The Sting

1973, Rated PG, 129 minutes Directed by George Roy Hill, Written by David Ward, Produced by Robert Crawford, Cinematography by Robert Surtees

With: Paul Newman (Henry Gondorff), Robert Redford (Johnny Hooker), Robert Shaw (Doyle Lonnegan), Charles Durning (Lt. Wm. Synder), Ray Walston (J.J. Singleton), Eileen Brennan (Billie), Harold Gould (Kid Twist), Dana Elcar (FBI Agent Polk)

Con movies have been done before, they have been done since, and we will continue to see con movies throughout the cinematic future. The Sting stands out as the best according to many critics and I tend to agree. It deserves the 7 Oscars it nabbed, including best picture, because it is an exquisite film that makes you continually evaluate and reassess who exactly is being conned and how is this all going to turn out. 

The premise itself is relatively simple, as most con movies are (it’s the details that are complicated). Johnny Hooker (Robert Redford) is a small time grifter who, after conning a man tied to a crime syndicate, winds up on the run after his partner is killed. He turns to Henry Gondorff (Paul Newman), a man notorious for big cons, to help him exact revenge on Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw), the head of the syndicate. They set up an elaborate scheme-- a long con-- to swindle Lonnegan out of half a million dollars without him even realizing that he was conned. The name of the game is gambling and horse races. Gondorff’s associates come together to implement the con while Hooker plays point on Lonnegan himself. What would be a standard long con is of course full of other complications. Lt. Snyder (Charles Durning) is furiously searching for Hooker because he paid him with counterfeit bills. Snyder always seems to be interfering at the most inconvenient times. Then of course there is the woman that Hooker falls for. The movie has enough plot and subplot going to continually surprise the viewer with a twist from a double or even triple cross. 

Con movies employ different tactics to portray the con. Some, like Matchstick Men, use the perspective of the person being conned while others, like The Sting, portray an insider perspective. The difficulty from this point of view is not revealing too much to the viewer that he becomes board in predictability. The movie has to inform and con the audience at the same time. The Sting expertly balances both of these perspectives. It gives us the inside track to pulling off the long con and shows all the effort, materials, and manpower that go into such a scheme. Although the audience knows much of what is going on, the movie still manages to surprise amidst double and triple crosses. The con is well explained so that the audience is not dumbfoundedly confused, but ambiguous enough to leave the viewer feeling conned by the end of the film. 

The pace of the film is wonderful; it forces the viewer to keep up but never sprints ahead leaving you lost in a dust of confusion. The editing excellently lays out the entirety of the film. The sets sometimes evokes the memory of the giant stage sets from the 40s and 50s but also creates intimate settings that match the tone of the scene excellently well as the tension rises.  The ragtime music throughout holds the film together in the 1930s time period and excellently piques the viewers auditory interest in the transitions of the film.

Redford and Newman team up together for this film and the chemistry between the two is obvious from the start. They react well to each other and continually push the other to go the distance, to make their mark on the film. Newman plays the calculated, confident and slightly cocky but rightfully so because he know what he is doing con man exquisitely, while Redford serves as the high energy, driven, slightly overconfident and unsure at the same time, wise-cracking, free-wheelin con man to perfection. They are backed by a superb supporting cast that adds just the right amount of balance to each situation. George Hill directs them wonderfully to pull together an excellent film of light hearted fun, wonderful music and a plethora of plot twists.

This is a shorter review because there is only but so much I can add to the critical analysis of such a critically acclaimed film. In short, if you have not yet seen it, add it to your queue. It is by far one of the greatest con movies made that so many other movies have been inspired by and aspired to. From an all star cast to exquisite technical direction, The Sting succeeds on all counts as one of the great pieces of cinematic history.

A

Content Advisory

a dancing scene at a burlesque club with scantily clad women, sporadic fighting scenes, and mild profanity use.

Food for thought/discussion

1. The movie is shot with the Great Depression as the backdrop where there are few jobs and extreme poverty in America. Hooker makes his living through cons. In light of the times is that a legitimate way to make a living? What stance does the movie itself take on the issue?

2. After Hooker and Gondorff successfully con Lonnegan of $500,000, Hooker says: “You’re right Henry. It’s not enough. But...it’s close!” Why is it “not enough?”

3. Con movies have a niche of popularity. What aspect(s) of such a genre are attractive to the audience, i.e. what part of our phsyche is drawn into the concept of cons?