I"d say that ONE reason The Sting and The Exorcist dominated movie culture in 1973 is because they were each so UNIQUE. Back then, NOBODY knew what a "Sting" was, and NOBODY knew what an "exorcism" was. Both movies taught us , and now EVERYBODY knows what a "Sting" is, and what an exorcism is. Some hit movies derive from bringing something new to the audience, something they haven't seen before.
---
Well, let me tell you this: it’s not very good.
--
Says you.
---
I never really liked it that much, but now I like it less.
--
Sounds like you were around to see it first run -- or near first run(it had several re-releases) so I can't accuse you of being a young person who "wasn't there." Fair enough.
And I'm not here to change your mind. I can't. I won't. I respect opinions.
Still, The Sting WAS quite a hit, the Best Picture win WAS quite an honor. Its a movie that matters in its own special way, but I think it mattered a LOT more back then.
---
Truth is, it’s really just another dumb Hollywood movie full of preposterous, made-up nonsense. Fairly well-done, yes. But dumb.
---
One thing I didn't think it was at the time was...dumb. I'll grant you that the roulette wheel bit was pretty unbelievable, but the movie recovers quickly and is quite intricate with a lot of twists along the way to the BIG twist at the end.
---
It’s hard for me to like any movie so busy being impressed with itself.
--
An interesting criticism. I'd say that ANY movie in which the makers think they've got a great script and a great cast IS "impressed with itself." That self-confidence extends to the audience: "This is a GREAT story. Newman and Redford are GREAT stars -- more than just handsome."
I read an autobio by Julia Phillips, one of the producers of The Sting. In the beginning, all she had was an option on the script. She let a studio exec named Don Simpson read the script. He said "this is the best script I've ever read." Phillips wrote in her autobio: "And it was the best script he ever WOULD read."
So at least SOME pros in Hollywood thought the script was good. And then Robert Redford (very hot at the time) thought it was good enough to star in. And it was good enough to bring in Redford's "Butch" director George Roy Hill and THEN to bring in Paul Newman -- who was shoehorned into a supporting role intended for Peter Boyle. (Redford rather grudingly let Newman in -- for higher billing and higher pay -- but Redford DID owe him for making him a star in Butch Cassidy.)
---
It thinks it’s really clever. Sometimes it is, but mostly not. It’s based on the same book that inspired Stephen Cannell to create “The Rockford Files,” a big fat out-of-print how-to book from the 30’s called “The Big Con” that everyone in Hollywoodtown suddenly rediscovered in the 70’s.
---
Yes, I've read of that book, and "sour grapes" screenwriter Steve Shagan(whose Save the Tiger lost the Oscar that year) tried to sue The Sting over a "steal." But the lawsuit failed.
I can only say that a lot of us -- millions -- had no idea of "The Big Con" or what a sting was and were INDEED surprised by the concept and its "stages"(The Set-Up, The Hook, The Wire, The Tale, The Shut Out, The Sting)...it was ALL new to us.
---
It thinks it knows its subject well enough to lead you from one unlikely happening to the next, forgetting that some of us actually have a limit to how much we’ll suspend disbelief.
--
And some of us don't. I still slap myself to this day over TOTALLY falling for the climactic twist. Yeah, I thought they both got killed. Reason why: back then, movie leads OFTEN got killed -- just like Newman and Redford did in Butch Cassidy. What's funny is -- TODAY -- it seems so OBVIOUS that Newman would NOT just shoot Redford in anger, that the FBI guy WAS a con man, etc. But back in 1973(at a much younger age, I'll admit) -- I fell for it all.
--- I like watching Newman and Redford as much as the next guy: the former’s acting is good, but only some of the latter’s is.
---
In a DVD interview years later, Redford couldn't help but note that when The Sting was made, the studio felt that HE was now a bigger star than Newman, who was "on the fade," it seemed. Redford SAID this -- saving himself with "of course I didn't think that." But I'll bet he did. New movie stars slightly displace earlier ones all the time -- in the 70's, Redford ascended while Newman sort of "held on."
Meanwhile, co-star Robert Shaw said that on location in a Chicago train station -- "Newman got all the yells of attention from women and other fans, and Redford did not."
But however those two superstars added up individually, TOGETHER they made an unbeatable team, and were considered the "best of the buddy teams" forever more(huge hits, Oscars, Best Picture.)
