If you can't handle the way the actors talk, it says something about YOU - House of Games (1987) Discussion

[–] miles-29 17 years ago

I've always liked Mamet's stylistic cadences, it's always enhanced his films/plays for me. There's certainly no right or wrong about it as long as people recognise that a writer doesn't have some unwritten responsibility to use a natural rhythm or modulation. Whether they get it or not is up to them.

People shouldn't dismiss Mamet's dialogue because it sounds 'funny' to them. At the very least try and recognise how the dialogue becomes a part of the music of a scene, how its beat syncs with and drives the other aspects of the film or play.

reply

[–] Toshi51 9 years ago

I love Mamet dialogue and try to re-enact it on occasion when talking with people Not being bright enough for spontaneous emulation, I should memorize lines like Shakespeare quotes. Mamet's stylized dialogue makes his movies.

reply

[–] rbblemur 17 years ago

Look...I agree that it's okay to "forget" the dialogue in certain cases. For example, if a movie is supposed to be 100% plot driven, like "Speed" for example. It didn't really matter that Keanu Reeves can't act, and it didn't matter that the dialogue was stupid and cheesy, because the main focus of the movie is that there is this bus that can't slow down or else it will explode. Very simple.

But my problem with HOG is that it feels like Mamet is trying to make the audience care not just about the plot, but about Margaret as well. It seems like he intended to flesh out her character and make her believeable to the audience, but he fails, because in order to do that, you have to make your actors give somewhat realistic delivery of their lines so that the audience buys it. Crouse's crappy-as-hell acting just ruins any chance of that happening.

reply

[–] dark_frances 13 years ago

I didn't feel that at all. To me, Margaret was totally unrelatable, there was a wall of ice between her and us the whole time, mostly generated by her lack of expressiveness. Which was always a little eerie. Not to mention that she was an ugly protagonist - not the actress, the character was ugly, it felt like she was meant to make us recoil a little, even at her warmest and inlovest (or I feel this in retrospect?...). And I am pretty sure that this was intentional.

This movie was a con. The sting was to make us believe it was neo-noir, about a protagonist who falls in a pit of manipulation and loss, drawn in by circumstances stronger than her powers of anticipation, seduced out of money and love and left stranded in a deserted corner of the universe, all complete with moody music, shady bars of the criminal underworld, shadow play and mirrors, homme fatal and cigarette smoke. When, in fact, it was an almost clinical study on the evolution of a distorted mind. And I am so happy about it, because by god I was disappointed by the way in which she was tricked, it was so predictable; turns out that this predictability was also intentional - the focus had always been on her behaviour, not on the plot. She was not just the main character of the movie, she was pretty much the only character of the movie, the others were just pretexts, like the paper and the ink spot which a psychologist uses to read their patient.

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above his shoulder

reply

[–] transmentalist 16 years ago

True that, unfortunately.

Cf. Val Kilmer in "Spartan," Al Pacino (and everyone else) in "Glengarry Glen Ross"

Just because the language is stilted, doesn't mean it has to be lifeless.

reply

[–] tawdry_hepburn 16 years ago

Works great on stage...not so great in his own movies, however. Edmond and Glengary Glen Ross are 2 great film adaptations of his work, but he is a weak director.

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

reply

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

I disagree. He has deconstructed theater and cinema as well. He showed that how and what you are saying is utterly unimportant (often) in a scene. In this regard he followed Hitchcock as an arbiter of "pure cinema". Hitch often sought to lose sound (or dialog) altogether, having great patches of dialog-less film, whereas Mamet simply made the dialog meaningless, in effect accomplishing the same goal (to a certain extent).

Mamet was, in part, making a picture without real dialog. Hitch often did the same, showing that he could entertain, engage and enthrall an audience with his images alone. Mamet simply make the dialog superfluous, attempting (and accomplishing) the same thing.

Both directors show that dialog is very unimportant, it is the images on screen that tell the story. There is a great deal in common between the two directors. Mamet is no Hitchcock, but he is most obviously an admirer who excels when he follows in the master's footsteps.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] tawdry_hepburn 16 years ago

I donno, I sort of hate the way that Mamet uses the camera.

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

reply

[–] Bladerunner 16 years ago

To each his own, I guess. I think he is an innovator and a guiding light in today's cinema, so... there you go.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

What arrogance, OP! Not just your self-centered heading, but the fact that you can even begin to put Mamet in the same league as Hitchcock as a film director. It's funny that Hitchcock is the one who said "actors should be treated like cattle" when he shows far more respect for actors in his films than Mamet did in this one.

