Lisa Reviews an Oscar Winner: The Sting (dir by George Roy Hill)


Earlier tonight, as a part of their 31 Days of Oscar, TCM aired The Sting, the film that the Academy selected as being the best of 1973.  I just finished watching it and what can I say?  Based on what I’ve seen of the competition (and there were a lot of great films released in 1973), I would not necessarily have picked The Sting for best picture.  However, the movie is still fantastic fun.

The Sting reunited the director (George Roy Hill) and the stars (Robert Redford and Paul Newman) of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and told yet another story of likable criminals living in the past.  However, whereas Butch Cassidy largely satirized the conventions of the traditional Hollywood western, The Sting is feels like a loving homage to the films of 1930s, a combination of a gritty, low-budget gangster film and a big budget musical extravaganza.  The musical comparison may sound strange at first, especially considering that nobody in The Sting randomly breaks out into song.  However, the musical score (which is famously dominated by Scott Joplin’s The Entertainer) is ultimately as much of a character as the roles played by Redford, Newman, and Robert Shaw.  And, for that matter, the film’s “let-pull-off-a-con” plot feels like an illegal version of “let’s-put-on-a-show.”

The film takes place in the 1936 of the cultural imagination, a world dominated by flashy criminals and snappy dialogue.  When con artists Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) and Luther Coleman (Robert Earl Jones) inadvertently steal money from a gangster named Lonnegan (Robert Shaw), Lonnegan has Luther murdered.  Fleeing for his life, Hooker goes to Chicago where he teams up with Luther’s former partner, veteran con man Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman).  Gondorff used to be one of the great con artists but he is now living in self-imposed obscurity, spending most of his time drinking and trying to avoid the FBI.  Hooker wants to get revenge on Lonnegan by pulling an elaborate con on him.  When Gondorff asks Hooker why, Hooker explains that he can either con Lonnegan or he can kill him and he doesn’t know enough about killing.

The rest of the film deals with Hooker and Gondorff’s plan to con Lonnegan out of a half million dollars.  It’s all very elaborate and complicated and a bit confusing if you don’t pay close enough attention and if you’re ADHD like me.  But it’s also a lot of fun and terrifically entertaining and that’s the important thing.  The Sting is one of those films that shows just how much you can accomplish through the smart use of movie star charisma.  Redford and Newman have such great chemistry and are so much fun to watch that it really doesn’t matter whether or not you always understand what they’re actually doing.

It also helps that, in the great 70s tradition, they’re taking down stuffy establishment types.  Lonnegan may be a gangster but he’s also a highly respected and very wealthy gangster.  When Newman interrupts a poker game, Lonnegan glares at him and tells him that he’ll have to put on a tie before he’s allowed to play.  Lonnegan may operate outside the law but, in many ways, he is the establishment and who doesn’t enjoy seeing the establishment taken down a notch?

As entertaining as The Sting may be and as influential as it undoubtedly is (Steven Soderbergh’s Ocean films may be a lot more pretentious — which makes sense considering that Soderbergh is one of the most pretentious directors in film history — but they all owe a clear debt to The Sting), it still feels like an unlikely best picture winner.  Consider, for instance, that The Sting not only defeated American Graffiti and The Exorcist but Ingmar Bergman’s Cries and Whispers as well.  On top of that, when you consider some of the films that were released in 1973 and not nominated — Mean Streets, Badlands, The Candy Snatchers, Day of the Jackal, Don’t Look Now, Jesus Christ Superstar, and The Long Goodbye — it’s debatable whether The Sting should have been nominated at all.  That’s not a criticism of The Sting as much as it’s an acknowledgement that 1973 was a very good year in film.

So, maybe The Sting didn’t deserve its Oscar.  But it’s still a wonderfully entertaining film.  And just try to get that music out of your head!

8 responses to “Lisa Reviews an Oscar Winner: The Sting (dir by George Roy Hill)

  1. You almost got my vote. I agree that other 1973 films could have been better choices for Best Picture. Badlands, Mean Streets and Day of the Jackal were all especially great.

    But The Sting had something that they didn’t; … it was a Big Hollywood Production. Shot on those huge studio lots and ginormous sound stages, with hordes of the usual extras, all the craft unions and big, lush orchestration. A full-bore just-like-they-used-to-make’m, big-assed M-O-V-I-E. And with most of the Academy voters being SoCal “locals’, that means a lot sometimes. Besides which, it was very well done.

    Aside from that – and with all due respect for your ADHD – the important element in the film that you seemed to have missed is the fact that not only did the plot revolve around a big con job on the Lonnegan character, but the film itself was a con job on the audience, who until the last scene, was conned into thinking that Redford’s character was double-crossing Newman’s character. A con within a con.

    Another factor that must be taken into account when deciphering the Best Picture voting is the general mood of the nation at that time. Nixon and the Vietnam war had people in a generally foul mood, and ready for something light to take their minds off the mess, and as is usually the case, the Academy votes reflected this mood.

    One small note about the plot itself. A decade or so before The Sting was produced, a non-fiction book titled The Big Con was published, which described a number of different major con-jobs that were actually committed, including the “past posting” of horse races described in the film. Much of the script, including the actual street names of the men and women who actually pulled off those big cons in real life, were more or less “borrowed” from that book. I think a lawsuit of some sort resulted.

    Like

  2. Pingback: Cleaning Out The DVR #24: Cries and Whispers (dir by Ingmar Bergman) | Through the Shattered Lens

  3. Pingback: The TSL’s Daily Horror Grindhouse: Galaxy of Terror (dir by Bruce D. Clark) | Through the Shattered Lens

  4. Pingback: 6 Grindhouse Films That Should Have Been Nominated For Best Picture | Through the Shattered Lens

  5. Pingback: Lisa Ranks Every Best Picture Winner From Best To Worst! | Through the Shattered Lens

  6. Pingback: A Blast From The Past: Robert Opel Crashes The 1974 Oscars | Through the Shattered Lens

  7. Pingback: The Best Picture Race In Review: The 1970s | Through the Shattered Lens

  8. Pingback: Late Night Retro Television Review: Highway to Heaven 2.5 “The Devil and Jonathan Smith” | Through the Shattered Lens

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.