virek213 Apart from drugs and booze, probably the most costly addiction there is out there is Gambling. And yet it is an addiction that a hell of a lot of people can't seem to break, any more successfully than some can at the other two vices. One wouldn't think that such a grim subject matter could make for a good, let alone compelling film. But back in the experimental, anything-goes world of 1970s Hollywood, screenwriter James Toback, who by his own admission had been a compulsive gambler prior to his realizing how much better off he was at writing, made it compelling in the form of THE GAMBLER.In this 1974 film, directed by the Czech-born Karel Reisz, known for such films as 1966's MORGAN, James Caan portrays Axel Freed, a highly respected professor of literature at City College of New York who seems to have it all. He has a great girlfriend (Lauren Hutton, in one of her earliest roles), and a line of work in which he regales his students in George Washington, and even the Russian writer Fyofor Dostoyevsky's classic 1866 short novel "The Gambler". Unfortunately, he himself is a gambler, in the most literal sense possible. And not just any typical here-and-there type, but one addicted to the rush of betting on casino games in Las Vegas (or Lost Wages, according to many a wag), and on sporting events. He gets so caught up in the rush, explaining that there is no "juice" in not risking, that pretty soon he realizes he is up to his eyeballs in gambling debts of up to $44,000-and to the kind of people who don't take their clients not paying up particularly well, including, among others, Paul Sorvino and Burt Young. It comes down to asking one of his students basically to throw a basketball game to get him out of his fiduciary jam; but by then, his self-destructiveness is pretty much a foregone conclusion.Such an unsavory character just wouldn't fly these days in Hollywood, even though this film was remade exactly 40 years later with Mark Wahlberg in Caan's role (and was not all that memorable). But Caan, who up to this point had already gained a sizeable reputation as an actor via his role as Brian Piccolo in the 1971 TV film BRIAN'S SONG, and then as Sonny Corleone in THE GODFATHER, does such a good turn at playing the addicted teacher that we definitely feel for him in a lot of ways, even though we can despise what he does to others through that habit, not only to Hutton, but also to his mother (Jacqueline Brooks) and father (Morris Carnovsky).By today's standards, even at 111 minutes, and with a fair amount of four-letter words in Toback's script, this film isn't exactly a fast film. But not films have to be fast to be compelling; and it is because of Caan's performance, Reisz's direction, and the steady editing of Roger Spottiswoode, who had worked with Sam Peckinpah on, among other things, STRAW DOGS, that THE GAMBLER works well enough to make even the slow spots more than bearable. It also doesn't hurt to have James Woods here, in one of his earliest roles, along with M. Emmett Walsh, Stuart Margolin, and Vic Tayback, either.The other notable thing about THE GAMBLER is that the psychological and self-destructive dynamics of Caan's character are manifested via the underrated composer Jerry Fielding's chilling interpolation of Gustav Mahler's Titan Symphony (no. 1) into his score (it is also heard on the soundtrack as performed by the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam under Bernard Haitink). The use of this ultra-popular Mahler symphony enhances the almost nightmarish quality of Caan's gambling addiction.In summation, while it is not exactly the most rapidly-paced film ever made, and is sometimes quite disturbing, THE GAMBLER is also exceptionally compelling, and a solid look at the experimentalism of 1970s filmmaking, in a way that far too many Hollywood films of the 21st century are not.

LeonLouisRicci A Raw Character Study about a Degenerate. A Fully Fledged Gambling Addict that has Lost virtually all Connection with the Flesh and Blood Reality that is His Privileged Life as the Son of a Doctor and Grandson of a Multi-Millionaire Businessman.This New York City English Professor also has a Loving Girl Friend, He is in Contact with these Family and Friends, it seems, only as Polite Obligation or when He Needs Help Scraping Money for His Losses.The Way He Gambles makes No Sense (not surprising) and is Typical of the Psychological Breakdown that Occurs when the Game Has Won Out Over the Player and Controls His Behavior by way of His Addiction. The Gambling Decisions He makes and the Bets He Places are Destined for Inevitable Losses.James Caan as "The Gambler" uses Literary Quotes and some Rationalizations of His Own to Justify Why He "Does what He does", but none of it makes any Sense beyond the Selfish and Hedonistic.The Film has that 1970's Grit and the Focus of the Camera and Dialog is on Caan 90% of the time and the Actor has the Chops to Dominate the Frame and the Story. The Story itself has Few New Insights about Gambling, Addiction, or the Self-Destruction that Ensues. The Ending is Controversial and Symbolic.Overall, it's a Well Made Movie that is Overrated, but James Caan's Performance makes it Worth a Watch. As for the rest of the Film, it's only Slightly Above Average.

