The Sting

The chemistry between Redford & Newman is quite famous, The Sting being perhaps the greatest catalyst towards that fame. Along with Butch & Sundance, this film defined the acme of a cinematic generation. It’s commonly known as the New American Cinema, with Scorcese, Coppola, Lucas, Spielberg, DePalma, etc. taking most of the credit. George Roy Hill, however, like Bob Rafelson, did more for this movement than most of his highly esteemed peers. These two films are the most memorable of the whole bunch, as far as I’m concerned, and that’s because of Hill as much as it is Redford & Newman.

The Coens are often attributed with having started the "independent" cinema as we know it. Indeed, they achieved a lot towards its advancement, but it was cinematic purists like George Roy Hill that truly put the New Machine in motion. The Sting is not exactly an independent film, it quite obviously has a considerably Hollywood budget and the cast is A-List if ever there was one. The film transcends the power of its stars however, superseding their typical effect. Many films are ruined because they have movie stars in them. Most every film with movie stars would be a better film with no-names. The precedent of stardom tempers the audience and makes the film that much less believable, and makes any suspension of disbelief that much more unlikely. That suspension of disbelief is vital in a film’s cinematic success, while its greatest antagonist (movie stars) is the single most important element in the marketing of a film and it’s box office success. Very few films attain greatness in both regards, and The Sting is one of the most memorable of them.

This movie is the definition of charm, largely due to the Joplin tunes (which are about 30 years older than the setting of the film). The music came about by accident (according to the soundtrack’s jacket) but served to immortalize this film like few films ever have been. Of course the chemistry between Redford & Newman also lends itself to the everlasting success of this movie, but it’s not as though they rehash old roles or old reactions. Butch & Sundance were symbiant friends, interchangeable in most ways. They even go so far as to say the same things as each other. Johnny Hooker & Henry Gondorf, however, are a wholly different dynamic. Gondorf is the older version of Hooker, so in that they are the same person, but the years that separate them are enough to drastically alter that character. How the actors portray that is what makes this film work. "Where Have you Gone Red Ryder?" I think is the name of a play where one character is looking back in time as he reacts with another character — looking at himself twenty years previous. The Sting does the same thing, simply on a grander scale.

The New American Cinema was comprised of Hollywood films, for the most part, so it’s not about indie vs. non-indie. It’s about the content of the films. Hollywood at the time was jumping on the musical bandwagon trying to put as big a meat hook as possible in the collective national sentimentality of the time. This only worked so much, as there were obviously more important things happening than movie stars dancing on mountaintops. The inevitable result is the New American Cinema, the single most progressive era in film history, in my opinion. The French New Wave was a response to American Film Noir, the Italian Neo-Realist movement was a direct result of Nazi Occupation, and the Angry Young Man thing was about ten years behind the ball. The New American Cinema was truly the most original of these movements, the first since the expressionistic German films to truly go into new territory. The New Wave touches on processes and subject matter that may have been taboo, but it is lightweight & petty compared to films like Five Easy Pieces, The Conversation, & Taxi Driver. These films came from a deep need to express something intangible, some indefinite. The French were and will always be knowitalls, while we Americans thrive in our self-deprecating, identity-less ability to say that we have no idea who we are or why we are here. There is something intrinsically mysterious about the American Artist, and this was never more prevalent than in the early 70’s in film.

This movement became two things as it split into the Blockbuster & the Independent. Jaws being the first of the former, there remains no clear-cut beginning to the latter. This I think is due to its natural foundation in the ever-darkening hearts of Americana. The Sting is a lighthearted sentimental comedy more than anything, but it is also a yearning for the simplicity & innocence lost a generation before it was made. WWII children grew up & made movies, and their hearts were obvious. The Sting may not be a profound film, but it is a great film. It employs age-old devices and the steadying effect of grand acting to make a thoroughly enjoyable product with more validity & steadfast lasting power than 99% of all movies ever made.

I got this movie for Christmas one year while I was beginning film school, and it immediately became one of my all-time favorites. It was a foundation in reality, along with the Graduate, while I journeyed world cinema for the first time. Its simple grace cannot be outdone, and it is that lesson that I hope to employ most often in my own films. I can only ever dream of making a movie as good as The Sting. It truly is a high water mark, a film by which any other film can be compared. It may not be as grand as Ran or as brilliant as Casablanca or as edgy as Sam Fuller films, but it’s part of the aorta of my cinephiledom. It’s just a really cool movie.