The
Sting
1973
Director: George Roy Hill
Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford,
Robert Shaw
A
movie like The Sting provides me another great reason to be a part of
Squish’s 1001 Movies Blog Club.
Technically I had seen The Sting before. But I say “technically” because I’m pretty
sure my previous viewing was over 15 years ago, and this was the sum total of
my memory of it: 1) it’s about con men, 2) there’s a scene on a train, and 3)
Paul Newman and Robert Redford wear tuxedos.
Yep, that’s all I had. I do
believe I owed the film another viewing.
Johnny
Hooker (Redford) is a con artist working the streets of 1930s Joliet,
Illinois. When he and his partner Luther
hit upon a huge payday, they can’t believe their luck. Problem is, they just unwittingly stole from
mean as nails gangster Doyle Lonnegan (Shaw) who will stop at nothing for
revenge. When Luther is killed, Hooker
goes on the run and teams up with con man extraordinaire Henry Gondorff
(Newman). The two must delicately work a
long con in order to get Lonnegan off their backs – and simultaneously take him
for everything he’s got.
The
Sting is a
lot of fun. That’s its greatest
hook. It’s not world-changing, it’s not
an expose, it doesn’t attempt to bring horrible issues to your awareness. Nope, it’s just pure entertainment. Goodness knows we all need that in a film
every now and then. Dark intense dramas
are all well and good, and certainly some of my favorites, but every now and
then I want to turn my brain off. I’d categorize
The
Sting as an extremely well-crafted “turn your brain off” movie. It’s a fun romp, and really, nothing more.
Where
is the fun? Mostly Newman and
Redford. The director had paired them up
previously in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, and it’s not hard to
understand why he wanted to pair them up again.
Once more, younger rough and tumble Redford is there to learn from
older, more world-weary Newman. Those
two have fantastic screen chemistry. I
want to believe that they were best friends in real life because they seem like
they’re having so much fun together onscreen.
This feeling of camaraderie translates to the overall film.
Where
else? Much of the film is about the long
con that Hooker and Gondorff pull on Lonnegan, and it’s definitely amusing
watching them set up the con, recruit players, build sets, and work their
magic. A basement dump is transformed
into a slick bookie’s office that has to be convincing enough to trick
skeptical mobsters.
The
music is fun too. The credits open with
Scott Joplin’s famous “The Entertainer,” and much of the scored is adapted from
Joplin’s other rags, which helps contribute to the film’s old-timey feel good
vibe. Granted, Joplin’s music wasn’t
written in the 1930s (more like the 1900s), but it works.
I
enjoyed the costumes a great deal as well.
When Hooker opens the film by unexpectedly stealing thousands of
dollars, he goes right out and buys the most lurid zoot suit he can possibly
find. Watching Redford strut his stuff
in a very loud brown suit with bright blue pinstripes was pretty damn funny;
this is contrasted with the greater sophistication of Newman’s Gondorff, even
though that character makes his entrance in a wife-beater and overalls. Lonnegan’s wardrobe is fantastic, full of the
extremes of thirties clothing; the plus fours he wears while practicing putting
at his club are great. There aren’t as
many female roles in the film, so the focus on men’s fashion is actually
refreshing.
Additionally,
I liked the setting of the movie. Most movies
set in the Great Depression either completely ignore the tough times (The
Thin Man, Top Hat), or are completely about the tough times (Grapes
of Wrath, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town).
The Sting does neither.
It is not about the tough times, but it doesn’t ignore them either. Hooker is chased by a cop through a
ramshackle camp of homeless people.
There are many people out on the streets, and times certainly seem
tough. We see the reality without being
bogged down by it.
Unfortunately
for The
Sting, however, its biggest draw was also its biggest weakness. The main appeal of The Sting is the novelty
of “the con” and just how amusing that is.
However, I am well aware of con story tricks. Ocean’s 11, the new one, is one of
my favorite fun films. I really like the
television show Leverage. White
Collar, all about a con artist, is one of my favorite new shows. When you watch enough of these things, you
start to realize how all con stories play out. This really hurt my recent viewing of The
Sting. Despite the fact that I
couldn’t remember how it ended, I could tell what was going to happen about 45
minutes out from the end of the film.
What makes con movies so great is that it is you, the audience, who is
really conned. The movie tricks you into
thinking one thing, when really, something else entirely is going on. That surprise is what gives you most of the
fun. Given that I knew this from my experience
with other con stories, I just plain was not tricked by The Sting. Audiences back in the seventies must have
loved this trick that was pulled on them, and I can totally understand why they
ate this movie up. Back then, the
concept of pulling the long con was fresh and new, something fairly novel to
audiences. But now, with the set of
movies and TV shows I’ve already seen, if I want to watch a good con, I’d
rather see something a bit more slick and modern. Props to The Sting for originating – or at
least, popularizing – the idea in such an awesome, fun way, but I feel no
compunction to see it over and over again.
This
is one of my parents’ favorite films, and I understand why. It’s charming and diverting and fun. Moreover, I like that this won Best Picture
at the Oscars – rarely do we have such a crowd-pleasing flick win that
particular prize. However, it doesn’t
really do all that much for me. It’s
nice, it’s fun, it’s a frothy little romp, and Redford and Newman are
terrific. But it stirs no grand passion
for me.
Arbitrary
rating: 7/10
