Ocean vs. Ocean

Ocean vs. Ocean

It would be an understatement to say that Ocean’s 11 is one of the most classic American heist films that redefined the suave criminal character type, and flesh out the sub-genre of the “heist film” by establishing key generic conventions and stereotypes. The trick is, this can describe Ocean’s 11 directed by Lewis Milestone in 1960, or Ocean’s Eleven directed by Steven Soderbergh in 2001. But the latter can’t have been a repeat of the former if it was to accomplish the same groundbreaking effect, and so there are several key differences that make for an almost entirely different moviegoing experience.

Ocean’s 11 (1960)		Ocean’s Eleven (2001)

The screenshots above come from each film’s respective “Planning the Heist” scene. The one from the 1960’s version happens 54 minutes into the movie; for reference, the entire movie runs for 2 hours and 7 minutes. The one from the 2001 version happens 30 minutes into the movie (the total runtime is 1 hour and 56  minutes).

In large part, this is due to the filmmaking conventions at the time each was made. In the 1960s, movies were large events that warranted a certain amount of respect and patience. It was expected that the characters each be introduced before the more intriguing plot details. Conversely, in the 2000s, various technological advances had accelerated the general pace at which the general public  consumed media. Filmmakers adapted to keep interest up at almost all stages of the story for fear that the audience would grow bored faster, decide the movie isn’t interesting, and leave.

Visually speaking, these scenes could not be more different. While the 1960’s version is evenly and brightly lit, the 2001 version is dark and highly contrasted. The 1960’s camera is almost always kept at eye level as a wide shot, and the deep focus (no blurry background) allows all of the members to be in the shot most of the time. The cuts or edits involved are also few and far between. The 2001’s camera is almost always kept zoomed in at around hip-level primarily to look up at Danny Ocean. The most amount of characters in a shot during this scene is five in a single shot. While considerably tame by today’s standards, there are far more cuts during this sequence that lasts 3 minutes and 9 seconds (not including the additional 3 minutes of montage) compared with the 1960’s scene that lasts 5 minutes (not including the additional 3 minutes from Dean Martin’s argument to acceptance of the plan). I believe this is again caused by the more modern philosophy of filmmaking to keep the audience interested through lots of things happening.

Each of these scenes ultimately serve the same purpose within the film, but the way they go about it stems from two perspectives on how a heist film should work as a genre. The former movie’s scheme is explained by Frank Sinatra’s character Danny Ocean beat for beat in a fairly simple manner. During a blackout, if certain wires are crossed by the team’s “master electrician”, then the backup power that kicks in just afterward will not go to the lights and slot machines but to the electrically locked safes, opening them. The structure of this scene is pretty basic; there is a goal, and Frank Ocean explains the solution. The emphasis lies on the character based conflict that comes later on as a consequence of Sam Harmon’s (Dean Martin’s character) reluctance to proceed because of who the members of the crew are, and what they are no longer capable of pulling off.

In the 2001 version, Danny Ocean (as played by George Clooney) explains through what is essentially a PowerPoint presentation all of the difficulties, of which there are many, that face the crew. He does not however explain any of the solutions. Through a montage sequence, Clooney’s voice guides the audience through the process of gaining intelligence about each of the casinos. This is an intentional choice made by Soderbergh, meant specifically to keep the audience guessing as to what possible convoluted actions Ocean’s team could take that could lead them to their objective. The “heist film” as a sub-genre was based on a belief that the audience deserves to know what kind of movie they are watching, and what’s happening in it, however this has now evolved into the belief that the audience will gain more enjoyment or rather interest from a well told mystery than an explanation of every detail. Broadly speaking, both perspectives have their pros and cons. The former receives clarity in exchange for audience intrigue, while the latter receives intrigue at the expense of clarity. Each perspective by itself, brought to its most extreme, results in an unfulfilling audience experience. Only with a hint of the other one, can either perspective succeed.