American Hustle (2013) ****½/5: Great ensemble film but some necessary elements missing that would make some of the thematic elements resonate

American Hustle is a great film because of the performances of the ensemble cast and the thematic element which is quite strong for a film with such a plot featuring con artists. I say this is a great film primarily because it is superior to that other great con film The Sting that won the academy award for best film in 1973. American Hustle is superior because the elaborate plot paints a picture of American society and those involved in the great deceit from the politicians to the mobsters and the ordinary hustlers and regular individuals that are caught up in the whole process. It also questions the motives of the various characters and makes it clear that it is never so straightforward. It does not become too personalized like The Sting and so can embrace different perspectives. It reminded me of the structure of Nashville (1975) although the characterizations here are stronger.  This is truly an American film and it probably suffers by being stretched thin but makes up for this through strong characterization and several surprises. It also makes clear that the world of con men/women deal in illusion and false perceptions by forcing the victims to engage in those beliefs that are most dear to them I understand the reality having been conned several times myself. It also highlights that you must not bite off more than you can chew. Other films have highlighted this but have not made it manifest through the actual individuals involved. American Hustle is significant from this perspective. I recall Matchstick Men (2005) but that film did not manifest itself significantly and relied more on quirkiness to great comedic effect at times and there were too many things that did  not connect to make the film more meaningful. It seems that most con films are comedic and American Hustle runs true to form in such an instance.  Looking back, The Sting was pretty straight forward and painted the characters more like cartoon figures on a comic strip which enhanced the production values. It is still a good film but this current release supplants it. American Hustle demonstrates that each generation improves on its predecessor (s). As a result of the success enjoyed by The Sting  way back when it is no surprise that this current release is being featured prominently in awards season. 

The film is primarily about two partners in fraud crime Irving Rosenfield (Christian Bale without the vanity) and Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) who are forced into making a deal with a manic FBI agent, Richie Dimaso (Bradley Cooper playing true to form when you consider Silver Linings Playbook), to bring down at least 4 major players in the con game including the naive mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner) who embodies the phrase ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’. Irving has to deal with his wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence, the great female star for this generation) who seems erratic but offers some of the more delightful surprises because she is underestimated by the main characters in the film and by the audience as a result.

Positives

I was impressed when the film opened with the statement that ‘Some of this actually happened.’ This suggests that there is some plausibility to the film’s opening in the year of 1978. From what I read there were some investigations by the FBI during this period related to grafters and corrupt politicians in an operation called Abscam. It lead to several convictions however there is some plausibility in the statement that it was more of an entrapment than an actual ‘caught in the act’ criminal acts. These people were enticed with bribes by fake personages from the FBI and were convicted as a result. It seemed more like  a litmus test measuring where you fall on the corruption scale. In any case I liked that the writers (David Russell and Eric Singer) admitted that it was not totally accurate and this gives them more freedom to present morally ambivalent characters and various embellishments (intrigues, relationships etc) that would not be characteristic in a real life drama on the actual subject.

  

The main theme here is reinvention and it is a good look even though it does not manifest itself significantly. I also like the element that highlighted that the great con artists get away with their crimes because the victim believes fervently in the facade that is erected before their eyes.

This elaborate con involving some fabricated sheikh from Abu Dhabi who wishes to invest in New jersey’s floundering Atlantic city, home to a great casino tradition,  involves a cross section of American society from the politicians (a mayor and several senators), the mob, the FBI and the ordinary cons (Irving and Sydney).  

I also admired how every character (apart from the leads) grows into prominence. Initially I saw these characters for who they were i.e. the actors playing particular roles but as the film progressed I was hooked to some extent. I was hooked because characters that seemed peripheral at the onset, like Rosalyn, came to play bigger roles as the story progressed. One great surprise was the only scene featuring Robert De Niro. It shows you that De Niro has not lost his touch because that scene is significant for the plot because the mob gets involved.  This scene had me laughing because it was unexpected. That sense of surprise I felt is also mirrored in Irving’s consternation when the De Niro character appears and makes some gestures that could have undermined the operation. This is just one example of the surprises you come to expect from this film as it progresses. It keeps you on the edge of your seat as some characters rise and fall… and then rise again.

