Has anyone seen this movie?

[webiggy]

Owning Mahowny.

My wife and I watched this after I went on tilt and lost $125 at party. It stars Philip Seymore Hoffman and is about Dan Mahowny, the Canadian bank manager who was arrested for embezzeling $10.2MM Canadian to support his gambling addiction. Sobering.

For every person who is inspired by that insipid movie "Rounders", this is a must see film. This true story is a fantastic study of the dark side of gambling.

[William Wilson]

Yeah, it's called Owning Mahony. It's brilliantly depressing, especially when he tells his bookie to take all the home teams in the National League and all the road teams in the American League, each for the maximum bet.

The movie is about the rush of gambling -- and the rush of losing -- and the people it affects. It's the perfect Anti-Rounders.

[Al Schoonmaker]

Although I did not see the film, I am nearly certain that it does not tell the true story. I am not saying that the broard outlines are not correct, but movies almost never tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

They modify a detail here, another there, then make a big change, then change the basic character of the major players.

So look at the movie. Enjoy it. But don't take it too seriously.

Regards,

Al

[webiggy]

Whatever..,

It's interesting, but when I watch a film, I often put myself in the shoes of the protagonist. My feeling on this is that if I had a gambling addition, this would be a good scared straight movie. Also, because of my professional background, I am fascinated by those who embezzel as I have encountered the crime several times in my career and have written articles and given talks on the subject. It's a loser's proposition and this story is much like many others where fiduciary duty was breached with the hopes of funding gambling endeavors in hopes paying back bookies and replennishing the stolen funds. Fascinating paradox.

[Cyrus]

"Movies almost never tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They modify a detail here, another there, then make a big change, then change the basic character of the major players. So ... don't take it too seriously."

Either we have here a supporter of Naturalism (perhaps Dogma 95!) or this is a heartfelt call for a return to cinema-verite!

I'm joking, of course. Seriously, cinema (as all artistic expression) correctly has no much use for accuracy when retelling "historical events". It's one thing to grossly misrpepresent historical facts (as that American movie about submarines & Enigma did) and it's quite another thing, and quite legitimate too, to take as the basis of a lkvie, its starting point, its McGuffin, something that "actually happened" and explore it, change it, distort it even, in order to create an artistic construct that intends to communicate to its audience a message of interest, enlightment, or perhaps of simple entertainment. Composite representations (eg Apocalypse Now) are just one example of such springboarding.

I submit that the creator of a movie has no obligation whatsoever to notions of "accuracy" and any such (except when he purports to tell the story "as it happened"). His only obligation is to his artistic integrity. The audience that mistakes art for a verbatim police report (in triplicate) of wha' happen'd, should blame no one but itself.

--Cyrus

[mikeklein]

Probably the best film ever made about gambling (particularly poker) is 'California Split'. If you haven't seen it it really is a must-watch........see details at www.imdb.com (http://www.imdb.com)

[webiggy]

[ QUOTE ]
"Movies almost never tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They modify a detail here, another there, then make a big change, then change the basic character of the major players. So ... don't take it too seriously."

Either we have here a supporter of Naturalism (perhaps Dogma 95!) or this is a heartfelt call for a return to cinema-verite!

I'm joking, of course. Seriously, cinema (as all artistic expression) correctly has no much use for accuracy when retelling "historical events". It's one thing to grossly misrpepresent historical facts (as that American movie about submarines & Enigma did) and it's quite another thing, and quite legitimate too, to take as the basis of a lkvie, its starting point, its McGuffin, something that "actually happened" and explore it, change it, distort it even, in order to create an artistic construct that intends to communicate to its audience a message of interest, enlightment, or perhaps of simple entertainment. Composite representations (eg Apocalypse Now) are just one example of such springboarding.

I submit that the creator of a movie has no obligation whatsoever to notions of "accuracy" and any such (except when he purports to tell the story "as it happened"). His only obligation is to his artistic integrity. The audience that mistakes art for a verbatim police report (in triplicate) of wha' happen'd, should blame no one but itself.

--Cyrus

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want to sound like a philistine, but can you say that in English..?

[college kid]

Clearly none of you who talk about how cinema does not do justice to life have not seen this movie. A college friend of mine was barrowing some serious money from his parents to support his occasional every day trip to a casino. He loved craps and the field. Owning Mahoney was like watching him play. The movie is uncannily dead on and I even recognized some of the emotions in myself and it has helped me learn when to get up from a game and take a break to cool my head. Anybody who does any form of gambling professionally or for other reasons (...) should watch this movie. And it's a great movie in its own right. Hoffman is absolutely brilliant in this, btw.

[andyfox]

I've seen it and enjoyed it a lot. I'm not a P.S.H. fan, but I thought he was excellent in this movie. And any movie with John Hurt in it is fun. To me, the movie was trying to show that the lead character wasn't going to be happy until he either broke the bank or lost it all.

[Cyrus]

Either we have here a supporter of Naturalism (http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/campbell/enl413/natural.htm) (perhaps Dogma 95 (http://www.dogme95.dk/the_vow/) !) or this is a heartfelt call for a return to cinema-verité (http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/canfilm/film_genres.htm) !

I'm joking, of course. Seriously, cinema (as all artistic expression) correctly has not much use for accuracy (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/march98/history_3-19.html) when retelling "historical events".

It's one thing to grossly misrepresent historical facts (as that American movie (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00003CXHJ/002-3500683-2047241?v=glance) about submarines & Enigma did (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/733383.stm)) and it's quite another thing, and quite legitimate too, to take as the basis of a movie, its starting point, its McGuffin (http://www.ipfw.edu/comm/OldWEB/courses/fall97/vocab251.htm), something that "actually happened" and explore it, change it, distort it even, in order to create an artistic construct that intends to communicate to its audience a message of interest, enlightment, or perhaps of simple entertainment.

Composite representations (http://www.vancouver.wsu.edu/fac/peabody/histfict.html) (e.g. Apocalypse Now) are just one example of such springboarding (http://jaltcall.org/cjo/5_99/springboard.htm) .

I submit that the creator of a movie has no obligation whatsoever to notions of "accuracy" and any such (except when he purports to tell the story "as it happened"). His only obligation is to his artistic integrity. The audience that mistakes art for a verbatim police report (in triplicate) of wha' happen'd (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684841215/002-3500683-2047241?v=glance) , should blame no one but itself.

--Cyrus

[M.B.E.]

Al, you should see "Owning Mahowny". I thought it was great. It wasn't aiming for accuracy in every detail; among other things, the script changed the name of the central character (in the book, it was "Molony").

I also liked the director's earlier movie, "Love and Death on Long Island", which starred John Hurt (who plays the Mephistophelean casino executive in "Owning Mahowny").

[Mahoney]

"Either we have here a supporter of Naturalism (perhaps Dogma 95 !) or this is a heartfelt call for a return to cinema-verité !"

LOL, showoff. Great line.