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.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.