The Sting

Year Released: 1973

Runtime: 129 minutes

Directed: George Roy Hill

Produced: Julia Phillips, Michael Phillips, Tony Bill, Richard Zanuck, et al.

Starring: Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Robert Shaw, Eileen Brennan, Harold Gould, Charles Durning

Oscars: Won: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Direction, Best Costumes, Best Editing, Best Score Nominated: Best Lead Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Sound

IMDb Plot Summary: Following the murder of a mutual friend, aspiring con man Johnny Hooker teams up with old pro Henry Gondorff to take revenge on the ruthless crime boss responsible, Doyle Lonnegan

Context, Context, Context: What Created The Sting, and Why it’s Still Relevant

A different kind of crime movie. Pop culture reflects its times, so looking at the movies American audiences are drawn to can represent the ideas that they are drawn to. In the early 70’s, crime movies were having a heyday amongst the Watergate scandal, the lack of popularity surrounding the Vietnam War, and that drew American audiences to characters operating outside the law. Here are the Best Picture winners from 1972-1976: The French Connection, a gritty police story about a flawed detective; The Godfather, about a mafia family; The Sting, about a pair of likable con men out to swindle a crime lord; The Godfather Part II, about the same mafia family; and One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, about a convicted felon in an asylum. Americans were fascinated by criminals and criminal structure, and screenwriter David S. Ward used this fascination to create a lighthearted, twisty, and charismatic tale of two con men in 1936 Chicago’s criminal underworld pulling off “the big con”. In 1969, director George Roy Hill and the dream duo of Robert Redford and Paul Newman flipped the Western genre on its head with the all-time classic Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid; in 1973, the three would reunite on this film. Hill had the novel idea to bring The Sting’s 30’s setting wonderfully alive by making the film in the style of films from that era. More on how he does this below, but the effect is captivating.

The legacy of The Sting. If there was no Moonlight (among the best of the decade), La La Land would have done in 2016 what The Sting did in 1973, and there are a lot of comparisons to make between the two. La La Land takes the style of Golden Age Hollywood musicals and brings it into 2016 for an instantly timeless and charming effect; The Sting went even further by having its story set in the 30’s, to similarly charming results. La La Land performed very well at the box office, and very nearly hauled in Best Picture on top of its other 6 awards; The Sting crushed the box office and managed to snag Best Picture among several others, giving Julia Philips the first win for a female producer and George Roy Hill his only Best Director win. There was no better film that year, and this is one of the few instances of the year’s most popular and beloved film being its most artistically accomplished and being rightfully recognized in its time. This film is simply wonderful, with iconic performances, cool crime dialogue, dazzling twists, a unique setting, and a lighthearted tone to back it all up. Ocean’s 11 reaches for the same heights, but does not achieve what this film does, and I would love for this film to be as part of the mainstream today as it was in 1973.

The Story and its Characters

Perfect Escapism. It’s hard to pin down what creates the perfect escapist film, since there are so few that have pulled it off this well. La La Land is a recent example – its musical elements aside, the joy and filmmakers’ love for the craft is intoxicating. Yet, there is plenty of heartbreak in that film. Those moments are poignant and fully felt, but don’t strip away any of the joy that comes with watching something so simply enjoyable. The Sting has all of this, and that starts in the script. The story deftly balances the tragedy that comes with Luther’s death, the tension that arises as the cons begin and complications set in, the isolation Hooker feels as a career con man, with the joy of pulling the job off. Ward also crafted twists that still impress us today, including a twist ending that serves to escalate our sense of joy rather than disorient or create despair. However, I don’t return to the film for the twists or its emotions; I come back for the pure escapism of the 30’s Chicago criminal underworld. The mythology that Ward’s script creates of fraternal relations between all local conmen, certain bars where they hang out and apply for “jobs”, and universally known cons is all perfectly realized. They joke together, mentor each other, and are united by the death of a friend and pressure from a corrupt local cop. The dialogue is coded, since the gangsters have their own snappy vocabulary, but it doesn’t alienate the viewers; it all provokes our imaginations about the world that the movie has stepped into.

