb, that Muni's character is definitely more negatively than positively tinted. There are thrills, and that's where it gets tricky in seeing where Hawks' sympathies lie completely because there is definitely a vitality to the anarchic force of the violence that is hard to evaluate as not evoking a degree of "admiration" (if that is the word) from Hawks, but then there are all those elements in the movie that judge that violence and its consequences. The "uncomfortable comedy" exists within a larger framework of horror, waste and condemnation.

It's not just the prologue that condemns, the judgment is implicit at different moments throughout the movie. One reason why Tony seems ridiculous to me in the opening scene is that in his interview with the chief of detectives he really gets laid out for the contemptible and not very special person that he is (and Tony's responses are pretty inarticulate and unimpressive).

- You come into this town and you think you're headed somewhere, don't you? You think you're gonna get there with a gun, but you're not. Get me? You know why? Because you got $ bills pasted right across your eyes. And someday you're gonna stumble and fall down in the gutter, right where the horses have been standin'... right where you belong. (...) I've spent my life mixin' with your breed, and I don't like it. Get me? You can hide behind a lot of red tape, crooked lawyers, politicians with the "gimmes," writs of habeas corpus, witnesses that don't remember, but we'll get through to you just like we got all the rest.
- Oh, maybe me, I'm different.
-No, you're not. Take your gun away and get you in a tough spot, and you'll squeal... like all the other rats.

[therewillbeblus]

I figured the focus of the St. Valentine's day massacre was the row of Xs given how X is a symbol of death in the film. It's like allowing a leitmotif linger so that we can get an appreciation of what it stands for. Also a lot of slasher films, a deliberate choice for comparison on my part, do much of what you're talking about as well. The details of destruction are part of the fun not unlike the stock car races that Hawks so adored.

I suspect where we are differing is that horror and fun are not on opposing poles to me and I don't read the film as necessarily thinking that. You can view an action as scary and still get a sense of exhilaration from it. In the safety of the theater dirty, harsh, and fearfully unpredictable are great adjectives for an entertainment. Also I think perhaps you're seeing this too much through a Sarris-esque director as auteur lens. As important as Hawks is for the movie Hecht and Hughes are equally important and their perspectives were definitely over how best to make money from a picture which is the definition of entertainment. McCarthy has this wonderful quote from Hughes saying that he'll guarantee the film's success by more then doubling an opposing films body count of 8 into 20. The X motif as well seems to stem from Hecht's script as a way to keep count.

As for my confusion, it's just that statements such as, "...to the point where these details of the chaos serve as subjects themselves," and "Hawks goes out of his way to expose his milieu of destruction in details populating his mise en scene, and the 'fun' tension is used to contrast with this overwhelming drainage of meaning, morality, and even personality," don't make sense to me and I just don't understand your meaning.

If you read the part of the sentence before the first quote, I used the examples of broken bottles and property destruction. The alcohol spills all over the place and as we get montages of glass breaking, property destroyed, and surfaces covered in alcohol. These objects and their chaotic smearing within the frame as they are destroyed are what I mean by them becoming the 'subjects' of a shot. Perhaps you're not willing to look at it at all through the Sarris-auteurist lens which may be partly contributing to your inability to comprehend what I'm saying (and if you read my initial writeup, I admitted that this was surely not the whole intent for the reason of the book's existence alone, not to mention what you just said regarding the film's history!), but the second quote is referring to Hawks mixing fun tension with the disintegration of meaning within a code (Muni's single-focused selfishness drains meaning from his varied interests in camaraderie, family, friends, structure of organized crime, etc. all toward greed; and with it comes morality and his personality becoming focused on a one-note goal, thus draining himself of most parts of the personality that existed before).

I agree with you that horror and fun are not opposing poles, and agree that Hawks is layering the 'fun' aspects with the dangers of skewing oneself fully toward persistent self-indulgence, so there's no argument from me there. I basically agreed with your point in the first place, but only reframed to say that calling this the "funnest party possible" and declaring the vibe as "positive catharsis" minimized the complexities at work in my eyes. You went on to hit on the exact points we're agreeing on (in what I think are vaguer terms, but I'm not going to pick apart quotes because I think I know what you're getting at) so my posts were challenging your other lines that were seemingly speaking in absolute terms, about a movie that I see as more grey, holding both sides and working through them. I was confused by what you were saying (and it seems you were too about what I was saying). That is all.

RV, thanks for simplifying it and saying it more clearly- your response is what I agreed to in the first place, I only took issues with knives' focus on what I took to be a couple puzzling extreme statements mixed in with an otherwise agreeable reading.

