MovieChat Forums > Casino (1995) Discussion > The older I get, the stupider Sam become...

The older I get, the stupider Sam becomes


I watched Casino in my teen.
I thought it was a "real love story", and that Sam was a fool for love but still a true romantic.
25 years later, this love story looks like it was written by a teenager, not by an adult.

Only a seriously immature idiot behaves like this guy, like Ginger's the only woman on earth...wtf, a two bit jukie skank that doesn't even look that good for Vegas skank standards.
Not only he pursues her and gambles a fortune on her, he even dares to make a kid with her!

If anything, the writer should have finessed Sam's self hatred, or inferiority complex, or whatever else drives him to self destruction so he would "fall" like that for this woman.
I'm a grown man now, I find this "love story" to be mere puerile silliness.

reply

He was a damn fool, no question.

reply

Sam’s OCD and naivety about women are interesting contrasts in his otherwise confident, successful character.

reply

To me it's baffling, bordering poor writing.
The only excuse I can give it is that it's set in the past, so let's pretend that Sam is old fashioned and thinks that big gestures will fix this "love story".
Because by today standards, it's irrealistic to see a grown man fall for a two bit whore with no redeeming qualities thinking "it's gonna work". Above all, he would just think "there's a million better women out here than this skank, let's find a better one to "bet on"".

It coule have been interesting, but it's never explained why such a genius is so incredibly stupid in this matter.

reply

And it needn’t be. Gifted people are often lacking in other areas. Much like an autist, Sam is great with numbers, but is naive in romantic relationships and his OCD is hilarious - note the ‘muffins’ and trouser scenes.

We’ve seen De Niro play dozens of alpha males, the fact that this one has interesting flaws and foibles speaks to the superiority of the writing.

reply

To me it's the opposite: DeNiro is not up to par with playing such a clueless idiot. And the writing certainly doesn't help him.
It totally needed a better explanation of this flaw from a psychological perspective, like he's a shy guy, or was treated badly before, or whatever puts him in such a naive position against the power of the pussy. What is he, 14?
Or at least give Ginger some redeeming quality that really puts her above the rest for him, like she does something for him that takes her to another level, anything.
We never see that in the movie, it's just baffling and annoying to see such a brilliant man inexplicably destroy himself and everything he's worked for to go after some skank.

reply

Makes sense to me, plenty of great men are brought to their knees by bad pussy.

reply

Exactly!!

reply

Sam's a control freak (the blueberry muffin incident...) and loses everything because of that. He can't help firing the police commissioner's son in law, can't help going on TV, can't help proving that he's right and his way is the only way...
He sees Ginger as a challenge : she's wild and uncontrollable (except by Lester, which really fucks up Sam precisely because that's the kind of control he'd like to have over her and can't ever manage to achieve). He's fooling himself: his relationship to Ginger has nothing to do with love and everything to do with pride and control.

reply

All true, but I wish the movie explained what put him into this quagmire, especially him being such a control freak.

Obviously he wanted to overstep his own power of control with such a wild woman, and see if he could still win.
But he's also described as an exceptional calculator, so why would he even take it so personal and have his own life ruined by her, if he could (and should) have realized how long of a shot that was?
It's like killing yourself over not winning the lottery with your ticket, certainly something you should not expect.

So all in all, I wish the writing went deeper into such a character flaw to make more sense.

reply

Good point. How do you rate Casino among all of Scorsese's films you've seen ?

reply

I've seen most of them. I think Casino is one of his best films.

reply

The guy Sam is based on, Frank "Lefty" Rosenthal, was not a looker by any measure (pale, lanky, and balding), and I think that's the problem with the contrast between DeNiro playing him opposite of Sharon Stone. I'm not sure I agree about Ginger's "Vegas skank standards" because Scorsese showed plenty of those types throughout the movie and Ginger definitely looked a dozen notches above them. But back to my point, because DeNiro looks so cool in this movie and not as crusty and insecure looking it doesn't translate when he decides to make an investment in her with his livelihood and life's savings. However, after all is said and done, the story basically follows the real-life events and outcomes, but at least Sam made it out alive and is still running a legit book for the Syndicate.

