ROUNDERS
Matt Damon, Edward Norton, Martin Landau, John Malkovich. Dir. John Dahl, Miramax, 1998
First things first. I had Rounders pretty much wrong the few times I saw it before today. I thought it concerned things it sort of concerns, but in poker talk I left a lot of money on the table. I didn't see it there, or couldn't see it might be there if I had the right eyes. I won't say I ever disliked ROUNDERS, or its cast, or even the Counting Crows song playing at the end credits. It's more that I never liked it as much or as well as it deserves.
Placing myself in unearned company, I think I saw John Dahl's gambling movie as Roger Ebert did, a colorful but well concealed Disney sports movie, following all the same plot points any of Team Rodent's inspo-sports yarns do. It's more than possible to see that. It's there. Today, though, I think Dahl knows that story's there & plays to it enough to satisfy our love of triumph-of-the-underdog, but I think there's more happening in ROUNDERS than those films.
If production journals or notes for ROUNDERS exist, they're not extant. I don't want to lean in too far to a theory I can't back. John Dahl's preceding two films, RED ROCK WEST & THE LAST SEDUCTION count among the best of '90s indie/pseudoindie, so it feels hinky that he would next helm a Disney movie in hipster drag.
It does not feel hinky to imagine Dahl saw a project containing the inspo story beats and felt he could play to them enough to satisfy that taste. It also does not feel hinky to speculate that the Weinstein Brothers didn't trust what Dahl gave them & tampered with it, to the film's detriment, in post. I can't prove it, though.
I can demonstrate that RED ROCK WEST & LAST SEDUCTION do not feature the red flags I see in ROUNDERS. I can point out that the greats tend to agree a film should tell its story regardless of soundtrack, that most eschew voiceover narration as often as possible. I can assert with some confidence that every sequence featuring voiceover in the film explains itself through the characters & their choices, and that the narration literally says what the they say by doing as well as Matt Damon's Mike does via his aural map of the obvious. I find it credible that the Brothers Weinstein played the sports movie angle up and laid in the superfluous voiceover. Knowing they fiddled with a number of '90s also-rans &/or wildly overestimated their ability to find those films' audience permits me that confidence.
The rest of Dahl's film career, alas, doesn't suggest the majors kept tossing him projects to which they committed. That can be a sign a director's independent streak clashed with the studio chiefs or that he had X-number of good ideas and ran out. I've not seen Dahl's debut, KILL ME AGAIN, but his next two lead me to think a dearth of either technique or ideas wasn't the issue.
What do I think Dahl is doing? Call me delusional, but I think he's making a coming-of-age movie that touches all the bases GOOD WILL HUNTING touched, right around the same time. Tonight, I prefer Dahl's story to Van Sant.
In the former, Will's a math prodigy, a talent to lift him out of Southie. He also has PTSD, which manifests as self-sabotaging rage, a result of being molested as a child. He keeps himself down, hides, instead of believing in his gift/himself. In ROUNDERS, Mike has nearly the same gift, but for reading a table and the man across it from him. A catastrophic loss, to Malkovich's Teddy KGB, convinces him to go straight, committing to law school and girlfriend Jo (Gretchen Mol), until Edward Norton, as his onetime card hustling buddy, Worm, a man who lives to self destruct and who never worries about collateral damage, lures Mike back to the Rounder life.
Mike's gift remains, but Burns doesn't respect his it, doesn't like the patient process of making it pay. Worm cheats, always going for the short con, never the long grift. Forced to reteam & hustle games to pay off debts Worm incurs using Mike's credit, Damon plays it straight, almost freeing them until Worm gets caught dealing off the bottom by a barracksful of New York state troopers.
Mike has laid the foundation for a solid future with Jo & law, but he doesn't want to build the house, he wants to beat it. In the law school scenario, he sees stability & the good, safe life he's supposed to want. In Worm he sees a guy from back when, a brother, the kind of friend you not only don't leave, but can't leave. He takes on Worm's debt and defends his dishonest nature until he finally realizes that Worm is not one of those friends. He isn't a friend, at all.
He never trusts Damon to run the table. He thinks he's smarter than the table, than the house, than the loan shark, smarter than Mike. He shows he does by cheating after Mike steps all the way up for him . He doesn't care about Mike. He cares about laughing at people he considers losers, including Mike.
Realizing that, Mike does the only thing he can. He goes to Teddy, who co-owns his & Worm's debt, and offers to play Teddy for it, using Teddy's money to buy his way in. It's a pure grudge match, a literal all or nothing shot at payback. The first time around, Mike failed to read Teddy. He never found his tell. Will he in the rematch?