To go one step further though towards agreement- knives, I do like your point "You can view an action as scary and still get a sense of exhilaration from it. In the safety of the theater dirty, harsh, and fearfully unpredictable are great adjectives for an entertainment." However, my reasons for thinking that Hawks is skeptical has nothing to do with these attributes existing, but the way they are portrayed. I definitely read these scenes as a mixture of the exhilarating pandemonium and the severity of the consequences. For example, showing the barman stooped over the broken glass, as his place of business is already destroyed, is sad and absent of glamour or 'fun.' The camera lingering on these devastating scenes just as it does on the 'fun' wild deviance, is what makes it more grey to me. But we do not differ in thinking that "horror and fun are not on opposing poles" as a rule.

[knives]

I agree with your reading, twbb, that Muni's character is definitely more negatively than positively tinted. There are thrills, and that's where it gets tricky in seeing where Hawks' sympathies lie completely because there is definitely a vitality to the anarchic force of the violence that is hard to evaluate as not evoking a degree of "admiration" (if that is the word) from Hawks, but then there are all those elements in the movie that judge that violence and its consequences. The "uncomfortable comedy" exists within a larger framework of horror, waste and condemnation.

It's not just the prologue that condemns, the judgment is implicit at different moments throughout the movie. One reason why Tony seems ridiculous to me in the opening scene is that in his interview with the chief of detectives he really gets laid out for the contemptible and not very special person that he is (and Tony's responses are pretty inarticulate and unimpressive).

- You come into this town and you think you're headed somewhere, don't you? You think you're gonna get there with a gun, but you're not. Get me? You know why? Because you got $ bills pasted right across your eyes. And someday you're gonna stumble and fall down in the gutter, right where the horses have been standin'... right where you belong. (...) I've spent my life mixin' with your breed, and I don't like it. Get me? You can hide behind a lot of red tape, crooked lawyers, politicians with the "gimmes," writs of habeas corpus, witnesses that don't remember, but we'll get through to you just like we got all the rest.
- Oh, maybe me, I'm different.
-No, you're not. Take your gun away and get you in a tough spot, and you'll squeal... like all the other rats.

That's a really great moment and definitely part of the film's wry comedy. I also want to be clear I've deliberately not used any variation of the word admire throughout this conversation. I think in terms of the presentation of violence this quote from Hughes to Hawks about ignoring the Hays office is probably relevant, "Screw the Hays Office. Start the picture and make it as realistic, as exciting, as grisly as possible," (McCarthy, 140). That tells me the intensity of the violence wasn't intended to be moral so much as a force. I think a contrast with Public Enemy (a film I love) which does use its darkness to promote a dislike for gangsterism is helpful. Tony here is gross, I doubt incest was ever too popular, and a dope (as that great exchange above shows), but his actions are exciting whereas handsome, Irish Cagney plays a really despicable person whose bursts of sudden violence (grapefruit) are shocking and unpleasant. Conversely we never actually directly see Tony's acts of violence all of them either being off screen, done by someone else, or both. What we do see is often traditionally exciting as well such as that montage of death with exciting car chases and a mordant joke with the under [t]aker sign.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah, I agree with that, but it's significant to note that the dark moments of devastation are not coming from Tony's actions on screen or directly assaulting another like the Cagney grapefruit scene, but in the aftermath of the violence. It's the consequences that highlight the destruction, which to me is symbolic to counter that comedy and fun tonal forces. Divorcing this from a single character allows the film to be less didactic and more of a presentation of both the entertaining and uncomfortable sides of this particular type of unfiltered agency run riot.

[knives]

I could buy that if it was consistent across the board, but it doesn't seem so to me. The assassination in the bar is a comedy routine followed up by further comedy and Tony marvels over the mobile automatic.

[therewillbeblus]

I think this is more of the accurate place where we disagree, where I'm seeing the dualities as a more dense balance of extremes and you're shaping what I see as devastation into the comedy camp to fit that vision, which is fine- and maybe I'll try to look at these scenes that way on my next viewing. But going off my last one, I think it takes rigid dedication to one's reading to laugh at some of these situations, as well as ignoring Hawks' meditation on the crushing wake of violence with a hard sharpness, sans score or editing that could liberate the audience from the crushing dirty consequences and emotional pain of the victims. I am curious to read Wood's piece and go into this more charitably toward comedy in the future though.

[knives]

And I likewise in reverse as mine seems to me, but of course, to be the most simple and plain reading of the text. It's literally beyond me to figure out how this dumb boy discovering a new toy doesn't have a comedic edge to it however dark.

