Spoiler alert: this breakdown divulges some of the plot.
American Hustle is a fun, if overly long, time at the movies. It uses all kinds of narrative smoke and mirrors to tell its classically American tale, but ultimately it’s a bit hollow inside.
To see how this film works, we have to begin by looking at its genres. American Hustle is a crime caper done as a black comedy, with a number of advanced story techniques thrown in for good measure. This is a great mix of genres, as the Coen brothers have shown over the years. The main problem here is that the writers don’t want or don’t know how to execute either genre the right way. So all kinds of potential is lost and we have a good movie, but not a great one.
A caper film, also known as a heist film, is one of the most plot heavy of
all genres. Not here. Yes, there is some complicated scamming going on, and some surprises at the payoff, as any self-respecting caper must have. But recognizable plot is missing from large portions of this film. Supposedly, co-writer and director David Russell has said he was interested in character, not plot. If so, he is making one of the biggest
mistakes in story, thinking you can separate these two sides of the narrative coin, and ends up limiting both character and plot.
Black comedy, along with satire, is the most advanced of comedy sub-genres (see my Comedy Class for the story beats of all the comedy genres, including black comedy). It is the comedy of illogic and destructive systems, and it can be a profound form. But, for many reasons, it is notoriously difficult to pull off. First, the characters are all trapped in a system, which can make them reactive and anti-dramatic. Second, you have to define the details of the system, which is the true opponent of the story, while maintaining narrative drive.
American Hustle feels like Goodfellas lite, and while it is funnier than Goodfellas, it loses the comparison in almost every other way. Like Goodfellas, Hustle uses the storyteller flashback structure, but does it incorrectly. This structure, when done properly, begins in the present, just after the biggest dramatic event of the story, typically the battle scene. The moment triggers a flashback where we return to some point in the past and see the events that led up to the dramatic event.
Again, not here. There is no obvious reason this event – the first time the leads try to entrap the mayor – should trigger a flashback. So there is no reason the past events should lead back to this moment. And while Goodfellas has a single narrator whose memory of the events will inform his character in some way, in Hustle we have three narrators, con man Irving, his girlfriend Sydney, and FBI agent Richie, who each remember how they came to be.
Playing with POV is one of the main features of advanced story, and is a standard technique in the novel. Its main advantage is that it shows how human beings are not all-knowing but in fact are quite narrow, deeply prejudiced and act with limited knowledge. And that is very appropriate for these three main characters, who are all con artists, including Richie, and are all to some degree incompetent.
But there is a big cost to changing point of view. Multiple POVs kill narrative drive, and that is especially dangerous in the film medium and the black comedy genre. Even though Goodfellas showed multiple characters trapped in a system, the single main character kept the narrative drive moving forward at a relentless pace. But by constantly shifting among three points of view, Hustle quickly bogs down into a narrative swamp.
The writers try to avoid this problem in the early part of the storyteller opening by focusing on the love that brings Irving and Sydney together. This love is designed to be the foundation of the entire film. But these people are so obviously incompetent and silly, their love is not believable. And since these people are con artists, we’re never sure if even the love between them isn’t a con as well.
Using this couple as the driving force of the film comes to an abrupt halt when FBI agent Richie busts them. He takes over as the main character because it is his goal – catching the big fish – that tracks the rest of the film. But he is a buffoon and a con man too, and the story immediately flies off in all kinds of directions.
Thematically, American Hustle had tremendous potential. Any time you include the name of a country in the title, you are doing an epic. An epic is a story in which the fate of a nation is based on the actions of a single person or family. Arthur Miller, author of Death of A Salesman, told us that the salesman is the quintessential American job. American Hustle takes that idea a step farther. These salesmen are selling nothing but a fake promise. It’s the dark side of the American Dream, where success is all about making money. Like the characters in The Great Gatsby and Mad Men, the main method these people use is to reinvent themselves.
In today’s most recent version of the American Dream, you can be whoever you want to be, as long as you can make money from it and as long as you don’t get caught. It’s a powerful theme and it should ring true with audiences who see their own scams and schemes to get rich quick and think they’ll live happily ever after.