There's the whole ROCKY-post-ROCKY I storyline. Mike goes all the way down, fights his way back to the top, and when/if he wins it promises to be epic. It's a part of the story and Dahl makes its resolution visually & dramatically satisfying, sure to inspire a few fistpumps. On the way to that, however, and particularly in the brief denouement following, I continue to think of Good Will Hunting and how we not only learn the safe choice is not always right, for us, but how to believe we can make that choice because we believe in ourselves.
I see it so clearly in the scenes between Damon and Martin Landau, his law school advisor. Rather than replicate ORDINARY PEOPLE's famous therapy-story as Van Sant obviously does in GWH, Dahl takes master/apprentice approach, Landau's speech about choosing law over his family his "It's not your fault" moment. In ROUNDERS, that bombshell drops early in the story, and I watched to see if Mike realized it. The final shot answers the question & looks one hell of a lot like Van Sant's final frame.
My point here is not Van Sant or not Van Sant. It's not even John Dahl > Gus Van Sant, or vice versa, though I said I like Dahl's take more. I do tonight. I haven't watched GWH in a few years and may feel differently next time. Van Sant's film is good, a hit for good reason, but I prefer Dahl's psychology of the game and the player more than Van Sant's hug-it-out therapy. To me, GWH's therapy subplot gets over because we, the audience, go into the film trusting Robin Williams and wanting him to prevail. His career, still on fire at that point, promised he could do something all his own with the Judd Hirsch part from ORDINARY PEOPLE, and audiences showed up to see him try.
It's also a good early read on audience affection for Matt Damon. Outside Kevin Costner it's hard to think of another aspiring leading man audiences so quickly wanted to see carry a movie.
Realizing that, Mike does the only thing he can. He goes to Teddy, who co-owns his & Worm's debt, and offers to play Teddy for it, using Teddy's money to buy his way in. It's a pure grudge match, a literal all or nothing shot at payback. The first time around, Mike failed to read Teddy. He never found his tell. Will he in the rematch?
There's the whole ROCKY-post-ROCKY I storyline. Mike goes all the way down, fights his way back to the top, and when/if he wins it promises to be epic. It's a part of the story and Dahl makes its resolution visually & dramatically satisfying, sure to inspire a few fistpumps. On the way to that, however, and particularly in the brief denouement following, I continue to think of Good Will Hunting and how we not only learn the safe choice is not always right, for us, but how to believe we can make that choice because we believe in ourselves.
I see it so clearly in the scenes between Damon and Martin Landau, his law school advisor. Rather than replicate ORDINARY PEOPLE's famous therapy-story as Van Sant obviously does in GWH, Dahl takes master/apprentice approach, Landau's speech about choosing law over his family his "It's not your fault" moment. In ROUNDERS, that bombshell drops early in the story, and I watched to see if Mike realized it. The final shot answers the question & looks one hell of a lot like Van Sant's final frame.
My point here is not Van Sant or not Van Sant. It's not even John Dahl > Gus Van Sant, or vice versa, though I said I like Dahl's take more. I do tonight. I haven't watched GWH in a few years and may feel differently next time. Van Sant's film is good, a hit for good reason, but I prefer Dahl's psychology of the game and the player more than Van Sant's hug-it-out therapy. To me, GWH's therapy subplot gets over because we, the audience, go into the film trusting Robin Williams and wanting him to prevail. His career, still on fire at that point, promised he could do something all his own with the Judd Hirsch part from ORDINARY PEOPLE, and audiences showed up to see him try.
It's also a good early read on audience affection for Matt Damon. Outside Kevin Costner it's hard to think of another aspiring leading man audiences so quickly wanted to see carry a movie.
Williams and Damon deliver, but the "it's not your fault" scene, for all its cathartic heft, always feels to me like a deus ex machina, a convenient shortcut to Van Sant's final frame before the film outstays its welcome. Dahl sidesteps the need for a final moment of truth by allowing Landau to deliver it when neither Mike nor we expect it.
Outside of Gretchen Mol I can't name a single cast member I didn't enjoy, & I'm going to give Ms. Mol extra time, because I know I am harder on actresses than actors, and they often play more thankless parts. Mol's part as Jo, the sensible girlfriend who would never take Mike's risks, in fact is the one thankless role in the movie. It's a slight part where she's asked to say things no one wants to hear. Mol went through kind of an It-Girl phase in Hollywood, doing three-four higher profile films in a row, but none hooked me. She is not given enough to do here to wreck anything, and it's possible she's quite good & I don't see it, but it doesn't feel like that.
I do see it in Famke Janssen, who has one of the juicy character parts Mol doesn't. All Dahl's poker players also did memorable work like THE SOPRANOS, BOARDWALK EMPIRE, & ensemble pieces like Robert Benton's NOBODY'S FOOL.
