Sometimes, your first impression is right: when I saw this film in high school, I remembered thinking, "All form and no substance." Re-watching it last evening not only reconfirmed that, but the passage of time makes its weaknesses even more obvious: when you put aside the great photography and sets (and they are great) and the star power of Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway, there's not much else here.
We see how wealthy Thomas Crown is (glider flying, polo game, well-appointed house) and how sophisticated Vicki Anderson is (mostly the wardrobe). But without that form and style, the content that is left is vacuous. Where's the sparring and test of wills? She tells him right away he's the target and he has to prove he doesn't blanch easily. The scene with him and Jack Weston at the police station is a good one because it shows what Thomas Crown is made of: nerves of steel. The film could have used more scenes like that.
In real life, of course, none of this could happen anyway (an insurance investigator who went to bed with the target would be out of a job by nightfall). But even allowing for the poetic license of movies, what drives these characters doesn't make much sense:
1. Let's say she DOES fall in love him (and that's a big if she's presented as a cut-throat investigator who only wants the 10% she'll get for solving the crime). Still, she's never presented with any options like throwing the investigation over and running off with him. Instead, the "crisis" at the end is having her stand by and watch him replicate the heist. Her actions simply serve the plot instead of driving it.
2. Or, let's say he falls in love with HER. If he really loves her, why doesn't he try to tempt her to go off with him? Instead, they spend their time as though they are in a relationship where one person is terminally ill and they know there's only a little time left.
3. At the end, there's a twist but since there's not much at stake for either of them (she's not going to run off with him and he hasn't asked her to do so anyway), the twist doesn't hurt. We're not left feeling sad that these characters crossed in the night, but missed. Instead, we watch passively as she is left holding the bag (figuratively) and after all, did she really think he would show up and allow himself to be arrested?
The split screen photography is terrific and it works. It's not there just to dazzle us: it actually serves the plot. But how well this component works only goes to show how empty the rest of the film is.
The remake (1999) is much better: the investigator (Renee Russo) isn't a clotheshorse looking for love. She's tough and driven she wants to beat him. The sparing between the two sets off sparks.
Granted some of improvement of the 1999 version may be the evolution of the relationship between men and women since 1968. But still, it does give you a feel for some of the lost opportunities of the first version.
We see how wealthy Thomas Crown is (glider flying, polo game, well-appointed house) and how sophisticated Vicki Anderson is (mostly the wardrobe). But without that form and style, the content that is left is vacuous. Where's the sparring and test of wills? She tells him right away he's the target and he has to prove he doesn't blanch easily. The scene with him and Jack Weston at the police station is a good one because it shows what Thomas Crown is made of: nerves of steel. The film could have used more scenes like that.
In real life, of course, none of this could happen anyway (an insurance investigator who went to bed with the target would be out of a job by nightfall). But even allowing for the poetic license of movies, what drives these characters doesn't make much sense:
1. Let's say she DOES fall in love him (and that's a big if she's presented as a cut-throat investigator who only wants the 10% she'll get for solving the crime). Still, she's never presented with any options like throwing the investigation over and running off with him. Instead, the "crisis" at the end is having her stand by and watch him replicate the heist. Her actions simply serve the plot instead of driving it.
2. Or, let's say he falls in love with HER. If he really loves her, why doesn't he try to tempt her to go off with him? Instead, they spend their time as though they are in a relationship where one person is terminally ill and they know there's only a little time left.
3. At the end, there's a twist but since there's not much at stake for either of them (she's not going to run off with him and he hasn't asked her to do so anyway), the twist doesn't hurt. We're not left feeling sad that these characters crossed in the night, but missed. Instead, we watch passively as she is left holding the bag (figuratively) and after all, did she really think he would show up and allow himself to be arrested?
The split screen photography is terrific and it works. It's not there just to dazzle us: it actually serves the plot. But how well this component works only goes to show how empty the rest of the film is.
The remake (1999) is much better: the investigator (Renee Russo) isn't a clotheshorse looking for love. She's tough and driven she wants to beat him. The sparing between the two sets off sparks.
Granted some of improvement of the 1999 version may be the evolution of the relationship between men and women since 1968. But still, it does give you a feel for some of the lost opportunities of the first version.