How to Steal a Million (1966)

"How to Steal a Million" is a heist comedy film, a genre which became fashionable in the late sixties. Such films tell the story of a crime- in this case the theft of a statue from a Paris art gallery- in a light-hearted manner and from the point of view of the criminals. In 1966, however, there was a problem with films like this. The Production Code, which among other things forbade films which showed criminals getting away with it, was still officially in force. (It was not abolished until the following year). Admittedly, it was no longer enforced with the rigour which the Hays Office had shown in the thirties and forties, but this did not mean that film-makers could ignore it altogether.So how do you make a film about stealing a million? Or how did you go about doing so in 1966? Well, the first thing to do is to cast as the main criminal somebody whom the audience could not possibly dislike. And who in the Hollywood of the mid-sixties was more lovable than Audrey Hepburn? It's not just that the divine Audrey, at the age of 37, still held the title of "World's Loveliest Woman" which she had held for well over a decade. Her whole public persona, both on-screen and off, was that of a genuinely decent and kind-hearted person. She had never, as far as I am aware, played a villainess in any of her previous pictures, and, of course, does not do so here.The second thing to do is to establish that the criminals are acting out of a selfless, disinterested motive. Charles Bonnet is well-known as an art collector, but he also has a sideline in forging paintings and selling them to rival collectors. His does it not so much for the money- he is already immensely wealthy- but for the artistic intellectual challenge of being able to produce something indistinguishable from the work of a great master and to fool the experts. Forgery seems to run in the family, because Charles's father was also an expert in the trade, although he specialised in sculpture rather than paintings.Audrey plays Charles's daughter Nicole, who unlike her father and grandfather has moral scruples about forgery. She loves her father deeply, however, and when he takes the risk of lending a forged statue, supposedly by Cellini, to an exhibition, she decides that she will have to protect him from himself. She knows that the statue will be subjected to scientific tests which will reveal its dubious provenance, thereby ruining Charles's reputation. She decides that the only way to do this will be to steal the statue from the museum, and to this end recruits the help of a young Englishman named Simon Dermott, whom she wrongly believes to be a professional art thief. In fact, he is a private investigator tasked with countering fraud in the art world, but he decides to play along because he has fallen in love with the lovely Nicole.The film seems to have been an influence on some later heist movies; the idea of a precious artefact being protected by laser beams which will trigger an alarm if broken was also used in the Sean Connery/Catherine Zeta Jones vehicle, "Entrapment". (Catherine can be considered a successor to Audrey's "World's Loveliest Woman" crown). The differences between the two films are indicative of the way in which the heist genre developed between the sixties and the nineties. In "Entrapment" the thieves' motives are purely self-interested, and the film-makers treat their subject matter semi-seriously, whereas "How to Steal a Million" is a pure comedy.And as a comedy it is a very good one. The way in which Nicole and Simon go about removing the statue from the museum is, looked at logically, pure nonsense, but somehow the cast and director William Wyler make us believe in it. Peter O'Toole as Simon shows an unexpected talent for comedy starring, the splendidly over-the-top Hugh Griffith makes Charles a lovable rogue and there is a nice came from Eli Wallach as a devious American millionaire who pretends to be a suitor for Nicole's hand when he is really far more interested in getting his hands on the "Cellini" statue. But, of course, the main factor contributing to the film's success is Audrey's comedic skills and her ability to convey meanings and emotions by the slightest gestures and inflections. This is a film in the same class as her other great comedy with Wyler, "Roman Holiday". 8/10 A goof. The statue is described as being "29 inches high" when it is nowhere near that size. Perhaps someone meant 29 centimetres.

Peter O'Toole was English and Audrey Hepburn came to the U.S. from England (she was born in Belgium). Both were stars at the peak of their careers when this 1966 caper comedy came out. I wonder why this was the only film they made together. They certainly show good chemistry in "How to Steal a Million." But then, every actor seemed to have good chemistry with Audrey Hepburn. And she played opposite many of the leading men of the 1950s and 1960s. In many of her films, the male lead was considerably older. This film is unusual in that regard. While the two lead characters are about the same age in the film, O'Toole in real life was more than three years younger than Hepburn. This film isn't among the best works of either star. But it has charm in an interesting but simple plot. Hepburn plays Nicole, whose father, Bonnet (played by Hugh Griffith) is an accomplished painter who prefers to make his money by masterly forgeries. But he doesn't get caught because of his unique market – super rich patrons of the arts who prefer to hoard once lost masterpieces rather than share them or show them in public. O'Toole is Simon Dermott, the world's foremost expert in uncovering forgeries and unmasking the culprits. But, perchance, Hepburn mistakes him for an art thief. Therein lies the start of a wonderful, funny caper that will see their romance bloom as well. There are no belly laughs in this film, but plenty of occasions to chuckle and smile. The film takes place in Paris and was shot in France. So, it pokes the customary fun at some things French – in this case, the museum watch guards, police security and the government. It's a light film but an entertaining one that the whole family should enjoy.

William Wyler is one of my very favourite directors and this being his third last film of a forty year career is a testament to the phenomenal director he was. Wyler didn't direct many comedies, and with a comedy as perfect as How To Steal a Million that's a crying shame. In fact the last straight up comedy he directed was 31 years earlier with The Gay Deception and the Ernst Lubitsch inspired The Good Fairy. How To Steal a Million defiantly owes something to Ernst Lubitsch. The character's interactions have that Lubitsch touch while the European setting and the high society elegance are unmistakably Lubitsch. Speaking of elegance, does this movie have style! At the beginning of the film we see Audrey Hepburn driving an unusually small car, wearing sunglasses and all white apparel; setting the tone for one heck of an eye pleasing film.Since How to Steal a Million was made after the demise of Hollywood's production code and the character's we're routing for are essentially criminals it did surprise me that they didn't let the character's get away with their actions at the end of the film. Peter O'Toole (one of Hepburn's few age appropriate leading man) shows that he could be as suave and debonair as the likes of William Powell. I often say this with a lot of primarily dramatic actors; I wish he could have done more comedies. It can't be easy to ask the person whose house you were in the process of robbing to give you a lift home in a perfectly convincing manner. The robbery process itself makes want to shout "genius" at the screen. The manner in which the heist is pulled of is so inventive and suspenseful as all hell. This was the days before CCTV so their plan probably wouldn't work nowadays. How to Steal a Million is one of the rare comedies which is consistently funny from start to finish; almost without a laugh free minute.

Not only did I see this better film when I was younger, and to be honest, it's a lot more enjoyable! Peter O'Toole and Audrey Hepburn have SO MUCH more chemistry together in this film, than in Charades with Cary Grant. That film was all-round dark, weird, and didn't make much sense.THIS film was light-hearted, had it's somewhat dark moments that were quick & made sense, and the film was able to be funny & smart.I just love the whole movie first hanging on the possibility that the main male character could be lying, and it turns out he wasn't a burglar but a detective instead! It's funny, 'cause at the end of the film Audrey Hepburn decides to play her own game of lying.All the more I've gotta say is, I don't want to spoil anything, go watch this movie! It deserves more attention! 8/10