When I first began House of Games, I hated it. I hated the language, I hated the characters, I hated the tone, but then something changed. Mamet finally took control of this film and pulled the audience in by tricking all of us into thinking this was a film about a young love and the darkness of the world, when instead it was all about something deeper. If you go into this film expecting the classic 1980s cliché of woman meets man, man is a criminal, woman changes man thus leading to a sloppy wet ending, you will be utterly disappointed. This structure is initially how I envisioned this film, and with the first half an hour filmed the way it was, there was no doubt in my mind that I had been suckered into just another average crime film. Then, midway through the picture, the tones and themes dramatically change. I didn't even see it coming, but when you least expect it, like the "con" performed in this film, it will blindside you quicker than a deer on the highway. House of Games leaves you with this perfect example of just how dark David Mamet is.
This is a film that most will either hate or love. The reason that I say this is because the language of the film is extremely "stagey". Before this film, David Mamet had found his success with his plays. The power of his characters, the unjustness of his plots, and the vile of his villains were key elements to packing his plays full of patrons. In House of Games he attempts to bring the stage to the screen without any changes. You can literally hear the beats between the characters when they are talking. The language that they use feel and sound as if they are acting in front of a live audience, not just for the camera. This makes the words a bit stale at times. You can visually see this film as a play because of the language that is used. Again, some will hate this about the film, while others will see it as nothing short of classic Mamet. For me, I hated it at first, but as the film developed, I began to see the logic behind it. The quickness of the conversations between the characters gave more definition to the "con" that they were trying to perform. I always felt as if they were quickly getting something by me. About the middle of the film, I began listening to every word said afraid that I would miss a key element that would unravel this tight plot. I began waiting for scenes where Margaret (Crouse) would stumble on her words, change the meaning, thus allowing us to develop the evil that was within her. Slowly and steadily this "stagey" language worked for me, and it gave just a small addition to the characters.
For anyone that has ever seen most of Mamet's film versions (and some of his stage performances) you will notice that he is notorious for using the same characters throughout. I like this quite a bit. Christopher Guest uses the same technique. While I have talked to some that think that it only shows the repetition of his originality, I think that it gives Mamet definition and substance. I loved watching this early film of Mamet's and see a young William H. Macy in a scene and his use of my favorite J.T. Walsh. It is fun to watch these actors grow in Mamet's films. Many of them you can see in State & Main and Heist. Does that mean that they are necessarily good actors then? I don't think so. While I liked the continual use of the same characters, some (more than others), have trouble with the characters. For example, in House of Games, it was obvious that Lindsay Crouse did not have control over her character. She seemed fake in her scenes, and did not counter will with Mantegna (who gave a great performance). She seemed on a different beat compared to the others in this film, and I think it hurt House of Games somewhat. She wasn't the strongest actress that Mamet could have chosen.
While I loved the "con" throughout the film, I did feel as if the ending was a bit on the weak side. Without giving it away, it started to feel used before it was over. I knew deep within me where it was going, but I kept waiting for the big "hurrah", but alas, there wasn't any. That is where Mamet missed his mark. The ending needed to be stronger. I loved watching this simple woman transform into evil and the entire themes that went along with that, but I needed more. I loved the anti-romantic notion of this film, but I needed more. I loved the character interactions in this film, but I needed more. That was exactly how I felt about this film. I loved House of Games, but I needed more. Mamet ended the film without giving us closure, and while the rest of the film was exciting to watch, this ending just left me soured.
Overall, I loved it, but I don't think that I could watch it again. Mamet is one of the greatest writers of our generation providing us with some very "cult" anti-Hollywood cinema, but this first film was a rough-cut. It was smart, intelligent, and overall a stage version of his play onto film. A stronger transition was needed from stage to screen. The characters were somewhat developed and the plot was sensational. The darkness by the end of the film caught me unprepared. I liked this film, but a second viewing is not in my future. I love David Mamet's work and cannot wait to submerge myself into more of his films later.
Grade: *** out of *****
This is a film that most will either hate or love. The reason that I say this is because the language of the film is extremely "stagey". Before this film, David Mamet had found his success with his plays. The power of his characters, the unjustness of his plots, and the vile of his villains were key elements to packing his plays full of patrons. In House of Games he attempts to bring the stage to the screen without any changes. You can literally hear the beats between the characters when they are talking. The language that they use feel and sound as if they are acting in front of a live audience, not just for the camera. This makes the words a bit stale at times. You can visually see this film as a play because of the language that is used. Again, some will hate this about the film, while others will see it as nothing short of classic Mamet. For me, I hated it at first, but as the film developed, I began to see the logic behind it. The quickness of the conversations between the characters gave more definition to the "con" that they were trying to perform. I always felt as if they were quickly getting something by me. About the middle of the film, I began listening to every word said afraid that I would miss a key element that would unravel this tight plot. I began waiting for scenes where Margaret (Crouse) would stumble on her words, change the meaning, thus allowing us to develop the evil that was within her. Slowly and steadily this "stagey" language worked for me, and it gave just a small addition to the characters.
For anyone that has ever seen most of Mamet's film versions (and some of his stage performances) you will notice that he is notorious for using the same characters throughout. I like this quite a bit. Christopher Guest uses the same technique. While I have talked to some that think that it only shows the repetition of his originality, I think that it gives Mamet definition and substance. I loved watching this early film of Mamet's and see a young William H. Macy in a scene and his use of my favorite J.T. Walsh. It is fun to watch these actors grow in Mamet's films. Many of them you can see in State & Main and Heist. Does that mean that they are necessarily good actors then? I don't think so. While I liked the continual use of the same characters, some (more than others), have trouble with the characters. For example, in House of Games, it was obvious that Lindsay Crouse did not have control over her character. She seemed fake in her scenes, and did not counter will with Mantegna (who gave a great performance). She seemed on a different beat compared to the others in this film, and I think it hurt House of Games somewhat. She wasn't the strongest actress that Mamet could have chosen.
While I loved the "con" throughout the film, I did feel as if the ending was a bit on the weak side. Without giving it away, it started to feel used before it was over. I knew deep within me where it was going, but I kept waiting for the big "hurrah", but alas, there wasn't any. That is where Mamet missed his mark. The ending needed to be stronger. I loved watching this simple woman transform into evil and the entire themes that went along with that, but I needed more. I loved the anti-romantic notion of this film, but I needed more. I loved the character interactions in this film, but I needed more. That was exactly how I felt about this film. I loved House of Games, but I needed more. Mamet ended the film without giving us closure, and while the rest of the film was exciting to watch, this ending just left me soured.
Overall, I loved it, but I don't think that I could watch it again. Mamet is one of the greatest writers of our generation providing us with some very "cult" anti-Hollywood cinema, but this first film was a rough-cut. It was smart, intelligent, and overall a stage version of his play onto film. A stronger transition was needed from stage to screen. The characters were somewhat developed and the plot was sensational. The darkness by the end of the film caught me unprepared. I liked this film, but a second viewing is not in my future. I love David Mamet's work and cannot wait to submerge myself into more of his films later.
Grade: *** out of *****