But there’s a big problem in a story where everything is fake: you can’t make the emotion between the characters believable. And when the characters are laughably dumb, even while saying some of the wackiest dialogue in years, it makes the problem even worse.
The verdict for American Hustle? The comedy is often quite funny, but the serious drama doesn’t work.
I can not wait to see American Hustle and measure it against your amazing review. You make so many great points that I would think clips of this movie will be great in a class where you are teaching this genre. Thanks for a great day yesterday.
Jay
Spot on john. Very good movie, not great. Of course since we get starved for story so much that when a good movie comes out, it’s immediately anointed as great. That is more a statement on the rest of films than this one
Thanks for the anatomy of the story, John. After studying your audio series for the past year I am blown away by the number of writers in the business who can’t tell a story. Much less transcend the genre. It’s mind boggling to me the hundreds of movies on NETFLIX with horrible scripts. Hopefully, my latest thriller, KINGSTOWN, will get this storyteller where he needs to be. Thanks for taking my story craft to the next level in 2013. You are the man! Merry Christmas, Master Storyteller.
Awesome Post – I don’t understand one aspect, however.
Can you explain
1. “Multiple POVs kill narrative drive”,
and
2. how in Goodfellas, “the single main character kept the narrative drive moving forward”?
Thanks!!
Just saw American Hustle and was trying to explain to my son why it was such an enjoyable film. I told him that it was based on classical narrative principles in which the main protagonist wants something, goes after it, encounters numerous obstacles leading to a crisis, and then either achieves or doesn’t achieve his goal. For me this was a love story. Irving falls in love with and wants a life with Sydney but this is almost impossible for him to achieve given his morals (he is married and has a child, and his wife has no intention of leaving him or letting him go) and his career (he is a con-man with limited means).
As to plot, it played with time shifting techniques that add to the story’s tension. We (the audience) are kept off balance by starting somewhere, tracking back and then forward, which keeps our intellect engaged whereas a straightforward linear telling of the tale would not create the same tension. I loved that I was engaged in trying to keep track of the hustle and not sidelined by mindless car chases or unnecessary action sequences. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good action adventure film – but this film didn’t require that and I enjoyed it because of that.
I was somewhat put off by the multiples POV’s but honestly didn’t even notice that Richie came in with a third POV because the first ones (Irving and Sydney) were so obvious. I don’t think the POV’s wrapped up satisfactorily as a storytellling technique (the voice-over), and although all three storylines do have a definitive end (Irving and Sydney win, Richie loses), Richie’s story gets kind of lost. I don’t know, maybe that’s just the way it is with losers – they don’t get the same respect of wrapping up the details.
There were many tension filled scenes – among my favourites was the scene with the big bad mobster (Robert De Niro) – as well as sexy scenes – and much of the movie dealt with the characters trying to live big dreams against impossible odds. I was definitely on board for hoping that Irving was able to get what he wanted, but the sappy ending (he actually gets what he wants!) seemed to go against the set-up.
I had thought of this film as a “film noir” in that it was a period piece that deals with the seamy side of life and there is a femme fatale, but in classical film noir, the “femme” does a double-cross and the hero suffers as a result. This might have been a better film had it followed this formula, because that it what Irving probably deserved given his own penchant for lying and cheating. Instead, we had a more modern “Hollywood” (ie. “happy”) ending.
Still, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. A lot of credit is due the directorial skills of David O. Russell and the marvelous acting talents of its cast.
I give it a solid A rating.
