La musique du hasard

Paul Auster writes marvelous contemporary fiction, and this is a wonderful film adaptation of perhaps his finest work.

THE MUSIC OF CHANCE revolves around two very different protagonists. Jim Nash (Mandy Patinkin) is an ex-fireman, driving across America, and searching for meaning to his life. Jack Pozzi (James Spader) is a professional poker player, out of money, out of luck, and given a ride to New York by Nash. It emerges Jack has a game scheduled with two eccentric millionaires (Joel Grey and Charles Durning), so Jim puts up the capital with the last of his own money. But the poker game doesn't go quite according to plan...

Some people have described this film as "pretentious" - pretending to what exactly? Jack Pozzi and Jim Nash are two unusually clearly defined characters - one shallow, over-confident, tetchy; the other calm, reasonable, tolerant. Their eventual predicament is also disarmingly simple. That air of mystery to the film does not spring from narrative or character but from the viewer's own philosophies towards life. Does one choose one's own path or is it chosen for you? Chance or fate? Freedom or incarceration? Meaning or, in Nash's words, "just bullshit". So in fact even if you think the events onscreen have no deeper meaning, well then that *is* the meaning. For you anyway.

The acting is universally excellent, with Grey, Durning, M Emmet Walsh, and Chris Penn illuminating supporting roles. But Patinkin and Spader dominate the film, with two absolutely captivating performances. Philip Haas's direction is suitably under-stated, and there is also excellent use of music, from jazz to classical.

THE MUSIC OF CHANCE is an absorbing and intelligent piece of film-making. If only there were more films like it.

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.

I rented this movie about five years ago not knowing what to expect. I saw a few raves on the back of the box, and even though the cast looked a bit uneven, I took a chance. I was totally mesmerized. I enjoyed it so much I watched the whole thing all over again the next evening. It's a totally captivating story with wonderful cinematography, a beautiful soundtrack, and it's all held together by the fact that you have no idea what is going to happen next.

The story -- based on the novel by Paul Auster -- is certainly an original one. Mandy Patinkin plays a fireman named Nash who is taking an extended roadtrip/vacation and picks up the James Spader character (Pozzi) on the side of the road, bruised and bloody. Apparently Pozzi, who is normally a card player with a golden touch, lost his shirt to a pair of eccentric millionaires. Nash agrees to front Pozzi the money to get back in a game with the old guys in an attempt to win back his money. Well, one thing leads to another and Nash and Pozzi lose their shirts in the rematch. The payoff scheme conceived by the millionaires eventually drives Nash and Pozzi to the brink of insanity. Without giving away too much more of the plot, let's just say it involves the building of a wall and we'll leave it at that.

All the performances are memorable. It's a small cast, but each actor (Patinkin, Spader, Charles Durning, Joel Grey, M. Emmet Walsh, Christopher Penn and Samantha Mathis) does wonderfully. Patinkin is marvelous as a quiet, sensible man who slowly goes mad. Spader is totally over the top and manages to deliver what's probably his finest performance to date. Durning is terrific, as is the always-dependable character actor Walsh.

A few months after seeing the movie for the first time, I read the book and was pleasantly surprised at how faithful the book was in recreating the story. If you are a fan of this book or any other of Auster's works, this is definitely worth checking out.

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.

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!