Belly is the black Scarface

I know that most people hate both of these movies. I don't care. Those people aren't really my audience here anyway.

My audience generally consists of the people who know me, and those who have stumbled upon this blog by whatever means that may have been. As a fellow keyboard cowboy, I understand that sometimes, you just FIND SHIT. It happens. Someone may send you a link, you may resort to the plethora of tools that are available, such as Digg, StumbleUpon, etc. The point is, I feel you.

Back to business. I was going to explain the title, wasn't I?

I was sitting here, listening to Fela Kuti (learn about him if you're sleeping) on a full glass of shiraz, and the thought occurred to me. Belly is the black version of Scarface. Some people would say I'm crazy.

They'd look at me, and say "You're trippin' fool. Belly don't have nothing to do with no fucking Scarface." Or something like that. Let me explain.

Scarface was a crime drama, set in the early eighties, based upon a 1932 film of the same name. The original film dealt with the mafia as it existed back then, and the 1983 version of the movie built upon this premise. While the orignal "profiled" the Italian mafia in America, the remake dealt with the Cuban incarnation of that same theme. Tony Montana was a "refugee," part of the Mariel boatlift of the 1980's. It was during this time (thanks largely in part to a downturn in the Cuban economy) that Fidel Castro allowed anyone who wanted to leave Cuba the ability to do so. What Castro also did, much to the chagrin of Jimmy Carter, was release criminals and mental patients as part of the package. I know, right? Sweet. As if the US needed any more crooks. Isn't that what the state of Georgia was allegedly housing anyway? But I digress.

So anyway, that's the story behind (what many people think is the original) Scarface. Back to Belly. It was also a crime story, not necessarily based upon immigrants of any sort of course, but then again that depends on who you ask. Belly centered around two small-time crooks, hustling here and there within New York City. Their big break was a huge shipment of heroin, which was supposed to change the entire drug trade. That, and the criminal landscape of New York City. These two friends, Sincere and Tommy Bundy (or "Buns") agreed to get into the game and make some real money. The only problem was that their actions would soon mean their doom, and the audience would see how living on the edge would ultimately be their undoing.

The similarities in the two films are striking: a man who is driven among all else to arrive at "success," and a much more mild-mannered lieutenant who sought a way to something better with his life. Through various run-ins with crooked cops, rival dealers, and various miscreants, they would wind up trapped in the life that they were determined to escape. There is of course the prized wife/love interest, the cop that proves that he neither serves nor protects, and of course--drugs.

There is a large contingent of society that hates this movie. They think for some strange reason both films are a glamorization of the drug trade. These people are fucking stupid. They're no better than the idiots who tend to focus on the drug-dealing aspects of the films, and by doing so, miss the entire point the director is attempting to make. There is no prosperity or longevity in the sale of narcotics, and never has been. That is, unless you are a government agency, in which case you can do so with reckless abandon. Then again, the latter group of individuals are prohibited from such a lifestyle. They usually have criminal records already. That must fall somewhere under that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing, I guess.

In any case, both movies are a must-see for the movie buff. They will illustrate why choosing to walk on the wrong side of the law is a bad idea. Unless of course you are an idiot, in which case they will show you that you too can become a drug lord.