MovieChat Forums > The Sting (1973) Discussion > If you weren't alive in 1973-74, you pro...

If you weren't alive in 1973-74, you probably have no idea...

posted 10 years ago by kentor404
30 replies | jump to latest

...how big this movie was that year, or how "blockbusters" in general were treated in the days before multiplex theaters, VCR/DVRs, and the Internet. Most theaters were still single screen, one movie at a time operations then, and prior to VCRs in the '80s if you didn't see a new or recent release while it was in a theater you didn't see it at all until it was shown on TV years later, if ever. All of those factors led to a much greater demand to see movies while they were in theaters, particularly those that got the kind of positive press and word of mouth received by The Sting.

The demand for this movie among people who not only saw it once but over and over again was so great the theater near where I lived showed it exclusively and continually for over a year, and it was not the only theater to do so. Think about that - first-run, single screen movie theaters showing one movie only for a whole year. That tells you the kind of ticket sales this movie generated over a sustained period of time, and how many people came back to see it over and over again. Even among the so-called "blockbuster" movies, there were few that generated the kind of sustained, multiple viewing tickets sales produced by The Sting. Like many people, I went back to see it at least three times that year and each time picked up details in the plot that I had previously missed. I still watch at least part of it any time I see it on TV. Great movie.

vvv WARNING - THAR BE SPOILERS AHEAD vvv

Another indication of how this movie was received was the fact my 9th grade English/drama teacher took the whole class on a field trip to see this movie soon after it was released. In addition to getting out of school to go to a theater in the middle of the day, I enjoyed the movie itself (particularly the stripper scene), but some of the plot twists went over my 14 year old head that first time I saw it. I remember the gasp that went through the audience when "dead" Redford opened his eyes at end and those in the crowd who had never seen it before realized they had been conned along with the bad guys, and the "Wait a minute! You mean so-and-so was in on it all along?" conversations on the way out of the theater.

[–] drystyx 9 years ago

You obviously are lying, because those of us who were adults in 1973-1974 (I was in my high school senior year) experienced none of what you said. No one talked about it much, and if so, it was just shrugged off by others. It was about a scumbag thief who wants revenge for another scumbag thief. Only a few scumbags and a few Beavis and Butthead bubble boys thought highly of it.

I can't imagine a "field trip" to see such a dull nothing movie with absolutely no cultural value. If by some remote chance, you are telling the truth about your teacher, then your teacher was just one of those psychopathic control freaks that was a target audience for the movie.

Obvious troll is obvious.

Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!

[–] ecarle 9 years ago

The title song was on the radio all the time, people talked about the movie a lot.

My young male friends and I took to "signing off" to each other with the finger flicking the nose bit.

PS. It wasn't a teacher, but in 1981, a boss hired a temp for the afternoon to answer phones and took our staff out to see a weekday matinee of "Raiders of the Lost Ark." It was a fun communal experience. These things DO happen.

[–] Ghetto_Defendant 9 years ago

I grew up in a rural town of 18,000 (at that time), and it was a huge thing. I was ten, and my girlfriends and I saw it multiple times. It was probably the first big blockbuster that I can remember. Also, I was taking piano lessons and I remember buying the sheet music and trying to learn Joplin's music.

[–] truther 9 years ago

I guess you're a reverse troll? Is that what they call trolls who accuse other posters of being trolls?

[–] arthurab 8 years ago

"THAT is the STUPIDEST idea I have EVER heard!!!"

---Gene Wilder in 'Silver Streak'

The above quote applies to your post too.

[–] nutsberryfarm 9 years ago

sounds fun. how was the popcorn? 

🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴

[–] vickysounusual 9 years ago

Love this thread. I was 18 when my sister and I saw this for the first time in the theatre. And I paid $3.00 at the theater 11 more times during the next year until it left the theatre. Only my paying to see The Godfather 13 times broke the record. Because it's true: in those days you only saw the movie once in the theater and you may never see it again for years and years. So if you really really liked a movie you had to go back and pay at the theater to see it again. Watching the ending of this movie with an audience for the first time is one of those once or twice in a lifetime experiences, with spontaneous applause bursting out, just pure shock, joy and appreciation for how we ourselves were conned. The movie just had everything going for it: great atmosphere, music that stayed with you, tremendous acting by every single actor, and above all, mind blowing chemistry between Redford and Newman.

[–] katydid579 8 years ago

Sorry, I wasn't interested in this movie when it came. I finally watched it. Boring. A waste of time. Loved Newman's blue eyes, the rest is just too long and blah, blah, blah.

[–] MNRebecca (769) 6 years ago

...how big this movie was

...or what a superstar was. Redford was SUCH a big deal!

[–] liscarkat (18388) 6 years ago

This movie was so over-hyped in its original release that I found it to be a huge dull letdown when I finally saw it. That taught me to stop paying attention to movie hype, and to see movies for the first time without any great expectations.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I enjoyed it, and still enjoy it, mainly for the immersive, atmospheric experience of being in the 1930s, as well as the superb acting from Redford, Newman, et al.
The surprise plot twist really only works the very first time you watch the movie.

[–] liscarkat (18388) 6 years ago

I do like it better now. It was the expectation, created by the super-hype during its original release, that led me to be disappointed the first time.

As far as an immersive 1930s experience is concerned, the production design and costumes were excellent. The Joplin-based score, however, was an egregious anachronism that detracted from an authentic 1930s atmosphere. By 1936, when the movie was set, Joplin's rags were three decades or more out of date, were seldom heard anymore, and were regarded as quaint and corny pre-WWI pop fluff.