MovieChat Forums > Casino (1995) Discussion > A Problem I Have With DeNiro's Performan...

A Problem I Have With DeNiro's Performance in Casino

posted 6 years ago by ecarle (14979)
14 replies | jump to latest

There can be no doubt that Robert DeNiro "made his bones" as a prestige superstar early on (Mean Streets, Godfather II, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Raging Bull) and has remained a bankable household name for decades back.

It is also true that as I type this(2019), Casino is now an "old movie" even if it was made almost 20 years after Taxi Driver! (My, my -- time marches on.)

But here's what has always bugged me about DeNiro's performance in Casino.

He is cast here as a very smart man -- about gambling odds, about "outside factors"(QB health or romantic break-ups; wind predictions,etc) -- that make him the winningest ultra-bookie in Vegas. We are TOLD about his smarts, and DeNiro (reading narration) clues us in on that, too.

And yet...as the story moves along and DeNiro finds himself entangled in a one-way marriage (he loves her, she doesn't love him) with hooker/hustler Sharon Stone...DeNiro starts playing this very smart man...as a very DUMB man.

Now you could say "love is blind" and the ultra-smart Rothstein is brought down by his need to possess Stone..and to trust her(he gives her keys to safe deposit boxes with most of his money.)

No, my problem is that DeNiro -- evidently given latitude to improvise his dialogue by Scorsese -- simply isn't that good at improvising. What he's good at is projecting a certain "dumb guy's inarticulate rage" and suddenly Ace Rothstein turns into Jake LaMotta (in his "you f my wife?" dumb guy mode.)

As DeNiro bullies and rages at Stone, its demoralizing. Ace Rothstein leaves the screen and DeNiro AS DeNiro isn't up to doing anything new with this character, he becomes Jake LaMotta.

I think a weird part of DeNiro's power in movies has been how he acts so well SILENTLY in a lot of movies, projecting toughness, menace, and even nobility without saying a word. But -- when he opens his mouth -- DeNiro is also capable of projecting an inarticulate "dumbth" which, luckily is part of the characters he plays: Travis Bickle(psychopathic, but also maybe mentally impaired); Jake LaMotta(a jealous animal), Al Capone(rich beyond his brains), the guy in Jackie Brown(hilariously slow in his reactions, though thoughtful enough) , Rupert Pupkin, the unfunny wannabee comedian in King of Comedy, and even that gangster he played in GoodFellas, who was 100% menacing but only about 10% smart.

Anyway, DeNiro has that quality and most of the time it works for the role he plays. But in Casino, I think either DeNiro was ultimately miscast(perhaps Pacino, who always projects smarts, should have played the role), or simply should not have been allowed to improvise Ace Rothstein out of smartness and into "Raging Bull" jealous animal territory.

That's all.

[–] MichaelJPollock (731) 6 years ago

ecarle,

"...as the story moves along and DeNiro finds himself entangled in a one-way marriage (he loves her, she doesn't love him) with hooker/hustler Sharon Stone...DeNiro starts playing this very smart man...as a very DUMB man."

I think DeNiro's Ace is good with stats, numbers and managing people (he's a control freak) but -like many criminals and gangsters- doesn't necessarily have the emotional intelligence to maintain any kind of romantic relationship, or the intelligence to see the big picture and understand when yielding or compromising would benefit him down the line (i.e. his refusing Commissioner Pat Webb the favor of re-hiring his dumb son-in-law).

He's also blinded by his arrogance and is convinced he has the ability to change Ginger down the line (also she very honestly warns him from the get go about her being the wrong person) which, in the end, is his downfall.
Pride coming before the fall is a recurrent theme in Scorsese's films.

"...or simply should not have been allowed to improvise Ace Rothstein out of smartness and into "Raging Bull" jealous animal territory."

I don't think he's exactly jealous: he's more angry at the fact that he's unable to control every aspect of her life.