Wow, I really think JT missed the boat on this one. The writing of this film is as strong as any movie I’ve seen in years. In my opinion, with Flirting with Disaster, Three Kings, Silver Linings, and now American Hustle, David O Russell has become one of America’s greatest Cinematic storytellers. Not that there’s a ranking system, but when you think about it, there kind of is. As soon as I hear about the next Quentin Tarantino movie being released, I’m all over the internet trying to find trailers, and articles, and everything I can about the writing and about the shoot. And now I feel the same way about DOR. The cinema seemed to be inspired by Casino, Boogie Nights, and Goodfellas. But where this tour de force separates itself from its referential masterworks is in the power and beauty of its theme. Talk about Character Web and Designing Principle. A story about whether we, as human beings, can ever really know what the truth is – told in a tale where the protagonists say to each other that they’re in love – that then asks the audience to figure out if they’re indeed telling the truth or are they scamming each other, and now I’m hooked. An opus that makes us examine for ourselves whether we can ever know when we’re being lied to or not, I’m all in for that. A yarn that puts on an exhibition for us to investigate, daring us to look at our own lives to decide whether we can ever know the truth when someone tells us that we’re loved – you’ve got my attention. And then throw in for good measure a storyteller bold enough to show us the answer in the end – and you’ve got me hook, line, and sinker. That’s what’s in store for the audience here and to weave this web, DOR sets up scam artists vs. each other and vs. a man who’s oath states that he will “bare true faith and allegiance…” defending the constitution. But this FBI agent cares nothing about the truth. His sole mission is to entrap high profile targets for his own promotion. And these scam artist heroes, actually care more about truth, about human truth, then Bradley Cooper’s, Richie DiMaso, could ever imagine. A point made abundantly clear in the scene where Amy Adams (Sydney Prosser) and Christian Bale (Irving Rosenfeld) first meet and connect over the truth they both find in the music of Duke Ellington. That love story is juxtaposed with DiMaso lying right in front of his mother and fiancé who he’s most certainly not in love with. The Web continues with a mayor, Carmine Polito, who is willing to make some minor compromises with the truth in order to provide a better life for his constituents. And here in begins another love story (a buddy love story) with Carmine and Irving. Is this just another scam or is Irving truly connecting with his new friend? That’s for DOR to know, and us, his audience, to figure out. Add to the Web an incredible Jennifer Lawrence as Rosalyn Rosenfeld, Irving’s wife, and another potential truth: is she crazy or the most insightful character in the story? And if that weren’t enough throw in the mafia and their code of ethics. All these characters set in a web of opposition so powerful that we come to learn that there is only one real truth: knowing that you’re in love. When you realize that you can’t imagine happiness without that other person in your life, then you know. These characters all know how they truly feel about each other, they just can’t figure out if their feelings are reciprocated. DOR does a brilliant job of communicating that to us in practically every scene. And he demonstrates the power of the knowledge of your own truth with the relationship between Irving and his adopted son. This could have been his biological son, but no, in the hands of this master storyteller it’s the son of the woman he wants to leave. But he loves that boy and can’t leave him. And in the end, all those fighting for their truth win out in some way. And, this is why I need to address some of JT’s criticism: This film has the strongest, most mature, and insightful caper film plot that I can remember ever seeing, and that includes The Sting. That plot is entwined in every scene while at the same time being completely married to the theme, which does the complete opposite of limiting the characters – it expands their possibilities to the stratosphere. And as for the “storyteller flashback structure” it could not have been put to better use. Ironically, JT references Goodfellas as an example of how to “correctly” use this paradigm, but in GF’s this moment is a dramatic event for Tommy DiVito (Joe Pesci) not Henry Hill (Ray Liotta). In American Hustle, Irving sees that Mayor Polito is not willing to take a bribe but he decides to go after him anyway to save his own hide. That turns out to be the inciting event for the rest of the film. A much more apropos storyteller flashback structure moment than that of Goodfellas. JT is right on the money with regards to the shifting of POV, and that DOR and his partner, Eric Singer, felt that the love between Irving and Sydney would be the foundation that kept the narrative drive moving forward, but again he misses the mark by thinking that they were too incompetent and silly for us to care. By showing us the strengths of both characters (and we’re given plenty of examples, throughout, that they are both very good at what they do), and by completely selling the idea of a tangible truth in their meeting scene, the writers have enhanced their narrative with a love that we may not believe in for the moment, but that we’re rooting for with all our hearts. And because these people are con artists we’re not sure until the very end what’s going to happen.
Brilliant breakdown of American Hustle–my favorite film of 2013. All the characters were sensational in a plot that pulled me along for the long winding road. DOR is my favorite. Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter were deeply moving stories that transported me to another place in myself. I could watch them again and again.
