Customer Reviews

House of Games (The Criterion Collection)

5 star:		(46)
4 star:		(24)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

If you've suffered through the bare-bones, full-screen MGM release that came out a few years ago, this new edition will come as a fantastic upgrade.

Easily, the highlight for David Mamet fans is the audio commentary with the man and actor Ricky Jay. These two old friends engage in lively philosophical discussions on a variety of topics, including why President Bush is such a terrible liar, the art of the con game and why psychiatry is a scam. Ricky Jay talks about the nature of the con and some of the lingo involved while keeping Mamet talking by prodding him with questions. Mamet is his usual blunt self as he constantly talks about how Orion messed up distributing the film in this engaging and thought-provoking commentary.

There is an interview with actress Lindsay Crouse who mentions that Mamet wrote the role of Dr. Ford for her (They were married at the time) and says that he spent five years trying to get the film made because the studios found the material too dark.

Also included is an interview with Joe Mantegna. He talks about his history with Mamet that goes back to Chicago theatre in the 1970s. He eventually appeared in the stage version of Glengarry Glen Ross when Al Pacino turned it down and went on to win a Tony for it. He talks about how he related to the character of Mike and recounts some amusing anecdotes about filming.

"David Mamet on House of Games" is 25-minute making of featurette that the film's producer and his wife shot in Vermont while Mamet was preparing the film and in Seattle while he was shooting it. There is some great footage of Mamet and his buddies playing poker in Vermont. The same guys also appear in the film in the poker scene.

"The Tap" features the original storyboards to the short con that Mike and his group demonstrate to Dr. Ford but in order to protect the working con man, Ricky Jay changed it to another con called the Flue.

Finally, there is a theatrical trailer.

This is an absolutely mesmerizing film. A wonderful addition to that genre known as "film noir", the movie is superlative in every way. In his directorial debut, David Mamet shows a keen understanding of the concept "less is more".

The two main characters in the film are a well known psychiatrist with a best selling book, Dr. Margaret Ford, played with chilly determinism by Lindsay Crouse, and a slick con man, known only as Mike, brilliantly played by Joe Mantegna with a sinister, charismatic charm. She is stiff and formal. He is casual and seemingly easygoing. Each is involved in a field of endeavor that requires a keen understanding of human nature.

They meet by virtue of what each of them does for a living. Dr. Ford is treating a young patient, who claims to be despondent over getting in over his head financially, while gambling at a disreputable and seedy locale known as the House of Games. She is worried about her patient's potential for suicide, so she decides to go to the House of Games to see if she can straighten out the whole mess.

There, she meets Mike, the person to whom the debt is owed. From the moment they meet, there is a latent, sexual tension between them and an aura of danger and seduction that permeates the air. Intrigued by him, she is drawn into his world, where things are not always what they seem. There are many twists and turns in this most unusual film, which deftly manipulates the viewer.

The film is tautly crafted, and the dialogue itself is highly stylized with its own peculiar cadence. This serves to add to the air of mystery and suspense which infuses this film. There is an excellent supporting cast whose strong performances contribute to the overall quality of this multi-layered film. There is even a small cameo by William H. Macy. It is with good reason that this film was touted by critics as one of the best films for 1987. It meets the high standards set for this genre of film by the late, great director, Alfred Hitchcock. It is simply a stunning tour de force.

Whenever you watch a Mamet film, you're in for the most subtle mind manipulation you're likely to get at the movies. Mamet is so skillful at his craft it's scary. 'House Of Games' is the quintessential Mamet film, not because it's the best, but because it has all his elements; a twisting and involving plot, perversely attractive characters and a big wallop of an ending, as expected by the master of manipulation. The film is admirable because of it's subtlety, it has no big noisy scenes, no real action scenes and no steamy romantic scenes, Mamet could of easily added one of each but that would of marred the effect of this expertly crafted film. The dialogue is right on the money, Mantegna talks just as a small-time grifter would talk, no one-liners or really smart conversation, just a low-key dose of reality. Lindsay Crouse if quietly effective as the thrill-seeking pyschiatrist who gets the experience of a lifetime. And Mantegna is perfection as the alluring con-man who does his job fatally well. An extremely well mounted film that leaves the intelligent viewer gasping. Extras: spot William H. Macy in a cameo. From a scale of 1-10 I give this film a 9!

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.

