Dois Trapaceiros da Pesada

OK finally got to watch this previously unavailable James Garner Western. It was directed by Paul Bogart who was basically a TV director and it really shows since the film doesn't quite use all of the advantages available to a cinematic endeavor. The only other film that I've seen that I know of directed by Bogart is another Garner vehicle based on Raymond Chandler's private eye character called "Marlowe" which I've seen and liked, but not in quite a while.

This film is probably the closest Garner ever gets in a film, that I've seen, to him reprising his Maverick persona when he his still young enough to pull it off, (he does so somewhat also, in the two Support Your Local... films with his cool wisecracking deliveries) but here he is actually playing a character Quincy Drew, who is a con man in the best Maverick Brothers tradition. The story circa (1857) deals with two con men Drew and Jason O'Rourke (Lou Gossett) a native of New Jersey, who we later discover met in a jail in Pennsylvania when O'Rourke was thrown into a cell next to Drew who was doing time for telling fortunes, its hilarious seeing Garner in a turban and fortune telling garb. They hit it off, and devise various different cons that they try out as a team until they hit on what they call the "Skin Game". This con consists of Garner riding into various Western border state towns Kansas, Missouri, etc., feigning poverty and as a result has to sell his best slave at an impromptu auction in the saloon, hotel, etc., etc. Susan Clark, plays a shady lady/pickpocket/con woman who targets the guys taking their money who eventually becomes Garners love interest. Ed Asner here, is in his villain period and he does a pretty good job as a slave catcher operating in the border area who eventually catches on to the con game. Gossett does a great job along with Garner & Clark.

The film is entertaining and plays it safe and cutesy, but it could have been a whole lot better with a more creative and daring director, its reminiscent of Eastwood's self produced Malpaso Production films in that respect, Cherokee Productions is Garner's company.

The what if's: If it would have shown Gossett & Garner's other various cons and how they stumbled upon the "Skin Game" con and had a better ending than the contrived one it does have it would been better.

I'll give it a 7-8/10 mostly for its Maverick nostalgia value. Its a shame its not on TV in rotation with other Westerns on the various movie channels but I think the frequent use of the "n" word probably is the cause of its not being so. Its almost as if the mainstream media has decided that that period of American History has been dealt with enough and can be swept into the closet.

Got my breath taken away when I was reading what was coming up on TCM and saw this. I had never heard of it. The premise sounded absolutely painful, even by 1970s standards, and I watched it only to see just how painful it was, in terms of stereotypes, glossing over the evils of slavery, etc. In short, I watched it to make fun of it. And - I was surprised. I'm going to do my best to not spoil the surprises in this review, as so many others have done - I'm writing this to entice you to watch it. Because it's worth watching.

This movie is way smarter, way edgier in terms of humor and commentary than I expected, and the story did not at all unfold as I had thought it would - and it's rare that I'm surprised by a movie from the 70s. Yes, there are some what-were-they-thinking?!? moments in terms of how a circumstance is portrayed, and some painful stereotypes about indigenous, non-English languages - but, overall, this movie doesn't present slavery as anything but reprehensible, and it presents African Americans as intelligent and creative as anyone else - and it's fascinating to watch that realization come over one of the characters in particular. I found the portrayal of the two lead women in the film surprising and refreshing for the time the film was made as well (I won't spoil it by saying more).

It's intriguing that the film shows only the after effects of the whipping of an enslaved man - not the actual, horrendous act, at least not on a slave - I wondered if that was just too painful for a 1971 audience to endure. It's also intriguing that it shows a white slave- owning woman as a sexual predator - something we all know happened, but it rarely gets talked about, let alone referred to in a movie.

I won't say it's some sort of enlightened film, but watch it all the way through - you might be really surprised by the story and the portrayals. James Garner and Louis Gossett Jr. (credited as Lou Gossett) are terrific together - I believed the friendship and the mutual respect - and their naiveté about the world. I don't think any other actors could have pulled this off.

I still can't believe I liked the movie.

