The Hustler and The Color of Money

Pat...The only reason The Hustler did not win more Oscars is because West Side Story took everything that year. Another year, before or after, it would likely have been very different.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Patrick Johnson said:
P.S. Trivia note: TCoM isn't in the same league as The Hustler movie-wise. The Hustler was nominated for 9 Oscars in 1961, only winning for (I think) art direction. But the Academy made amends in 1986 by giving Newman Best Actor for TCoM - which was really the Oscar he deserved for The Hustler 25 years earlier. I don't think TCoM really deserved any Oscars.

.
Click to expand...
 
duckie...Really? How about the scene where Eddie hustled the guy in bar on the docks, and then got his thumbs broken. He was trying to hustle there. How about the scene in another local bar, after he plays Fats, where he's trying to match up with the locals, and they KNOW who he is, and won't play? He was trying to hustle there, but got busted beforehand, and went in to play in the poker game.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

duckie said:
The only hustling you see in the Hustler was in the opening scene whereas in TCOM, it's done all the time.
Click to expand...
 
The plot formula used for both The Hustler and TCofM is the same formula that's been used for hundreds, if not thousands, of Hollywood movies. It works.
 
Ken...I would agree with you on this. Absolutely part of KM's "happiness" comes from knowing that he has some financial security now (thanks to JAM, and her efforts to secure Keith's "due")...something he had never known in his entire life...even after he was in TCOM.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

Ken_4fun said:
.

For once, I would like to see a docu-drama of the Keith McCready story. Make it as close as possible and include several of the real life experiences. Getting kicked out of school, the life LIVING in a pool hall, drugs, travel the whole thing. As Grady Matthew said about Keith; there were a few years that Keith was practically unbeatable. The movie, the wins, the losses, the decline, the truimphs, the kidnapping etc. I would bet Keith is probably happier now than he has ever been because he seems to be truly loved and looked out for by a person that doesnt want a percentage.

Ken
Click to expand...
 
I'm waiting for a sequel. Maybe have a scene where Vince (Tom Cruise) is down on his luck and tries to sell the Balabushka. Pawn dealer calls in Pete Tascarella who immediately identifies it as Joss or Adams Balabushka.
 
ctyhntr said:
I'm waiting for a sequel. Maybe have a scene where Vince (Tom Cruise) is down on his luck and tries to sell the Balabushka. Pawn dealer calls in Pete Tascarella who immediately identifies it as Joss or Adams Balabushka.
Click to expand...

Vincent doesn't have the bushka.. he kicked it down the stairs and Eddie ended up using it in the tourney..
 
Mitchxout said:
Tom Cruise's character wasn't in the Color of Money book. It was more about middle-aged Fast Eddie making a comeback. I thought the movie was pretty horrible. Plus, every kid in the pool room started twirling their cue like a baton. :mad:
Click to expand...

That's true and I am one of the kids who did the twirling cue thing. :-(

But over the years and having watched TCOM so many times I am deeply appreciative of the nuance Scorsese and the actors put into the movie. I feel that it takes several viewings to understand some of the relationships and subtexts happening.

At least that's how it was for me. The TCOM book didn't really do it for me but the movie did. Now "the Hustler" book is also significantly different than the movie "the Hustler" as well in key parts. For example there is no love triangle in the book, Sarah never even meets Bert and Sarah doesn't die. I think in this case both the movie and the book were excellent.
 
So you think Charlie was a bad guy? Why? He was THE guy looking out for Eddie (i.e.: helping him with the initial hustle in the opening scene, by leaving). The only thing Charlie ever did to Eddie, was to keep his "percentage" back, when Eddie was losing it all to Fats, in their first encounter. Now, you wanna talk scum in a suit...let's talk about Bert Gorden.
'Splain yourself girl! :grin:

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

JuicyGirl said:
Yah! uh huh. I knew it was coming. That guy was scum in a suit

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
 
JuicyGirl said:
Yah! uh huh. I knew it was coming. That guy was scum in a suit

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Juicy,

Charlie was not 'scum' but he was the less talented 'leaching partner' that was not all in with Eddie. He held out money & he was probably right to so at that time. For Charlie it was all about the money. For Eddie it was about much much more than the money. It was about being 'the best' by beating the best... Fats. It was about making Fats quit & say 'I can't beat you Eddie', as he did in the 2nd. match-up after Eddie showed up with 'character'. If the best says he can't beat you, then you are 'The Best'. The money is just the way to keep score & it's also the prize money as well.