David Mamet wrote the screenplay and made his directorial debutwith "House of Games," a character study fraught withpsychological overtones, in which a psychiatrist is lured into thedark world of the confidence game. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) has a successful practice and has written a best-selling novel, "Driven." Still, she is somewhat discontented with her own personal life; there's an emptiness she can neither define nor resolve, and it primes her vulnerability. When a patient, Billy Hahn (Steven Goldstein), confides to her during a session that he owes big money to some gamblers, and that they're going to kill him if he doesn't pay, she decides to intervene on his behalf. This takes her to the "House of Games," a seedy little dive where she meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), a charismatic con-man who wastes no time before enticing her into his world. Instead of the "twenty-five large" that Billy claimed he owed, Mike shows her his book, and it turns out to be eight hundred dollars. And Mike agrees to wipe the slate clean, if she'll agree to do him one simple favor, which involves a card game he has going on in the back room. In the middle of a big hand, Mike is going to leave the room for a few minutes; while he is gone, her job is to watch for the "tell" of one of the other players. By this time, not only Margaret, but the audience, as well, is hooked. The dialogue, and Mamet's unique style and the precise cadence with which his actors deliver their lines, is mesmerizing. As Mike leads Margaret through his compelling, surreal realm of existence, and introduces her to the intricacies of the con game, we are swept right along with her. From that first memorable encounter, when he demonstrates what a "tell" is and how it works, to the lessons of the "short con," to the stunning climax of this film, Mamet keeps the con going with an urgency that is relentless. And nothing is what it seems. In the end, Margaret learns some hard lessons about life and human nature, and about herself. She changes; and whether or not it's for the better is open to speculation. Mantegna is absolutely riveting in this film; he lends every nuance possible to a complex character who must be able to lead you willingly into the shadows, and does. Crouse also turns in an outstanding performance here; you feel the rigid, up-tight turmoil roiling beneath that calm, self-assured exterior, and when her experiences with Mike induce the change in her, she makes you feel how deeply it has penetrated. She makes you believe that she is capable of what she does, and makes you understand it, as well. The dynamic supporting cast includes Mike Nussbaum (Joey), Lilia Skala (Dr. Littauer), J.T. Walsh (The Businessman), Ricky Jay (George) and William H. Macy (Sergeant Moran). "House of Games" is the quintessential Mamet; he's written and directed a number of high-caliber plays and films since, and will no doubt grace us with more in the future. But this film will be the one that defines him; and you can go to the dictionary and look it up. You'll find it under "Perfection." This is one great movie you do not want to miss.

I am going to describe to you the facts of this case. The entire situation in this movie takes place in the mind of the woman. It is, in effect, a dream created in her imaginary writing.

Right from the beginning, you should not accept that she is a successful psychologist. She is, in fact, a patient in a mental ward. It is important to remember that the only real person is her doctor. (The mentor) All the material about cons is a novel she is writing and living in her imagination. Each scene that begins a con, she is shown in a dark room beginning the imaginary adventure, SUDDENLY, she is there, and the adventure begins.

How do we know this? It is shown to us in the film. The characters patient files and folders upon close inspection reveal that "Mike" is a character that she has created in her writing, He is written down as "The unbeatable gambler" and "a deliverer of punishment", The trouble is she has not met him yet! Also along with the address, including the "House of games", with a brief written description of the scenes!

Notice also the gun used in the initial gambling scene in "House of Games". The gambler lays down a true combat Colt 45. After Margaret writes out the check to "C.A.S.H." for $6,000 she is unable to cope with the gun and says it is a water pistol (imaginary once again) The next shot shows a distinctly different pistol than the original combat 45 that was laid down the first time! (it has a water-gun cap on the end of it!)

Also there is the illogic of money. First she is told that her "patient" owes $25,000. Later Mike tells her he owes only $800 dollars! If she had the money she reveals later, it would be logical to pay the $800 to Mike immediately but she is conned into a situation where she is ready to hand over $6,000! Later she hands over $80,000! and still later she hands over $250,000!!! Didn't anyone find that strange? The character, William Hahn, tells her she is "rich, successful, making lots of money" NOT LIVING IN REALITY BUT IN A DREAM WORLD. (It's a clue!)

ALL of the adventures do not exist. It is all in her mind. This was at the suggestion of "The Mentor" (in reality, her doctor) in the beginning. She is "busy" and told to "relax" and start an interesting distraction. All in All, because she is really a patient in an asylum for the criminally insane, she only writes 2 pages. LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE BLACK BINDER AND READ IT.