Mpup54 Just about everyone who has posted a reply about the shocking ending was simply left too much in the dark to realize that it tied together a different root demise of Axel Freed than gambling.Just as a compulsive behavior leads to compulsive gambling, the root evil of Axel Freed was that he had a masochist behavior. When you look a little closer at all the scenes where he acts out this kind of behavior, it makes more sense. The problem lies in that the casual observer is only looking at the problem gambling aspect. There is more to this guy than just that.The ways he handles his relationships with his mother, girlfriend, grandfather and feelings at the end towards the basketball player ALL indicate there is masochist behavior involved. These are more than just selfish acts. There is some actual self hatred going on as well. Without giving away the final scene, this scene further accentuates the point by sending himself into that situation. The final scene was a conscious act, not something resulting from random chance or risk.So despite the movie having some gambling theme to it, this really wasn't necessarily about gambling addiction. It was about the nature of Axel Freed. If the movie had no gambling scenes in it at all this point would be more readily identifiable.The only real oddity in the final scene is the placement of the final scene. If this scene was placed somewhere in the middle of the movie, the underlying theme of his masochist pattern of behavior would have been more easily identified with. Because the movie started with a gambling scene, we all assumed it was just about gambling. Wrong!Its a tricky concept to catch the first time. Watch this movie again with this concept in mind and the movie will make more sense.

davisk957 Those viewers who wished a happy ending (and that's what they're really saying when they find the movie's ending scene weak/disquieting/unfulfilling/whatever) don't really understand the nature of degenerate gambling.And that's what this man is. Let's (as all gamblers do) put some %'s to it: arbitrarily I'll say 95% of habitual bettors play for the kick, the high, the thrill of the unknown outcome -- sports betting, casino betting, the turn of a card, they're all the same. Their motto of life might be, "If it moves, bet on it; if it doesn't, eat it." It isn't the win that's satisfying to them, or the money won -- because, you see, there's always the next game to get down on. Both a win or a loss is quickly forgotten, adjusted to, and forgotten. The next play is the only important one. Yet, to some extent or another, they keep it manageable, within the scope of their lives.Then there are the other 5% -- the really degenerate gamblers. Now to these guys (never heard of a female degenerate gambler, did you?) it's NOT the action they crave. It's the LOSS. Make sense? Of course not, because you're probably reading this as a rational human being, and self-destruction is hard to get inside of.But that's what this story is all about -- one of the 5%'ers.To an experienced sports bettor, the scenes like the indelibly memorable tub scene are all too powerfully true. How a win turns to a loss in the last second happens all too often. And how COULD those 3 college hoops games all go south, when they all had big leads at the half?? But examine two key turning points in the story: for dramatic impact, the writer imbues the protagonist with somewhat unlikely powers of recovery -- the Vegas comeback is the stuff of dreams, and the fix on the NYU game, keeping it under 7 points when all was lost with a minute to go -- those contrivances were needed to show the magnitude of this guy's disease. Had he been just a steady loser, he couldn't rise to the heights necessary to fall so far. Not once, but twice, he made a full recovery from the debts he owed. Yet he couldn't learn from it -- hell, he couldn't even take one night to sleep in peace.No, his desire for self-destruction had to be played out as it was, in a lurid hell far worse than casinos or calling the book again. He needed the self-degradation that only a Harlem pimp-fight could give him.I found the ending fitting, un-sentimentalized, and perfect for this unblinking portrait of a man who couldn't be satisfied until he'd thoroughly debased himself.Substitute a down-and-out drunk for the gambling addiction, and the story's been told many times. This should be assigned viewing in every GA meeting.