House of Games (1987) 102 Minutes

While it may not be enough to beat Ricky Jay’s nut flush, Movienight boasted

another full house for Nubby’s pick. Though Mr. Wiener was sadly absent

once again, the rest of the Crew was joined again by Pat Towne, as well as

Chris Pratt and Movienight newbie Kurtis. Jaja’s squeeze Mark ruffled some

feathers arriving very late for this tribute to cons, both short and long.

The moon was nearing full for this beautiful night, and most of the assembled

audience had never seen David Mamet’s directorial debut. Though the film

enthralled the crowd some whispered later that Kurtis was dozing from

time to time.

‘House of Games’ is the last pick of our first full year of Movienight, and the rigors of our organization are starting to take their toll. With this pick, Movienight’s Official Movienight Organizer (MOMO) announced he was taking a break from his review writing and Pratt has dutifully offered to pick up Eric’s slack this week. ‘House of Games’ also marks the first time since our site went online that reviews for the previous week’s Selection had yet to be posted. Time will tell what this entropy portends for our cinema salon.

‘House of Games’ provided a slew of firsts for the Stucco. Joe Mantegna appears for the first time here, though he is already beloved by Members Wiener and Tooda for the excellent Italian Beef at his local restaurant “Taste Chicago.” Speaking of Chicago, a whole bevy of Chi-Town actors debut alongside Mantegna. William H. Macy, Lindsay Crouse, the aforementioned Ricky Jay, and the late great J.T. Walsh all break their Movienight cherries with this pick. David Mamet makes his first writing/directing appearance here, but he is in line behind John Patrick Shanley for the title of first theater legend to arrive in the Back Yard.

It’s been a hell of a year, check the blog early next week for a year end wrap up. Year two begins next Wednesday night, with Tooda’s follow up to ‘The Big Lebowski.’

“What was I supposed to do, threaten her with an empty gun?”

Written and Directed by: David Mamet

BBD Comments:

This film is like a wonderful secret. There is an opaque mystery to all of its machinations, and you find yourself searching for deeper meanings in everything you see. It engages the observer within us all, and our eagerness to enter the dark corners of this world perfectly mirror the impulses of our protagonist, Margaret.

David Mamet is familiar to anyone who has studied theater, but less so perhaps to the casual moviegoer. As a member of the former category, I have not only performed his writing (alongside Wiener no less), but also have studied his ideas about acting itself. His book “True and False” is a manifesto about his ideal actor. He longs for performers who rhythmically attack the script’s prose and waste no time sharing their inner life with the audience. Cadence, stressing syllables, dramatic pauses and the like are all among the no no’s in Mamet’s world view. While I and many others may disagree with his ideal, there is little doubt that ‘House of Games’ stands as a testament to how Mamet wants his stories told. None of the actors in this film make a meal out of their lines, they are swift with the text and minimalist with the emotion. Mamet’s words and rhythms are not interpreted by his players, they are exactingly reproduced. While some may argue with the style, in ‘House of Games’ it works to great effect. The language of this piece is another puzzle for the viewer. It is at first a dark and distancing secret world, but by the end of the film it has become so familiar we no longer even recognize its unnatural precision.

I am glad that Nubs brought this pick to us. I had seen it in the theater when it first came out, but enjoyed it more this time around. I didn’t know how Mamet would play for the Crew, but when things got tense on screen, you could have heard a pin drop in the Back Yard.

Still, ‘House of Games’ isn’t perfect, and for all of Nubs’ talk about it being an anti-misogyny film, in the end it is the story of a woman who longs to kill. Mamet is famous for his archaic view of gender relations, and he seems to suggest in Lindsay Crouse’s Margaret a frigid woman who lives alone and is fearful of intimacy. What then do we take away from the film when its resolution is her liberation through the ultimate act of violence? I am not exactly sure at what Mamet was aiming, but I’m damn sure it isn’t that he thinks women are swell.

next >

< previous