The Gambler [1974 film]

Since I've read Dostoevsky's book a couple of times, I finally watched this 1974 James Caan movie that is claimed in various places including Wikipedia to be a loose version of the 1867 novel.

Similarities

*Caan [Axel] plays a professor and the protagonist in the book [Alexei] is a teacher and tutor.

*Both are problem gamblers.

Differences

*The modern setting of course, although this should not have kept the movie from following Dostoevsky fairly closely.

*The movie emphasizes the dangers involved with borrowing money from the underworld to finance gambling. The underworld connection is totally absent from the book, although both Axel in the movie and Alexei in the book borrow from friends/family ... the latter much less harrowing trouble to be sure.

*Dostoevski's Alexei has ups and downs in his gambling, while Axel sometimes *thinks* he is ahead

*The novel has subplots that are quite funny; the serious-at-all-times movie retains none of that.

*Alexei experiences obsession with patterns that he tries to systematize into winning; Axel basically experiences only "tilt" chasing losses.

*Alexei, although hopelessly hooked, is basically a sympathetic character with flaws. Axel is nothing but flawed; a complete narcissist.

Bottom line: the movie blows. Apparently auto-biographic for the screenwriter to some degree, in any case is not really anything like the Dostoevsky book, the similarities above notwithstanding. The movie takes a moralistic approach and condemns gambling in general and paints it as hopelessly Mob-centered and corrupt. Granted, it was made in 1974. To top it off, the ending was just stupid. The Vegas scenes were accurate real-feel gambling, as accurate as I've seen hands-down. This alone, though, doesnt make the movie worth seeing. Two thumbs down.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071532/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3

Quote: odiousgambit

Since I've read Dostoevsky's book a couple of times, I finally watched this 1974 James Caan movie that is claimed in various places including Wikipedia to be a loose version of the 1867 novel.

Similarities

*Caan [Axel] plays a professor and the protagonist in the book [Alexei] is a teacher and tutor.

*Both are problem gamblers.

Differences

*The modern setting of course, although this should not have kept the movie from following Dostoevsky fairly closely.

*The movie emphasizes the dangers involved with borrowing money from the underworld to finance gambling. The underworld connection is totally absent from the book, although both Axel in the movie and Alexei in the book borrow from friends/family ... the latter much less harrowing trouble to be sure.

*Dostoevski's Alexei has ups and downs in his gambling, while Axel sometimes *thinks* he is ahead

spoiler follows

only to find out sports bets he thought were sure winners wind up losing, wiping out a winning streak. He never gets ahead.

*The novel has subplots that are quite funny; the serious-at-all-times movie retains none of that.

*Alexei experiences obsession with patterns that he tries to systematize into winning; Axel basically experiences only "tilt" chasing losses.

*Alexei, although hopelessly hooked, is basically a sympathetic character with flaws. Axel is nothing but flawed; a complete narcissist.

Bottom line: the movie blows. Apparently auto-biographic for the screenwriter to some degree, in any case is not really anything like the Dostoevsky book, the similarities above notwithstanding. The movie takes a moralistic approach and condemns gambling in general and paints it as hopelessly Mob-centered and corrupt. Granted, it was made in 1974. To top it off, the ending was just stupid. The Vegas scenes were accurate real-feel gambling, as accurate as I've seen hands-down. This alone, though, doesnt make the movie worth seeing. Two thumbs down.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071532/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3

At least he has a cool name and all. I'm just glad we are the complete opposite. However I'm not sure if a complete narcissist would know, if he was a narcissist. I would doubt I am, but if I was one, would I know it?

This movie is being re-done again, with Mark Wahlberg as the professor. see IMDB's entry on it.

Quote: AxelWolf

However I'm not sure if a complete narcissist would know, if he was a narcissist. I would doubt I am, but if I was one, would I know it?

Being 'in denial' is pretty powerful. Seems to me, though, that a narcissist stays a narcissist by feelings of entitlement, rather than denial. But I am no expert.

Quote: Paigowdan

This movie is being re-done again, with Mark Wahlberg as the professor. see IMDB's entry on it.

meant to mention that, thanks. It sounds like the movie will use the same stinko screenplay. Edit: the names of the characters are different, so maybe not. And a different writer is listed.

The movie takes a moralistic approach and condemns gambling in general and paints it as hopelessly Mob-centered and corrupt. Granted, it was made in 1974.

Well, it was indeed Mob-centered and corrupt in 1974. DUH

Hips: Listen, I'm gonna tell you something I never told a customer before. Personally, I never made a bet in my life. You know why? Because I've observed firsthand what with seeing the different kinds of people that are addicted to gambling - what we would call degenerates. I've noticed there's one thing that makes all of them the same. You know what that is?

Axel Freed: Yes. They're all looking to lose.

Hips: You mean you know that!

I have never seen the movie but is it not always on the top gambling movies lists?

I recall a few things about the film, mostly the ending.

I recall his mistaken reliance on half time scores and the bookie who came visiting but brought along muscle who just stood in the background awaiting orders and whose mere presence was a threat to the gambler.

I recall his paying off bets in the order he incurred them even if that meant the bookie and his muscle didn't get all they were owed.

I remember the end scene, but didn't think it was over non payment for the hooker. He goaded the pimp into a fight, the pimp realized "this guy is nuts" and wisely wanted to run despite the racial insults and his friends being there. I interpreted the end as being his final victory but fate robs him of that when the hooker comes at him with her straight edge razor. His final triumph is nullified.