Skip to main content

Sorry I’m late. I was taking a crap.

The Sting
(1973)

(SPOILERS) In any given list of the best things – not just movies – ever, Mark Kermode would include The Exorcist, so it wasn’t a surprise when William Friedkin’s film made an appearance in his Nine films that should have won Best Picture at the Oscars list last month. Of the nominees that year, I suspect he’s correct in his assessment (I don’t think I’ve seen A Touch of Class, so it would be unfair of me to dismiss it outright; if we’re simply talking best film of that year, though, The Exorcist isn’t even 1973’s best horror, that would be Don’t Look Now). He’s certainly not wrong that The Exorcistremains a superior work” to The Sting; the latter’s one of those films, like The Return of the King and The Departed, where the Academy rewarded the cast and crew too late. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is the masterpiece from George Roy Hill, Paul Newman and Robert Redford, not this flaccid trifle.

I’m usually quite partial to con and caper movies, but this one is, for the most part, flat and indulgent, coasting on the knowledge of an audience ready and willing to see the unbeatable Newman-Redford double act again. It’s a long film, but it feels longer, marked by a crippling absence of internal tension – aside from the few occasions where Redford’s Johnny Hooker is being pursued by cops or gangsters – and a lack of real flair with the twists and hoodwinks.

Redford, like Daniel Craig in Casino Royale, is on the backfoot from the off, in that he’s supposed to be playing a capable novice but was a ripe 37 at the time. Thus, the highlight is probably Newman’s Henry Gondorff, putting on a drunk act during a high-stakes poker game and so thrashing Robert Shaw’s crime boss Doyle Lonnegan. But that’s just a prelude, a means to encourage Shaw’s fish to take the bait, and what follows is too effortless.

You need to believe the villain of the piece is formidable, but apart from being played by Robert Shaw – which admittedly does a lot of heavy lifting – Lonnegan’s a pushover (Charles Durning is good value as the plod after Johnny, but it’s the kind of thing he did in his sleep). Soderbergh’s Ocean’s 11 didn’t present a huge amount of obstacles either, but the director knew to keep that one moving, to juggle the stars and scenarios to breezy effect. Here, the title sets up a certain amount of expectation, daring us to be impressed by its con artists’ virtuosity; The Sting desperately needed plot intricacy, of the kind David Mamet could deliver, where you’re in awe of someone able to pull the rug from under you so conclusively (House of Games).

Why didn’t they go to William Goldman (who would, two decades later, dabble in the con genre with Maverick) and thus make the Butch and Sundance reunion complete? Presumably because The Sting’s was a found screenplay, courtesy of David S Ward (later responsible for… nothing especially good, although like Goldman, he would attempt to cash in on his big hit with a sequel). It appears that Rob Cohen was a reader for Mike Medavoy at the time and extolled the script’s virtues to his boss. Given Cohen’s subsequent track record as a director, there’s inverse reason to see his pick as indicative of quality.

Butch and Sundance exuded a sense of time and place and character, and one can put that as much down to Hill as Goldman, but here such keenness appeared to desert him. The world of The Sting doesn’t feel remotely lived in; it’s stars play dress-up in their ‘30s duds, only ever looking costumed, and parade around sets that feel like sets (probably because they were; it was (mostly) filmed on the Universal backlot. Some of that might have been pertinent if there was a line between the fakery of the scam being pulled on Lonnegan and the grit of Chicago, but Redford (who somehow garnered a Best Actor nomination) and Newman have all the authenticity of stars who have just exited the makeup chair.

Pauline Kael got a little side-tracked by the leads’ iconography in her review (“I don’t respond to their arch love games… I would much rather see a picture about two homosexual men in love than see two romantic actors going through a routine whose point is that they’re so adorably smiley butch that they can pretend to be in love and it’s all innocent”), to the extent that she didn’t really pick up on them not really putting in very much effort (she didn’t like Butch and Sundance, so there wasn’t an iota of a chance she’d have liked this). They don’t even share the screen for large portions of The Sting, and lack the easy camaraderie of their previous pairing. Sure, you don’t want them just stirring and repeating… Or maybe you do? Either way, as the kid and the old pro, there’s nothing more than a vague shape for them to impress themselves upon, so they’re more memorable for their duds than anything they do; the sting itself is over in a flash, and you end up shrugging at the obvious ruses and asking “Was that it?”

Apparently, Ward’s screenplay was darker than the “playful homage” Hill pursued. In terms of box office, you can’t fault the director’s instincts, just the effectiveness of the results (it has a similar slovenly smugness to the later Dick Tracy). Clearly, the Academy loved it as much as general audiences, but then, it wasa much sweeter pill than a Bergman or sensibilities-disturbing, New Hollywood horror flick. Far be it from me to nod respectfully to the Golden Globes, but in both cases where they have failed to even nominate a Best Picture Oscar winner (the other being Crash), they’ve been on the money (The Exorcist won the Globe that year for drama, while American Graffiti took comedy or musical).





Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.