I think DeNiro is perfectly cast as Ace, an obsessive man (his constant rearranging of his clothes and tie...) of quasi-autistic (the blueberry muffin incident...) intelligence, with almost no theory of mind or empathy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

"...as the story moves along and DeNiro finds himself entangled in a one-way marriage (he loves her, she doesn't love him) with hooker/hustler Sharon Stone...DeNiro starts playing this very smart man...as a very DUMB man."

---

I think DeNiro's Ace is good with stats, numbers and managing people (he's a control freak) but -like many criminals and gangsters- doesn't necessarily have the emotional intelligence to maintain any kind of romantic relationship, or the intelligence to see the big picture and understand when yielding or compromising would benefit him down the line (i.e. his refusing Commissioner Pat Webb the favor of re-hiring his dumb son-in-law).

---

I appreciate your responding here, MichaelJPollack, and taking the analysis to a different place about the character.

Certainly, Ace's unwillingness just to give Pat Webb the favor he asks for is pretty much fatal...and I think a number of us recognize when in our own lives, maybe we did exactly the same thing but with less dire consequences.

I also generally like DeNiro as an actor with his own cadence of speaking rhythm (with Webb its when it says "and I'd like you to do you a favor and I understand what you're saying and I know who you are" or something like) that. Its not that he strikes me as an unintelligent man, but it does seem that whether its his improv style or the remnants of playing Jake LaMotta , he went off course here in the one-on-ones with Stone.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

He's also blinded by his arrogance and is convinced he has the ability to change Ginger down the line (also she very honestly warns him from the get go about her being the wrong person)

--

She DOES warn him. She knows her own very-real limitations and her desires(to hustle, sexually and financially and every other way.)

---

which, in the end, is his downfall.
Pride coming before the fall is a recurrent theme in Scorsese's films.

---

Yes, I guess that's pretty true in many of them. And certainly in this one. I'm not familiar with the true story, but how Ace keeps going with his weird TV show and other "in your face" gambits shows that pride came before a fall became before ANOTHER fall. Its a miracle someone only tried to kill him once.

---

"...or simply should not have been allowed to improvise Ace Rothstein out of smartness and into "Raging Bull" jealous animal territory."

I don't think he's exactly jealous: he's more angry at the fact that he's unable to control every aspect of her life.

---

Well, I do see both. The "control freak" manifests in the bit about equal blueberries in each muffin and how tough he is with a dancer about a minor weight gain. Ginger would destroy a man like that -- particularly as he elected to fully trust her(she's his wife, after all) with access to the safe deposit boxes.

---

I think DeNiro is perfectly cast as Ace, an obsessive man (his constant rearranging of his clothes and tie...) of quasi-autistic (the blueberry muffin incident...) intelligence, with almost no theory of mind or empathy.

--

I'll take that analysis. I guess my OP reflected my own frustration with DeNiro -- and the movie itself -- when it took that turn. I rather prefer all the "inside the casino business" and the usual Mob bloodshed to the futile DeNiro/Stone relationship.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

One more thing: the James Woods pimp character is very key to Gingers character and to Ace's downfall. Ace can't see the worthless pimp as a required part of the life of a hooker; its part of a complex self-loathing mechanism even as Ginger defends it with "he's my friend -- you can make me stop caring for him."

I liked the complexity of all this , but again, DeNiro's just a little too much for me in some of these scenes.

Its my favorite movie of 1995, nonetheless. Beating Heat.

[–] MichaelJPollock (731) 6 years ago

ecarle,

All salient points.
I think I understand what you mean by DeNiro channeling some of his Jake LaMotta performance in his interactions with Sharon Stone. I kinda see it now.
The major difference I think is that in Raging Bull, Jake has a huge chip on his shoulder and his constant harassing of his brother and his wife is really a manifestation of him doubting himself. He doesn't listen to them, he's really speaking to himself and ruminating until he winds himself into a state of rage. He is impervious to reasoning.
Ace doesn't trust others (and for good reasons, most of time) and drives others crazy with his constant questioning.
But I understand that you were really comparing the acting styles, and not the characters' psychology themselves...

Casino vs. Heat: it's a tough call.

