David O Russell's American Hustle: Back to reality

In styling his new film like a hard-edged Scorsese crime thriller, Silver Linings Playbook director David O Russell has lent gravity and depth to an otherwise gentle romantic comedy.

American Hustle (15)
dir: David O Russell

Film-makers have been reluctant to find an alternative to the words “based on a true story”. (It wasn’t a story! It was somebody’s life!) But for American Hustle, the writer and director David O Russell comes up with an improvement – “Some of this actually happened” – which foreshadows the film’s theme: the intangibility of truth. The part we can be sure about is the Abscam scandal, a sting operation in the late 1970s in which FBI agents colluded with a con artist to snare bribe-happy politicians. Into this period setting, Russell inserts fictional characters, many of whom have reason to ask the same question: is this real? The answer is rarely straightforward.

Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) is a confidence trickster who pockets whopping commission fees on loans that he knows his customers have no hope of getting. His new girlfriend, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), appoints herself his sidekick and poses to his clients as Lady Edith, a cut-glass dame with London banking connections. One of the poor saps she lures in is Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper, his permed hair clinched into tiny springs), who turns out to be not such a dope after all. He’s an FBI agent who agrees to drop the charges against Irving and Sydney if they participate in his undercover operation.

This trio takes turns providing the voice-over, delivered as if from the pages of a cheap pulp novel (“Where would that wildness take me? I didn’t know but I was going to find out . . .”). Irving consents to Sydney’s suggestion that she should feign attraction to Richie to get the better of him but neither man can be sure whether she is exhibiting genuine desire.

Everyone is keeping their cards close to their chest: we learn early on, for example, that Irving has a stay-at-home spouse, Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence). David O Russell is fond of putting the 23-year-old Lawrence slightly out of her depth: she played a young widow in his last film, Silver Linings Playbook, but casting her now as the neglected Rosalyn is nuttier and more inspired. Her lack of self-consciousness makes her hazardous to Irving but vital to the movie. She is first seen with a tornado of vanilla hair and a red face from overexposure to a sunlamp that catches fire (her volatility is contagious: she also causes a microwave to explode). To the tips of those glued-on nails she taps on the kitchen countertop, she has an uninhibited realness to which everyone else in the film aspires. Overcome with passion in a nightclub cubicle, Sydney and Richie chant at one another: “No more fake shit!” A mob boss drawn into the operation is singing the same song. “We are real,” he says, menacingly. “We are a real organisation.”

But how real is American Hustle? It’s one part Dirty Rotten Scoundrels and one part Ocean’s Eleven to two parts Boogie Nights; it takes a while to find the film beneath all that familiarity. If Russell has a trademark, it is his skill with an ensemble cast, reflected in the Oscar nominations that went to all four pugnacious main performers in Silver Linings Playbook, with Lawrence winning Best Actress.

True to form, there is an electrifying rapport in American Hustle: the group dynamic keeps the film fizzing. But it seems at times that Russell is going undercover just like his characters. Unusually for an idiosyncratic director so far into a magnificent career, he keeps drawing from Martin Scorsese’s box of tricks here: the camera that swoops at high speed on to an actor’s face, the medleys of 1970s hits (Steely Dan, Todd Rundgren, ELO), the flashbacks to nostalgic scenes of boyhood crime – what is Russell doing if not remaking Goodfellas in miniature?

Gradually, the point of all this is revealed. American Hustle doesn’t conform to one genre, though it has elements of farce, screwball, heist thriller and caper comedy. In dressing it up like a Scorsese-style crime movie, Russell brings an unusual weight and tension to what is, in essence, a gentle, rather lovely romantic comedy about tentative people trying to trust one another. The film is not without moments of physical jeopardy. The overriding danger, though, is that someone may engage prematurely those words that are as explosive as any bomb, or as final as a bullet: “I love you.”

 

Suits you sir: Bradley Cooper (left) and Christian Bale.

Ryan Gilbey is the New Statesman's film critic. He is also the author of It Don't Worry Me (Faber), about 1970s US cinema, and a study of Groundhog Day in the "Modern Classics" series (BFI Publishing). He was named reviewer of the year in the 2007 Press Gazette awards.

This article first appeared in the 19 December 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Christmas Triple Issue

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Can non-voters win the next election for Labour?

Any Labour leader who pins their hopes on getting non-voters to the polling station will be defeated in 2020. 

Question: how can non-voters win the 2020 election for Jeremy Corbyn?

Short answer: they can’t.

This isn’t an anti-Corbyn point, by the way: they also can’t win a general election for Yvette Cooper, Andy Burnham or Liz Kendall. There is no route to a parliamentary majority for any of Labour's leadership candidates which doesn’t involve addressing the concerns of Conservative voters.  Why not?

Well, there’s the obvious point that you can’t only raise your own turnout. Take, say, Barack Obama’s successful presidential bid in 2008: yes, he increased turnout among young graduates and ethnic minorities, contributing to his victories in traditionally Republican-leaning states like North Carolina and Florida. But he also increased turnout among Republican voters, losing by a bigger margin in Tenessee, Arkansas, Louisana, Oklahoma and West Virginia than John Kerry did in 2004.

The problem for British politicians attempting to emulate the Obama strategy is that Britain is less diverse than the United States.  British constituencies are, for the most part, what sociologists call “socially crunchy” – so if you increase turnout among, say, ethnic minorities and young graduates, but turn off, say landlords and middle-managers, there are very few seats where you will feel the benefits but not the punishment. (In fact, most of the seats where this is the case Labour already hold.)

Then there’s the bigger problem. Non-voters aren’t actually all that different from voters. After the election, the Trades Union Congress commissioned Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research to find out what had gone on. Here’s why non-voters and voters didn’t opt for Ed Miliband’s Labour party here:

As you can see, there is not a vast gulf between the two groups. (“Other” by the way, includes responses like “They weren’t leftwing enough”, "They sold the gold", "Iraq" and so forth.) Even if you assume the 35 per cent of “Don’t Knows” actually mean “I was waiting for a real Labour party”,  and that a more radical Labour party  would attract all of them, look at the worries that people who went on to back Labour despite them in 2015 had:

It’s hard to see how a more “traditional” Labour approach on public spending, welfare, and so on wouldn’t also lose voters from Labour’s existing 2015 bloc. But what about, say, the Greens and the SNP?

It is just possible that the 20 per cent "Other" in the SNP is all "Labour weren't leftwing enough" but it seems likely that at least some of it is "I want to leave the United Kingdom". But even if we take all of that 20 per cent, we're still talking Labour gais in Scotland of fewer than ten seats. Now let’s look at people in social grade DE, semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, what you might categorise as Labour’s “traditional” core:

Look familiar? Now, here’s what Ukip voters and Tory voters made of Labour in 2015:

That’s not to say that the next Labour leader shouldn’t aim to increase turnout. It’s just to say that there is no evidence at all that policy prescriptions that turn off Conservative voters will have a more natural home among people who didn’t vote – quite the reverse.  Whatever happens, if the next Labour leader wants to win the next election, they are going to have to win over people who thought "they would make it too easy for people to live on benefits", and that "they would spend too much and can't be trusted with the economy". The next Labour leader – whoever they are – is going to have to try to win over people who voted Tory in 2015. This is one of the few times in politics where there really is no alternative.

 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.