But the worst part of this is that CROUSE is blamed for her terrible acting in this film, when it clearly Mamet who forced her into her intolerably uninvolving performance. She's a far better actor than this film shows.

Even Mamet has lately come clean about the wrong-headed attitudes he had about actors and films in the 80s. But knock yourself out, Bladerunner. Just as long as no one ever lets you near a film camera or an actor. Ever.

reply

[–] Bladerunner 15 years ago

I suggest Valium, for that anger problem, DD-931.

First of all, I didn't "put him in the same league as Hitchcock". All I said was that he "followed Hitchcock as an arbiter of 'pure cinema'." As a matter-of-fact I even said that he accomplished the same goal to a "certain extent" - meaning he didn't accomplish what Hitch did, just that he followed that line of thinking. Try reading next time, it helps.

I wasn't commenting on how he treated actors, in point-of-fact I know nothing about how he treats actors. What I do know is about how he succeeded in cinema, and to that end he has been very successful.

Since we are on a Hitch/Mamet contrasting kick, I'll put this forward. Before Truffaut and the Cahiers du cinéma NO one was taking Hitchcock seriously. No one. Mamet has been taken seriously vis-à-vis the theater, but as of yet he still hasn't been appreciated in the cinema as much as he should have. He is evolving. In time, his works such as House of Games and Homicide will be regarded much more than they are now.

Mamet is attempting something very new, which is - as I said - a continuation of the ideas of Hitchcock. If you knew something about Hitchcock, you might know that. By the way, don't lecture me on Hitch. I have admired, studied and written on Hitchcock for the entirety of my adult life. I *know* Hitchcock. Hitch told Truffaut that he didn't even remember making that statement about actors and cattle.

I don't plan on ever directing a film, but I have been around many actors. So, I'm afraid you'll have to live with that. How, though, you manage to accuse me of someone who would treat actors like Mamet, I'm not sure. As if my appreciation of his films is a condoning of how he treats actors. As I said before, Valium or perhaps Effexor, though now I'm more thinking Thorazine or Risperdal.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

Ooooh, I struck a nerve there!

Thanks for the lecture. Your arrogance is at least consistent.

Just to update your encyclopedic knowledge of Hitchcock, he was quoted as saying, "I never said actors are cattle. I said they should be TREATED like cattle." If you knew about Hitchcock's sense of humor, you'd know he played interviewers like a piano. He often denied he said things he'd been quoted as saying. It was part of who he was. And yes, I have the Hitchcock book by Truffaut.

Lots of wannabe people like to claim they wish to carry on Hitchcock's oeuvre. So what?

But in the end, your need to proscribe drugs to who anyone who dares disagrees with you is all I need to know about your ability to take criticism. And by the way, you might want to read a few books written by Mamet besides his plays, because in them he says exactly how he treats actors. And at least in his early books on the subject, it ain't pretty.

reply

[–] Bladerunner 15 years ago

DD-931 let me tell you something, you are as irritating to me as gum on my shoe. You don't challenge me, you don't bother me, instead I only feel a slight sadness for your quickness to anger and propensity to insult and call people names.

Your dearth of knowledge of Hitchcock sadly has finally given you away. If you knew anything you'd know that Hitch has said in interviews that the sessions with Truffaut were the first time that he truly exposed himself and didn't continue with his normal adversarial relationship with the press. Truffaut WASN'T the press, he was a fellow director and by the time he started interviewing Hitch, he already had a good reputation in the States as such. Hitch was telling Truffaut the truth, he didn't remember saying it, and I believe him. He agreed that he probably had said it, but just didn't remember it. Have you never done that? Said something that later on you didn't remember saying? No, I'm sure that's never happened to you, because you are the great and powerful DDT-931. He did remember the reason why he might have said it, because in those days actors treated film like "slumming", which was a great source of irritation for him.

Now a lesson in philosophy and logic. What you are doing now is called throwing up straw men. I say something, then you ignore that and pretend as if I've said something else, then you argue your own made-up nonsense. I never said that Mamet was claiming that he wished to "carry on Hitchcock's oeuvre". No, I never said that. Fail. What I said was that Mamet was continuing or expanding on Hitchcock's deconstruction of the essentials, in this case - sound. I said, "Hitch often sought to lose sound (or dialog) altogether, having great patches of dialog-less film, whereas Mamet simply made the dialog meaningless". Argue that, and not your own prosaic gobbledygook.