Film wise: I think Casino will remain Scorsese's finest, most polished and most layered, enduring masterpiece. Heat does have its problems, but I think the last 10-15 years have undeniably proved it to be the more aesthetically significant film.

Performance wise: I'd probably go with Heat's Neil McCauley over Casino's Sam. Maybe because it feels like the closest to Robert DeNiro's actual persona (taciturn professional, very subtle and detail oriented, intense internal life but not very articulate or emotionally communicative, seems alive only when working...).
Although my favourite of his probably remains Mike Vronsky from The Deer Hunter.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I think I understand what you mean by DeNiro channeling some of his Jake LaMotta performance in his interactions with Sharon Stone. I kinda see it now.
The major difference I think is that in Raging Bull, Jake has a huge chip on his shoulder and his constant harassing of his brother and his wife is really a manifestation of him doubting himself. He doesn't listen to them, he's really speaking to himself and ruminating until he winds himself into a state of rage. He is impervious to reasoning.
Ace doesn't trust others (and for good reasons, most of time) and drives others crazy with his constant questioning.
But I understand that you were really comparing the acting styles, and not the characters' psychology themselves...

---

Yes, I think I was comparing the acting styles. I suppose it is a truism that our "star actors" always carry their main persona with them. This tracks from Bogart to Wayne to McQueen(as a French guy in Papillion without any accent at all)...to DeNiro. He made his bones playing inarticulate men with a certain rage ready to blow, and the idea that some of his not-so-smart boxer made it into his supposedly-smart gambling odds genius...well, I noticed it, and I guess that's about it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Casino vs. Heat: it's a tough call.

---

My personal list of "favorite movie per year" is a thing of instinct and, very much of the mainstream. I've picked GoodFellas for 1990 and Casino for 1995 and The Departed for 2006 and The Wolf of Wall Street for 2013(where, I"ve come to believe, Leo DiCaprio is channeling Ray Liotta in GoodFellas for much of the picture; he even LOOKS like him sometimes) and all four are linked by Scorsese in a "master entertainer" mood. And of course, by the Mob(the real one in everything but Wolf; the Wall Street mob IN Wolf). GoodFellas set the pace for the rest of them; they are in some ways, the same movie just done a bit different each time.

--

Film wise: I think Casino will remain Scorsese's finest, most polished and most layered, enduring masterpiece.

---

There you go. Some pick GoodFellas, but I rather like the more lush and epic look and feel of Casino.

---

Heat does have its problems, but I think the last 10-15 years have undeniably proved it to be the more aesthetically significant film.

--

Well, it is an epic, too, and from back when Pacino and DeNiro were really, really big. They're still around, they are working for Scorsese this year(The Irishman) but back then...wow. Plus Mann's stylish approach; the major gunbattle, and that aces supporting cast.

Hard to say why I like Casino better, but I'll guess: its a faster three hours, and Vegas is a draw.

---
Performance wise: I'd probably go with Heat's Neil McCauley over Casino's Sam. Maybe because it feels like the closest to Robert DeNiro's actual persona (taciturn professional, very subtle and detail oriented, intense internal life but not very articulate or emotionally communicative, seems alive only when working...).

--

Yes, I think McCauley in Heat was a better "fit" for DeNiro than the rather dandy-ish and OCD Ace.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Although my favourite of his probably remains Mike Vronsky from The Deer Hunter.

---

Well, that's probably Peak DeNiro for silent strength -- his inarticulate ways in that film never suggest an unintelligent man beneath. And the vehicle movie is "prestige."

He's such a star. Hard to pick just one.

Weirdly, I go zooming to his semi-supporting role in "Jackie Brown" as some sort of comic masterpiece with a dangerous undertow. He's an ex-con who spends most of the movie "just sitting around doing nothing" but he's funny and thoughtful and(say my lady friends) quite sexy with his moustache and light beard. And eventually, he proves quite dangerous and deadly...but then returns to a passive state, and that's funny, too.

