Ask most people what were some of the best movies of the ‘80s, and I guarantee they’ll tell you movies like Ghostbusters, E.T., and Scarface.
Yes, I’ll agree that those aforementioned films are indeed great (especially Scarface, which is still the coolest gangster movie ever made), but I’m here to argue that one of the best movies of the ‘80s is almost never mentioned, and that’s 1987’s neo-noir masterpiece, House of Games, which stars Lindsay Crouse, as well as Criminal Minds and The Simpsons-alum, Joe Mantegna.
Directed by David Mamet (it’s his directorial debut, making this yet another example of a director who made a really good movie on their first try), House of Games is probably the greatest ‘80s movie that you’ve likely never seen, and I aim to change that.
It’s Probably The Best Movie You’ll Ever Watch About Con Men
Do you know what “a confidence man” is? It’s actually an archaic term for “con” man, and I know you know what that is. Well, House of Games is centered around the world of con men (or, “confidence” men), and it’s a world that I knew very little about until I watched this film. It even goes into what is called the “long con.”
Now, I know that a lot of people’s knowledge of long cons likely comes from The Sting (Which could use a remake? Just sayin’), and yeah. That movie does feature a long con. However, you don’t really get a sense that Paul Newman or Robert Redford’s characters are “bad” people, as Robert Shaw’s character (Oh, by the way, have you ever watched Black Sunday?) is the antagonist. In that way, you like Newman and Redford’s characters, as they’re both charming and don’t make grifting seem all that bad, especially since the film takes place during the Great Depression. So, you get a sense that they’re grifting just to survive.
Not so in House of Games, though, as we get to see true con men in action, and their nefarious intentions. It makes a point to show you that while yes, con men are definitely charming, it’s only to lure you into their trap, as they’re only doing it to make the mark (a.k.a, a victim, or sucker) feel “confident” in dealing with them. In this way, we get a sense of just how seedy they truly are.
It’s great because it’s a thrilling movie, but it’s also a cautionary tale of how these people exist in the world, and they’re looking to take everything you have. So, don’t let them.
You Yourself Feel Like You’ve Been Conned About Midway Through
Now, I spent a great deal of time talking about how realistic the con men are in this film, but I haven’t discussed the plot itself. Well, the story concerns a psychiatrist named Margaret Ford (Crouse). She has a patient who threatens to end his life because he’s irrevocably in debt with a scary individual, and she walks him off of the ledge (metaphorically, not literally, as he actually has a gun, which she gets him to put away). She does this by telling him that she will speak to the scary individual herself later that night.
Well, said scary individual is actually a man named Mike, played by Mantegna. Mike says he’ll excuse the debt as long as Margaret accompanies him to a poker game, at which he gives her pointers to observe players to see when they’re bluffing. She does, and when she tries to help Mike, he ends up losing, and is forced, at gunpoint, to give up a large sum of money. She offers to pay out of pocket, only to notice that it’s a water gun, and not a real one. So, she realizes that she’s been conned. However, instead of being upset, she’s allured by these con men, and ends up spending time with them.
Here’s where I don’t want to spoil anything because that’s the beauty of this film. All throughout, you’re following these characters, only for you, the viewer, to notice that you’ve been conned. I won’t tell you how, but it’s really masterfully done.
In this way, you realize that the story was ten steps ahead of you. You were just too enraptured by what was going on to realize that you were being played. It’s really quite something once you watch it for yourself.
Joe Mantegna Is So Alluring In This Role
As a massive fan of The Simpsons, I, of course, love a lot of the characters who aren’t Homer or Bart (though, Lisa might lowkey be the best character). Anyway, one of my favorite characters is Fat Tony, voiced by the one and only Joe Mantegna. Tony, who’s connected to the criminal underworld, is a much funnier crook than the man we see in House of Games. Because even though Mike is quite alluring in the film, you always get a sense that he has ulterior motives.
That said, he doesn’t seem like a bad person. In fact, when he asks Crouse’s character if she wants to know how he “plies his trade,” you get a sense that he’s really proud of how good he is at scamming people. Even though his intentions are impure, he still has a gleeful outlook on ripping people off, and in that way, you personally find his craft interesting, because he finds it interesting.
This is fascinating because unlike a common criminal (such as Fat Tony, or, the people Mantegna’s character might go after on Criminal Minds), Mike operates differently. He almost doesn’t see what he does as being wrong, because he knows that the person he was tricking had a good time while it was happening. So, even though they were swindled out of a lot of money, he still thinks he rendered his services properly because the person he was swindling knew what they were getting into. Or at least, he thinks they do. Why else would they work with him when they know what he does for a living?
It’s a complex role, full of cunning and charm, and Mantegna does an excellent job of getting us on his side, which brings me to my last point.
By The End Of It, You Probably Don’t Know How You Feel About The Protagonist
Now, once again, I don’t want to spoil anything about this movie, but by the end of it, I really didn’t know how I felt about the protagonist. Because you see, Crouse’s character goes along for the ride, and it’s a bumpy, exciting one. That said, what she does as a result almost seems…well, I don’t want to say cruel, but it seems wrong, and perhaps unjustified.
This is another thing I love about this film, because it left me with mixed emotions, which I know some people hate, but it’s always something I enjoy about a movie. Throughout the film, I really didn’t pick a side as I was just going along for the ride, but by the end of it, some of the characters have dialogue that really made me rethink everything that took place before it.
This is why I love David Mamet. I’m a big fan of Glengarry Glen Ross, but I just love his writing in general, such as his work on Oleanna, The Verdict, and The Untouchables. He just has a way with creating characters, and I think some of his best are right here in this movie.
Have you seen House of Games? I’d love to hear your thoughts.