reply

I think Sam wanted what he couldn't have (she was dangerous and kinda "off-limits") and then stayed with her as long as he did because he was trying to force a square peg (their messed-up gangster/hooker selves) into a round hole (a real, loving, suburban relationship).

reply

Yes ok, that's a normal mistake that anybody can make.
But Sam MARRIES her, MAKES A KID with her, SHARES HIS SAFE KEYS with her. WTF is wrong with this idiot? He couldn't read the signals before going all in like that? Couldn't he stop at some point before?
Any man in his right mind would barely fuck her with 3 condoms on. This guy, otherwise a genius and a very perceptive man, is completely spellbound by her and bets his life and work and family and future on her.
I just wish the movie told us WHY.
Even a lame explanation like "I was so successful and bored that I gambled everything on the first skank, just couse I loved betting so much I thought I was invincible!"

reply

I've seen that kind of thing a couple times where people get into a relationship and they just don't get out of it and they keep doubling-down on something that a moment's thought would extricate them from ASAP. Most of the time when I've seen it, the lady ain't no Sharon Stone, either.

You're right, it makes no logical sense, but this kind of thing doesn't always make sense. He saw her, got turned-on, and then he just got comfortable and wanted to make a relationship work. The idea of going out and dating was probably a lot of work for this guy so he stuck with where he was, doggedly, until he was caught in it.

He thrives on chaos a little bit, and he likes taming that chaos. That must have contributed. He probably thought he could handle it, but he was in over his head (we see that theme a few times).

Then, because his business is shady, his world is shady, so he might have a different "calibration" and think she's not the worst money-hungry crazy out there.

I think a lot of it was "I can handle the chaos; I'll straighten her out. If I love her enough, she'll change." We see that all the time.

reply

Well, I gotta say I love your interpretation of it. I didn't catch that in the movie when I watched it as a kid, I haven't cought that now either, but I like the concept of him making a huge mistake, than doubling down, than he thinks this next time she's gonna finally change etc...Also it would go hand in hand with his ability to tame chaos, as you put it, maybe he could use some of his prognostication abilities on her, hedging their possibilities together.
But they should have developed this progression more clearly in the movie, instead they go from zero to having a kid and sharing the treasure in 5 minutes of editing, it just looks too silly for my grownup tastes.
I agree, it was definitely the case you describe in the last sentence, that's what I thought was romantic and now I see as idiotic. The movie should have fit that with some progression to take us with him on this stupid descent into ruin.

reply

You're right insofar as, to my recollection, the movie didn't get into that or hint at it enough, and the development of the relationship was a bit underwritten. It's been awhile since I've seen the film, too, but that's my take from what I remember.

It was probably just that they already had a long movie and they wanted to get into the meat of the action faster, plus establish all the casino/gangster stuff, and they just didn't have room for the love plot. They should have carved out another 5-15 minutes, though, because it is integral.

I still really like the movie, though. I think it's a bit underrated, being overshadowed by Scorsese's other accomplishments like Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, etc.

reply


I like the concept of him making a huge mistake, than doubling down, than he thinks this next time she's gonna finally change etc


hah, that's ironic considering he's an expert gambler (i.e., knows not to try to beat the house when you can BE the house), a professional gambler, of all people, should know better than to "double down" on a losing hand

But in real life, great doctors who know all the risk become drug addicts, great lawyers break the law, and so on

It's deliciously ironic, but far from non-credible.

reply

I agree, and I also love that irony.
But I wish the film spelled it out and developed it more consistently, instead of being so rushed thus making Sam look stupid.

Following some immature logic, the only possible explanation given is "Sharon Stone is so hot he cannot not fall for this cheap whore of a character". Well, not very deep writing if you ask me.

reply

per the movie, I don't know how it went down in real life.