We are also shown 2 patients. BOTH OF THEM ARE REALLY OUR MAIN CHARACTER! The imaginary situations of patient/psychologist talks, the woman in the white gown (in reality a reflection of our main character, who has murdered her father)including the "man with the gun" who you are led to believe gets her involved in a trail of gambling and con man scams. In reality it was her attempt to commit suicide after she killed her father, most likely for rape.

The image of Margaret that you see throughout the movie is how the real mental patient wishes she looked like. A "normal" person in her mind. (The opposite of her) Blond, Blue Eyed, Sexy, successful, a novelist, rich beyond the dreams of avarice, wearing clothing and a haircut that looks like she stepped out of Vogue magazine! Our only clue to reality is her constant chain smoking, which mental patients are known for, especially to keep them calm in traumatic situations! CAMEL non filters, one of the strongest on the market.

The novel is her attempt to cope with the tragic reality of her shooting her father. This comes out constantly in conversations with her "Mentor/Doctor". First at the Restaurant when she says "pressure" instead of "Pleasure". The second and most important is after the second interview with the "murderess". She finds the Doctor in the hall looking over a clipboard. Didn't anyone notice the fade out scenes of the bars/security guard (who disappears yet is in front of her) and the darkened hall? She approaches the doctor and discusses the case of the "murderess". She is taken "outside" in the more "pleasant" surroundings (I believe this is the doctor's office, where she is free to let her thoughts be expressed) and REVEALS THAT SHE MURDERED HER FATHER. To which the Doctor says she was NOT Responsible. She is not a murderess. Another freudian tongue slip!



The character "MIKE" IS IN FACT, HER FATHER in the movie. The character is trying to work out her guilt. He is rough, nasty, but willing to show her the "dirty" side of life. He constantly uses her. She is "learning" the ropes. Eventually she begins a relationship with him. She "makes love" but if you notice, you don't really see a love scene. Just two people in light banter and suddenly separated, one on a chair, the other getting dressed on the bed. The "Hotel" is not real either. Look carefully how this entire scene began, you will notice it is in her imagination again, beginning in her office.

Later he degrades her and the final shooting scene which seems so out of place makes perfect sense because that was how her father was killed, she shot him while he was hurling abuses at her and the "urge for more" on behalf of the character is not bragging, but "he asked for it" in her deranged mind. Notice the accent on the word "Whore".

ALL THE CONS SHOULD BE IGNORED Which by the way, are the oldest tricks in the books on con games that almost anyone with street savy knows by heart. That is why "Mike" says it is "Dinosaur" cons. She is incapable in her mind of plotting anything better.

Everything involving the "plots" with the cons are reflective of what happened in real life to the psychologist but are "desguised". The 3rd scene with her "mentor/doctor" outside the classroom (the doctor is giving a lecture on obsessive compulsive disorders.) She approaches her once again (the doctor having all the time in the world for her despite an obviously busy schedule) notice that the backround is not pleasant but dark and problem oriented. She is close to resolving her imagination into reality! She returns to her "office", destroys her writing (the black binder) , the TWO FILES OF THE SO CALLED PATIENTS, picks up her "successful best-seller on obsession/compulsion disorders. Which by the way, if you look closely has a picture of a gambler on it that "looks" like Mike and throws it at her imaginary degree,(once again too perfect, John Hopkins University and Harvard before that!) she picks up the phone (there is no one on the other end) and effectively CANCELS HER CAREER AS A PSYCHOLOGIST.

Yet one patient gets through, the suicidal, who now looks a lot better! He gets into a VERY DISTINCTIVE RED CADDY CONVERTIBLE!(The "stolen" vehicle, which any cop would find in 5 minutes of a reported theft.) The color RED is used again and again as "entry" and "exit" symbols from her imaginary adventures! She follows him to the "Charlies Tavern" (2 red streaks on the street leading to the bar.)How she followed him is not shown (because it is in her imagination again!) Here she hears from her Lover/Father's own lips how she was abused and plans a BIG REVENGE!


This leads to what to some was the mysterious shooting at the airport, that a lot of people found odd, but of course now makes perfect sense, because it is an imaginative coping mechanism by which our character is working out her guilt.

