House of Games (1987)

David Mamet's 1987 directorial debut was this mesmerizing study of control and seduction between two kinds of detached observers: a gambler who is also a con artist, and a psychotherapist who is also an emerging pop-psych guru in the book market. The latter (played by Lindsay Crouse) meets the former (Joe Mantegna) when one of her clients is driven to despair from his debts to the card shark. Mantegna's character agrees to drop the IOUs in exchange for Crouse's attention at the seedy House of Games in Seattle, a mecca for con men to talk shop and hustle unsuspecting customers. The shrink gets so caught up in the arcane rules and world view of her guide over subsequent days that she observes--with no false rapture--various stings in progress inside and outside the club. Mamet's story finally becomes a fascinating study of two people protecting and extending their respective cosmologies the way rival predators fight for the same piece of turf. The psychological challenge is compelling; so is the stylized dialogue, with its pattern of pauses and hiccups and humming meter. Mostly shooting at night, Mamet also gave Seattle a different look from previous filmmakers, turning its familiar puddles into concentrations of liquid neon and poisonous noir. --Tom Keogh Amazon.com

Fool me once,shame on you,fool me twice,shame on me....

"House of Games",David Mamet's cinematic debut,is supposed to be about the complexities of the human mind and relationships. Maggie (Lindsay Crouse),a psychologist,has a patient with a gambling problem (Mantegna) Instead of helping him give up his addiction, Maggie is swept in. He teaches her about card games (yawn) He's a player,of course. Maggie doesn't hate the player,she hates the game. Well,she hates that she loves it. They go to the House of Games in Seattle to watch it all unfold. Maggie is aroused by the sight of stings going on in the casino-- and soon she's aroused by Mantegna. A stomach-churning love scene unfolds between the Italian lug and his homely psychiatrist. Isn't that unethical? Not to mention worthy of brain bleach?

"House of Games" has a predictable ending when Maggie gets wind of the whole con game. It's a pretentious bore. As a viewer,you end up feeling played. October 13, 2008

hateful poorly directed film

THe key performances are off. THey feel like stage performances rather than cinematic. Im assuming its the direction thats misguided; most of the performances are consistently bad in the same way.

The writing is very angry. Like a temper tantrum against human nature.

THe depiction of female characters is ugly.

the plot is very predictable.

September 28, 2008

The Criterion Collection release is widescreen and has an excellent commentary by Mamet and Ricky Jay

SPOILERS AHEAD: Dr. Margaret Ford is such a good mark because she's such a bad girl. Dr. Ford is a con artist. She is a devious woman. She is aroused by the art of the con. She wants to be a thief herself. At the end of the film we learn--when she exacts her revenge--that she is in fact more ruthless and cold than any of the grifters who set her up. What many viewers might miss when watching House of Games is that Dr. Margaret Ford was already a con artist before involving herself with the cardsharp. In fact, that's why they targeted her. After all, "You can't cheat an honest man." Or, "You can't cheat a man who doesn't have larceny in his heart."

Dr. Ford is a psychiatrist, and psychiatrists are--whether they realize it themselves or not--con artists. Kind of like psychics. M. Lamar Keene--once the most financially successful psychic in America--has said that psychics have two categories for themselves. An "open eyes" is a psychic who knows he does not have any sort of supernatural power--no ESP, no clairvoyance, nothing. In other words, an "open eyes" will admit TO OTHER PSYCHICS that he is a con artist. As ANY magician knows, it is very easy to convincingly make it look like you have psychic powers. People eat it up too. "Open eyes" account for about 90% of all psychics. And then there are "shut eyes." These are deluded people who--often because of positive reinforcement--actually believe that they have genuine psychic powers. The point here is that I think these terms could apply to clinical psychologists too, except here maybe 10% would be "open eyes" and 90% "shut eyes." Dr. Ford would be a rare "open eyes."

