House of Games (1987)

Director: David Mamet

Story: David Mamet

Cast: Joe Mantegna, Lindsay Crusoe, Ricky Jay

Music: Alaric Jans

Time: 102 minutes

Bottom-line: Keeps you guessing constantly, and still surprises you

Human nature is a sucker bet.

David Mamet’s directorial career would start with this 1987 heist film, and later he would be known as one of the best, albeit underrated, directors of the quiet, simple psychological thriller films. Earlier known for his plays and movie scripts, House of Games goes on to show how good a director he can be. The film stars Joe Mantegna and Lindsay Crusoe in the lead roles.

Everybody gets something out of every transaction.

Dr Margaret Ford (Crusoe) is a psychiatrist who has just published a book. Yet, she feels that something is missing in her life. When one of her patients threatens to take his own life because he owes a large debt to a “Mike”, Margaret decides to visit Mike (Mantegna) in his pool hall, named “Hall of Games”. Just before she is swindled of her money, she catches their bluff. Intrigued to know more about the art of conning, she goes back to Mike, hoping to write a book based on this. As Margaret gets further involved in Mike’s cons, she finds herself caught in a mess involving murder, theft and thousands of dollars.  

Mantegna as Mike

You can't bluff someone who's not paying attention.

Here is a general trend of Mamet’s directorial features, or at least, those involving con men - every single character appears grey, until the very end, when you know who is good and who isn’t. Till then you always keep guessing. One aspect I found admirable is how he weaves the tale in a way that it seems so predictable, and then he proves you wrong, pretty much every time. Mamet also keeps the story relatively clean in terms of content - every scene is relevant.

Crusoe as Margaret

Joe Mantegna’s character is that of a con man, who “acts atrociously for a living.” From the suave suited-up trickster to the seemingly sensitive gentleman, Mantegna always keeps you wondering whether he's showing his genuine feelings or if they are all part of a con. Lindsay Crusoe’s acting is superb, especially in her phase of panic when she struggles to “forgive herself”. Her transition from the naive and innocent woman to one seeking revenge is remarkable. The other mysterious aspect of Mamet films is the way he depicts the romance between the lead characters - you think it is going one way but it is actually going the other.

With the regular plot twists - some which pop up after five minutes and some which pop up after an hour - supported by excellent acting by Mantegna and Crusoe, House of Games is effective because it is an intellectual thriller but maintains its simplicity.   

My Rating: 3.5/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 96%

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988)

Director: Frank Oz

Story: Stanley Shapiro, Paul Henning, Dale Launer

Cast: Michael Caine, Steve Martin, Glenne Headly

Music: Miles Goodman

Time: 110 minutes

Bottom-line: A whole new level of humour and conning

A poacher who shoots at rabbits may scare big game away.

The title of the movie itself has a nice ring to it, no?

Michael Caine and Steve Martin come together with a winning chemistry in Frank Oz’s comedy drama, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels. The title refers to the characters played by Caine and Martin respectively: Lawrence Jamieson and Freddy Benson. The former is a wealthy elitist living in Beaumont-sur-Mer on the French Riviera; assisted by a corrupt policeman and manservant, he arranges elaborate schemes to con rich and corrupt women. He gets news that another con artist is in town, code-named the Jackal. Lawrence meets American small-time conman Freddy, who scams women for a few hundred dollars, often making up plans on the go. Knowing that the city cannot host two conmen, they have a bet: the first one to con $50000 from an American heiress, Janet Colgate (Headly), gets to stay, and the other has to leave town. What happens next?

 

Headly as Janet (left), Martin as Freddy and Caine as Lawrence

Nice guys finish last. Meet the winners.

The combination of Caine and Martin is the best possible choice for a film like this. The contrast in the nature of their skills shows exactly why the respective actors were chosen. Lawrence/Caine is suave, spending money on art and antiques (in other words, “wine you can’t drink and a garden that looks like a big mowing headache!”), and is a perfectionist even in conning (one who thoroughly screens his victims and took years to perfect his “scamming thing”). Freddy/Martin is not so sophisticated or cultured. Refinement and elitism are not for him. He is satisfied with his meagre achievements. Martin is more dynamic with his character – jumps around excitedly, shouts in anger and so on, while Caine holds a constant smile throughout the film, changing accents based on his scheme. Glenne Headly acts so well that you actually feel pity for her character, as each man tries to squeeze out $50000 from her.

The story combines the right amounts of slapstick humour and intelligent comedy, Martin contributing to the former and Caine to the latter. With their mind games and strategies to be ahead of the other, the viewers are entertained throughout. The film has two endings, in my view. (Spoiler alert) The first one leaves us gasping in shock (if you didn’t predict it) as Janet flies away, and the second one leaves us with the possibility of extending the story further after the end credits roll. In the first ending, you see another contrast in the traits of Lawrence and Freddy – one admires Janet’s acts while the other resents them.

With a racy script and brilliant acting by all three lead actors, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels is a class apart in both con films and comedy films. Don’t miss it.

My Rating: 4/5

Rotten Tomatoes rating: 89%