House Of Games (1987, D. Mamet)

AllMovieGuide Synopsis:

by Linda Rasmussen
In his directorial debut, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Mamet creates a stylish cinematic puzzle of games within games, as con men are joined by a psychologist in creating the perfect caper. Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse), the writer of psychological self-help books, meets Mike (Joe Mantegna) as she attempts to help a patient who owes heavy gambling debts. When she herself is the victim of a con, she becomes intrigued by the psychological drama of the con game and joins in a complicated scam involving a suitcase of cash. Mamet directs his extremely complicated plot with skill and complete control until it is impossible to tell who is the con and who is the victim. The suspense builds to an amazing surprise ending which is both reasonable and believable but completely unpredictable. Crouse and Mantegna are outstanding as are all the supporting performances. Mamet and his cinematographer Juan Ruiz-Anchia create a visually stunning, compelling film that does justice to Mamet's superbly written screenplay

You could call me a minor dabbler in Mamet's work. I'm a fan, but I'm not obsessed with Mamet nor have a breadth of knowledge on the man and his style. I've read a few of his theory/teaching books and have always been more a fan of his ideas than his execution (save for his writing; which is consistently top notch). His last film I was wowed by was the underrated Spartan, which is a great spy film dealing with Mamet's themes of persona's, identity, lying, and the art of "the act". Basically, conning people.

What Mamet film is not about conning people?* He is fascinated with how people behave around others to get what they want. He loves the "acts" that people will perform to manipulate another person; whether it's a con game, a film set, a CIA interrogation room, the White House, etc.

House Of Games is no different. I had never seen this early film of Mamet's before the Criterion edition DVD and was surprised to find that it was filmed in Seattle, where I currently live. I didn't really recognize any of the buildings and only once noticed a street sign, but Mamet says in the supplements that it was his intention to keep it kind of nondescript, no landmarks, and an older part of the city in which parts may have changed(?)**.

Listening to the commentary, it's obvious that Mamet doesn't think too highly of the Psychiatry profession. Pairing psychiatry with "The Art Of The Con" and examining its similarities seems to be this film's intention, with Mamet not making it so painfully obvious that psychiatry could just be a big head game. The "transfer of Confidence" applies not only to street-level con games but to the office of the Psychiatrist. Being a "doctor" gives the patient a feeling of confidence to explain their problems to this total stranger, when they normally cannot even say these same things with their most trusted family member.

I would like to read more about the art of 'Confidence' because I think that you could apply some of its ideas to everyday life, not just to conning people. Parts of it have to do with attitude and persona, how you make others feel and how you can get them to trust you by how you behave. I would like to use this power for good.

There was some nice contemporary noir lighting in the film, out on the night streets and in the smoky pool halls (before the Smoking Ban!). There is also a nice camera move/moment after Margaret secretly sees the gun and the walkie-talkie on the mark she thinks they've set up. There is a slow walk back as we follow her back to tell Joe. Just a nice suspenseful moment and something a little different than the rest of the film. Pure Cinema.

Mantegna has a nice death scene to with his sarcastic quoting of Oliver Twist: "Thank you sir, may I have another!?" Margaret has stopped him, but she hasn't stopped from changing. Perhaps she can live a little more freely and enjoy her success, now that she knows what control is like. But I think it's also possible that her fears about herself could've been confirmed by her relationship and exploration in the film.

Solid first film. I can look over some of the patients' wooden acting (I think the supplements said Mamet wanted it this way too). But I was expecting some elementary camera placement/work and that was certainly not the case, as I've noted above (especially that walk-back shot). It breezed by, so well done editor!




*I'm just kidding. I've haven't seen all his work, please enlighten me.

** Once again, please enlighten me. I am new to the city and don't know much about the history.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008, W. Allen)

AllMovieGuide Synopsis:

by Perry Seibert
Woody Allen's romantic drama Vicky Cristina Barcelona stars Rebecca Hall and Scarlett Johansson as best friends Vicky and Cristina. As the movie opens, the pair of twentysomethings travel to Barcelona so that Vicky can work on her post-graduate degree. The two meet the charming artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem), who offers to take them on a vacation and make love to them. Vicky, being a happily engaged young woman, refuses, but Cristina is eager for this life experience. A love triangle begins to coalesce, and things grow more complicated when Juan Antonio's passionate, unstable ex, Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz), arrives to stay after a suicide attempt.

As the latest "Woody Is Back!" film, I expect Vicky Cristina Barcelona to make much more money than his last five films. Possibly combined! Why do I think this? Not only do I agree with the critical consensus out there, that this film is top-notch, but I saw the film in a theater with a packed audience that was completely in touch with every word, whim, and witticism. This film played, and to a young audience! Perhaps the prospect of a girl-on-girl kiss is what drew the youngin's in, but it was the humor and nicely told story that got them to stay and become involved.