[therewillbeblus]

Well I'm not doubting that there's comedy, which I've been clear about, but rather that we get those moments and then abrupt stark revelations of discomfort- before then going back to the comedy. Though to be fair, while I think these purely unfunny dark moments are more prevalent than you do, if they were consistently woven into the film in a "rinse, cycle, repeat" fashion, that would be obnoxious and minimize their effectiveness. They do come in surging waves of "force" as you put it, to match the force already present in the film, during that middle section when I feel Tony is descending into his single-minded path of self-destruction, but are hardly woven into the entire structure. That's what makes them more powerful- their unpredictability mirrors Tony's flaws that shatter both Hawks' own schema of a strong code- as well as Tony's own ability to realise his aspirations. Regardless of how auteurist your reading is (and I do think I'm reaching as far as how much of this is intentional) it's amazing how the issues with Tony's code resemble, as I see them, the deficits Hawks would also likely point out, especially considering his own exploration of the dangers of wholly clinging to self-serving individualism in his later works (as I talked about more in my writeup of Red River).

[knives]

I also am curious how you square this with Rosson's role as co-director? He's essentially second unit filming all of the inserts and nearly all of the scenes of violence.

I'm not denying that your reading squares properly, just that that doesn't prevent the film from being fun in the sense of straightforward entertainment.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah but that's not what I'm saying. I'm agreeing with you that the film is fun and straightforward entertainment in part, and that the violence itself is not the deterring variable. I'm arguing that the effects of the violence (the lingering aftermath) can be jarring gaps in disrupting this flow enough to briefly suck up that entertainment and provide pause on it. I'm not as affected by the way Hawks/Rosson shoots a dead body rolling out in the street, not because I am not bothered by death, but because the way that they shoot this is in step with your reading of well-paced entertainment. But a man alone in a frame with broken glass and alcohol spilled everywhere, broken, confused and in awe at his hard work soiled in an instant - or dust gradually floating up toward the ceiling after people are killed from a distance below - those are shot in a way that signify a forced break from the action and- again 'briefly'- away from the purpose of entertainment. The lingering on the dust disallows us to move on just yet, the way we are reinforced to do by some of the killing scenes.

It doesn't have to be one or the other for me, which seems to be the problem here in our back and forth. I see the film as fun entertainment, comedy, troubling and horrific, but while you seem to be seeing them as overlapping more I am seeing them as each getting space to be distinct as well. I'm sure we probably agree on where the tones overlap aside from a few of these scenes where I think they don't, but I already affirmed that in my first response. I'ts worth mentioning again that there isn't a hard disagreement in reading the majority of the film, this just stems back to me being puzzled by some of the extreme language you used initially to describe this as more purely in a certain camp than I think it is, but the rest of the content in your post(s) fits with my perspective too.

[Rayon Vert]

The back-and-forth here reveals how this isn't a film that's easy to read, despite a shared agreement on a lot of it. It's complex and its different contrasting aspects and their mixtures invite different reactions (although that can go for other gangster pictures as well, Public Enemy included - which I also love, more than this). I know in my previous viewing of the Hawks film I was more in sympathy with Tony and the violence because I was maybe more in the mood for that kind of "entertainment" - this time less so and the fact that he's a "dope" (great descriptive!) was more of a turn-off. It'll still make my list though!

I am curious to read Wood's piece and go into this more charitably toward comedy in the future though.

If I read him right, it's not so much that he sees it as a comedy as such, as much as that it shares the themes of the comedies, principally the one of an opposition between an anarchic, "primitive" impulse and a civilizing one. (E.g. Tony's "simian"esque features/gait and unreflecting behaviour, he's an "innocent" = a primitive, i.e. apes, savages and children). Going to the piece again, I notice he does mention the combination of farce and horror, mentioned in this discussion, anticipates the same combination in His Girl Friday (p. 62)

[knives]

Perhaps without surprise another film built on the back of Hecht.

[therewillbeblus]

The back-and-forth here reveals how this isn't a film that's easy to read, despite a shared agreement on a lot of it. It's complex and its different contrasting aspects and their mixtures invite different reactions (although that can go for other gangster pictures as well, Public Enemy included - which I also love, more than this). I know in my previous viewing of the Hawks film I was more in sympathy with Tony and the violence because I was maybe more in the mood for that kind of "entertainment" - this time less so and the fact that he's a "dope" (great descriptive!) was more of a turn-off. It'll still make my list though!

I am curious to read Wood's piece and go into this more charitably toward comedy in the future though.

If I read him right, it's not so much that he sees it as a comedy as such, as much as that it shares the themes of the comedies, principally the one of an opposition between an anarchic, "primitive" impulse and a civilizing one. (E.g. Tony's "simian"esque features/gait and unreflecting behaviour, he's an "innocent" = a primitive, i.e. apes, savages and children). Going to the piece again, I notice he does mention the combination of farce and horror, mentioned in this discussion, anticipates the same combination in His Girl Friday (p. 62)

That context makes a lot more sense, thanks! Also, it's been a while since I've seen it but even if this film is more complex I also recall liking The Public Enemy more (as well as the other Cagney gangsters from that pre-code era).