MovieChat Forums > Diggstown (1992) Discussion > Where is the con?

Where is the con?

posted 13 years ago by johndeckbose
9 replies | jump to latest

I love Diggstown. Seen it at least 20 times. But I've never understood why it's considered a confidence-game movie. The first time we meet Honey Roy, working with the kids at the Y, he says to Gabe, "I'm off the con." The UK title for the film is "Midnight Sting," obviously aiming for the crowd that loved The Sting, which involved a genuine confidence game. In The Sting, Gondorff and Hooker, and their crew, weren't relying on a genuine horse race. Every last thing was fixed.

In Diggstown, other than a few shortcuts that Gabe arranges to lessen the challenge of Honey Roy fighting ten men in 24 hours, there is no real con game. He lies about Fitz in order to seduce the mayor of Diggstown into the bet, but Honey Roy still has to fight 7 out of 10 bouts legitimately -- any one of which he could have lost, save for his skill as a fighter. In a con-game movie, you don't usually see the outcome hanging on such a legitimate show of talent.

[–] crood 13 years ago

Yeah. It really is more of a hustle than a con.

[–] pndferpnd 13 years ago

Way less then 7 out of 10 were legit. The whole first half line-up was fixed(Oliver Platt says something to that effect in the locker room before the fights) and we know that Ham double-crossed them for fear of retribution on his brother. So...4 out of 5 fights fixed. In the second half....and it's been awhile since I've seen the movie so I can't remember everyone who was in the second half line-up, but we know the sixth fight and Minoso Torres were fixed so at a minimum, 6 out of 10 WERE fixed.

Now that I think about it I'm confident 6 is the exact number because Hammerhead, the dude that slugged Fitz in the bar, Tank and Ham were legit fights so thats 4.

But even out of those 4, Ham was supposed to take a dive and Hammerhead was a ringer so that leaves only 2 out of 10 completely legit fights against true Diggstown men.

"How'd ya know my name was Mac?" - Mac

[–] johndeckbose 12 years ago

You are correct that my number was too high. As I watched it AGAIN the other day, more fights are fixed than not. But the very fact that any of the fights are legit goes to my point. One lucky punch in a non-fixed fight and the whole bet goes down the drain. That's antithetical to the confidence-game genre.

I have to agree with crood, the poster above, who says, "It's really more of a hustle than a con."

[–] pndferpnd 12 years ago

Fair enough but in any con there is a large element of risk. Personally I think 2 out of 10 legit fights is pretty good odds.

"How'd ya know my name was Mac?" - Mac

[–] mathknapp 12 years ago

But keep in mind you are also looking at a professional (albeit aging) boxer going up against local guys. Even now, do you think that you could beat Mike Tyson? There should be very little chance that this guy would lose in 2 bouts to local schlubs.

If all 10 matches were fair - 10 bouts against independent local opponents, no ringers and no set ups - it is only fatigue and attrition that should give this guy any chance of losing. Asking him to fight 2 or 3 legit fights against competition far beneath his level of ability? Should be a walk in the park.

[–] Doc80 11 years ago

Actually, the 6th fight, AKA the first fight after the break, was NOT fixed. James Woods character says we "know what he's about" which isn't an indication that the fight is fixed, only that he'll be easy. This is of course shown when the fight lasts like 3 seconds with only one punch landed. So, if you count Ham as an unfixed fight, that would make 7 out of the 10 as not fixed with other three being the brown bottle treatment, the bribe and Torres being a friend of Woods' character.

[–] crood 12 years ago

I've thought about this and I've come to believe that Caine knew more than the film revealed. He knew about the warden and Gillion's friendship from the beginning and manipulated things so it looked like Torres was his enemy. Remember, the fight between Wolf and Torres at the beginning was staged to cover an escape. While it appeared only Wolf was in on it, in fact both fighters were. We just never saw Cain pay off Torres.

Hammerhead was probably a real surprise because he expected Torres to be the ringer.

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

Oh, he definitely knew about their friendship. In fact, I think he baited Gillon into getting Torres because of how the negotiations for the fight go down. He says "I'll tell you what, any man living in the country today, and can prove it, is a Diggstown man." The way he says that makes me think that he knows the Gillon knows the warden and that he will go to him and the warden will offer him Torres for his final spot.

[–] johnral (138) 5 years ago

That's a good question. I thought that most of the fights were legit, in which case it would not be a con; but others here might be right that a majority of fights were fixed. But I think this raises another question. The villain learns that the fights are fixed (when the one brother does not fight). In fact, the last fix is quite obvious as the guy calls out the other boxer's name and gives him the thumb's down signal, after which that boxer just puts his arms down. I don't know if there is some code among conmen whereby anything is fair game; but I would think that dirty tricks like fixing a fight would nullify the bet, even among hustlers, con-mean and general scumbags. Would anybody really hold it against the villain if he refused to pay due to fixed fights? (Understanding of course that both sides played dirty; with the villain at least pushing the limits by bringing in the "ringer.") If the gamblers live with a code of ethics where they can openly cheat, then would there be any shame in just killing the other dude after losing the bet and refusing to pay? (It's not as if the villain is above murder.) But back to the main question: With that old dude winning even three legitimate fights (including the one against the ringer), the money is well-earned.