"Croupier" question *spoiler*

[Jamie Debra Weisman]

I just got back from seeing Croupier & enjoyed it by and large, but I was
left with one huge question about the plot. As far as I can tell, the
robbery of the casino was foiled by the police. And yet atthe end, when
Jack's father calls, he is clearly celebrating a successful scam. What
could he have scammed? Presumably he was working with the woman to get
the big payday from robbing the casino? Either this is a big plot
inconsistency, or maybe I missed something.

There was something messed up about the print of the film I saw - when the
robber comes in and cheats, then suddenly Jack was being kicked on the
ground & I had a feeling that a minute or two might have been lost, maybe
something was said or done that would clear this up?

Can anybody help me with this?

Thanks,

Victor

[Rod Ramsey]

Since you have an Emory email address, I assume you saw it at the Tara, as
did I. It looked as if the film had broken at that spot, and I'm not sure
of the details, but it's clear the robbery failed. Jack's father is
actually taking a sort of "Ah, well. We tried." attitude about it all.
He gambled and lost, and being a gambler, it was the game that counted
anyway. Also keep in mind Jack's theory about gamblers trying to destroy
everyone around them...their family, everyone. So on htat level, Jack's dad
was trying to drag Jack down to his level, and he think's he succeeded. Of
course Jack had become "I, Croupier" and had actually moved to manipulating
the whole game by having his secret success with the book. He made dad
lose.

Smartest movie I've seen in some time, actually...

Rod

Jamie Debra Weisman <jwe...@emory.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.4.05.100080...@jet.cc.emory.edu...

[SDM]

Croupier spoilers beneath

Since there's a time lapse between the botched heist and the end of the
film when he gets the call about her engagement from Jani, I assumed his dad
found a new sucker and won this time. I don't think getting his son to have
turned corrupt meant a great deal to somebody chasing the big scores all his
life.

[Mark Netter]

A great movie, to be sure. About 1/3 way in I realized how tense I was
getting, the nature of the suspense based around what decisions he'll make
-- if he'll stick to the rules and do the right thing. And chip by chip he
moves to the other side.

As for the ending...

SPOILERS

The best explanation I heard was that the dad owed money, hence his lie
about where he was at the start, he sets up the people he owes by setting up
his son as croupier, orchestrating the femme fatale (dad's girlfriend) to
set up his debtors to make the heist -- his payback. But the additional
twist is that they obviously set up the failure of the heist as well --
leaving the all-too-obvious message on the machine so the detective
girlfriend would blow the secret. So in that interpretation, dad gets off
the hook, but the girlfriend pays the price...which so the ending has an
upbeat feel due to the croupier's literary fulfillment, but the cost of the
angelic girlfriend gives a chilling twist.

MDN

----------
In article <Pine.GSO.4.05.100080...@jet.cc.emory.edu>,

[Arnie]

I feel the oriental who makes gambols throughout the film has something to do
with the robbery. When the better who makes the late play starts to run, the
oriental signals his henchman to grab him, which he does and ushers him off.
The oriental seems to be ready for the failed robbery. He has to be fit in
somehow. Could he be working with Jack's father, funding the "bribe" of Jack
and arranging the failed robbery as a way to have a rival gang of robbers
arrested?

As for the murder of Marion:
Isn't Marion's murder the climax and fulfillment of Jack's transformation into
Jake?

Jack who only half loved Marion.
Jack who saw Marion with the police officer.
Jack who said, "you'll never leave me."
Jack who knew Marion intercepted a phone call meant for him.
Marion who warned the police.
... and what happened to the money between the fridge and range?

Most reviewer see the death as extraneous to the plot. I disagree. Can I be so
wrong?

To continue to stick out my neck, if funds could have been found for an
orchestrated, the movie would have been shown in more movie houses. People
under 30 need their music. Doo dah, doo dah. Think Bond. James Bond, Shirley
Bassie.

[Strieder]

Arnie wrote in message <398FCCCD...@prodigy.net>...

>
>As for the murder of Marion:
>Isn't Marion's murder the climax and fulfillment of Jack's transformation
into
>Jake?
>
> Jack who only half loved Marion.
> Jack who saw Marion with the police officer.
> Jack who said, "you'll never leave me."
> Jack who knew Marion intercepted a phone call meant for him.
> Marion who warned the police.
> ... and what happened to the money between the fridge and range?
>
>Most reviewer see the death as extraneous to the plot. I disagree. Can I
be so
>wrong?

No, you're not wrong. Which is why I'm writing this post --

Are there really reviewers running around somewhere who thought her death
was extraneous? That's a pretty abysmal misreading of the film, if so. Can
anyone direct me to such a review?

>
>To continue to stick out my neck, if funds could have been found for an
>orchestrated, the movie would have been shown in more movie houses.

I don't agree. It's too Martin Amis for the multiplex. (I loved it, btw)

jps

[Arnie]

> >Most reviewer see the death as extraneous to the plot. I disagree. Can I
> >be so wrong?
>

> Are there really reviewers running around somewhere who thought her death
> was extraneous? That's a pretty abysmal misreading of the film, if so. Can
> anyone direct me to such a review?

Thank you for your remarks.

Go to imdb.com. Search for "Cropier". Read all the newsgroup reviews and most
of the external reviews. None of them hinted as to the significance of Marion's
death. Because it came at the end of the movie, I wouldn't expect any of the
external reviewers (newspapers and online reviewers) to really go into any
detail. But several of them made remarks about her death as if it were an
unneeded dead end.