Anne Dean
Head of Postgraduate Educational Services
As part of the College's year-long celebration of Psychiatry
and the Arts, a festival of psychiatry-themed films was arranged at
the Riverside Studios, which included Mamet's House of Games, which
was screened on 20 January 2002, immediately after Nicolas Roeg's
Bad Timing. The organiser of the film festival was Dr
Peter Byrne, consultant psychiatrist.
Because I have written extensively on Mamet's work, I was
asked to form part of an 'expert panel' who would discuss the film
and to answer any questions from the audience following the
screening. My co-panel member was Dr Raj Persaud, a consultant
psychiatrist, well-known on both television and radio in the UK; I
concentrated upon the dramatic/literary aspects of the film, whilst
Dr Persaud dealt with issues of a psychiatric nature.
We had a packed cinema for the screening itself, and about 60
people remained behind for the discussion. Before this began, I
gave a brief talk on the aspects of the film that I felt were
particularly striking and interesting. These were:
- Although Mamet is renowned for his mastery and use of language
as dramatic action throughout his work, I considered it noteworthy
that House of Games was a film, which primarily told its story
through image and gesture, rather than via the spoken word. Mamet's
trademark economy of linguistic style and incisive choice of every
single syllable was still very much in evidence, but in this
instance he preferred to let the images onscreen progress the
action. Indeed, the film contains quite lengthy periods of complete
silence, but much is being conveyed through glances, gestures and
even the subtle use of lighting.
- I feel this film is deliberately artificial in style, and
portrays a stylised representation of reality, which is wholly in
keeping with the labyrinthine world it portrays. Again, image is
more important than the spoken word, and Mamet opts for a series of
tableaux which call to mind the urban spaces captured in the
paintings of Edward Hopper, as well as having the look of a 1940's
film noir. The dialogue between characters is often almost
'stagey', their staccato exchanges reflecting the carefully crafted
psychological games being played by almost every character in
almost every scene; there is little time for relaxation here -
virtually everyone is always 'on'.
- My final main point relates to the nature of the confidence
trick in Mamet's work. This is a theme that recurs repeatedly in
his drama. Mike, the confidence trickster par excellence in House
of Games is a natural successor to Teach in American Buffalo and
the shark-like salesmen in Glengarry Glen Ross. Mike has raised the
game to almost mythical proportions; there is a sense in which such
characters perform the 'con' for its own sake. Whilst it is
obviously good to win, to make money, the act of trickery itself
becomes their raison d'etre. Each of these characters need the
'con' to keep going, to keep high - even to keep alive. Like those
sharks, to stop is to die. In House of Games, perhaps Mamet himself
is performing a confidence trick on his leading lady - after all,
Margaret is played by his then-wife, Lindsay Crouse, and as
first-time director she is required to put her trust in him as he
directs her onscreen. As Mike tells Margaret early in the film, a
con works not because the 'mark' gives the trickster their
confidence; on the contrary, it is because the trickster gives
their confidence to the mark. Manipulation is the name of the
game.
There was considerable debate surrounding these points, as
well as issues relating to Mamet's use of language and Margaret's
compulsive/addictive personality (particularly that she and Mike
are basically the same under the skin). Some audience members
considered that the 'con' set-up by Mike and his cronies to swindle
Margaret was rather obvious and could be spotted early on, whilst
others thought the film was brilliant in its depiction of a series
of scams culminating in a set-up of such sophistication and
ingenuity, it could hardly be bettered.
Considerable discussion surrounded Mamet's choice of
psychiatry as Margaret's profession; did he - as well as Hollywood
in general - have a negative view of these doctors? Dr Persaud
commented that House of Games remains one of the few films ever
produced to intelligently engage with what psychiatry is really
about, which renders it remarkable given how frequently psychiatry
and psychiatrists are featured by Hollywood. While Dr Persaud has
strong reservations about the inaccuracies endemic in the film
concerning how psychiatrists actually work, it still comes closer
to reality than any other cinematic portrayal - and can be watched
(and enjoyed) by members of that profession.
The nature of the relationship between psychiatrists and their
patients is again explored in House of Games - as it is in
virtually every other film that includes psychiatrists among its
characters. At one level, the film appears to be asking whether
everything in a capitalist society is a 'con' - even the hallowed
doctor/patient relationship. If this IS being implied, and this
most precious of trusts betrayed, then surely there is no hope for
genuine relationships in a free enterprise society. Psychiatry is
being used to make an interesting political point about society at
large, and this is what makes the film most enigmatic and
fascinating.
There was also some discussion of whether the fact that Mamet
had chosen to make his psychiatrist female had rendered her more
susceptible to manipulation and trickery by Mike - putting a rather
sexist spin on proceedings: would it have been possible to dupe a
man so mercilessly? The discussion continued with questions being
raised about the concepts of self-knowledge and self-forgiveness,
and the moral ambiguities within the film, particularly in relation
to Margaret's journey from healer to murderess. Rather than agonise
over this deed, she forgives herself because she feels shooting
Mike was justified, and goes on holiday.
This session lasted about 40 minutes and was most enjoyable,
with excellent feedback being received. It certainly provided
considerable food for thought.
January 2002.