In the end, she is at the "Waldorf" with her doctor once again in beautiful surroundings (imaginary). She has "escaped" her situation.Her doctor says she is looking better, as if the guilt or something on her mind had eased. Once again they never eat. She follows through with the original advice of her doctor. A man comes up for her to have her book signed. She uses the very words of the doctor. "FORGIVE YOURSELF" she writes as she "signs" the book. Any real psychologist can tell you that often a lot of committed people imagine they are doing something very important and the "book" is her importance, from beginning to end.

Once again, the doctor is called away by a nurse (waitress) just at the moment they would order food in the "Waldorf". Remembering now to take a "momento" from what her father taught her, she steals an imaginary lighter from a woman at the next table, and lights a cigarette right in front of her with the "stolen" lighter.

All of the background scenery regarding the cons are "perfect" hollywood style noir film locations. This was probably due to the experience of the character, creating scenes that are "movie" locations where exciting things happen all the time.

If you doubt anything I have said here, go back and look at the film scenes I spoke about and LISTEN to what is being said. It is VERY important. The facts of the movie will bear it out.

Many years ago, someone recommended this film to me, and I can understand why. It's a clever film, full of surprises as the protagonist psychiatrist is drawn into the world of confidence men, finding herself fascinated by their very different life. Mamet is known for his dialogue, perfected on the stage, that tries to recreate "normal" speaking patterns. It might be normal, but it's not necessarily realistic. What I like about it is the quickness of it (something also from the stage), moving on from character to character without necessarily waiting for the audience to follow.

Unfortunately, I must have seen enough of these kinds of movies because I was able to predict a number of the surprises, including the major one. Still, I enjoyed the movie and would be willing to see another one by Mamet.

There are films that are just plain nasty, like almost anything involving Quentin Tarantino. And there are films that are just plain perfect of their kind. And there are films that are just nasty enough to be genuinely disturbing, yet perfect of their kind. 'House of Games' is in this category for me, and I put it loosely in the same shoebox with 'The Usual Suspects' despite enormous differences of style and tone.

House of Games is a terrific exploration of deception, detachment, and control in human interaction. What's the difference between a clinical psychologist who's a best selling self-help author, and a professional con artist? Not much, apparently. This film would be less disturbing if I were able to disagree more with this basic premise :-)

The con artist and the psychologist both stand at a distance from their "patients" and analyze them; both watch for the "tell," the giveaway, the crack through which they gain an advantage and peer into the other person's secrets. Both have an agenda; the con artist is going to let you hang yourself by giving you a nice bit of silken rope, and the psychiatrist is going to "help" you, or at least pretend to help you, find peace or resolution. Both are guiding, nudging, pushing, tricking their "client" along, with deliberation, towards a goal. Both trade on the confessional urge in people, the need for connection, the hunger for sympathy. Both make their living off the unhappy, the desperate, the lonely -- and a good living it is, too.

There is so much going on in this film that I felt rather tired after watching it. There's the truism that psychiatrists are seldom very healthy people themselves -- it takes a rather cold and calculating personality to survive this kind of work, and that's a personality that peeps out from behind the surface respectability and professional pseudo-warmth of our female protagonist. It's hard to forget the deadpan, affectless authority with which she instructs a disturbed patient to "put the gun down"; there is not a trace of fear in her eyes, no indication that she is not in perfect control of him and of the situation. Already the viewer must be wondering what kind of person this is.

There's a truism that street smarts will always beat rich-kid smarts; and this cliche' plays out at first predictably, but then gets overturned. Who's outwitting whom here? At first, our con man is calling all the shots. But his victim is also his protege'e -- in fact, his pretence of making her his apprentice and showing her how it's done, has caught up with him. She really *has* learned, as he finds out to his cost; she started out ignorant, but she's smart and she learns fast.

Mamet surprised me several times in the course of the film; by the time when, considerably later, the red convertible drives away leaving our protagonist desolate by the side of the road, I knew what was up. But up until that point I had the fun of being surprised more than once; this is not a one-trick film with a slow buildup like U.S., but a magic show with one card trick after another.

This film was recommended to me highly by a feminist friend despite the obvious "problem" plot: strong, competent, successful professional woman makes idiot of self over masochistic, romantic obsession with wily, low-class grifter. The "rich independent woman is really a needy, pathetic little girl yearning to be dominated by lower class stud" theme is boring as well as offensive, and if that were all there was here, it would be a flick to miss.