But rather like Pacino and Nicholson, its those first roles where DeNiro made his "serious" mark before starting to do fun roles for big bucks. And The Deer Hunter is key in that regard.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 6 years ago

I think you have some valid points there, starting with Deniro projects dumbness in his roles.
And I agree that Pacino could have been a better fit.

But don't you think that Ace was written (poorly) as stupid? I mean, given the idiotic choices the character makes in the story, if the actor playing it infuses it with some stupidity, isn't he making the right choice?

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

I think you have some valid points there, starting with Deniro projects dumbness in his roles.

---

Well, a certain inarticulate quality but..yeah..I think he has played some dumb guys: Travis Bickle, Jake LaMotta, the guy in Jackie Brown, maybe Rupert Pupkin...

---

And I agree that Pacino could have been a better fit.

---

Well, at least in those scenes with Sharon Stone...

---

But don't you think that Ace was written (poorly) as stupid? I mean, given the idiotic choices the character makes in the story, if the actor playing it infuses it with some stupidity, isn't he making the right choice?

--

Well its a weird aspect of the story. In the first hour, Ace is presented as some sort of genius -- with numbers, with casino operations and betting, with research(wind factors during a football game), with gossip and intelligence(which player is going through a divorce). But he does make a few big, dumb moves as the story goes along. Most of them have to do with his wife -- and powerful men do screw up with their romantic lives, for sure -- but there's that big mistake with Webb the Commissioner, too. I'm not sure if Ace is presented AS stupid, he just loses control. Still, DeNiro's improvisations with Stone concerned me, as above.

I might be suggesting that DeNiro himself isn't that smart, but even if he isn't, he's rich and famous and will be remembered. So nobody's asking him to be a computer engineer...

[–] johnmiller (3889) 5 years ago

Nicholas Pileggi wrote this based on real events and characters. So, Ace is actually based on a real person, and his relationship sounds like it was also based on something real.

Movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino_(1995_film)

Book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casino:_Love_and_Honor_in_Las_Vegas

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Nicholas Pileggi wrote this based on real events and characters. So, Ace is actually based on a real person, and his relationship sounds like it was also based on something real.

---

Fair enough. I really should read the book to see how much came from the reality of the man and his relationship.

I would guess, just on general principles, that trying to domesticate a hooker/hustler just isn't a good idea. The psychology that got the woman to where she is, is pretty warped.

Still -- again from what I've read -- a lot of beautiful strippers, if not hookers -- eventually find the right rich man, settle down, and do fine as stable wives to their wealthy husbands.

But -- I guess watching Robert DeNiro give his end of the relationship on screen "the Robert DeNiro treatment" bothered me a bit.

[–] Cognoscente (2644) 2 years ago

How would you feel if they replaced De Niro with Pacino, and Pesci with Harvey Keitel?

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

How would you feel if they replaced De Niro with Pacino, and Pesci with Harvey Keitel?

--

Well, I'd like it with Pacino and PESCI, but that was impossible back then. DeNiro and Pesci, under Scorsese's direction, had been a TEAM(almost a comedy team of back-and-forth wiseguy patter) in Raging Bull and GoodFellas, and they were a package deal.

And I don't see Keitel playing quite the hair-trigger psycho that Pesci played back then.

Interestingly, Al Pacino and Joe Pesci did get to play a scene together in a later Scorsese movie -- The Irishman, but DeNiro was along for that ride, too.

I know that Robert DeNiro has a great fan base who consider him The Greatest American Actor of his time. But I also know that of that time, Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson and "old timer" Dustin Hoffman were up there, too. Its just a matter of picking the one you like best.

And as much as I like the power and charisma(and sometimes, comedy) that DeNiro can bring to a part, it does seem to me that in Casino, he "poisoned his own part" by suddenly turning into the inarticulate raging bull after playing most of the movie cool and smart. Pacino would have been better in the role and would have dropped all the woman-bullying entirely I think. Or played it different(like he did in Heat.)

Casino, starring Al Pacino and Joe Pesci. Just wasn't gonna happen...