[The Central Scrutinizer]

Batting leadoff, so to speak, I'm not sure how my paper should read. I'm tempted to write a straight up Scrutinizer-style movie review, examining the technical qualities of the film, but this Grift 101, not Cinematography 101. Hey, I'm wingin it here.

First off, The Sting is an astoundingly well made film in every aspect. The ragtime score is catchy, upbeat and fun as hell: "The Entertainer" remains one of the most memorable pieces of music written. Henry Bumstead's sets are terrific. The script is tight--the cast keeps referring to it as 'perfect' in the DVD extras. The entire cast is perfectly chosen: Newman and Redford are having a blast. All the supporting players nail their parts.

The Players

Paul Newman -- Henry Gondorff
Robert Redford -- Johnny Hooker
Eilleen Brennan -- Billie
Charles Durning -- Lt. Snyder
Roy Walston -- J.J. Singleton
Robert Shaw -- Doyle Lonnegan
Harold Gould -- Kid Twist

The following discussion of The Sting assumes all readers have seen the film.

Director George Roy Hill walks a tightrope and comes up Aces (or Jacks) in the end. He manages to sell us a con within a con yet plays it fair. What we think we're seeing and what we're really seeing are, in the end, two different things. If this film were released nowadays, the ominous voiceover in the trailer would say, In a world where no one is what they seem... or something to that effect. The denouement is a triumphant moment in filmmaking and, like so many modern day films that are good but striving for great, causes us to view some of the characters' actions in a different light. Knowing the outcome makes me appreciate the performances even more. Take Hooker's angst the night before the big con. We think he's feeling horrible about setting Henry up, but he's not. He may be honoring Luther or nervous before the Big One. It's a great touch by Redford. It's also a nice misdirection by Hill & crew, but it's fair.

I think what Perfesser camelsmoker is looking for is some analyses of the cons. I'll do what I can but, after all, I am the student.

The First Con

As lacenaire and The Perfesser mentioned, it's a variation of the Pigeon Drop. The setup is quite simple. Johnny Hooker, his mentor Luther, and a third player (the Erie Kid) have set up a well-dressed man as their mark. Luther plays the victim of a "mugger" (Kid), who is running down the alley past the mark. Luther is yelling for help and limping behind.

The mugger runs towards Hooker, who is at the other end of the alley and comes to Luther's "rescue" by taking down the mugger and retreiving the wallet. Johnny and the mark convene around Luther, who claims he must deliver a large amount of slots money to a racket or he's history. (This satisfies the illegal income aspect of the Pigeon Drop--the mark silently notes that if this money disappeared, it wouldn't be reported as lost) Luther offers both men money to deliver his package, but Hooker refuses under the reasoning of personal safety. The mark volunteers after Luther offers him more money. Hooker then shows him how to package the money safely in a handkerchief, just in case the mugger is lying in wait. Courteously, Johnny recommends the mark put ALL of his money in one package and shows him how to 'crotch' the package by sticking it down the front of his own pants, because "No tough guy will frisk you there."

It's then that he pulls a switch. When Johnny removes the package from his own pants and hands it to the mark, what he's handing him is a handkerchief full of tissue paper. The mark crotches the packages and makes tracks down the alley. He thinks he's just scammed the other two, because he heads in the opposite direction of where he promised.

I noticed some great grift mechanics while this scene was going down.

Firstly, they get the mark involved right away. When Hooker incapacitates the mugger, the wallet is left lying on the ground. It's left to the mark to pick it up--that's his invitation into the game. If Johnny picked it up, it would leave the mark on the outside and would make it harder to get him re-involved. They get him when his interest is high.

Luther and Hooker rightly show the mark a lot of 'faith.' He actually has the money in his hands and is leaving before Johnny proposes a method of stashing the cash. To do this right away may arouse his suspicions.
Next, Luther does a lot more than just lie on the ground and ask for help. He directs the pacing of the grift and runs interference for Johnny. Look at when Johnny Hooker asks the mark if he's got a hankie. It's up to Luther to produce one before the mark. He's got to give Johnny one that's the same color as the one already in his pants. It wouldn't do much good to have the mark produce a pink one.

Again, Luther plays the crafty devil. Right before Hooker stuffs the money-laden package down his pants, Luther starts whining about why the men need their money, about his wife being sick, how his payments have always been good. It's just a little bit of distraction, so the mark can't help but to listen. If he's hearing Luther, his attention isn't fully on the switch that Johnny's pulling, which makes him less likely to 'make' the con.

That's part 1 of my paper. I've got some things to do and I'm re-watching portions of this film while I write.

Part 2 will most likely cover the second act of the film, The Setup and The Hook. One thing I wanted to ask The Perfesser was a bit of terminology thrown out during the scene where Kid Twist is interviewing Curly Jackson for the Wire Con. He asked if Curly had run The Wire, and Curly responds "I Roped for it a while ago." Is that a term for getting someone interested?