CONT
reply
share
roger1 (3626)
6 months ago
OTHER buddy teams didn't quite hit those heights: Sutherland and Gould in MASH, Newman and Lee Marvin in Pocket Money, Burt Reynolds and Gene Hackman in Lucky Lady, James Caan and Elliott Gould in "Harry and Walter Go to New York."
Sean Connery and Michael Caine in "The Man Who Would Be King" came close. The script was first offered to Newman by his friend John Huston(they were working on The Mackintosh Man) for Newman and Redford. NEWMAN said "they've got to be British -- Connery and Caine!"
The year after The Sting, Paul Newman was paired with his 1960s superstar rival Steve McQueen, and while in some ways it was a bigger star deal, the movie wasn't as good as The Sting(disaster movie The Towering Inferno) and Newman and McQueen only shared a few scenes together -- they were NOT buddies.
CONT
reply
share
roger1 (3626)
6 months ago
Just a small sampling of the silliness we’re supposed to swallow:
1) The button-operated cheating mechanism on the roulette wheel
---
I'm with you on that one. The behavior of Johnny Hooker(Redford) is so obviously dumb here, it can only be taken as a plot point(he loses all his recent con job money and thus attracts the bad guys) and as a character study(he's not smart enough yet to "play" The Sting; Newman's Henry Gondorff will teach him.)
---
2) Kid Twist telling Lonnegan to “Place it on (horse’s name)” as if anyone would really do that
---
Well, the trick was to keep everything so "feverish and high pressure"(including building up Lonnegan WAY BEFORE this moment -- for DAYS -- by teasing him along) that...I bought it. Hell, I didn't even hear it and I think how Twist said it the first time wasn't EXACTLY like that. Worked for me. (Harold Gould's dapper Kid Twist, by the way, was almost a third star in the movie with Newman and Redford, aside from Shaw.)
---
3) Switching a dealt hand of four 3’s for four jacks from a matching deck. Lonnegan would merely have to spread the discards to show the extra jacks and missing 3’s.
---
I didn't know that then, and I barely understand it now. You are "too much the ringer" for this script to work for you, I must admit.
---
CONT
reply
share
roger1 (3626)
6 months ago
4) Most preposterous of all: diner waitress Loretta who is actually a well-known mob boss AND professional killer (but somehow not to anyone else in either Gondorf’s or Hooker’s circle)
---
Oh, maybe. The big deal at the time was that the actress seemed far too plain to attract Robert Redford, but that was key to her "getting away with her murders." A "hot babe" would have been far more noticeable. Maybe some knew what the killer looked like, maybe some didn't -- but she makes sure only to only interact with Redford , at the diner.
CONT
reply
share
roger1 (3626)
6 months ago
And only some of this antipathy is because my pick for that year’s Oscar winner was “The Exorcist,” even though I would not actually see it until 1975.
---
The Sting and The Exorcist were released within days of each other at Christmas of 1973. I saw The Sting before 1973 was over, but I didn't see The Exorcist until about March of 1974. I COULDN'T. In Los Angeles where I lived, it was put in only ONE theater(The National in Westwood, near UCLA) and the line literally snaked through the entire town. Somehow The Exorcist beat The Sting at the box office even though in L.A. it only played on one screen for weeks.
The Sting and The Exorcist were the "Barbie and Oppenheimer" of 1973. I now call them "Stingorcist" to match up with "Barbenheimer." At the Oscars, while The Sting won Best Original Screenplay, The Exorcist won Best Adapted Screenplay(Wililiam Peter Blatty from his own novel.)
And...drum roll..I liked The Sting a lot better than I liked The Exorcist. And I thought the script for The Exorcist was sorely lacking in good plotting and good dialogue. The Sting seemed SO much more professional to me.
Plus, I felt that the on-screen treatment of Linda Blair looked and FELT like...child abuse. The film didn't scare me -- the pea soup vomit AMUSED me. The crucifix in the breadbasket scene rather appalled me. The spinal tap scene sickened me.
Still...that's why there are 31 flavors. To the end of time some will like The Exorcist better than The Sting, and vice versa. These "Christmas 1973 movies" go through time together.
---
It’s on Netflix right now if you care to spend two hours and nine minutes to find out that I’m right.
---
The Sting has been on Netflix off and on for some months now. I think Netflix bought a package of "Universal 70's hits" -- they also show American Graffiti, Airport, and Smokey and the Bandit.
reply
share