Skip to main content

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #127: The Sting

It’s never fun to get conned, but you have to admit it is loads of fun to see professional con artists at work. Whereas today any moron with a laptop can exhort money from gullible people by pretending to be a Nigerian prince in need of quick cash in return for a fortune, there was a time when a good con required a team of expert hustlers, hours of preparation, and one devious plan B in case the whole thing went up in flames. George Roy Hill’s The Sting (1973) depicts such a con featuring one of the best on-screen duo in movie history: Paul Newman and Robert Redford, reuniting with Hill a few years after working on another classic, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).  

When watching a movie about a con job, it is almost as though the filmmakers are the con artists and the audience is the mark. The objective of the screenwriters and the director is to have the con artists in the movie pull off their job without the audience knowing exactly how they are doing it. If the audience can’t see that ending coming, and if that ending is particularly clever, then the filmmakers have succeeded. When I rented The Sting I went in more or less cold, just knowing it is a classic involving a con and two great actors at the top of their game. At one point I had a vague idea of what they were doing, but was still somewhat surprised by the last reveal and was very pleased with how they pulled it off.

Set in 1936 Illinois, and making great use of ragtime music by Scott Joplin, the film focuses on the relationship between grifter Johnny Hooker (Redford) and renowned con man Henry Gondorff (Newman). Hooker desperately needs Gondorff after he has pulled a very profitable con on a numbers racket courier who unfortunately works for crime boss Doyle Lonnegan (Robert Shaw). Lonnegan doesn’t take kindly to being swindled and has Hooker’s partner in the con murdered.

If Hooker was a violent criminal he would probably retaliate by taking out Lonnegan’s crew one by one in bloody gun battles, but Hooker is a thief and therefore he retaliates in the only way he can: by taking even more money from Lonnegan. Alone he cannot do much, but with help from the great Gondorff and a large crew he just might be able to walk away with his life and fat load of cash. Unfortunately when he meets Gondorff what he sees is a man passed out from too much drinking, hiding from the FBI, and unsure if he has what it takes to pull off a big con.

For the sake of Hooker’s late partner Gondorff agrees to take on the risky venture. They begin working on a scam known as “the wire,” which involves a crew of con artists who create a phony off-track betting parlour. The whole system is rather complicated, but what matters is that it will convince Lonnegan to invest a fortune, which the crew will snatch away from him at a precise moment.

In order to reach that moment many things need to go right, such as Gondorff getting in on a high stakes poker game aboard a train and taking a lot of money from Lonnegan. That entire train sequence is extremely entertaining, from the moment Newman arrives late to the game explicitly saying he was taking a crap, to Lonnegan realizing this bum has cheated at the game. Unfortunately Lonnegan can’t do anything about that, because he was cheating too. What’s he going to do? Accuse him of being a better cheater?

One of the great pleasures of The Sting is watching Newman and Redford work together and having as good chemistry as they had on Butch Cassidy. Redford’s Hooker is a brash young man, whereas Redford’s Gondorff is older, wiser, and more careful when dealing with a man like Lonnegan. Hooker has his doubts about Gondorff when they first meet, but although he is rusty Gondorff quickly shows him he is still one of the best. It’s a shame these two didn’t work together more often. They were not present for The Sting II, so of course it failed.


Watching Hooker and Gondorff work the con together you of course know they are going to get away with it, but the filmmakers put enough obstacles and danger in their way to instil doubt in the audience’s mind. If they were stealing money from hard-working people you would definitely resent these two criminals, but since they are conning an even worse criminal you are cheering for them to pull off the crime. As for the filmmakers, they pull off one beautiful con on the audience and absolutely deserve their money.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #85: Blue Velvet

Exactly how do you describe a David Lynch movie? He is one of the few directors whose style is so distinctive that his last name has become an adjective. According to Urban Dictionary, the definition of Lynchian is: “having the same balance between the macabre and the mundane found in the works of filmmaker David Lynch.” To see a prime example of that adjective film lovers need look no further than Lynch’s Blue Velvet (1986), which does indeed begin in the mundane before slowly sinking in macabre violence.
My first introduction to the world of David Lynch was through his ground breaking, but unfortunately interrupted, early 1990s TV series Twin Peaks. This was one of the first television shows to grab viewers with a series-long mystery: who killed Laura Palmer? A mix of soap opera, police procedural, and the supernatural, it is a unique show that showed the darkness hidden in suburbia and remains influential to this day. Featuring Kyle MacLachlan as an FBI investigator with a love for …

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #90: When Harry Met Sally...

There is an age-old question regarding whether single men and women can be just friends. In real life the answer is obviously “yes,” but in movies and TV the answer always has to be that at some point two single characters will get attracted to each other and move beyond friendship. On TV I find this to be contrived and overused, but some movies can have a lot of fun with the concept, most notably Rob Reiner’s comedy classic When Harry Met Sally…(1989). It may not change your view on love and friendship, but it forever changed the meaning of the phrase “I’ll have what she’s having.”
On paper this film’s premise sounds like another rom-com, but seen by oneself during an evening of Netflix binging it does make you think about deep stuff like the long-term impact of your decisions on your life. A person you meet during a tense trip might turn up again sometime later down the road in the most unexpected ways. If there is one thing I believe in it is infinite possibilities, and Nora Ephron…

Empire Magazine (2008) Greatest Movies List - #83: Brazil

Dystopian movies from the 1980s are a funny thing since we now live in the future of those movies and if you look at the news for more than five minutes it will feel as though we are one bad day away from being into a dystopia. On the plus side, if it ends up looking like the dystopia portrayed in Terry Gilliam’s Brazil (1985) at least we will have lovely architecture to look at while the government is busy telling us how to think. This might not be a movie that will cheer you up, but the production design is amazing, the performances are great throughout, and you get to see Robert DeNiro play a maintenance man/freedom fighter.
I first saw Brazil as a Terry Gilliam double feature at the Université de Sherbrooke’s movie club paired along with 12 Monkeys around ten years ago. Those two films are similar in that they both feature a rather dour future and, as with most Gilliam movies, incredibly intricate sets. However the dystopian future in Brazil is somewhat scarier than the disease-ra…