HOUSE OF GAMES: A Masterpiece of Suspenseful Thriller

David Mamet, a playwright and acclaimed screenwriter for many Hollywood productions such as The Postman Always Rings Twice, The Untouchables, and Wag the Dog, is also one of the most intelligent American independent directors. One of his greatest achievements is undoubtedly House of Games from 1987. In this film, Mamet, who is also the screenwriter, showed the American film world how a first-rate suspense thriller should be constructed.

The respected, about thirty-year-old Dr. Margaret Ford (Lindsey Crouse) is a renowned psychologist dealing with the most difficult cases—addicts and murderers. Her newly published book is a bestseller, making her financially independent and secure. However, she doesn’t seem happy. One day, a young man named Jimmy, a compulsive gambler, shows up at her office for a therapy session. During the session, a conflict arises, and Jimmy pulls out a gun. However, Margaret manages to defuse the situation and take the gun from him. In the process, she learns that he owes $25,000 to a gangster who is threatening to kill him if he doesn’t pay. Reluctantly, Margaret decides to help, first extracting the address of the gangster’s establishment (the titular House of Games) where he can be found. The dive bar is located in a rough neighborhood. Undeterred, Margaret finds Mike (the gangster’s name) and learns that the entire story was fabricated in the mind of the addict, and the actual debt is only $800. And that’s just the beginning.

Thus begins one of the best-told stories of the 1980s—about gambling (including moral gambling), emotions, and hidden desires. The director brilliantly uses the suspense thriller genre to suggest to the viewer that there’s more to the story than just sophisticated entertainment. Mamet plays with the viewer from the very first minute of the film, keeping them uncertain and never allowing them to look away from the screen for fear of missing a crucial detail. The key scene for the first part of the film is Dr. Margaret Ford’s visit to the House of Games and her meeting with the gambler Mike (Joe Mantegna).

However, in order to fully understand the significance of this scene for the entire film, it needs to be briefly summarized. Dr. Ford, as mentioned earlier, learns that her patient fabricated most of the story told in the session. After this realization, she could have easily left the place, but Mike asks her a favor—to play as his acquaintance during a poker game. Earlier, during the game, he noticed that whenever his opponent bluffed, he played with his signet ring. Unfortunately, the opponent realized Mike’s observation and stopped making any suspicious movements. Mike, trying to set a trap, suggests that Margaret observe the opponent while he steps out for a moment. If the opponent makes any move, she should inform Mike when he returns. It’s easy to guess that the opponent starts playing with the signet ring, which suggests that he has nothing in his hand and his moves are just a bluff. Mike makes a big bet… and loses (the opponent has a flush).

I won’t spoil the conclusion of the scene, so as not to ruin the fun for those who haven’t seen the film. Even in this brilliantly written and well-acted episode, the director gives the viewer a wink, signaling that what’s seen on the screen may not be what it seems. The rest of the film, leading to a tragic end, reinforces the notion that the filmmakers wanted even a sharp observer to leave the theater convinced that they didn’t learn everything, despite the seemingly logical ending that explains all the threads. Every time I watch House of Games, I have the feeling that the director has played a trick on me, telling a story that only seems closed at first glance. When the viewer (and I, too) begins to ponder this, different ideas come to mind. What if the presented resolution of the intrigue is just part of a bigger scam planned by a genius con artist, just like in The Sting? What if this is only the beginning of a sequel, a sequel we will never see, one we can only guess?

This is the genius of the director and his script, on which not only beginner filmmakers could learn how to build atmosphere, tension, and real suspense, as if straight out of Hitchcock’s work. However, one would be wrong to claim that the creator limits himself to just a suspenseful, attractive, and sophisticated surface. The film, in a way, also shows us an analysis of the main character’s personality—Dr. Margaret Ford. She appears to be well-educated, well-positioned, and well-mannered, yet she first accepts a proposal from a gambler and con artist, and what’s more, she suggests continuing the game. What motivates her?

Curiosity, the search for strong thrills, or perhaps the attempt to find material for her next book? No, it is a deeply ingrained, almost biological need to confront the unknown, more or less present in every human life. It is this motif that drives her actions, but also brings misfortune. In Margaret Ford’s case, the situation she finds herself in highlights instincts she never expected in herself. Is this a confirmation of the thesis that interacting with unrestrained people highlights our worst traits, or perhaps simply our true personality? Everyone must answer this question for themselves.

Mamet, in weaving his story, takes us into an alternative world—one that we only suspect exists, a world of thieves, hustlers, and con artists, not without a bit of roguish charm (very well portrayed by Joe Mantegna), but dangerous and willing to do anything. Moreover, he constructs his storytelling in such a way that we are never certain until the very end if he will surprise us with something else. The presented intrigue is complicated and intricate, but it has an open structure and leaves plenty of room for imagination, assumptions, and interpretations, which are especially desired in this film more than in any other. And that’s exactly what it’s all about.