I suggested certain drugs for you because of your quickness to anger and name-calling - the very first thing you said to me was:

What arrogance, OP! Not just your self-centered heading

and then you go onto suggest I never be allowed near an actor or a camera. You did this, I might add, in response to something I wrote a *year ago*. Clearly, you have issues with controlling your temper and social skills in lashing out at someone in your very first response. I continue that suggestion with even greater resolve, except now I urge that you add psychotherapy as a necessary adjunct for quicker (if even possible) results.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone who starts a message board with a heading basically proclaiming "If you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with YOU" would proclaim there's something wrong with me for disagreeing with him. In all my years on these message boards, I don't think I've ever encountered someone more threatened by me for calling him (or her) out.

But just so you know, the thing Mamet is most recognized and praised for is his dialog. It's the primary aspect of his scripts that draws actors to his work, and the vital significance of his phrasing and speech rhythms, as well the special way his characters use language to both reveal and conceal their thoughts, feelings, and goals, are the keys to his writing genius. So I don't think he'd think much of your proclaiming his aim is to make his dialog "meaningless". In fact, I don't think you could be more wrong.

And I figured you'd sooner or later contradict yourself about Hitchcock, since you finally admitted on the "actors should be treated like cattle" line that the reason he "might" have said it is "because in those days actors treated film like 'slumming', which was a great source of irritation for him." My point was not whether he "remembered" saying it or not when he was talking to Truffaut, my point was that he said it in the first place.

But seriously, not to even suggest that you know the first thing about psychology or medicine, my recommendation to you is, before you go around diagnosing people and questioning their mental health for daring to challenge your arrogance, "heal thyself".

reply

[–] Bladerunner 15 years ago

There you go again, throwing up straw men.

"If you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with YOU"

I never said that. Nopes. I said:

So, if you can't "forget" the dialog, if you can't attenuate that away, then *you* have a problem suspending disbelief. This says something about YOU, not the writer, not the director.

When will you finally debate with me, rather than yourself? Argue with what I say, and not what you pretend I say.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

This stuff just leaves me shaking my head in disbelief.

Do you know what a heading is, Bladerunner? Because I made it clear in my last post that that was what I was talking about. Your HEADING says "If you can't handle the way the actors talk, it says something about YOU." Which means the actors can be forced into the most ludicrously artificial behavior, and if the audience doesn't buy into it, it's THEIR fault. Following this logic, Mamet had no obligation to even attempt to meet the audience half-way, to allow his actors to create any semblance of human behavior that the audience could begin to relate to. If the audience doesn't like it, too bad, you're saying. I'm telling you Mamet is a genius, and you are wrong to dare to question any aspect of that "fact", you are saying. This attitude is absolutely arrogant, I've heard it too often, and I'm just not going to give that kind of self-serving nonsense a pass.

As it happens, I think Mantegna, Walsh, Macy, and some of the other actors, being veterans of Mamet, were able to work past the writer's inexperienced FILM DIRECTION (Which is the only aspect of Mamet that I am challenging in this case) to give good performances. But others were not. And for whatever reason Mamet forced Lindsay Crouse, who I have actually admired as an actor, to give one of the most stilted and disconnected film performances I have ever seen in what is supposed to be a high quality film. Whatever Mamet wanted to say with Crouse's character was undermined by how artificial and unconvincing her performance was. And I've seen too many quality Crouse performances not to see that the blame primarily lies with Mamet here, not Crouse

You can worship Mamet all you want, be oblivious to the difference between suspension of disbelief in theatre and film all you want, even slap concepts and intentions on Mamet's work that he may not even have intended, but when you make a clear attack on all who would dare disagree with you about Mamet in general and this film in particular, you deserve a taste of your own medicine.

And that's what I've got to say about it.

reply

[–] Bladerunner 15 years ago

Following this logic, Mamet had no obligation to even attempt to meet the audience half-way, to allow his actors to create any semblance of human behavior that the audience could begin to relate to. If the audience doesn't like it, too bad, you're saying

No, that's not what I'm saying. Whew, you just have to argue with yourself, don't you?

THIS is what I wrote:

He showed that the delivery of dialog was actually not important to the tension of a piece.

So, if you can't "forget" the dialog, if you can't attenuate that away, then *you* have a problem suspending disbelief. This says something about YOU, not the writer, not the director.