Each character represents something on the morality scale. This allows the actors to dig in and so make their characters memorable. For instance Irving lives by defrauding people but he likes to remain low key and is wary about being too grand with his imagination which can get you into trouble. He does have a conscience which is the root of his so called negative behaviour in some way based on the back story and explains why he can sympathize with Carmine. His opposite is Richie who is almost desperate to prove himself by going big without a suitable foundation to build on. In the film Irving and Sydney emphasize the concept of the feet up. Richie’s grand design, which he hopes will make him a great poster boy of the FBI, falls away as reality eats away at his beliefs. He never did hear the end of the story at the ice lake which his immediate superior tries to tell him. He does not hear it because he assumes he knows the outcome. He does not know the outcome but he certainly experiences at the end. Lastly, the mayor acts like a man with good intentions desperate to renovate, not build a new, Atlantic City the heart of New Jersey. He engages in questionable corrupt deals with senators with the hope that he will achieve his goals. Even though it may seem corrupt Irving makes it clear that sometimes this is what must be done for the greater good. ‘the road to hell is paved with good intentions’ applies to this mayor. Even the mob has a face in the form of De Niro and it is obvious that the mob economy merely represents the dark side of capital because the leaders of organized crime are business men/capitalists after all.

This hustle which is all American has more to say about America than The Sting which was a purely personal operation. David Russell thinks big here and makes it obvious that a lot of things are connected. People are not hustlers for the sake of the hustle. There is more to it beyond the superficial perceptions of the general populace. The hustle is portrayed here as a genuine lifestyle. It is also symptomatic of capitalism that it produces people such as these hustlers and I will delve into this when I review The Hustler (1961) which I am currently working on.  This film does attempt to understand how these characters are a by product of the very system, capitalism, that is being trumpeted all over the world as the salvation of billions. Capital unleashes an individualist mentality where people are motivated primarily by naked self interest. This is all too evident here. It is good fodder for my own vitriolic attacks on the system. 

The plot was very elaborate yet it resolves itself quite simply. The best parts are when you are muddling through the various intricacies as you try to guess who is going to come out on top. When the denouement does come it would have seemed corny if it was not always leading up to that particular moment and so some characters who did not heed advice paid the price and those who played by the rules came out on top.

I like that Christian Bale is devoid of vanity here. The opening scene is testament to that.

Negatives

The primary negatives for this film is that the resolutions are not necessarily definitive. The plot was involving in the elaborate build up especially when you consider the various characters involved. It seems like a safe exit. All the usual suspects are rounded up and that’s that. What happens to Richie is significant but the denouement for the main characters was not fulfilling for me.  Scorsese did this well for The Departed (2006) and Good Fellas (1990). Russell needs to work on this element for his films.  I did not get a sense of that here that everything is wrapped up in a satisfying manner which lets you know that it’s all over,  the razzle, dazzle etc. There is no sense of that to any extent. Well I was just not satisfied and I am not going to get into what should be done. The filmmakers tried to brush over a lot of things for the sake of comedy and that does not necessarily work with a satisfying conclusion. A satisfying conclusion needs to be bittersweet, it needs to resonate beyond the hustle and all great films have this element. The structure of the film makes it seem that we needed a more overarching story that would have extended some years, or a year, beyond the actual operation.  A strong ensemble cast cannot deliver this for you; they have done their part and it is now up to the directors and the editors to craft the denouement in order to show how everything adds up. What I mean is that the characters can only say so much and there comes a time when you have to take a step back to show how this is manifested in their reality. Russell has Christian bale talking and talking about reinvention but you don’t actually see this happening. You open a gallery here and there but what does that mean in the long run for the character especially since everything is apparently resolved in the actual elaborate plot? What is the legacy they are leaving behind? Alright another example when Irving says that a particular episode will haunt him for the rest of his days how is this manifested later on. It’s all talk. It was all wrapped up too smoothly for me.

A lot of elements related to the con are jumbled. There are some moments when we are not kept in the loop. We are only made aware of what’s happening afterwards in order that we be entertained. I suppose the audience has to be entertained but that is after the fact.  The approach in The Sting was better where at times characters, which were a part of the elaborate set up, were not sure of what was happening so that the operation could have some level of integrity. There was an elaborate set up by the senior con man to get the more inexperienced one in line and they showed you how. In this film you are not really sure how things were set up initially so that we could see everything add up on our own. Here it is some character from the long distant past but what about the actual set up of the operation. How were we to know that? Irving and Sydney say they plan to con so and so but it’s all words here and we never get to see the actual implementation. This must be the fictional element. Also when Irving says Richie did not catch the big boys I wanted to know who he was speaking of. I understand that he means the real criminals and that is ok because Richie’s operation was one of entrapment and not necessarily one engaged in capturing the ones actually doing illegal activities.

The main theme here is reinvention and it is a good look even though it does not manifest itself significantly.

The plot is overloaded and so not every element can be addressed sufficiently.