Critical Coin Toss: American Hustled? A Discussion About David O. Russell’s Hot Mess of Con Artists

With “Critical Coin Toss,” two Glide writers lace up their boots and step into the critical arena, debating the pros and cons of a movie, album, TV show, or any other piece of pop-culture. 

Leading into the glitzy Oscar season, John Keith and Brice Ezell take a look at one of the most acclaimed films of 2013, American Hustle. Don’t let the Metascore fool you: Not everyone is in love with David O. Russell’s take on the mysterious ABSCAM scandal.

John Keith: David O. Russell has done it again. On the heels of his beloved Silver Linings Playbook comes his next Oscar darling, American Hustle (garnering 10 Oscar nominations — two more than SLP). Yet this film, like SLP before it, showcases Russell’s inability to write and direct a cohesive movie. From the performances of the actors to the overall tone of the piece, Hustle vacillates between being an outright comedic parody of ’70s films and a serious recounting of the true events surrounding the ABSCAM operation conducted by the FBI. While I grew to truly despise SLP for its similar tonal deficiencies and packaging (and I’ll try not to let my distaste for that film influence me here), I came into Hustle hoping to enjoy a hot mess of a film; yet not even the lowest of expectations could have prepared me for what Hustle delivered, never becoming a hot enough mess to be an enjoyable romp or a solid enough film to take seriously.

Brice Ezell: Con man films, in my experience, fall under one of two forms: “the twist” and “the method.” Both of these forms are evident, by way of example, in Steven Soderbergh’s excellent Ocean’s trilogy: Whereas Eleven (2001) and Twelve (2004) are hinged upon a giant reveal at the end of the film that resolves the mysteries and tensions of the events that come before it, Thirteen (2007) focuses extensively on method, detailing each step of the confidence game such that by the time everything comes together, the surprise has largely already been given up. Neither of these forms, it seems to me, are better than the other; the necessity of a twist of some kind will inevitably depend on the direction the script takes.

There is, however, a noticeable trend in emphasis depending on whether one prefers “the twist” or “the method.” In the case of the former, the moving parts and technicalities of the con are highlighted; with the latter, character takes on a more prominent role. “The twist” emphasis can be seen in an extreme form in the recent Now You See Me (2013), which focuses so much on a highfalutin hat-trick that its characters ring as hollow. Meanwhile, Ridley Scott’s Matchstick Men (2003) represents “the method,” honing in primarily on the lives of self-professed con artists. For those who like the bells and whistles of the Ocean’s trilogy, “the method” will likely hold less appeal. Even Thirteen, which reasonably fits under the “method” umbrella, is far more bells-and-whistles driven than a film like Scott’s.

Russell’s American Hustle is of the same lineage as Matchstick Men; its focus is undoubtedly on “the method.” The quasi-ABSCAM confidence trick of the film isn’t what is really important; instead, the shifting identities of confidence tricksters (Christian Bale, Amy Adams, and even FBI agent Bradley Cooper) take center stage. To a degree, John is right; the film is a “hot mess,” but in my view it’s supposed to be one. The lives people like Irving Rosenfeld (Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Adams) lead come with a host of externalities, not the least of which is that they must to some degree always be performing. Richie DiMaso (Cooper), who gets sucked into the world of con artistry, likewise finds his identity in flux, as he gets drawn in by the allure of being something and someone else. This, to me, explains some of the tonal shifts John takes issue with — though I personally did not get a vibe of “’70’s parody” from the film. That Bradley Cooper’s curls are a bit ostentatious is, I think, a product of the times, not a jab at the disco era.

JK: Maybe “parody” is the wrong word? Cooper’s curls were a delightful touch — Bale’s elaborate combover far more distracting. But Hustle certainly does pay homage to the ’70s from Richie and Sydney’s Saturday Night Fever dance sequence to the soundtrack, which is composed of the most cliche ’70s hits (not to imply that that wasn’t an immensely enjoyable aspect). It feels as though Russell is trying to pack in as much ’70s culture as he can into a 2.5 hour film.

If “the method” is responsible for the actions of the actors, I could maybe buy it. But if they are all meant to be conning each other and the world around them, then why do they never feel like they’re even acting in the same scene? To con someone, you have to be able to believe them, yet I barely believe that Bale and Cooper are even acting in the same film, with their feuding voiceovers adding to the cacophony of incomprehension being dumped on the audience (It’s as manic as the Glee voiceovers that change on a whim yet never seem to come together in the end). Jennifer Lawrence certainly thinks she’s starring in her own film, but she doesn’t know what she wants it to be. From a gratuitous lesbian kiss-off to her final scene in the bedroom in which her character’s motivations actually change on a whim (no matter how much they contradict any previous motivation), Lawrence’s Rosalyn embodies the term “hot mess.” Yet the least believable thing in the film is Sydney’s British accent. Does she have a bad accent to show us that she’s a fake? How can all the characters believe she really is British with such a bad accent? Or was that simply the best accent that Adams could produce?