Outside of Gretchen Mol I can't name a single cast member I didn't enjoy, & I'm going to give Ms. Mol extra time, because I know I am harder on actresses than actors, and they often play more thankless parts. Mol's part as Jo, the sensible girlfriend who would never take Mike's risks, in fact is the one thankless role in the movie. It's a slight part where she's asked to say things no one wants to hear. Mol went through kind of an It-Girl phase in Hollywood, doing three-four higher profile films in a row, but none hooked me. She is not given enough to do here to wreck anything, and it's possible she's quite good & I don't see it, but it doesn't feel like that.
I do see it in Famke Janssen, who has one of the juicy character parts Mol doesn't. All Dahl's poker players also did memorable work like THE SOPRANOS, BOARDWALK EMPIRE, & ensemble pieces like Robert Benton's NOBODY'S FOOL.
Malkovich and Turturro, the two Johns, make Rounders as good as Dahl wants it to be. Their characters, Malkovich's probably-pyschopathic Teddy & Turturro's Knish, a working gambler and stakehorse for Mike, both represent Damon's alternatives. Turturro's Knish pays his rent & feeds his kids playing cards. He doesn't go all-in on intuition, as Damon does. Turturro plays him as modest & competent - he doesn't raise his voice or do Crazy Turturro to show he's the guy who always leaves the table a winner. Malovich does that, but his role demands scenery-gnawing and Malkovich gnaws with the best. Turturro lays back and is just as memorable. Each brings exactly what the part requires. Each caused me to murmur aloud, "Damn I love these guys."
It's ironic that Damon's first big screen success namechecks what has graced much of his career, good will. Damon's likable, and though he's a handsome lad, he's no less relatable. Like Robert Redford in the '70s, moviegoers want to like & cheer for Damon ever since playing an admirable Private Ryan. I wanted to in ROUNDERS. In a way his role is almost as thankless as Mol. The leading man, he mainly plays against Dahl's deck of character aces, which involves affability, smiling, dimples, and exposition. Damon's not asked to chew anything.
Other hand, he has to let that boy-next-door, aw-shucks affability mask a man who sees all the angles and all the chances when he sits at a table, or who knows he will know them before he stands up to leave. A man who has the courage to bet on himself with his creditor's money, and wants to do the right thing by Worm and by Jo. That's a lot to carry on good will and dimples alone. He bears up under the strain.
As for Norton, he's on the money as Worm, a born loser looking for a game he can't win, a smart guy stuck on stupid. It's the kind of stealth-lead at which an Ed Norton excells.
Just because I think Dahl saw more than a Disney sports-inspo saga here doesn't mean his bigger point, that we can make seemingly insane choices if we believe in ourselves and play straight, is less dopey than the studio's underdog tale. Dahl does more with his dopey conceit.
ROUNDERS is almost two films. Dahl's survives intact enough to forgive the studio's meddling, and some of the sports-movie-energy works well, whoever claims credit. Rhe voiceover and Rockyesque moments don't hurt ROUNDERS, but they don't help, either. John Dahl's movie is underrated for legitimate reasons, but it IS underrated. Worth investigating.
It's ironic that Damon's first big screen success namechecks what has graced much of his career, good will. Damon's likable, and though he's a handsome lad, he's no less relatable. Like Robert Redford in the '70s, moviegoers want to like & cheer for Damon ever since playing an admirable Private Ryan. I wanted to in ROUNDERS. In a way his role is almost as thankless as Mol. The leading man, he mainly plays against Dahl's deck of character aces, which involves affability, smiling, dimples, and exposition. Damon's not asked to chew anything.
Other hand, he has to let that boy-next-door, aw-shucks affability mask a man who sees all the angles and all the chances when he sits at a table, or who knows he will know them before he stands up to leave. A man who has the courage to bet on himself with his creditor's money, and wants to do the right thing by Worm and by Jo. That's a lot to carry on good will and dimples alone. He bears up under the strain.
As for Norton, he's on the money as Worm, a born loser looking for a game he can't win, a smart guy stuck on stupid. It's the kind of stealth-lead at which an Ed Norton excells.
Just because I think Dahl saw more than a Disney sports-inspo saga here doesn't mean his bigger point, that we can make seemingly insane choices if we believe in ourselves and play straight, is less dopey than the studio's underdog tale. Dahl does more with his dopey conceit.
ROUNDERS is almost two films. Dahl's survives intact enough to forgive the studio's meddling, and some of the sports-movie-energy works well, whoever claims credit. Rhe voiceover and Rockyesque moments don't hurt ROUNDERS, but they don't help, either. John Dahl's movie is underrated for legitimate reasons, but it IS underrated. Worth investigating.
Comments
Post a Comment