He made her have the baby first before marrying her, because I guess he thought that would keep her tied to him.
That didn't work out how he planned.

reply

Yes that's part of the problem here, DeNiro's too strong of a male and acts too sure of himself to go after some tail like this. It needed more backstory to sell it to the audience, or maybe give him some phisical flaw to show us he's not that strong.

reply

If they had cast someone like David Paymer as Sam it might've made more sense. But there's no way the studio would've funded the film without a major star like DeNiro. "Gangs of New York" also seemed miscast with DiCaprio and Cameron Diaz. They were there because the studio loved them, but the only sensible lead casting in that film was Daniel Day-Lewis, Brendan Gleeson, and Jim Broadbent.

reply

Ahaha, yeah that guy would be perfect for a loser role like this one!
I could totally see him as a spineless fool selling his soul for Sharon Stone, but also be an ace gambling expert slavin it for the big wigs. That's exactly what I mean, DeNiro comes through as a tough, intelligent, sensible technician, and he never transmit that weakness needed for this character.

I would go with what Ace_Spade described in a post above, like Sam's weakness is to insist on something he's never gonna fix. But like I already replied, the movie is too quick and never develops such a brilliant concept.

reply

Agreed. Lefty Rosenthal in real life was fugly and had an esteem problem with attractive women no doubt. He thought she could be managed but was too old school in terms of culture to understand drug addiction when it lands on your front doorstep and how it destroys your household. I doubt that Sam really believed in true love.

reply

Ok, so what is Sam doing with all the time and effort and money he puts on this deranged skank if he does not love her?

Divorce was already pretty popular. Why is he constantly doubling down if he does not really believe in true love?

reply

Like I said he thought that he could manage her and the whole thing was an arrangement versus true love which has been happening forever. Sam figured if he put some money in her purse that she could be the little woman in terms of cooking and cleaning and hot outfits and so on. He figured that was the best he could do. Further, being married was no doubt a status Sam wanted to maintain to keep the locals pacified given his image to them was not desirable to start with. Having a parade of call girls going through his home was not going to help that. The Midwest gangsters might have insisted on a marriage to maintain a facade.

reply

I see where your coming from. Buuuuut it was based on a true story

reply

OK buuuuut the movie (be it the actor, the director, or the writer's fault) doesn't sell it in a coherent way.

reply

Part of the brilliance and beauty of the film: Sam is a man who prides himself on his attention to detail, yet his personal life is the part of his being in which attention to detail always takes a back seat.

reply

A man marries a woman, hoping she'll never change, but she ALWAYS does.
A woman marries a man, hoping she can make him change, and he NEVER does.

reply

That is some old fashioned bs saying that is time to retire.

reply

Many a man has married a woman hoping that he can change her which seldom happens. When the woman changes it is never into what the man hoped for. Man marries fat woman hoping she will thin out but will maintain similar behavior patterns. What happens instead is the woman loses weight then dumps the husband.

reply

That goes for husbands too, when they change they might end the marriage.

But I still find it poorly written how Sam buys into that change her idea repeteadly and goes all in.

reply

Sam really was infatuated with Ginger. Years later in an interview he refused to talk about her. I know in my early 20's I had my moments with gals like Ginger, but I wouldn't accept more than one lie. I lived in Vegas a few years ago, I was sitting at a blackjack table with a couple of friends standing behind me. The pretty gal to my left was talking to a guy on her left, and then to me. She wasn't really flirting but nice enough where my friends were paying close attention. Later, when my friends and I were walking to the parking lot they asked "how did you know she was a hustler?" I simply said "she was talking to me, that gave her cover away immediately!".

reply

So you've never known love and have grown bitter. What a waste!

reply

1 you are a moron, learn how to read

2 yes, I have never "known" love with a dangerous, vapid, chaotic, destructive idiot like Ginger, and bet my whole life on it. Does that mean something to you?

reply

"I watched Casino in my teen"
Maybe give some more attention to what you are doing and someday you'll find love.

reply

It seems like you have not yet learned how to read...

reply

Maybe it's because of your uncertainty?

reply

No, I am pretty clear with what I think and with how I write it.

reply

You have mistaken confidence with being right.

reply

Confidence IS being right, kid.

reply