BE: Adams’ British accent is indeed deplorable, though I would imagine the screenwriters found its efficacy believable given the lowlifes her and Bale’s character were often working with. I don’t expect desperate lower-to-middle class citizens in America at that time would have been all that keen on the complexities of English accents. I imagine anything posh-sounding would be enough to fool people.

Jennifer Lawrence’s turn in the film is excellent, but I have one issue with her performance that, to be fair, is something out of her control. Barely into her 20s, Lawrence sounds especially young compared to her fellow actors, and while it seems like she’s playing a woman of about the same age as her co-stars, she sounds significantly younger. This has to do with Lawrence’s actual age, however, and not her acting ability, which is aces. The kiss with Sydney (Adams) that you label “gratuitous” is, to me, emblematic of her character’s vacillating personality. Emotionally, Rosalyn is all over the place, and just before the scene with Sydney she was brought into the fold of her husband’s con game, an environment unfamiliar to her. As a result, she overcompensates in her swagger and forthcomingness; witness her sultrily walking up to the big money guys at the bar, and, yes, her kissing Sydney. Despite the leagues of chatroom and Reddit horndogs who probably have an endless reservoir of slow-mo gifs of the scene, it’s not erotically charged whatsoever. Roslyn is doing whatever she can to make a power-play over this woman she knows has a unique grip over her husband. The effect of the kiss is up to interpretation; Sydney herself is as powerful and assured a woman, and it’s unlikely a single move from a volatile person would send her reeling. Roslyn’s actions, then, are a pendulum swing from being nervous in a new environment to trying to make some kind of power claim.

AH Posters

Your point about these actors “not acting in the same scene” is, I think, tied to David O. Russell’s methodology as a director. In a recent interview with Jon Stewart, Adams described the freestyle quality to his directing, where the actors will do one take and Russell, sitting just off-camera, will yell at the actors to do the scene a different way. She calls this style “a beautiful chaos.” This, it seems to me, is a style that would reinforce the dynamic quality of these character’s shifting identities. Unlike the polished con artists of the Ocean’s trilogy, who develop larger-than-life characters with distinct voices and costumes (see: Don Cheadle’s “Fender Rhodes” in Thirteen), the con artists of American Hustle are almost constantly going identity shifts to adapt to the situation. Bradley Cooper’s role here is especially true of this, as Agent DiMaso has to reconcile (a) his desire to bring the bad guys to justice and (b) the thrill he gets from playing along with the confidence artists. There is a sense in which DiMaso thinks himself comparable to Bale’s and Adams’ characters.

JK: DiMaso certainly comes across as thrilled in the film. So thrilled he goes mentally off the rails, physically assaulting his boss and getting not even a smack on the hand for his egregious actions. Instead, he ‘s encouraged to embrace this darker, manic side. Cooper handles the character as much as we can expect from him, but with Russell’s particular brand of directing Cooper never reaches the full level of believability in the role. I think Cooper has great potential as an actor, but his latest roles have proven that he has not tapped into his full potential. I want to see him take on a role of similar merit under a more skilled director.

Russell certainly draws out “electric” performances from these actors (as they say in the aforementioned interview), but it feels that these performances are so focused on being electric awards bait that they fail to develop beyond their superficial exteriors. So much emphasis on hair and costume and vacillating emotional outbursts distracts the viewer from wondering if there is even something human beneath each character’s facade. Lawrence is certainly too young to be taken seriously as Bale’s longstanding wife and comes off as some Gossip Girl social climber when she dines out with Carmine (Jeremy Renner) and his wife. She has to spend so much of the film trying to get taken seriously that it makes all her other motivations seem even more juvenile. Bale spends so much of the film worrying about his appearance that when he suddenly has concern for Carmine, it’s surprising to realize that Irving might actually be a thoughtful person. If we take Sydney’s (or Evelyn’s) accent at face value, assuming everyone is too ignorant to notice its false notes, then she appears to be the only character who knows what is even going on. Adams seems to take in each actor’s wild range of emotionality and plays off it. She’s the only person involved with the film I feel deserves an Oscar nomination — if only for her ability to rise above the manic tone of the film.

