Musik des Zufalls

This is a film that defies categorization. It starts off seemingly as a film about high stakes poker players and evolves into something decidedly and deliciously different. James Spader plays something other than his usual blonde pretty boy types and Mandy Patinkin shines. If you are fed up with movies with plots you can easily second guess then 'The Music Of Chance' is for you.

"The Music of Chance" is about--well--the music of chance. Life is terribly, sometimes beautifully, unpredictable, yet man has ever sought to control the odds, or weight them in his favor. The penchant for doing this extends from the gambler to the stockbroker. We find varying elements of this desire in most of the world's religions.

Pozzi, coming off a losing streak, believes he can regain his losses by playing two novices he beat previously, Flower and Stone, in a high-stakes poker game. They have, however, boned up on their game since last playing him, and he and Jim Nashe, who has staked him, are left with a Sisyphean task to work off their debt.

Nashe, played expertly by Mandy Patamkin, may be the only "free man" of the major characters in this film. He can accept loss with grace and strength, which likely reflects his attitude toward life. Pozzi, Flower, Stone, and Murks are all prisoners of their particular "angle." "The City of the World," a board model in the Flower-Stone residence, embodies a world where nothing is left to chance, and the enslaved revel in their servitude.

This is a rare film in that it raises philosophical questions, in much the same way that "The Rapture" raised theological ones. As such, it was unlikely to gain a large audience, in spite of some very good performances.

If you like films where Eddie Murphy plays a host of parts by donning rubber faces, or a cop who is one day from retirement, or a protagonist who is shot at endlessly but never dies, or films celebrated for destroying the greatest number of cars in chase scenes, or Scooby Doo endings where everything is explained for you, then you probably aren't going to like this.

That is not to say that there aren't good films like that, just that different films have different audiences. I told someone once about The Music of Chance and how I kept going over it in my mind the next day. Twenty five years have passed and I'm still thinking about it. He hinted he was very sorry I'd had to see a film like that, and that's not what films are for. They're just supposed to fill 98 minutes of your life with something until you get onto the next thing. He'd misunderstood that I love that this film had stayed with me, had occupied my time on countless occasions other than one of the many viewings. It's so rare to find something that can compel for many years (the other example which comes to mind is Dogtooth - I think people who like Dogtooth would like The Music of Chance and vice versa).

I'm not going to talk about the plot, more about how this film made me feel. Films, for me, are too often little compartments where everything is neatly tied up and people get what they deserve. Perhaps as an escape from real life, which is nothing like that at all. What The Music of Chance does is make you believe it's allegorical but without revealing the whole. You get feelings about things, rather than solid answers. There are clues even in the names of the characters, as if there's some twisted nominative determinism at play.

There are also moments of deep unease. Not because of a psychopath with a chainsaw, but because you got a glimpse at the bigger picture (but only a glimpse). Things which seem harmless (like a faithful representation of a model village) are imbued with metaphysical dread. As for the ending, I can understand why it would disappoint some but, for me, the slew of questions the film left me with were multiplied by the final scene. It was, in itself, a huge payoff.

I don't generally believe in giving 10/10 reviews because it implies perfection (or close to it). But, in this case, 9/10 doesn't feel right (and I've had 25 years to mull that over). This is a wonderful, wonderful film with great acting but, sadly, more people are going to dislike it than like it, because it's not the kind of thing we're usually presented with. More's the pity!

A favorite from the actual 90's this film and the book by the amazing Paul Auster it's based on is still a mind bending thriller. You can see how it's influenced filmmakers like Charlie Kaufman and others, and deserves a wider audience. Give it a chance, lol, it will stay with you in that rare way wildly imaginative films do.

Now here's a rare bird indeed--a '90s movie with an imaginative, original plotline and interesting characters. There wasn't a moment in this film where I could tell where it was going. It wasn't just random and arbitrary like, say, "U-Turn" or "Lost Highway". With a measured pace, it's constructed like a weird dream--if you liked the films of Philip Kaufman or Lindsay Anderson, or the plays of David Mamet, I think you'll have a good time with this one.