Day 392: Rounders vs Rocky

The other day I watched my favorite poker movie again, 'Rounders.' This was originally going to be a review of 'Rounders,' but I realized somewhere along the line that what I had to say didn't quite fit as a straight up review. Whenever I stumble upon a train of thought that leads to a broad scope of issues, I like to write down the thoughts here on my blog so I can read them back later and decide if I still agree. I'll use 'Rounders' as a kind of case study for the topic I want to cover, but if you want a more focused review of the movie, I'd suggest you read this Roger Ebert review. I've always liked Roger Ebert's reviews, and think he's spot on about this movie when he said it was essentially a sports movie. He also had this to say about it:

“Rounders” cheerfully buys into compulsive gambling. The hero gambles away his tuition money, his girlfriend, his law degree and nearly his life, and at the end he’s still a happy gambler. If this movie were about alcoholism, the hero would regain consciousness after the DTs and order another double. Most gambling movies are dire warnings; this one is a recruiting poster.

I am forced to agree with this assessment, but I also think it's telling about the way we perceive poker. Hero Mike McDermott basically loses everything to the game, but continues to pursue it no matter how it hurts him. The movie explores the fine line between passion and addiction, and with a subject like poker, the difference between the two is heavily up to interpretation. In this case, the movie treats it more like a passion that Mike feels compelled to follow than a disease. It can be difficulty to make that conclusion so clearly while you're watching the movie for the first time though. Poker takes everything from Mike over the course of the story, multiple times in fact. Because he's gambling, it's easy to write Mike's passion off as an addiction, and I think the movie encourages the viewer to do so. At first, that is. For the first two thirds of the movie, there's a big question mark hanging over Mike's head. Is he just an addict? I think it adds an undercurrent of tension to this movie that's different compared to say, 'Rocky,' which Ebert also compares the movie to directly.

I think that’s because the movie would rather recycle the “Rocky” genre than end on a sour note. It stars Matt Damon as a New York law student who is a truly gifted poker player, and since the movie ends with a big game you somehow kinda know he’s not going to lose it. Since the genre insists on a victory at the end, the movie has to be in favor of poker; you don’t see Rocky deciding to retire because of brain damage.

I like how he puts this, that the movie has to be in favor of poker, so you know what's going to happen. Ironically, 'Rocky' doesn't have the same issue, even if this movie is 'recycling the Rocky genre.' Rocky loses the fight, an unexpected turn of events, but he doesn't become a loser just because the decision was in Creed's favor. Due to our shared prejudice against a game of chance like poker, Mike is never extended the same grace. He gives everything to the game in much the same way as Rocky, putting his finances, his social life, and his body on the line. Yet, if he loses, he'll always just be a victim of the game he plays. Rocky meanwhile loses the fight (and takes some brain damage along the way), but the moral of the story is that victory is immaterial. He gains something better, something intangible just by following his dreams: strength of character. Mike also achieves this strength of character by being true to himself, quitting his law degree, and following his dreams of pro poker, but for some reason, he does have to win for the movie to make sense. Why is that? I think the stakes are different because his whole character hinges on victory in a way that Rocky's character does not. If he loses all his money in the final game, he can't immediately go to Vegas and be a big poker star. Mike's potential loss is presented as more final than Rocky's. Weirdly though, the movie also works really hard to prove this wrong. In the worst case scenario at the beginning, Mike lost everything, but then climbed all the way back to the top by playing legitimate poker and winning. I can't help but wonder, 'Couldn't he just do it all over again?' It's not like the game can kill him, so long as he doesn't rack up an insane amount of debt, scam people, then cheat in every hand like Worm did. On the other hand, Rocky could die in the ring, and that's when everyone is playing by the rules! This difference seems to come down to a societal perception of the game rather than an objective assessment of the risk at hand. Ironic, given the game of poker is all about calculating risk.

Because everyone has a certain perception about poker, 'Rounders' ends up in favor of poker by the end because otherwise it would be a tragedy. Mike could conceivably lose his final game and still be a hero if everyone around him decided that his skill was so undeniable, his passion so great, that they should support his aspirations as a pro (and probably all make a ton of money in the process). That's what happened to Rocky, isn't it? Of course that would be terribly unrealistic because nobody thinks about poker that way. Everyone would ignore the fact that Mike just made thirty grand in two nights if he lost, yet will also happily look past Rocky getting his ass kicked for most of the fight when he loses. Then we go on to compare Mike to an alcoholic instead of Rocky, even though Rocky's entire life revolves around getting beat up. In the end, I think 'Rocky' is almost worse than 'Rounders' when it comes to being a recruitment tool. Sacrifice your body and you will gain the respect of all those around you even if you lose. Sacrifice your life savings though, and everyone will either pity or hate you unless you win. I think it's interesting how outward perception shapes these stories as they're being written almost as much the writers themselves do.

Thank you for reading,

Benjamin Hawley