MovieChat Forums > The Sting (1973) Discussion > The actresses in this weren't exactly Bo...

The actresses in this weren't exactly Bond Girls, were they?

posted 10 years ago by Gov_William_J_LePetomane
19 replies | jump to latest

Eileen Brennan and Dimitra Arliss? Yikes!

It's kind of cool though, in a way. Sometimes I do have the opposite train of thought: "Why does everyone in these movies have to be so gorgeous? In real life, not everyone looks like Clooney and Kidman!" I don't HAVE to be looking at Ursula Andress or Denise Richards in order to like a film.

But then again, it's sort of odd to see suave, manly characters played by Paul Newman and Robert Redford crawling into bed with tired-looking madams and waitresses.

HARUMPH!

[–] ecarle 10 years ago

...and I think you can even add the stripper in the early part of the movie...cute but hardly gorgeous.

It was debated back then that even though George Roy Hill believed these women should be "believably hard-bitten and plain as per the Depression women they played," they were cast opposite two of the most gorgeous men in movies!

The default position was: "That means the real romantic couple IS Newman and Redford," and they sure give each other a meaningful look at the end of the movie when everything has succeeded and the set is being broken down.

But there can be "couples" on the screen who aren't romantic -- who aren't gay -- and that was Newman and Redford here. To have been totally realistic, perhaps George Roy Hill should have cast Walter Matthau and James Woods as Gondorff and Hooker...but you gotta offer SOME fantasy.

I would like to point out that when The Sting was in release in 1973, practically every young guy I knew commented on the unattractive women in The Sting. It really stood out; Hill may have wanted it to.

[–] J-Star 10 years ago

By carefully picking the right people - and by using Edith Head's creative design genius - you can see and instinctively know how where in the food-chain everyone is... you see who are the bottom-feeders and who the dangerous sharks are... who the petty grifters, the wannabes and the professionals are.

It also means you - as the viewer - are thrown for a few loops. You - for instance - don't see who Salino is... it's masterfully hidden until the reveal.

/J-Star

De gustibus non est disputandum

[–] Thirdover4 8 years ago

The script depicted Gondorf as a drunken slob and Edith Head said making Paul newman look like a slob was one of the biggest challenges of her career.

[–] Stirchley 10 years ago

it's sort of odd to see suave, manly characters played by Paul Newman and Robert Redford crawling into bed with tired-looking madams and waitresses

From a woman's POV, I thought Eileen Brennan (the madam) was a very attractive woman in the movie and could totally see how Newman's character would hook up with her.

As to the diner waitress, in the special features we are told that the director did not want a good-looking woman for the part (the studio fought him like mad on this point). She had to be believable to Redford's character. If a good-looking woman had been working at such a dreary place, Redford's character would have known in a second that he was being set up. As it was, he assumed that she was a just a lonely person like himself.

[–] KatrinaW 10 years ago

I thought both women were attractive, but in a regular way, not a 'movie' way. One of the things I love about movies made in the 70's and 80's was that people looked so much more real. It tends to take me out of a movie nowadays when everyone is so drop-dead gorgeous, with perfect white teeth, tan skin, designer wardrobes, and (in the case of some women) augmented boobs.

[–] ck1-5 9 years ago

Yeah, there's nothing more ridiculous than a movie that takes place in 1874 that's full of people with mouths full of perfectly capped white Chicklets.

[–] siltom1962 9 years ago

I don't think she had to be outright ugly, though, which she was. They could have found someone plain.

[–] Lackc 8 years ago

I agree. Eileen had a certain charm, style and wit that was very attractive. She also had great figure and really pretty hair and skin. I could totally see why he would fall for her.

[–] liscarkat (18388) 2 years ago

I've been in some dreary greasy spoon places that had attractive women working in them. There are lots of hot women who are not high-class or high-end.

[–] Midgegirl 9 years ago

There was much more "gritty realism" in 70s films re: the way women were depicted. Sure, there were plenty of conventionally beautiful actresses, but there were also many such as Glenda Jackson, Liv Ullman, Marsha Mason, Ellen Burstyn, Rita Tushingham, Shelley Duvall, Sissy Spacek, Gena Rowlands, Barbra Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Chalotte Rampling, Genevieve Bujold etc etc, who were attractive women in a more varied, quirky and non-actressy way.

It's such a shame that this is less common now. And yes, we can all name some current famous actresses that don't fit the perfect-Hollywood-looks mould, but they are in the minority again- and notable because they buck the trend.

[–] pullman1881 9 years ago

Also, in 1973 world, I think it would have looks ridiculous for Henry to be shacked up with a 22-year old; just like Henry, she was more world-weary, and I think it made them more "equals". I liked that she was his age.

[–] siltom1962 9 years ago

They were definitely going against the typical Hollywood grain with the casting of the love interests.

[–] nat_ola 9 years ago

I personally thought that Redford's girl looked old enough to be his mother..

[–] gottaluvafriend 8 years ago

When you're all grown up you'll understand the appeal of these characters.

[–] Gov_William_J_LePetomane 8 years ago

You mean me? I just turned 48!

 HARRUMPH!

[–] gottaluvafriend 8 years ago

Well, act like it then! Ya old perv.

[–] Gov_William_J_LePetomane 8 years ago

I'm a perv because I didn't find Eileen Brennan or Dimitra Arliss attractive?

 HARRUMPH!

[–] gottaluvafriend 8 years ago

No, because you just want to see sexy Bond girls. :-)

[–] arthurab 8 years ago

You raise a compelling point, but I believe it was also b/c these actresses' abilities were why they got the roles, i.e. they were who GRH wanted to play these parts.

I also think it was important that they weren't drop dead perfect too, whether GRH wanted them like that or not. It made the movie much more believable too.

Raquel Welch (of 1973) would have have looked out of place in this movie.