American film critic Leonard Maltin describes Skin Game as an exceptional comedy...and I agree with him. To make a comedy focussing on two con men ripping off slave owners without regard to any-thing but making money, while at the same time satirizing American slavery is itself bold and original, especially considering the film was made in 1971. However, to make such a comedy work so smoothly and inoffensively as it does is indeed exceptional. Skin Game manages to work for a number of reasons, including because it is serious when it needs to be, complementing the humour with well-crafted dramatic moments that are firmly anchored in the plot and effectively convey the injustice and tragedy of slavery. It does this without attempting to make any grand moralizing statements that would detract from the main thrust of the story and lure the viewer into obvious sentimentalism. Furthermore, while Skin Game is first and foremost a comedy, after its two main characters end up face-to-face with the brutality of slavery, it becomes clear that the gig is up and the comedy is over. Ultimately, slavery is too horrible a business to be taken lightly and the two smart-ass cons have learned their lesson by the end of the movie. In these ways, the film can manage to be satirical and funny, while not appearing to make light of a very serious topic. It should also be mentioned that the humour is of course never directed at slavery or the slaves, but at the slave owners and their stupidly racist attitudes. Another reason why Skin Game works so well is because of the wonderful performances by its two main stars, James Garner and Lou Gossett Jr. Garner is of course an expert at playing the charming and witty fast-talking rascal, and in Skin Game, he gives one of his very best performances in a comedy film (along with Support Your Local Sheriff and The Americanization of Emily). However, the film also revealed Lou Gossett Jr.'s considerable talent. In his first important role in a major film, Gossett easily holds his own against Garner. The two have strong chemistry together, constantly trying to outcon each-other and delivering their humorous lines with ease, charm and spontaneity. The humour itself is maybe not highly sophisticated or extremely funny, but it's a smart tongue-in-cheek kind of comedy that makes you regularly grin and never feels forced. Overall, Skin Game is not only an exceptional film, but an excellent one that intelligently balances comedy and drama, and develops its unusual premise in an amusing, sensitive, and unpredictable manner. It's a shame this movie is not more appreciated, though it did lead to a TV remake (Sidekicks with Gossett reprising his role and Larry Hagman replacing Garner), and other reviewers have pointed out its possible influence on Django Unchained.

James Garner ever since he made his first big hit in the television series of Maverick refined the playing of a con man who's no better than he ought to be into a fine art. Quincy Drew is a further refining of the Bret Maverick character.

James Garner can be serious when he wants to be, but I've always gotten the feeling he enjoys being Maverick or Jim Rockford far better than playing it straight. He has to enjoy it more, he's so darn good at it.

Here he's got a racket going with Lou Gossett, Jr. During the days just before the Civil War in the 1850s he and Gossett work this con where Garner keeps buying and selling Gossett as a slave. Of course Gossett escapes and then they move on to the next town.

Trouble is with that kind of a con, your reputation is bound to catch up with you. Gossett, who was born in New Jersey and is a free black man, gets a view of slavery he didn't bargain for. Along the way he meets Brenda Sykes.

Garner also meets up with Susan Clark who's also a grifter. She aids him in his search for Gossett.

Gossett and Garner don't exactly redeem themselves in the end, but you know this is not a racket they will be trying any more.

James Garner and Lou Gossett play Easterners who head west to con the gullible country folk in a scheme where Garner is a slave owner and Gossett is his slave whom he sells only to later escape together and then find another town. It's an interesting take on the institution of slavery, done as both comedy and drama, with an interesting portrayal of John Brown (played by Royal Dano in a full beard) storming into a Kansas town during a slave auction horsewhipping and shooting various people. In a film full of "N" words, Garner and Gossett keep the mood fairly light. However, when the game backfires Gossett is really sold into slavery and ends up on a Texas plantation owned by a rather cruel Andrew Duggan. The film goes into just enough whippings and violence to shock the viewer while also providing James Garner a familiar role he had perfected on TV's "Maverick" to sustain a lighter side as well.