If you don't believe me, on the excellent commentary which appears only on the Criterion Collection's release of this film (and this commentary alone is reason enough to buy it), writer/director David Mamet (with con artist expert Ricky Jay) discusses how in his opinion psychiatrists (and clinical psychologists) are--by and large--fraudsters. As an empirical psychologist (someone who scientifically studies psychology) myself I must say that I agree with him. As Mamet puts it (allegorically), here is the racket: You go to them with some problem. They tell you that the problem stems from something you don't realize. There is some "magic phrase," and if only you could think of it, your problem would go away. The only thing is the therapist doesn't know what this "magic phrase" is. You have to search for it--for the rest of your life. You meet with the therapist for years, paying her hundreds of dollars a week, looking for the magic phrase. The con is that there is no realization; there is no "magic phrase." If there was, and if you thought of it, then they would lose you as a client. They would lose their meal ticket.

Dr. Ford has a book called "Driven," and it is about compulsives. The book is, like many books about clinical psychology, a bunch of BS. The book is, as Mamet reveals in his commentary, the reason why the con artists targeted her. When she realizes that her shady profession is why she was targeted, she hurls a copy of her book at her framed degree on the wall. She proceeds to rip her despised degree through the broken glass and cuts her hand. And then she sets out for revenge.

House of Games is a spellbinding film, perhaps the best movie ever made about con artists. It boasts extraordinary cinematography, inspired by what Mamet calls the "poverty row" films of the 40s and 50s. (These films had no budget, and therefore could afford no stars, and thus had to rely on plot for their own survival.) The soundtrack is also very good. It consists of inversions of a toccata in C minor by Bach. The poker scene in House of Games is now famous. Most poker scenes involve actors who do not have a large amount of experience at the poker table. They don't have experience handling cards in real life, and it shows. Not here. Every single person in the poker game in this movie was a seasoned poker aficionado, including the great Ricky Jay, who is perhaps the greatest sleight-of-hand artist living today. Jay also invented the con that is explained to Dr. Ford in front of the "House of Games." He didn't want the film to reveal any con that was actually being used by any con artist buddies of his, so he made one up. Later an insurance salesman was arrested in real life for using the con displayed in the film.

I recommend not only watching this film, but then watching it again with Mamet and Jay's commentary on. Most director commentaries I've heard are very boring. Not so here. Perhaps this stems from the fact that Mamet--unlike most people in show business today--is actually extremely intelligent. He is a tremendous writer with a style of dialogue all of his own. He says it evolved out of a lifetime spent arguing. The commentary humorously begins with Jay and Mamet being caught on tape discussing George Bush. Mamet says that all politicians are liars and that Bush--to him--seems like he must be a decent man because he is so bad at lying. (Unlike, perhaps, the Clintons, who lie with such ease and even finesse. Such comments could be seen as a precursor to Mamet's brilliant essay entitled "Why I am No Longer a Brain-Dead Liberal.")
August 28, 2008

Outstanding, classic film. Vastly overpriced Criterion DVD...

Shame on Criterion for pricing this only slightly lux version of standard packaging, graphics, and extras at the $35.00 price point where one would expect a high end treatment throughout the entire package! The new transfer is absolutely first rate. But talk about cheap and over priced packaging and extras! Nothing but a plastic case, a single disc, a fat booklet and a few on disc extras, no more than you would get with a regular edition for countless other films. This disc might do well at $16.99, but at thirty-five dollars ($35.00) it's just a rip.

I love this film, always have, always will, ever since it was first released. So I was excited to see Criterion issue a completely remastered edition to replace the very mediocre transfer and disc that has, till now, been all that was available. I had recently purchased the Criterion three disc edition of the beautifully remastered "Seven Samurai". That set was without a doubt one of the most lavish, best designed, wonderfully packaged and best presented sets I have ever seen. Well worth the $35 Amazon charged for it.

Silly me, I assumed that, just because "House Of Games" was priced at the same $35 level that it would be packaged and presented with the same value and care. Boy was I wrong!

So, to balance out my two star rating:

Film: *****
Packaging: *
Transfer: *****
Value: **

August 13, 2008

Co-wrote by Dr. Katz...

...who would have thought.

Excellent movie. For anybody, especially David Mamet fans! July 24, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...