The Only Game in Town

The superficial values and emotional anguish that often permeate the world of gambling is captured by George Stevens in his final film.

Maurice Jarre's "bluesy" score (punctuated by a sorrowful trumpet) enhances the "downer" quality of this mundane drama.

It's understandable why Stevens saw something in this Frank D. Gilroy script, based upon his play. During this general period there were some pretty stark two-character plays being produced.

There was, for example, "Two for the Seasaw," "Silent Night, Lonely Night," "Husbands," and "Scenes from a Marriage." In this last film Ingmar Bergman laid bare a vacillating marriage-on-the brink, creating heart-breaking experience.

In "The Only Game in Town," two very good-looking actors try their hand at a challenging duo-character piece. It is said that "one-take" Frank Sinatra declined the role because he felt it might clash with Stevens' perfectionistic "multiple-take" approach. He was probably right.

The part then went to Warren Beatty, who tries very hard in what almost sounds like a Sinatra imitation (close one's eyes and listen to his timing and inflection). Elizabeth Taylor was apparently a favorite of the director, having utilized her talents successfully twice before. She invests her role with much energy and feeling.

However, the two, for all their earnest effort, create only a medium degree of "chemistry." Part of their lack of connection is in the script, which saddles Beatty's "ring-a-ding" character with an unrelenting degree of flippancy, right up to the last line. Taylor's role doesn't break any fresh dramatic ground, either.

Most people agree, though, that it's pretty hard to stop watching this, once one gets past the [characteristically slow Stevens] "late bedroom" -"morning after" scenes. While the presentation didn't exactly turn out to be the consummate emotional experience Stevens was obviously striving for, "The Only Game in Town" is still a most respectable piece of work.

With this opus, a great film director bid his final farewell to the medium.

...can now be held for the latter part of Elizabeth Taylors career. After The Taming of the Shrew(1967) it all seemed to go down hill. Check out any post Shrew movies and you will see what I mean. Here, in The Only Game, in Town Beatty and Taylor are jaded and cynical workers and lovers trying to escape Vegas, but both have their problems. Beatty is a compulsive gambler and Taylor is a cold fish unable to communicate love for fear of abandonment. It's a subtle love story and comedy that has some pretty good moments even though it runs a little slow. Don't expect anything amazing but its worth a look.

Frank Gilroy's play brought to the screen by the great George Stevens; sadly, his last film. The maudlin characterizations by Liz and Warren just don't cut it, simply because they seem far too old and worldly to be victimized by the circumstances set forth for them. Old-fashioned in the worse way. Maurice Jarre provides one of his best scores, though.

This rarity, the last film to be directed by the great George Stevens (Shane, Giant) was shown on Turner Classic Movies (TCM).

Typically of the sort of talky romantic mush that Taylor did at this point in her career, it's set in Las Vegas. She's described as being a chorus girl (a 38 year-old one, if my maths is correct) and Beatty, a handsome club piano player, who happens to have a history of gambling woes.

He wants enough money to leave this town of temptation and bad memories, she wants him. And, when 5 year standing flame, the older, and married Charles Braswell, comes back to her, saying he's now divorced and wants to whisk her off to England, cue battle of words, emotions - and the usual. So, who will win her heart? Obviously, neither are suitable but this Hollywood!

It's largely set-bound and often argumentative; Beatty is charismatically watchable but Taylor is just doing the same act and routine, whilst Braswell, intentionally cast as the solid, boring one, is just that. Being (I guess, I couldn't find an age rating) a PG certificate, there's no sex or swearing, both of which, frankly would have added a bit of 'life' into the mix. A jazz score by Maurice Jarre does add atmosphere, though, with melancholic saxophone solos wailing into the night, which helps.

Whilst never quite slipping into tedium, the near two hour running time hardly helps but at least it looks good, with good colour and production values. There are a few casino scenes for those that like such. It's based on a play by Frank D Gilroy, who also adapted it and like so many similar dramas from theatrical sources, you can't help feeling that it'd work better on stage.

So, is it worth watching? If it comes on TV or if you know someone with a copy, yes; you won't see anything new but Lizzy Taylor still is Elizabeth Taylor and Beatty keeps it ticking over nicely. But otherwise, unless you hold a special interest in any of the actors, or the play, then, it's hardly worth pursuing.

How could anything directed by George Stevens, starring Elizabeth Taylor and Warren Beatty, with a score by Maurice Jarre, be such a bore? Taylor plays a Vegas singer who is just existing while she waits for her married lover to get a divorce. Beatty is a compulsive gambler who works as a piano player in a Vegas bar/restaurant. They stumble into an affair when Liz goes to get a pizza after work one night at the place were Beatty works.

Most of this film is just the two of them talking about how much they do not love the other. When the married lover shows up at Liz' apartment he treats her like a pet (Here, Liz!, Hurry Liz!, Good Liz!). There is no subtlety in his performance, but then he is not alone. You can see the little flashes of greatness in Beatty's acting, he just isn't given much to work with. I never understand what compels him to gamble and why he feels towards money and possessions as he does.

The only bit of fun is seeing if you can identify all of the classic films Liz Taylor is watching whenever she is sitting around in her apartment. And then there is the irony of Beatty playing a compulsive gambler in Vegas about twenty years before he plays the founder of modern Las Vegas, Bugsy Segal. Even for completists of the players involved, I'd say avoid this one.