The Paul Newman Retrospective: The Sting, 1973

Welcome once again to the Paul Newman Retrospective and to the second part of our Robert Redford back to back. This time we have the film that actually won Best Picture of 1973, instead of me lamenting that it didn't.

Confession time: I have a hard time understanding what's going on in this movie. In fact, the first time I watched it I based my understanding entirely on the King of the Hill Episode that's a take off on this film, "The Substitute Spanish Prisoner." I don't have any clips but if you go to Netflix, it's on Instant Viewing under Season 6. I was trying to find some and found an article by a guy who said The Sting wasn't that great because he saw a King of the Hill episode with that same premise. You idiot! It's a reference, you moron! Get your facts straight! Then I found another post on his blog that said Paul Newman would have never had a career if James Dean hadn't died and I decided this guy was a total freaking idiot. Sacrilege. So, let's discuss The Sting, another George Roy Hill film, another Newman-Redford partnership. Comparisons to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid are inevitable. Take the trailer even: "This time they might get away with it." I have to say, though, the characters here are different, deeply cynical and world-weary.

Robert Redford plays Johnny Hooker, a small time grifter who works with Luther, played by Robert Earl Jones. If you're wondering why Luther is vaguely familiar, it's because he's James Earl Jones' dad, but apparently they didn't see much of each other. Anyway, they grift some money that really belongs to Irish gangster, Doyle Lonnegan, who is just no damn fun. Also played by Robert Shaw who insisted he get his name before the title along with Newman and Redford. Really, Robert? You think you're as important as Newman and Redford? Anyway, Luther tells Hooker to look up Gondorff so he can learn the big con. Hooker doesn't want to, but is forced to when Lonnegan's thugs kill Luther.

Hooker finds Henry Gondorff living in a brothel with a carousel, which somehow Paul Newman makes seem cool, like why doesn't everyone live in brothels with carousels? Anyway, Hooker wants revenge on Lonnegan and convinces Gondorff to help him. What follows is an extremely elaborate plot and unlike the Ocean's Trilogy, you don't end up feeling cheated at the end. I'm mostly thinking of Ocean's Twelve. Did that piss off anyone else? If Tess looks like Julia Roberts, why doesn't Danny just walk around with George Clooney's credit cards instead of trying to rob casinos?

The other thing is that this is a decidedly unique film. It's broken into segments separated by title cards that look like Saturday Evening Post covers. The soundtrack is all ragtime music and you will end up with "The Entertainer" stuck in your head after you watch this movie. I don't think that movies get a chance to be this unique now. You don't even see Paul Newman for the first segment. Imagine a movie without the the headliner in it for the first part. Also, Redford seems much more self assured in this one probably owing to his elevation in status following the success of Butch and Sundance.

I also love the world that the film takes place in, with a whole other world of con artists and thieves. Oh, let's face it: George Clooney and Brad Pitt wish they were Paul Newman and Robert Redford in this movie. I wonder if Steven Soderbergh wishes he were George Roy Hill. That does seem unlikely. I just don't know any other film quite like this one, which is no doubt why it won Best Picture. It also set the standard for all caper movies to follow. As I have alluded, there have been many imitators, but not successful. I wish I could explain it better, but I just can't. It has something to do with the chemistry of Newman, Redford and Hill combining to make the perfect con movie. So, go watch it.

So, am I wrong? Did the end of Ocean's Twelve make sense to you? Or how about this, which is better Butch Cassidy or The Sting? What do you think another Newman-Redford collaboration would have looked like? Tell all in the comments.

The Paul Newman Restrospective: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, 1969

In the first season of 30 Rock, there is this classic exchange between Liz Lemon and Jenna Maroney which outlines the debate we will be having over the next two editions of the Paul Newman retrospective:

Jenna: Paul Newman or Robert Redford?
Liz: I’ve told you a thousand times, Newman. Because I enjoy his salad dressings and lemonade.
Jenna: Okay. Brad Pitt or George Clooney?


Once upon a time, there were two leading men called Paul Newman and Robert Redford. They would unite with director George Roy Hill for two films that would become classics of American cinema. One of them would go on to age extremely well and create a line of salad dressings. The other would go on to show us he really should have worn sunscreen and found a film festival that would start out independent, then go all commercial.

Butch and Sundance are two thieves in the American west living the dream. They rob banks and trains, they have a gang, visit prostitutes and go for bicycle rides. Then one day, they get hunted by a lawman names Lefors and nothing is the same. The two men have to flee to Bolivia, where they find it hard to rob banks, then find it hard to go straight and then find that eventually you will get shot robbing banks.

This film has one classic scene after another, so just indulge me.

This is where we learn about the rules of a knife fight:


This is where we learn about jumping off cliffs:


And this is where we learn about riding bicycles:


I swear that is a scene you could only get away with in the 1970s. All of a sudden, there's Burt Bacharach and Paul Newman's riding a bicycle and why? I was relieved to watch an interview with Richard Zanuck, who was the head of 20th Century Fox at the time, who related a story about when he first showed the film to the Board of Fox, who basically were like, "What's with that scene with the bicycle?" Okay, so it wasn't just me.

What is important is that this is the perfect film for 1969. The tone is just right, echoing the American discontent at the time without intentionally going cynical, just truthful. Take for instance one of the central ironies of the film: that Butch and Sundance never killed a man until they went straight. It's remarkable. Take the ending, which as I understand it House tried to murder a couple of weeks ago, hence why I stopped watching House like three years ago. That's neither here nor there...



I don't know what that bit tagged on the end is. Take that ending. This movie would suck if somehow Butch and Sundance got out, if we were subjected to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Down Under. It never would have worked. William Goldman said the theme of the film was that times change and if you want to survive, you should change with them. Butch and Sundance can't, won't, remain a relic of a wild past that is fast disappearing in the face of the future. We wouldn't love them if they did change and when they die, we don't feel cheated. It just seems right.

So, what did you think of this movie? By the way, it was nominated for Best Picture and lost to Midnight Cowboy. William Goldman did win for Best Screenplay. So, tell me if you disagree with me, did you understand the bicycle scene? Also, be sure to put your pitches for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid Rob Monaco in the comments section.




Another legacy of this film is a philanthropic one. Paul Newman took the name of the gang in the film and founded Hole In The Wall Camps, which is a place where seriously ill children come to act like kids who aren't sick for a short time of the year. Here's an old PSA with Paul and I feel compelled to put a link to them to donate if you are so moved. I suck at making the links work, though, so if you could just copy and paste the address in your browser.

https://www.holeinthewallcamps.org/SSLPage.aspx?pid=425