|
| • Advanced Search • Help |
House of Games | Year: 1987 Classification: Mystery / Suspense Directed: - David Mamet Actors/Actresses: - Lindsay Crouse - Joe Mantegna Inveiglers and the women who love them The script of "House of Games" probably has some of the most brazen plot twists and wicked undercurrents that I've seen in all of film. You'd almost think the director, David Mamet - who won a Pulitzer for a 1984 play - holds the audience in contempt, since the main character in the movie, a psychiatrist with a best-selling motivational book, experiences every deception and con with as little perspicacity as the viewer (unless you know what to expect). The movie is basically a study on ruses and truth. It's funny to see Dr. Ford being strung along by Byzantine plots throughout the film; but kind of disturbing to see how the experience has affected her in the end. The ploys perpetrated by the confidence men in the film should inspire some slack-jawed admiration and awe, even if there success in real life would be questionable. I think in certain works it is OK to accept these kinds of slightly dubious happenings if they further the thematic purpose of the film. I mean, how many people out there would really fall for Chance's unwitting façade in "Being There." I hold the opinion that "House of Games" would have been an even greater achievement as a book. It might be one of those films where reading its screenplay is superior to actually watching the final product. The direction is good from a layman's perspective, but there's a strange forced, muted quality to the actor's interactions. They talk to each other like, well, con men and ultra-professionals. The actors are told to perform in a way that doesn't appeal to me much, but maybe I'm missing the point. The doctor is a strong character - tough, competent, yet still with that hidden, unexplored crevice that cries out for genuine human affection and attachment. The warmer side of her personality is vital to the film's success because the audience couldn't identify with her if she was made of iron and never got hurt. It's also doubtful that she would have fallen into the long, convoluted trap that she did otherwise. The ending of the film is compelling and rather twisted, and probably created some good material for psychology term papers. Great idea poorly executed The thing about House Of Games is that you're sure its lame until the last 30 minutes or so and after you've finished watching it, you still can't decide if you like it or not. Regardless, it doesn't hold up to repeated viewings. The horrible acting (especially from Mamet's then-wife Linsay Crouse) and stiff dialogue, along with the ill-advised lighting homage to film noir almost play into the "con" Mamet is playing on the viewer. Still, that doesn't make it *enjoyable* to watch. The theme of pairing pyschology with the con artist is loaded with potential. However, it is not explored enough. The scenes between the doctor and her patient are Ed Wood bad. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad photography and, most of all, empty. Similarly, the scenes with Maria, the older shrink professor, are too obvious. The "Freudian slips" are just amateurish. There is no excuse for this, as these scenes can't be explained away by being ensconsed in the world of confidence games, where neither party has their guard down and may be trying to lead the other on. For more on this, read Mike Stone's review below. Overall, while the plot becomes clever in an unconventional way, there was way too much raw potential that went unrealized. The cons are somewhat obvious and lame. We know the "big con" before Maggie does and what she does from there isn't clever, but instead relies on the character development, which was pretty much nil up to this point. Mamet crowbars the subtle aspects of her character in there. Subtle as a flying mallet. And yet, he doesn't want to spend too much time on them (wisely) so he relies on singular scenes with the mental patient or her mentor Maggie and all I can say is these scenes are woefully lacking in all aspects. Good scene writing escaped Mamet in this movie. Not to mention any dialogue that rises above *painfully* bad. The script, in this sense, is its own worst enemy. The basic structure is fine, but the scene-to-scene execution is pitiful. Couple that with bad acting and (at times) cheesy cinematography and it's just too bad that a solid idea was so underdeveloped. I wish Mamet had done two things: (1) Revised the script a number of times and made it far better and (2) Let someone else direct it. He adapted the scrpit for The Verdict which was, in my opinion, a fine job of screenwriting. However, Sidney Lumet's direction and Newman's acting sent it over the top. I truly wish Lumet had directed this. "Trust no one" David Mamet's "House of Games," is another of that director's giant flip jobs. I've been working my way through the Mamet catalogue, and one can't help but feel the director sees the world itself as a giant con. Well, that's perhaps a bit simplistic, but Mamet does cling, in movie after movie, to some core principles. One of these is that you must trust no one. In "Spartan," "The Spanish Prisoner," and "House of Games," this very line is uttered, usually by a villain to an innocent. This sounds like a negative credo, but it really isn't. First, consider who's issuing the warning: the villain. Will the innocent learn from experience? And will the learning result in corruption? (Important questions for Mamet.) Second, trusting yourself and knowing yourself (weaknesses included) in a dangerous world is advisable, necessary, in order to survive . I have to believe Mamet is a big reader of Joseph Conrad. The story behind "House of Games," involves Lindsay Crouse as Margaret Ford, a doctor and popular author. Her "big book" is titled "Driven," about compulsive and addictive personalities. It doesn't take long to figure out the book is about herself. So driven is Margaret that she is beginning to make Freudian slips in her conversations, slips that reveal dark corners of her own personality. She may be heading for a breakdown - and a teaching colleague warns her, tells her she must slow down. But "slowing down" comes as another writing project presents itself, seemingly accidently due to the dilemma of a patient , when Margaret is introduced to the world of the Con at a local bar and pool hall called "House of Games." This introduction comes at the hands of Mike (Joe Mantegna), a handsome and slick con man who is willing to provide a tour - though he does warn her: "Trust no one." To reveal any more would be telling. Like all Mamet films, the dialogue is essential. I don't think I've ever seen a director make such interesting use of dialogue. On one level the dialogue in all of Mamet's films (that I've seen so far) is seemingly stilted. But it works! Why? I can only attribute this to Mamet's precision as a director. What seems stilted, comes across instead as elevated speech - as in Shakespeare. Mamet is a dramatic poet who no doubt has Shakespeare's great maxim engraved upon his mind, and present in the framing of each scene: "Suit the action to the word, and the word to the action." (Good actors must love working with this guy.) So pay attention, there's no fat in a Mamet film, and always plenty to ponder. "House of Games" is no different. See it. Buy House Of Games at Amazon.com Buy posters at Allposters.com Jamster - the latest ringtones for your phone!  Search with Walhello on the Internet on House Of Games Search with the Priority Search Engine on House Of Games This page in other languages: Suomeksi | Nederlands | Deutsch
|
