THE GAMBLER C+
USA (111 mi) 2014
‘Scope d: Rupert Wyatt Official
site
A wish fulfillment fantasy flick that is oddly intriguing,
considering the film largely accentuates the tragic consequences of gambling
gone wrong, where the lead character is a train wreck simultaneously happening
on several tracks, as every blissful moment of winning is followed by days,
weeks, and perhaps even a lifetime of regret. As a result, the film has a sinking ship
feeling about it, with Jim Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) as the central figure that
seemingly can’t help himself, a man drowning in gambling debt who sees his only
way out as borrowing even larger sums of money, who has a predilection for
doubling huge bets, momentarily compiling enormous sums, until he bets it all
and eventually loses everything. A
remake of a 1974 James Toback script by the same name, the earlier film
starring James Caan, which was itself a loose adaptation of Dostoyevsky’s 1867
novella by the same name. So who should
choose to rewrite the story? None other
than William Monahan, the Academy Award winning writer of Martin Scorsese’s THE
DEPARTED (2006), his only Oscar as a director, which was a rewrite of a Hong
Kong gangster film, Andy Lau’s INTERNAL AFFAIRS (2002). Suffice it to say this is largely a writer’s
exercise, as Bennett’s character is a loathsome, know-it-all bastard who
routinely stands up to gangsters and lowlifes while moonlighting as a college
literature professor where he literally excoriates his students, discouraging them
from even trying, suggesting if they’re not geniuses or in possession of some
unique and remarkable gift, they shouldn’t waste their time attempting to be
floundering writers, as they simply don’t have the talent for it. The existential dilemma that he finds himself
in with his own life becomes the standard mantra in his classroom, where as one
student points out all his lectures come down to the question of “To be, or not
to be.” One might assume his bleak,
fatalistic outlook comes from his gambling addiction, but then what is the
driving motive behind his addiction? As
the professor bemoans the fact in his classroom that students aspire to such unrealistic
dreams, suggesting they need to get more realistic, one might think this same
advice could be applied to himself, as gambling seems like a means to escape
having to face his own essential real-life problems.
Despite Wahlberg’s study of both college professors and
gamblers in preparation for the role, he seems woefully detached and unconcerned,
perhaps even miscast, as his personalized lecture hall philosophizing would
never be condoned in an actual university, but feels more appropriate in front
of a group of recovering addicts, as they’re actually in search of answers to
the kinds of questions he’s posing, which rarely have anything to do with
actual literature. His fascination with
the best and brightest of his students, Amy (Brie Larson, much too nice, similarly
miscast), singling her out in front of the classroom, identifying her as the
only student with a natural flair for writing, whose talent is head over heels
above all the rest who he claims have no potential whatsoever, actually showing
contempt for the other students, is not only professionally inappropriate, but
qualifies as excessively cruel and discouraging treatment towards the other
students and would likely be grounds for immediate dismissal, if not a lawsuit. It’s curious that this director, whose
previous film was RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (2011), would be so blind to
this illusory portrayal. As the
professor then enters into an inappropriate relationship with that
aforementioned gifted student, Amy, who also moonlights as a casino waitress,
so has seen the man in the throes of action, she witnesses his world spiral out
of control. Like Warren Beatty in Arthur
Penn’s Mickey
One (1965) or Ben Gazzara in Cassavetes’ The
Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976), one night, in a matter of hours, Jim
Bennett is down a quarter of a million dollars to the casino owner Mister Lee
(Alvin Ing), borrowing another $50,000 on the spot from a loan shark lurking
around the tables who preys on the desperate impulses of gamblers just like him,
Neville Baraka (the dangerously terrific Michael Kenneth Williams), instantly
sizing him up, “I think you’re the kind of guy who likes to lose.” With the
money due to both within a week, with no conceivable means of paying either one
back without borrowing more, we begin to think this guy operates with a death
wish. And if Amy, the student, is so
smart, with her future so bright and the world supposedly at her feet, what is
her interest in such a self-loathing downer of a guy who has no conceivable idea
of respect for himself or anyone else?
The path of destruction only escalates from there, as
Bennett comes from an aristocratic family of wealth and it’s only a matter of
time before he visits the matriarch of the family jewels, none other than
Jessica Lange as his mother. She has no
interest in feeding his habit, knowing how helpless he is to his own
weaknesses, yet when she learns that the loan sharks will likely come after her
and the entire family if the debt is not paid, so she hands over the entire
amount needed to cover his debt. While
the sensible thing to do would be to pay the money, Bennett is not wired that
way, convinced that his lucky strike is the next roll of the dice. At the same time, he pays a visit to Frank
(John Goodman), yet another gangster loan shark who’s aware of his entire
situation and has little to think over, as the man has nothing to offer that’s
not already in hock. Nonetheless, it’s a
desperate game they play, and play it they must, where in Henry David Thoreau’s
Walden he writes, “The mass of men
lead lives of quiet desperation. What is
called resignation is confirmed desperation…A stereotyped but unconscious
despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of
mankind.” Growth or wisdom remain an
open question by the end of this film, which hardly qualifies as a film with any
real insight. While this may be to
gamblers what David Cronenberg’s NAKED LUNCH (1991) is to drug addicts, as both
are hard corps depictions of the lurid and enticing world that addicts themselves
are trying to avoid. Ultimately this
will not go down as one of the better gambling movies, or even stand up to the
original 1974 version where a much more intensely gripping James Caan
originates the expression, “I’m not going to lose it. I’m going to gamble it.” As unrealistically as this film turns out, the
director shows he truly has no conception of a gambler’s addiction, where this fantasy
happy ending may as well be one of those pipe dreams that all the drunks
commiserate over in Eugene O’Neill’s THE ICEMAN COMETH (1960). Much better films about gambling would
include Robert Rossen’s masterful THE HUSTLER (1961), which depicts gambling as
a gritty vocation with immense personal risks and costs, Norman Jewison’s THE
CINCINNATI KID (1965), with a brilliant cast and an amazing final scene, Robert
Altman’s California
Split (1974), that takes us through a lengthy marathon of various 1970’s gambling
tables while searching for that magical run, only to end in a devastating numbness
and emptiness, a deflated weariness of the soul with no joy or agony because
someone won or lost, but utter exhaustion because the dreamed about run is
finally over, and Mike Hodges’ novel take in CROUPIER (1998), the rare gambling
film to be seen from the perspective of the dealer, showing a completely
unglamorized view of being caught up in the same dreary world day in and day
out, forced to witness the losers over and over again, where the sheer monotony
leaves him in a similar state of captivity as the players.