Did I say that he didn't have to "meet the audience half-way"? No. Did I say that he shouldn't let his actors create an semblance of human behavior? No. Did I say if the audience doesn't like it, too bad? No. What I said was what I wrote. Read that. Respond to that.

As it happens, I think Mantegna, Walsh, Macy, and some of the other actors, being veterans of Mamet, were able to work past the writer's inexperienced FILM DIRECTION (Which is the only aspect of Mamet that I am challenging in this case) to give good performances.

Great, you go debate that with someone, I don't care to argue this with you. You keep trying to pull me into what YOU want to debate about and you do that by changing what I've said, and then you debate with yourself. All I'm talking about is the DELIVERY of the DIALOG. Ok? Get that? If you want to debate that, that would be wonderful. Can you - at long last - get that?

You can worship Mamet

Do I worship Mamet? No. I said he is an innovator and a guiding light, trying to issue in something new and I appreciate that, however I do not think he is infallible. I do not "worship him".

oblivious to the difference between suspension of disbelief in theatre and film

Haha! How am I oblivious to that? Once again, here you go off on rabbit trails, trying to guide the debate away from what I've said and into your own contentions, and that's fine, but it's not what I'm talking about.

you make a clear attack on all who would dare disagree with you about Mamet in general and this film in particular

When have I "attacked" everyone who "dare disagree with [me]?" I think you are projecting here as you are are the one that has a problem with anyone that disagrees with YOU. I said something very specific about people who have a problem attenuating away from the delivery of the dialog. That is all, and I certainly haven't "attacked" anyone who disagreed with me. However, you have.

And that's what I've got to say about it.

Promise?

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] DD-931 15 years ago

Well, it's pretty pointless to continue here, since you can't deal with what I'm saying and don't even have a handle on what YOU'VE said (You can't even make the connection between delivery of dialog and acting. Amazing.). Your idea of "strawmen arguments" is pretty amusing as well, since it's basically every time you can't refute what I've said and instead simply call it "changing the subject" while you try to reinterpret what you've said. And I still find it hilarious that what most actors know by name as Mametspeak is, in your eyes, what audiences are supposed to "forget" about his work.

But I've said my piece, and that stands. No more need to waste my time with you.

reply

[–] Bladerunner 15 years ago

I don't need to refute anything you've said, because nothing you've said has anything to do with what I said. I completely understand the connection between delivery of dialog and acting, but I *DON'T CARE* about that. You just can't get that. You want to argue about Mamet's abilities as a director of actors and I DON'T. I'm discussing his use of dialog as a writer - he *wrote* Homicide, he *wrote* Glengary Glen Ross, he *wrote* House of Games - AND I'm talking about how he uses that dialog in his movies.

I have news for you, many people who enjoy his movies don't have any problem with what you refer to as "Mametspeak". These people can forget the dialog and love his movies. I am one of them. Many actors work with him over and over - Rebecca Pidgeon, Joe Mantegna, William H. Macy, so I don't think they have any problem with "Mametspeak". So, I repeat what I said before, "if you can't 'forget' the dialog, if you can't attenuate that away, then *you* have a problem suspending disbelief. This says something about YOU, not the writer, not the director."

But I've said my piece, and that stands. No more need to waste my time with you.

I've heard that before, hopefully this time you mean it.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] sagames 13 years ago

Woah it suddenly stopped. You both decided to go with Valium?

reply

[–] obadtzxo 13 years ago

I've seen this film a few time over the years. I keep going back to it 'cause it's Mamet. My God, it's a crappy film.

I've read Mamet's essays "On Directing" and brilliant as he is, IMHO his theories on the role of actors is a pathetic intellectualization from a writer who happens to be a megalomaniacal control freak.

Just saying. I don't know the man, but his sense of self-importance is comical.

reply

[–] dark_frances 13 years ago

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above his shoulder

reply

[–] Bladerunner 13 years ago

Your only post ever on IMDB, and this is what you come up with? Or perhaps you've been hitting the Valium too hard and have been sleeping all this time.

"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheManInOil 13 years ago

Absurd. You're saying that because he has a theory, then even if it doesn't work when applied that's the fault of audiences and not the theory. Preposterous.

Even if it's correct that it's possible to generate dramatic tension without good acting, that's not a reason to have the acting be bad. What for? Just to prove you can still create tension? The fact that so many people 'can't handle' the acting is proof that it's not a good idea. You can't just say "well then everyone's wrong and the theory is right!" That would be stupid.

"I'll book you. I'll book you on something. I'll find something in the book to book you on."

reply