Quote:
Originally Posted by citamgine
Are you saying that you disagree with doordonot's interpretation of the meaning of the film? Or , given that it is an accurate interpretation, you do not like it?
Sure, I think D0DN's reading of the movie is a plausible account of what it is about. It is a pretty classic story archetype. Young man rebels against social strictures or expectations which force him to be something he doesn't want to be, which initially leads to suffering and trials, but eventually triumphs by finding his true inner strength and ends happy because he is now able to live a life of meaning and purpose.
My criticism is not of the narrative logic of this kind of story, but of the framing used to tell the story. If you take the actual events and people outside of the narrative rules of story-telling, where the hero needs to succeed in some way, be a sympathetic or attractive character, foreshadowing, etc., then the story of Mike is actually of a degen poker player who keeps playing in games way over his bankroll, hangs out with criminals and allows them to suck him into their lifestyle, screws over his friends, foolishly quits law school, and has completely unrealistic dreams of a poker career that will almost surely end in unhappiness.
I like
Rounders, it is probably my favorite poker movie (admittedly a low bar). But, just like the actual poker played is unrealistic, the depiction of Mike having a happy ending is based more on Matt Damon being good-looking and charismatic and the aura of coolness associated with being a professional poker player than the reality of being a professional poker player. Actually being a professional poker player is kind of a not-so-great career, generally worse than being a lawyer with a Columbia law degree, especially for people who lack self-discipline like Mike. At minimum, he should finish law school and
then go off to Vegas, at least then he has something to fall back on. His lack of self-discipline in just giving it up is not praiseworthy in real life.