BE: I enjoyed watching Cooper come unravelled; I think that his character oscillates in mood and intensity is because, unlike Bale and Adams (who are more experienced in disguise and deception), he’s new to the game. This gets back at the “twist/method” divide I mentioned earlier; what’s genuinely thrilling is not as much the scam to get Renner’s good-ol’-boy politician into the bribe-taking business, but rather watching these people keep the cogs of the machine running through their varied personalities. Admittedly, I could be doing a lot of additional work in my head to make this all make sense, as I can certainly see why O’ Russell’s style can be off-putting.

But another reason why I think the personalities of these characters are so often blurred is that the boundary between “the law” and “the criminals” is utterly ignored by all participants. One thing that perplexed me when I first saw the film was Agent DiMaso’s decision to go after Carmine in the first place; by any metric, he’s as clean as a politician could be. As Alec Baldwin’s police officer in The Departed once said, “Some guys don’t trust an immaculate record; I do.” (Adding, “I have an immaculate record.”) If weeding out corruption was really DiMaso’s and the FBI’s game, there were probably a myriad of other options that involved less complications. This entrapment of Carmine, however, is consistent with how ABSCAM played out in real life; many of those convicted by charges related from the stings done by the FBI either had their sentences reduced or thrown out because the FBI had functionally created the crimes they were charged with. From the get-go, then, even though DiMaso’s intentions may be noble inasfar as he wants to stop government corruption, his decided method of undertaking is itself criminal; it’s no wonder he takes to the personality shifts that Rosenfeld and Prosser are so used to doing. In this way, American Hustle is not so much about greed and excess, but about the side effects that come from toeing the line between the right and wrong sides of the law.

I too like Adams’ performance, as I think it is the soul of the film. Bale is excellent as Rosenfeld, but his emotional and personal distance makes him harder to read. There are moments where it’s obvious that the grifting life is wearing on Adams; her eyes are particularly expressive to that end. Oscar nominations for Bale, Adams, and Cooper are to me appropriate, though I find that Lawrence did much better work in her Oscar-winning turn in Silver Linings Playbook.

JK: Your “twist/method” outlook on the film does seem to be able to justify nearly every moment of Hustle — no matter how much of it is you making leaps in your head. I just find it difficult to believe that Russell intended his audience to make such leaps. His winking nod at the beginning of the film implies that he very loosely adapted the real events into his film. I do see his thematic efforts to blur the line between “the law” and “the criminals;” but I feel like these efforts fall short of a fully formed idea. So much of the film feels like his attempts to make a statement, but they get lost in the wildness of the film. Hustle would’ve greatly benefited for a more defined satirical tone. It could have emphasized his criticisms of the ABSCAM affair in a way that allowed us to know exactly what he was intending. Instead, we are left making guesses at just Russell’s intentions were.

BE: While I do see the “twist/method” dichotomy bearing itself out in the film — with the latter taking precedence — I don’t think the dichotomy necessarily justifies the film’s greatness on its own terms. For example, the aforementioned example of Matchstick Men is a case where the focus on the method led to an incredibly boring result. With American Hustle, it seems to me that you’re saying is that the pendulum has swung the opposite direction, and the method has become too chaotic, without any sort of coherent center at all. I do think all of these characters, even the Renner’s relatively straight-edged Carmine, share one center: Their identities are unstable. This is, of course, an unstable center by definition, and you could very well be right in that I’m doing a great deal of work in my head; the hard part with that claim is that it’s hard to realize how much work one might or might not have done after the work has already been done. Perhaps I’ll never know. Perhaps, in the spirit of the film, I have been conned

I could easily see an alternate world American Hustle that takes a more satiric tone, but as it stands I’m incredibly pleased with the film. It’s by no means an unqualified classic, and I don’t think its greatness is a foregone conclusion; I think the points you raise are valid ones, and they’re consistent with many critics who didn’t find the movie all that stellar. The truth is, and the “twist/method” analysis I opened this conversation with may have already given this away, I am a fanatic of cinema about confidence artists, which definitely slanted my viewing toward a positive angle.

The method, to me, is so invigorating to watch, and given that I was always looking for the method to play out in the form of some grand reveal, I was constantly enthralled in the chaos of the performances. In the end, of course, it’s hardly about the twist, which makes the crackling performances all the more impressive to me: While my mind was gunning for the endgame, the multilayered deceptions and personality changes of these characters were the real con all along. Had my cinematic tastes been different, my viewing could have easily gone the other way.

That being said, with the experience I’ve had with the film, I wholeheartedly vouch for its Oscar credentials — even if I am being hustled after all.

Related Content

One Response

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

New to Glide

Keep up-to-date with Glide

Twitter