The performances. This movie becomes nothing more than a silly gimmick if the performances aren’t on point, but the 7 Oscars and box office results prove they got it right. All the con men act like confident veteran gangsters around each other, but while the con is underway, they all have characters to play, meaning the actors are all demonstrating terrific range. Paul Newman is terrific as Henry Gondorff: a veteran con man reluctantly pulled out of retirement, leader of the assembled gang, but when in “con mode” he pretends to be drunk in one scene, betrayed in another, and his “Shaw” character frequently butts heads with Lonnegan in terrific fashion. Robert Earl Jones is wonderful as Luther, Hooker’s first mentor whose death kicks the plot into motion. Eileen Brennan gives a great turn as Billie, who runs a brothel and is romantically involved with Gondorff, but also contributes a lot to the believability of the con. Robert Shaw gives what may be the best performance of his unfortunately short career as Lonnegan, who is iconic, menacing, and perfectly obsessed with revenge on “Shaw”. All Gondorff’s conmen friends are iconic characters of their own, and the recently deceased Jack Kehoe is great as Erie Kid, Hooker’s friend from the streets who the veteran conmen take under their wing.

My favorite performance is Redford’s, who is doing the most and is the main character (in contrast to Butch and Sundance, where it was an even split with Newman). He mourns the death of Luther; he is overconfident and reckless in the beginning of the film, but slowly realizes he is in over his head; he is an eager pupil of Gondorff; and he is brilliant as con character “Kelly” pretending to be resentful of “Shaw”. These are a lot of character aspects to juggle, and Redford juggles them brilliantly while inspiring lighthearted joy in the audience – as this whole movie does.

Technicalities

1930’s Filmmaking. George Roy Hill looked at this screenplay and realized the opportunity he had: to bring the film’s era to life in a way that transcends sets or costumes. Every aspect of the film was made as it was done in the 30’s films that Hill and his audience grew up watching, but with 70’s capabilities and the effect is astonishing. They filmed on location occasionally in Chicago and Santa Monica, but the streets of 30’s Joliet and Chicago were built on a studio backlot, allowing the filmmakers to be as authentic in their locations as they want. Legendary costume designer Edith Head gave the characters a style that doesn’t just evoke the era, but brilliantly visualizes their personalities in different states. At the same time, the costumes enhance the film’s color scheme of browns, light grays, and maroons to evoke a kind of monochrome, especially in the scenes set in the streets. The editing is slick, but also makes use of 30’s techniques such as wipes and irises which are just fun. The story itself is broken up by the use of title cards after Gondorff decides to help Hooker; these are the various stages of the con, which are universally known amongst the film’s conmen, so these title cards serve to bring the audience in on the joke – but with the film’s twists, we are the ones being systematically conned just as much as Lonnegan.

My favorite aspect, as is often the case, is the cinematography. Normally I praise films for complex moves, flashy techniques, or long takes. The Sting doesn’t really have those, save for a few small moments, because the 30’s didn’t have those. Instead, the camera relies on lighting, the sets, and the acting to establish the mood, and this film succeeds in doing that. A more complex camera style might have drawn us further into the film’s world, as was the case with L.A. Confidential, but Hill truly set out to make a 30’s movie. He just happened to do it in 1973 using music from 1915, and the result is timeless.

John’s Highlight Reel

· Opening con. In the opening moments of the film, we are dropped immediately into a world of gangsters, underworld terms, cons, and twists. The audience can tell exactly what movie we are in for: charming con men pulling off a job with no explanation of what they’re doing until its done, and we are thrilled to be as hoodwinked as the bookie.

· Death of Luther and meeting Gondorff. This covers a long stretch of the film, but in an otherwise easygoing movie, Luther’s death plays as tragic and emotional as it should so we fully root for Hooker for the rest of the film. The build-up and mythology surrounding Gondorff, countered by his hungover/still drunk intro, followed by his reluctance, and then revealing all of that to be just an act, is classic and has been imitated but never topped.

· Gondorff calls, we answer. Gondorff brings Hooker under his wing and recruits some of his top conmen friends via charming montage. In the following scene, Hooker (and the audience) realize there is so much more to the world of “long con” than we first thought: we struggle to keep up with this insider terminology and the roles each of these unique criminals will play, but when we finally see the con in action this scene is worth it.