What rescues this film from being another 'Swept Away' (or any other D.H. Lawrence dittohead effort) is that our female anti-hero is in fact not pathetic, and not really needy. She may be temporarily dazzled by body chemistry and the promise of adventure and romance, and there's a lingering longing in her heart for the love and approval of a (hinted) brutal father. But there's a cool sociopathic core to her personality which makes her a match for the hardened criminal she's keeping company with. People have criticized L.C.'s acting, and she is a bit wooden, but I think in this case her woodenness works: it expresses the fatal flaw in her character's personality, a lack of affect, an emptiness, a coldness at the heart.

This is imho a lovely, nasty sendup of the genre theme "protagonist undergoes adventure and discovers True Self." Our protagonist has a wild adventure and she does indeed discover her True Self. And what a self it is. Perhaps Mamet's suggesting that it would be just as well if some of us never discover our inner nature :-) In fact, I don't know exactly what Mamet's suggesting here; rather than a message, a moral, or a motto, this film is a character study, a candid portrait of two characters locked in a power struggle from which only one can walk away.

In general I don't enjoy movies about characters who are all dislikeable. Perhaps it's a tribute to that genius which everyone ascribes to Mamet, that this film about two very amoral, quite unpleasant people is so fascinating; it isn't just the clever matryoshka plot that kept me glued to it, it's the dreadful unravelling of a character which at the beginning was apparently integrated with the world, positively engaged, even beneficial; and by the end has reverted, *happily*, to pure predator.

The most powerful scene in the film, for me, was the moment when our damp, bedraggled anti-heroine sneaks into the House of Games one last time, to see the whole cast assembled and reviewing the con. On the table you can see her "file" scattered -- her book, reviews, newspaper clippings, all the research they did on her to discover who she was and how to play her. Just like her files on her patients... As she glimpses this, she hears her quondam lover quip lightly that sleeping with her was "a small price to pay" for the cash they tricked out of her; and with this casual cruelty you can see her education is complete.

I could describe House of Games as a brutal variation on the Pygmalion story; in fact the play 'Pygmalion' by GBS has a somewhat similar, though less noir, ending; the girl educated (and bullied) by a condescending and patronizing master profits by her education to defy him and leave him behind. In House of Games, chilly and very noir indeed, he's left behind dead, and unmourned either by the viewer or our anti-heroine.

Perhaps the greatest riddle of this film is why it's so damned fascinating. One can make a film about evil people easily enough, and most such efforts are merely unpleasant or outright revolting ('Very Bad Things' comes to mind as something I would never voluntarily sit through again). But in House of Games, Mamet has managed to fascinate the viewer with the same promise his con man uses to lure in the prey: come on in, and we'll let you see behind the scenes. We'll show you how it's done, and you'll be in the know instead of just one of the damn-fool public. And you know, it works. We really do want to know which one of these smart, amoral, predatory people is going to win in the end.

Think of it as "Survivor" for intelligent audiences. And perhaps worry a little, about how captivating it really is.

In his 1987 directorial debut, HOUSE OF GAMES, master writer David Mamet delivers a chilling account of the relationship between Dr. Margaret Ford and a low rent gangster named Mike who tries to seduce her.

A psychological thriller that features the acting chops of Mamet's then wife, Lindsay Crouse and character actor Joe Montegna, HOUSE OF GAMES really stars Mamet's brilliant dialouge that captivates the audience with its hypnotic rhythms and captivating sentence structures.

In a nutshell the plot is simple. In this dark drama, Dr. Ford is an emotionally conservative psychologist and best selling author of a self help book. Through one of her patients she meets Mike, an underworld gangster type who charms her with his tales of the cons he and his cohorts use to swindle seemingly innocent people.

Believing she is becoming privvy to the secret world of gamblers and con artists, Dr. Ford drops her guard and follows Mike through a series of cons that seem to work flawlessly.

At times a suspicious person who trusts no one, Dr. Ford at other times appears to be pliable stooge, easily manipulated by a seasoned con man. But is she really as innocent and as naive as she appears? Or is Mike the real stool pigeon? It is never easy to say for sure, even when the film ends.

But one thing is definitely clear half way through the film: Dr. Margaret Ford is not as honest nor as much in control as her patients believe. But who will pay the price for a con gone awry? No one knows until the final scene closes and you are left to wonder what secrets lie behind the faces of the innocent and the guilty alike.

- Regina McMenamin

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.