For this week's blog, I have chosen two scenes in Croupier that mirror one another. I have picked the two "cheating" scenes because they each reflect the development of the plot in this movie. In the first one, Jack (Clive Owen) is still seen as a "good guy" by the audience. He has very strict rules in which he follows as a croupier. He is not a cheat. For the first cheating scene, Jack sees a man slip a chip onto the table after the betting is over. Jack calls the man out for it, and he behaves very rationally. Then, the manager of the casino takes care of the cheater. This scene is supposed to reiterate how very "good" Jack is. He isn't corrupt like his friend from the casino who regularly cheats.By the time we reach the second cheating scene, Jack has become his alter ego, Jake. Jake has cheated on his girlfriend, and basically embraced another type of life--one that Jack had nothing to do with. Jake enjoys watching people lose their money. So when Jani asks Jake to help her "creditors" cheat, the audience already knows what his answer is going to be. This second cheating scene mirrors the first, but changes things up too. When Jake sees the man slipping a chip onto the table after the betting is over, we see Jake hesitate before he follows through with his announcement of the cheating. Then, the man attacks Jake so that the robbery can take place. Jake allows the man to beat him up; whereas earlier in the film, the audience was shown that Jack could fight very well. Jake simply allows the robbery to occur, which shows the 180 degree character development of Jack/Jake. He no longer holds up these "good" morals and rules to follow. Jake has successfully taken control over Jack.
I enjoyed reading your analysis of the "good versus evil" aspects of the movie's theme. I believe that the presiding conflicts are most relevant to Jack's inner struggles than those that appear externally within the film. His decision to devise an alter-ego that theoretically pardons his mal-intent allows the audience to not only see the selfish, cunning, and unfulfilled person that emerged from being reared by his father, but also see the degrees of social and emotional damage that resulted from it.
ReplyDeleteThe position of power that Jake ultimately assumes over the gamblers that play at his tables metaphorically allows him to cope with his place in society. What seemed at the end of the film to be false hopes for becoming a successful writer represent the life that Jack had hoped to live in outright defiance of what he actually had become: his father's son. Although his anonymous book gained wide acclaim and paid him well, he chose to remain within his life's original confinements by maintaining his under-classed lifestyle, abandoning his dreams of writing for a living, and keeping his job at the same casino, in spite of him being qualified for better pay in higher-rated casinos.
I enjoyed you analysis for this week’s blog. Like the previous blogger, I also agree with her assessment. However, I will place an emphasis onto the picture you have chosen to do your blog on. In the picture you have, the audience can see Jake as a croupier. I think it is significant to point out that he places his dominance over everyone in this scene. The way the audience can tell is by noticing that he is the only one standing up (besides the people in the back) and the gamblers are sitting down waiting for their lucky strike. To draw this parallel to the previous comment, the audience can assume that even in the casino there is a hierarchal “class” structure, which is similar to the one society has. Where the dealers, or croupiers, are at the top. Then, the waitresses, and other employees follow. However, the people who are the lowest in this scale would be the gamblers because they have to submit their free will to the croupier and are constantly have the chance to loose (unlike everyone else at the casino who profit of them).
ReplyDelete