Wed 10 May 2017
A Book! Movie!! Review by Dan Stumpf: WALTER TEVIS – The Hustler // Film (1961).
Posted by Steve under Films: Drama/Romance , Reviews[3] Comments
WALTER TEVIS – The Hustler. Harper & Row, hardcover, 1959. Dell D434, paperback, 1961. Rerinted several times since.
THE HUSTLER. Fox, 1961. Paul Newman, Piper Laurie, Jackie Gleason and George C. Scott. Screenplay by Sidney Carroll and Robert Rossen. Directed by Robert Rossen.
I started watching this last week and remembered I had read the book back in High School. A quick check of my shelves turned it up: the same movie tie-in edition from 1961, and I settled in for a few days of doing the book/movie thing, where I read a few chapters through the day, then watch the corresponding minutes that evening.
Both are fun.
Walter Tevis worked his way through college in a pool room, and he writes is a hard-boiled classic here that wouldn’t be out of place in a Gold Medal wrapper. It also shows all the best earmarks of a First Novel: craftsmanship, passion and the sense of personal experience that makes the milieu come alive on the page. His portrait of pool hall culture and pool-hustler life-style comes across with the precision and color that only come from having lived and observed it
Tevis seems to instinctively know how to get drama from his characters in a natural, unforced way. He brings life and depth to Fast Eddie Felson and his alcoholic college-girl companion. He also does a fine fast job with the minor characters and offers a brilliant portrait of the sinister-heavy-as-mentor, Bert Gordon, who seems at first to be in it just for the money — in the best pulp tradition — but his real motives come out toward the end in a scene of surpassing toughness. No fan of Hammett, Chandler or John D. MacDonald should miss this one.
Robert Rossen’s film works some changes on the book: not bad ones, not improvements, just changes. Mostly he draws a dichotomy between Piper Laurie’s sensitive love and George C. Scott’s calculating reserve. Scott’s very presence makes his relationship with Eddie (young Paul Newman at his most virile and charming) more Faustian, and as the drama draws them into opposition, it’s… well it’s like seeing a kitten wander into the path of a speeding truck.
Indeed, as the movie progresses the drama gets heavier —much more so than the understated narrative of the book — and it provides some Oscar-worthy moments for some very capable players, the sort of thing we go to the movies to see.
And speaking of Oscar-worthy, it’s just not possible to review this film without mentioning Jackie Gleason’s Minnesota Fats. For once in his life, The Great One doesn’t try to be the star here; he’s content to sit back and provide solid support in a role he was born to play. And doing that, he shines all the brighter in a brilliant cast working for a director who knows how to get the most from them.
May 10th, 2017 at 9:30 pm
Both brilliant and both shining examples of how this is done.
May 10th, 2017 at 10:09 pm
I’ve seen the movie and thought it absolutely outstanding, but I’ve never read the book. I’ve always meant to. This may be the prodding I need.
Everybody needs a good prodding now and then, don’t they?
July 3rd, 2017 at 8:04 pm
The book is better. The movie has nice casting, and matches nicely with the book when it does follow along, but it also leaves out important scenes, and makes some bad changes.
First is before Eddie meets Fats. Fats hears about Eddie from Preacher, and we get a sense of how good Fats is. Next is a conversation between Eddie and Charlie over why Eddie wants to play Fats. We get a sense that he’s trying for the bigger score. In the movie, there’s not as much buildup or tension, the rivalry between Eddie and Fats is downplayed.
Bert explains to Eddie why he lost against Fats, and when playing against Findley, Eddie finally understands and gains the drive he needs to beat Fats. This is possibly the most important scene in the book, but the whole scene with Findley is butchered. So Eddie just gets better without any explanation. It makes it seem like Eddie won against Fats because he had a bad day the first time, not because of character growth.
What the film added was unnecessary and unrealistic drama. Eddie and Sarah still have a sort of uncertain, lonely attraction, maybe something resembling love, but it’s never established. In the book, Sarah never goes with Eddie on the trip, and never dies. The movie takes Bert’s character and turns him into an evil villain or sorts.
It’s absurd, and this absurdity carries over to the ending. The focus is again taken away from the rivalry between Eddie and Fats. Instead of just wanting to beat Fats for having lost to him, Eddie is playing Fats again out of bitterness against Bert due to Sarah’s death. It makes no sense why Eddie would have anything to do with Bert after Sarah’s death. Eddie is supposed to be filled with calm confidence after his defeat of Findley, not mourning someone’s death. The whole ending makes no sense.
I guess they had to give closure to Eddie and Sarah’s relationship by killing her off, and make Bert a villain to give the audience a clear sense of who to cheer for and who to boo. The book is a bit boring and a bit too long, but it’s a sensible story. I prefer more in-depth characters to loud, dramatic characters any day.