The Gambler asks an interesting narrative question of the audience. I haven’t seen the original film directed by Karel Reisz and written by James Toback, so I don’t know if the question originates there but I wouldn’t be surprised if it does. The Gambler asks us why we root for a hero, just because he’s the protagonist. I’m not talking about an unlikeable hero or an antihero, but one with whom it is actually foolish for us to identify at all.
Jim Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) walks into a casino and hits a hot blackjack streak, then loses it all on roulette. He seems not only unphased, but blissful. He gets into debt with the loan shark Neville (Michael Kenneth Williams) to pay back his first debt, but only uses the new stake to lose more. He’s also a college literature professor.
Most stories about gamblers are about losers who don’t recognize their own self-destructive behavior, and thus bet on more long shots. Jim Bennett is not so naive. Not only does he expect to lose his additional lines of credit, but he wants to. The film explores some of the psychological reasons for this level of self-destruction, but I want to talk about the position in which this puts us.
Related: Listen to James Toback’s In-Depth Interview on CraveOnline’s ‘B-Movies Podcast’
It’s one thing for Jim to betray his family and corrupt his students. We get a lot of movies like that, cautionary tales or even nihilistic cynicism. But The Gambler asks us to root for Jim’s victory, even though Jim is not trying to win. His blatant self-sabotage is throwing our sympathy for him in our faces. So why are we still with him? What’s our rooted interest? Do we want him to win in the end? Wouldn’t that validate his lifestyle? Do we want the hammer to finally drop? What moral would that be to a character who never even found the motivation to dig himself out anyway?
The gambling scenes are suspenseful. We wait for each card of a blackjack hand hoping Jim wins and the dealer busts. That is not the cinematic language of a film that is condemning Jim’s dangerous behavior. It’s not even that Jim has an addictive personality and gets off on the high of gambling. As we saw, he seems at greater peace when he’s losing than on a hot streak.
Part of Jim’s college lectures address personal achievement and one’s purpose in life, so that offers some hints but the film is not just going to give it all to us. If anything, the William Monahan script calls out such excuses as bullshit. Jim’s not feeding any demon. His gambling is just a force of nature, as much as everyone in his life wants to find a teachable explanation.
The film is full of great monologues delivered by powerful actors. John Goodman, Jessica Lange, Brie Larson, Williams and Wahlberg all get some. They pose some provocative philosophies on life and the question of why do any of these people – family, friends or criminals – get involved with Jim at all. He’s not even that charming. He’s well spoken though, so he’s engaging.
I may not have the answer tonight but this is a really interesting manipulation of the dynamic between the protagonist and the audience. At a certain point, the problem with any gambling movie is that the filmmakers ultimately control the luck. It does whatever the story needs it to do. It certainly doesn’t negate the story’s power or perspective though. If anything it makes me further question whether the film is ultimately rewarding or punishing us.
Fred Topel is a staff writer at CraveOnline and the man behind Best Episode Ever. Follow him on Twitter at @FredTopel.
