The Sting_360P

Viewed as pure entertainment, this is a diverting way to spend a couple of hours. The objective is to turn the brain off and not think too deeply about the shallow fare before you. However when you do think, some troubling aspects come to mind. This is the 1930s viewed through rose tinted spectacles. Typically Hollywood idealised 'grifters' (why does Hollywood always side with thieves and prostitutes?) inhabit a multicultural utopia. There is no racial tension between the characters and no sign of the segregation which was in force in much of the US at the time. The grifters, in reality were hardened conmen who would happily steal from a poor box, are here good natured folks. We see them target a random victim at the start. It does not matter to them whether he was a charity worker taking money to deposit at the bank, they indiscriminately rob from him. It is only by chance that he turns out to be a bad guy and therefore, retrospectively, seen as an acceptable target. This might be OK if they were motivated by poverty, but the actual motivation is sheer greed and laziness. Redford immediately wastes his share -about a year's wages in the 1930s- gambling in one night. Yet we are supposed to sympathize with him? The murder of his black partner is portrayed as a tragedy, with the usual Hollywood ratcheting up of emotion by having this be his final job before retirement. However, I can only have limited sympathy with a man who has made his livelihood by stealing from others. We are supposed to want one group of criminals, led by Newman, steal from another, Shaw? Hollywood achieves this by having us recognize that Redford and Newman are the 'good guys' despite their criminal ways. And to aid this, In this world, in a Hollywood moral inversion, the sole representative of law and order is a violent and corrupt cop. The plot is very contrived and convoluted. In particular the addition of the female assassin seems an unnecessary addition. Redford's seduction of her is a rather silly and unconvincing detour. And she is unceremoniously gunned down by one of Newman's henchmen? Surely that means that Newman is a murderer too, no better than the villain Shaw?

A magical plot, dead on art direction, brilliant supporting roles (most notably Robert Shaw, ya falla?), and the guiding hand of Redford/Newman chemistry make this one of the Hollywood's great films. "The Sting" is a hallmark of the "Golden Age" of American film, and has molded not only countless films, but numerous genres, few of which have met the challenge of its master.

The Sting_720p(480P)

source: The Sting

The Sting

The Sting may not be the worst film ever to win the Best Picture award at the Oscars, but it's easily one of the most mediocre. The settings look fake, the actors look bored, and the story has numerous flaws, and is predictable to boot. I mean, what happened to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? Paul Newmann and Robert Redford made such a great pair in Hill's earlier film. They barely even talk to each other in The Sting. Every bit of characterization to be found in the film is in Redford, but he's wrong for the role. And how could someone waste Charles Durning so egregiously? Perhaps the only bit of greatness in the film is in the score, adapted from Scott Joplin's music - or at least it would be great if it added any mood or depth to the film. I certainly didn't hate this movie, but, like I said, it's the height of mediocrity. 6/10.

THE STING is so full of twists and turns at every unexpected moment that it never stops drawing you into all of its traps. All of it is performed at a fast clip and the performances have all the nuances needed to keep you entertained and in suspense. Sparked by perfect period detail, a Scott Joplin piano score courtesy of Marvin Hamlisch and grand performances, it is gritty and at all times entertaining--it deserves to be seen more than once to relish all the tricks you missed the first time. For full enjoyment, a plot description is better left for the first time viewer to discover so I won't give any plot details here. The three central performances are perfection--Robert Redford, so comfortable in a role he was obviously born to play, Paul Newman, the epitome of a confidence trickster and Robert Shaw as the man who falls hard for The Sting. Newman and Redford are even more at home here than they were as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. No wonder it won so many '73 Oscars--including Best Picture. A film to relish again and again, with scenes that never lose their punch. The story is full of clever touches that will hook you into the 1930s atmosphere and have you waiting for the knockout ending. Watch for the scene of Redford and the waitress he seeks out at 2:00 a.m. It's the kind of acting that can melt your heart.

Small time conmen Johnny Hooker and Luther Coleman unwittingly scam a runner for Chicago main man Doyle Lonnegan. When Luther is murdered, Hooker goes on the run and seeks out Luther's old friend Henry Gondorff to help him put together a major sting to take revenge on Lonnegan. However with so much heat on Hooker and the stakes so high can they pull it off and get away clean? Almost a follow up to Butch and Sundance, this film partners the stars of the day Newman and Redford to good effect. The story is a little less fun but still very enjoyable to watch as it builds to a great finale. The use of chapters ran the risk of fragmenting the film into bits but instead it really helps set it out and makes it more manageable. Although it is not as light hearted and jovial as the theme music suggests it still manages to flow nicely with the slightly darker drama not spoiling anything but only serving to make it feel more grown up. The cast are all very good and make the film easy to watch. Redford comes off the best in terms of characters and his role really suits both his carefree attitude (the start of the film) but also his more serious side (the rest of the film). Newman has a lesser role that perhaps doesn't suit him quite as well, but he does have several really good scenes (the hustles) where he does very good work. Shaw's accent is a little heavy at first but I got used to it and it worked for me and he was a really good foil for Redford/Newman. The support cast including Durning, Walston, Gould, Jones and others all do good work. The direction and use of music is really good and the sense of period is well crafted and doesn't just feel like it was painted on. I'm not sure if it deserved Best Picture or not because I don't know what the rest of the field was for that year but it is a really enjoyable film that is quite fun to watch several times even 30 years later – and isn't that the main thing?

Before I began my analysis of The Sting, I studied how George Roy Hill works with Neuman and Redford in Butch & Sundance and how he manipulates his story in Slaughterhouse-Five. I noticed that Hill never worries about impressions in his work, he only wants to entertain the audience at the expense of whatever brain cells they lose in the process. Consider his working of Slaughterhouse-Five, one of the greatest anti-war books ever written. He strips it of fluidity, adds in his comic touches, then slaps the viewer in the head and makes you feel stupid for watching it in the beginning. That's how all his films work. The Sting relies on similar principles. Characters are not people, they are scenes to be created. Hill is much like Richard Donner and Tennessee Williams in that respect. Notice how Neuman and Redford plan their "great con" at the end. It's all a facade to show that the film shakes on its feet like Jell-O. Overall, don't bother with this movie. If you want GRH's best work, just watch Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid again. 2 out of 5 stars.