Somebody please explain the ending of The Gambler to me - teenbooks.info Forums
Not that The Gambler of isn't worth seeing, but as a feature drama, this There's also a vaguely oedipal relationship between Jim and his. EXCLUSIVE: Imagine if you'd written a autobiographical masterpiece of a I formed not just a friendship and highly constructive working relationship, but a mutual And Evans ended up producing Chinatown instead. I'm not a gambler,” insists Jim Bennett (Mark Wahlberg), the title draws both its name and its basic plot structure from a James Toback movie, Less compelling is the quasi-romantic relationship between Jim and his.
Unfortunately for Axel and everyone he loves mother, girlfriend, grandfather this cavalier style of play leads to nothing but financial misery and breakdown of valued relationships particularly that with his mother, which is also key to the whole film.
He is a martingale player in the true sense double or nothing. One day everything seems to go right and he reaches a plateau when doubling on 18 and drawing a 3! He wins enough to break free from his shylocks, but is still not satisfied and he risks all his profits from his good day on a game of basketball.
The scene when he loses this bet in the last second of the game listening to the commentary in the bath is incredibly real to anyone who has gambled for 'proper' money and lost will testify.
That feeling of being absolutely sick to your stomach, not to mention the feelings of isolation, guilt and plain stupidity. The film could of ended there in a way, but it goes to another level.
To finally free himself of the money lenders local mobAxel agrees to fix a college basketball game where he teaches by bribing one of his English students who is the star player on the team.
In a close game Axel's student comes through and his debts are cleared. As at the start of the film though, Axel is still looking for a result. The only gamble left to him, is that of his own life. He walks into a bar and picks up a prostitute in the Harlem district of New York.
Then he purposely does not pay her which provokes her pimp Antonio Fargas a. Caan pushes himself onto the knife, daring the pimp to kill him. Fargas pushes him away and Caan begins to beat on him relentlessly. As he drops his knife, the hooker picks it up and slashes Caan. Staggering from the building, Axel sees his reflection. Blood pours from the wound.
He smiles to himself, he has his result! Also watch out for the scene in the film when Axel and leg-breaker for one of the loan sharks visit a guy who cant pay. The first time you watch this its terrifying. Was this review helpful?
The Gambler () - Psychology in Poker and Gambling - Psychology Forum
Sign in to vote. Gambling is an addiction for Axel Freed James Caana professor of English literature and lover of classical music. The film is set in New York City. The object of the obsession can be almost anything on which a bet is placed: It really doesn't matter.
Axel just can't keep from making bets. He's like two different people. In a classroom setting, he is logical and intelligent. But when betting, he throws away the logic in favor of risk taking.Gambler The final scene
In these situations he seems to lack the normal psychological "brakes" that could be applied to his destructive over-betting. It was a rich, exciting double life with heavy doses of sexual adventurism thrown in for good measure. Caan was not the choice of Toback to play the lead. He wanted a young Robert Deniro, but director Karel Reisz refused to direct the movie if Deniro was to play the lead.
While Deniro is and was a great actor, even though he was virtually unknown at the time, he could not have played this role in the way Caan did. Caan appeared to have it all, the looks and the culture, and Deniro could not portray that. That contrast between having it all and throwing it all away is essential to the movie.
He read the script. He became Axel Freed. He wore a navy Cardin blazer with a French collar shirt and jeans because I did.
He had the character inside out, up and down, front and rear. He had to gamble and decide which side of the bet to be on. Did he take his chances, stick to his guns and insist on Deniro, or did he give in to the directors wishes to get the film made? Unlike his character in the movie, Toback wasn't a careless addicted risk taker at that point. He knew he was risking his writing future if he stood his ground.
In the end, it was explained to him that he needed Reisz to get the film made and if that is who the director wanted, he would have to give in. Later I called DeNiro and gave him a virtual transcript.
He wants to make the movie.
But not with you. He got you to turn a great script into something not nearly as good.