Now, I've never thought that Woody had lost it. Cassandra's Dream, which opened earlier this year to far less enthusiasm, is just as good if not completely different. It has been a while since Woody has made a romantic/sex farce type film, and I don't think anyone would have guessed that he would be so successful at it this late in the game. But the film is very funny, without being typically "Woody Allen"-punchline funny. Especially winning is Penelope Cruz, who I have not seen this good in anything.

Rebecca Hall is a find as well. Is she really British? She plays a good American and the uncertainty of her character is the most interesting/layered of the whole film.

Lars And The Real Girl (2007, C. Gillespie)

All Movie Guide:

Plot Synopsis by Derek Armstrong
Lars (Ryan Gosling) and Gus (Paul Schneider) are the grown children of a father who died recently and a mother who died giving birth to Lars. But as brothers, they couldn't be more different. While Gus lives in the family home and has a loving wife (Emily Mortimer) and a child on the way, Lars leads a more reclusive existence in the family's garage, hiding in plain sight of his small, wintry hometown. Painfully shy and eccentric, Lars fails to recognize that his co-worker Margo (Kelli Garner) has a major crush on him, and he picks up on a casual reference made by his cubicle mate, who mentions a website where you can order life-sized, anatomically correct sex dolls. But instead of seeing a sex object, Lars sees in this doll a potential life partner and the only kind of social "peer" he can relate to. So Lars orders a doll, whom he names Bianca, and begins treating her with utmost gentlemanly respect -- and as though she's his real-life, flesh-and-blood girlfriend. As he begins bringing Bianca with him everywhere he goes, the townspeople have to find just the right balance between supporting Lars' unusual romance and trying to introduce him to a more conventional partner. Lars and the Real Girl was written by Six Feet Under scribe Nancy Oliver and directed by Mr. Woodcock's Craig Gillespie.

Lars And The Real Girl is a film with many attributes (good cast, pacing, location) that are squandered by certain things in the film's writing that are impossible to go along with. I am surprised that this film was nominated for a Screenwriting Oscar.

First of all, we've got a crazy guy as our lead character and Gosling milks it with back-and-forth pacing, eye twitches and all. This guy has serious issues with his family, being physically touched, and whatever you call it when you fall in love with an inanimate object (Objectophilia?). I don't understand what we are supposed to see in him in order to care for his character. Creative Screenwriting Magazine's Jeff Goldsmith asked screenwriter Nancy Oliver this question during his podcast interview: "What is the character Margo supposed to see in Lars, because (...) he has some serious issues?" And Oliver actually says, "Well, he's really cute." (!?!?!)

While this statement is astonishing, coming from the screenwriter, it makes complete sense after watching the film. This is why Lars is played by someone like Gosling and not by Dan Fogler or Jonah Hill (uh... no offense, guys?). His stuttering and crazy talk is supposed to be "cute" and his social proclivities are completely okay because he hasn't exhibited violent tendencies. Okay...

From the above synopsis:

As he begins bringing Bianca with him everywhere he goes, the townspeople have to find just the right balance between supporting Lars' unusual romance and trying to introduce him to a more conventional partner.

That isn't exactly correct. The townspeople do nothing to introduce him to a more conventional partner after he starts bringing Bianca around. It is the exact opposite of this which brings about the more unbelievable aspects of this picture. The writer wants us to believe that the townspeople are coming to love Bianca (and in turn Lars) because they want her to "help out" at various places; like at the church, the hospital, a school, as a shop window model, etc. Later, we learn in a tossed off line that Bianca was elected to the School Board (!?!) The filmmakers want us to believe that this is the townspeople's way of showing Lars love, but if comes off first as the townspeople using Bianca, and then later as something that could not logically happen.

Where is the media while all this is happening? When a sex doll is elected to the School Board? This would be one of those AP Stories Of The Year. This film wants to play this off as a tossed-off joke but it undermines the credibility the film needs when actually dealing with Lars' illness, which the film doesn't wholly do. We understand he's the way he is because his parents died, he has had an estranged relationship with his brother, he lives in the garage, etc.; but this is all undermined by the silly Bianca nonsense. We don't ever really get to see the inside of that garage or Lars living in it. What does he do in there? Why is living in the garage so demeaning?

This movie would be a lot more interesting if it was about the brother and not about Lars. The brother character and his conflict with Lars and his own wife is much richer than Lars' pop-psychology brainfuck. Paul Schneider is very good in this role and reminds you that he should be in more movies.

The filmmakers did not pull off their intended balance of whimsy and pop-psychology drama but it was nice to see a movie set in a small town (though not as small as the filmmaker would like you to believe) that really doesn't get to be a setting in a mainstream movie anymore. This isn't the worst movie in the world, just highly disappointing considering the amount of people who've drunk the Kool-Aid, and the talent involved.