I hope I explained that properly. Also, please note 'leaching partner' is in quotes & the word partner is in there. They just had different pots of gold at he end of the rainbow.

Best Wishes,
 
Wow...did you even SEE the movie? Charlie was never a player. He was Eddie's road partner/stakehorse, and had been since Eddie was a teenager. He was never a mentor as much as a father figure. He was always "all in" on Eddie, until near the end of the first match with Fats. Eddie asks Charlie, "How much are we up?" Charlie says, "$18,000...come on it's time to quit and get some rest." (both players had been up for many hours). Eddie THEN makes the comments about needing to beat Fats into submission, and at that point, being stone drunk, he proceeds to lose everything, after Fats goes and washes up, ready to continue. Of course it was "right" for Charlie to keep his percentage...he had earned it, and knew Eddie would just lose it back to Fats. Then it was Eddie who dumped Charlie...not the other way around...and he (Eddie) didn't even know about the $$$.

Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com

ENGLISH! said:
Juicy,

Charlie was not 'scum' but he was the less talented 'leaching partner' that was not all in with Eddie. He held out money & he was probably right to so at that time. For Charlie it was all about the money. For Eddie it was about much much more than the money. It was about being 'the best' by beating the best... Fats. It was about making Fats quit & say 'I can't beat you Eddie', as he did in the 2nd. match-up after Eddie showed up with 'character'. If the best says he can't beat you, then you are 'The Best'. The money is just the way to keep score & it's also the prize money as well.

I hope I explained that properly. Also, please note 'leaching partner' is in quotes & the word partner is in there. They just had different pots of gold at he end of the rainbow.

Best Wishes,
Click to expand...
 
Scott Lee said:
Wow...did you even SEE the movie? Charlie was never a player. As usual, Where did I say Charlie was a player? He was Eddie's road partner/stakehorse, and had been since Eddie was a teenager. He was never a mentor as much as a father figure. As usual, Where did I say he was a mentor or a father figure? He was always "all in" on Eddie, until near the end of the first match with Fats. Eddie asks Charlie, "How much are we up?" Charlie says, "$18,000...come on it's time to quit and get some rest." (both players had been up for many hours). Eddie THEN makes the comments about needing to beat Fats into submission, and at that point, being stone drunk, he proceeds to lose everything, after Fats goes and washes up, ready to continue. Of course it was "right" for Charlie to keep his percentage...he had earned it, and knew Eddie would just lose it back to Fats. So, the 'stakehorse' can take his percentage at any point, 'we're up now so I'm taking my cut, It's mine now not ours any more'. Yeah, that's ALL IN with Eddie. I said he was probably right to do so because he figured Eddie would just loose it, but that's not ALL in WITH Eddie. Then it was Eddie who dumped Charlie...not the other way around...and he (Eddie) didn't even know about the $$$. As usual, where did I say Charlie dumped Eddie? And...Eddie found out about the money when Charlie tracked him down 'begging' to get back with his meal ticket. Yes I did SEE the movie. Did you? And... did you read the post you quoted?
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Click to expand...

See the 'blue' insets above.
 
Last edited:
I liked how both movies approached the importance of "winning." In the Hustler, Bert Gordon tells Eddie that the only important thing is who has the most money at the end of the match. The ending with Eddie standing there alone is so powerful. When Eddie lost the match to Fats in the opening, I assumed that Eddie, the hero, would come back to redeem himself at the end in true Hollywood fashion. Yet when he wins it is a hollow victory. He ran out on his best friend Charlie, he drove the lady he loved to suicide, and after beating the best he can't even hang around and soak in the victory. Even though he wins the match in the end, it doesn't matter much since he destroyed his life in the process. The Hustler is sort of like the anti-Rocky.

It is the same theme in TCOM. Eddie tells Vince that it is all about money. The "best" is the guy with the "most." It isn't about anything, but the score. After Eddie finally helps Vince develop that killer instinct then Eddie realizes that is more than money. It is about proving something to himself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top