I love how Truby dissects film, but I have to respectfully disagree about his finely wrought critique of American Hustle. Character usually trumps all or most anyway. Hustle has them in spades! Thanks.
I have to agree with Glenn–I think the reason that this film is so wildly entertaining and charming–yes, charming–is that it breaks the genre rules (God forbid we don’t start in the present!) and gives us characters that are rich, some of whom we come to care deeply about. Starting with the flash to the future is brilliant, because it foreshadows and ultimately points up the devastation that Irving feels over having betrayed Carmine, his new friend who is now lost to him. The opening voice overs are long and messy/awkward but there is mimesis at work here–the whole sting is messy, the characters screw up, nothing is as it seems (the fake sheik can speak Arab!). But, on the other hand, some things truly are “real”–Irving and Sydney’s feelings for each other, Irving’s love for his son and his moral code with regard to having adopted him. And even ditzy Rosalyn is more than she at first seems, like duality of the topcoat she wears on her nails. I’ve seen the film three times, and liked it even more with each viewing.
Your analysis makes a lot of sense to me, John. There’s a lot that works here, but narrative drive seems to end long before the film does. One of the problems for me was the film kept tipping its hand toward outcomes that lacked the power of reveals when they came. (e.g. Amy Adams’ telling Bale she will seduce Bradley Cooper.) The moment of the greatest stakes — when DeNiro speaks Arabic — comes too early. And I think in bending the story round to make Christian Bale guilty over the consequences experienced by Jeremy Renner’s character, they might have missed the opportunities that come with a politician being potentially the best conman of all. (The one who doesn’t realise he is a conman.)
I tried to envision how it could be dealt with in the editing room:
http://daisychainrearranged.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/american-rustle-spoilers.html
I’m conscious of course that the film seems to be working for a lot of people, including several commenters here.
What about the love story line that i think drive all the desires of the characters?
Totally ignored in the analysis. I believe the story is about personal evolution against the stagnant immobility . Irving Rosenberg soon meets his main opponent is Sydney Prosser, his lover, with whom he began a love story but it suffers from the flaw of a destructive system that is typical of dark comedy . All the characters in the story while trying to “fit in ” instead of ” evolve.” The development comes at the end when the two lovers finally learn to love truly , being able to express their individuality through the other. The key points to understand this subject line strongly linked to the love story are:
1 ) Rosalyn Rosenfeld would die just to change . She resides in the negative value of the stagnation versus personal evolution.
2 ) In the fight between Richie Dimaso and Sydney Prosser, she tells him everyone adapt themselves to survive . Both Richie and Sydney fit sacrificing the truth.
3 ) Even Rosalyn at the end , after all, accept the evolution of life changing and starting a new romance . Symbolically, the fact that she no longer uses her nail polish, is significant.
4) At the end, Irving and Sydney , working together harmoniously , accept evolution as the key to happiness, the only one that allows them to understand how to love their lover and finally express their potential and individuality , this time in the truth and within the law.
I enjoyed the critique of American Hustle. That being said and with all due respect to your beautiful technical analysis I believe this film is deserving of the Oscar. It has some “flaws” and as you stated it is an ambitious film with mixed genres, and multiple points of view. Still, I loved this film. All five main characters nailed their parts. I really felt transported to the late 1970’s era that they constructed. I could watch Christian Bale all day. Bradley Cooper was amazing! Again.
I love hearing Mr. Truby talk about film.
Thank you.
Howard Koor
I tried to read the script and while crisply written, I couldn’t follow it at all. It seems to start in the middle of the story and none of the dialog or relationships between the characters made sense to m. The trailer didn’t impress me either but I never saw the film. I think he would have been better of making a true story about abscam than trying to make it an absurdist slapstick comedy, which was obvious to me just by how the actors were dressed and made up
Agreed, but one minor correction — Goodfellas uses two narrators, Henry and Karen.
This is the ultimate example of a movie where I LOVED the sum of the parts, but the whole left me feeling empty.