· The Hook. Newman nails both aspects: Gondorff, ushering Hooker into a con the audience doesn’t fully grasp, and “Shaw”, a drunk who out-cheats Lonnegan to make him want revenge. Once Hooker’s alias “Kelly” comes to Lonnegan with a revenge scheme, the audience is as hooked into the con as Lonnegan is, even if we don’t fully understand it.

· The Wire. The first time Lonnegan enters the fake gambling room, the game is fully set for the audience and the tension is on in a big way. All the set-up we’ve been seeing has paid off – everything in this room is part of the con, and we suddenly feel like we’re on the inside of the most well-told joke in history. Erie Kid, the newcomer, finds himself having to play a role in reeling in Lonnegan; Hooker and Gondorff have to balance between being themselves and their con aliases; Lonnegan is suspicious, but the relief at the end of the scene and its continuation after Lonnegan leaves offsets those tensions perfectly.

· The complications. I’m again covering a few different stretches of the film, but when the crew must adjust its plans on the fly based on Lonnegan’s suspicions it creates some excellently realized tension followed by clever and cathartic release. A few notable examples: Lonnegan wants to place a bet that “Shaw” can’t handle, so the conmen cleverly prevent him from laying down his bet in time with a second to spare. Lonnegan wants to meet the “wire man”, so Kid Twist commandeers a real Union Telegraph office under the guise of painting it. However, the most significant complication doesn’t get resolved until the end of the film: the FBI have partnered with the corrupt Detective Snyder and are forcing Hooker to turn against Gondorff.

· Solace. The tension is at an all-time high the night before The Sting, the final sequence of the con. Hooker is nervous around Gondorff, having decided to give him up to the FBI. After he leaves, he seduces Loretta (a waitress) but struggles to sleep – as does Gondorff, in bed with Billie. Just across the street from Hooker, the same pair of menacing black gloves belonging to an unseen assassin turn off a lamp; he is not safe. The music playing during this scene is one of the most iconic pieces from the film, somehow being cheery and sad at the same time, and the nighttime setting complements it perfectly.

· Salino revealed. One constant thread throughout the film is “Salino”, a master assassin hired by Lonnegan to hunt down Hooker for his role in the opening con, although Lonnegan is unaware that Hooker is the same man helping him against “Shaw”. On the morning of The Sting, the menacing figure pursues Hooker, fires his gun, and hits Loretta (after she had left Hooker while he slept). The editing of this scene plays the audience’s emotions like a fiddle; we are confused to see Loretta, sad and fearful when we believe she was shot accidentally, and then astounded and relieved to realize she was the master assassin all along. The black gloves belonged to a friend of Gondorff’s. Still unpredictable and mind-blowing for audiences today.

· The Sting. When’s the last time a plot twist has felt this wonderful? Lonnegan is baited into placing his large bet, but just as he’s told he bet the wrong horse, the FBI storms in. Hooker is revealed to have betrayed Gondorff, who shoots Hooker in revenge. The FBI guns down Gondorff, and Snyder whisks Lonnegan out the door before he can get his money back. As soon as the coast is clear, Redford opens his eyes and spits out his fake blood capsule, and Gondorff stands back up – the FBI agents are fellow conmen, and part of the con! The combination of getting played, but satisfyingly watching our heroes succeed creates some of the most profound joy I’ve ever felt watching a movie; you need to see it to believe it.

Came for _____, Stayed for ______

The legacy. I had heard of this movie through the standard set of “movie nerd” YouTube channels, online articles, etc., and so when my dad mentioned it was one of his favorites growing up I was excited at the chance to watch. The team from Butch and Sundance returned for a classic crime film that won 7 Oscars? Sounds like it’s on the list of “see before you die”, so I watched it; I was not expecting to be drawn in or as utterly charmed as I was.

The reason for the legacy. Despite being made 47 years ago, and feeling like it was made even longer ago, this film is still supremely watchable and likable today as demonstrated by my girlfriend and roommate each calling it a new favorite. Despite its age, they were immersed in the film’s various twists and utter charm. The love and care put into the making of this movie is absolutely intoxicating, and you’ll be hard-pressed to find any film that’s equal parts cool, charming, funny, and breath-taking. Something this great and easy to like comes around rarely, but when we’re exposed to it, we’re reminded of cinema’s capability to delight us beyond our expectations.