By Charlie Schutt
I want to preface this by saying that I never write angry articles. However, that changes today. Because today, I found something to get angry about. So, if you're reading this, feel special: you get to read my first angry article.
In today’s world, we have an entire catalog of films that are considered “classics”. Films like, “Gone With the Wind”, “Casablanca”, “Psycho”, and “American Graffiti” have been at the top of “classics” lists for years, and rightfully so. However, I propose that there is a forgotten film out there; a film that has yet to be recognized for the triumph it was. This is a film called, “The Sting”. Now, before last week, I hadn’t even heard of the film. It was new on both my ears and my eyes, but I was enthralled from the first frame. The chemistry between the two main characters, Henry “Shaw” Gondorff (portrayed by Paul Newman) and Johnny “Kelly” Hooker (portrayed by Robert Redford) gave the film oodles of charm, and helped the plot move smoothly. The story is an absolute masterwork, and there are some that consider it the best screenplay ever written.
The film is set in Chicago, and takes place during 1936, at the end of the Great Depression. Chicago is a dangerous place to live for more than one reason. Buildings are foreclosed, the streets are filled with violence, and criminals are everywhere. Racism is a prominent issue, the police force is completely corrupt, and the government is doing nothing to intervene. In the film, anyone that isn’t a criminal is presented as a villain, and the criminals are our heroes. The film uses the term “grifters'' to describe criminals that lift money or items off of unsuspecting victims. Our main characters, Hooker and Shaw are both grifters, the latter having just come out of retirement. His goal is simple: pull off the biggest grift of his career. There is a wealthy mogul in the area named Doyle Lonnegan (portrayed by Robert Shaw), and Shaw wants to trick him into giving up a fortune on a loaded bet. The film proceeds to show us as the two men con their way in and out of situations, and the resolution is fulfilling for the characters and audience. It’s one of the best-executed stories that I’ve ever seen put to film, and my feelings of elation haven’t gone down yet.
The magic of the film is that it's a story about con-men, but the story itself is conning you the entire time. The sheer amount of twists and turns will have your mind bent, but never broken. Every time a new piece of information is revealed, you're thinking to yourself, "I should have thought of that!" That's a quality that's good for any film to have, but especially so in a movie where your main characters are tricking people throughout. Because of this, you feel as though you're part of the movie, and that you know the characters involved.
With all these positives, there has to be at least one negative. The one problem that I have with "The Sting" is this: it’s underappreciated, and underrecognized.
Yes, you heard me right. No one remembers this film. Four years earlier, the two leads of the film partnered with the same director to make a film called “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid”. It was met with critical acclaim and commercial success, and it’s considered the 73rd greatest American film of all time on “AFI’s 100 Years, 100 Movies” list. AFI also considers it the 7th greatest western of all time. It appears on classics’ lists everywhere, and it should be. It’s clearly a great film. The problem I have is that “The Sting” is objectively better, yet it doesn’t appear on the AFI’s Top 100. Let’s take a minute to compare the two films in an educated way, shall we? “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid” was nominated for Best Picture. “The Sting” won that award. “Butch Cassidy” was nominated for seven Oscars and won four. “The Sting” was nominated for ten Oscars and won seven of them. “Butch Cassidy” holds an 89% on Rotten Tomatoes. Great. “The Sting” holds a 94% with only 5 negative reviews. Oh and by the way, “The Sting” made 57 million dollars more than “Butch Cassidy” on a SMALLER BUDGET.
Excuse me for being a little angry, but where is the love for this film? How have I never heard of it, and why has it been neglected for the absolute crowd-pleaser that it is? Listen, I’m not saying that we have to lose our minds over this film, but let’s just take a look at a few films that have won seven Academy Awards; “Schindler’s List”, “Lawrence of Arabia”, “Dances With Wolves”, “The Bridge on the River Kwai”, “Gravity”, and “Shakespeare in Love”. Yet, if I ask someone about “The Sting”, the general response is, “They made a ‘Bee Movie’ sequel?”
So forgive my subtle cry here, but let’s give a little credit where credit is due. I’m in no place to tell the AFI what they should think, but I think that the facts speak for themselves. Redford, Newman and Hill made a film in 1969 that did good business and got good reviews. Four years later, they did better business and got better reviews, yet they’re still celebrated more for the statistically inferior film. Why should “Butch Cassidy” hold the rank of 73rd when “The Sting” gets left out of the party? As a film fan, it just irks me a little that this film hasn’t been praised by the masses. I’ve been vigorously studying Academy Award lists for years, and somehow, this one has slipped past me every time. It’s strange to me that a film directed towards the general public is only known by cinephiles.
Maybe my qualm here is just with the AFI. I mean, you call yourself the American Film Institute. It’s literally your job to recognize great films. You’re kind of dropping the ball if you don’t do the ONE JOB that you’ve been given. And if that’s too hard for you guys, I understand. Sometimes watching good movies can wear you down.
So, let me be the one voice of reason in the room (and do the AFI’s job for them).
Go watch “The Sting”. It is a classic, and should be considered a classic. It’s a story set in the 30s, recorded in the 70s, that still hits me in the 20s. If a story about a couple of criminals from a century ago can entertain a high school boy, then they must have done something right. I mean, the film made 159,000,000 dollars in 1973. That’s over a billion dollars in today’s money. The same amount that the last “Star Wars” film made in 2019. I’ll finish with this. The last 50 years have done a disservice to this film. It’s gone underappreciated and underrecognized. That needs to stop. When a group of people make an incredible film, they deserve to be celebrated.
So, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, and George Hill, let me be the first of a new generation to thank you. This film is a triumph for artists and storytellers everywhere, and I am honored to have gotten the chance to see this film and appreciate it. Go watch "The Sting" if you haven't, and please, recommend it to your friends. It's a great film, and a timeless story.
Комментарии