The 1998 film Rounders is often cited as a kind of early catalyst for the poker “boom” of the last decade.  Many of those who watched Chris Moneymaker win the 2003 WSOP Main Event -- and indeed, Moneymaker himself -- have referred to the movie as having also provided an early inspiration for their interest in poker, especially Texas hold’em.

Rounders was no blockbuster upon its release, though it was a modest hit in the theatres, earning nearly $23 million at the box office (not quite twice its budget).  However, it would go on to achieve a kind of cult status, especially in the poker world where many players rate it as their favorite poker film.  

In terms of presenting both the mechanics of poker hands and the tense atmosphere surrounding game play, Rounders does an excellent job of portraying poker in a realistic way.  That alone distinguishes it from many other “poker movies” or films featuring poker scenes in which hands are often either too fantastic to be probable or plagued with obvious errors poker players cannot help but notice.

Rounders also does a decent job presenting a number of believable, engaging characters, particularly Mike (Matt Damon) and his trouble-seeking friend Worm (Ed Norton).  Other characters such as Joey Knish (John Turturro), Mike’s law professor (Martin Landau), and Teddy KGB (John Malkovich) also mostly ring true, Malkovich’s idiosyncratic Russian accent not withstanding.

As is the case in a lot of “poker movies” -- and in poker, generally speaking -- the cast of Rounders primarily consists of men.  However, women do play a significant role in the film, and it is their portrayal that my “He Said/She Said” partner Jen and I are addressing this month.

Caught in a struggle between his desire to play poker professionally and a less risky, “normal” life path suggested by law school and a future as an attorney, Mike’s pretty, blonde-haired girlfriend Jo (Gretchen Mol) unambiguously endorses the latter, safer path for Mike.  A law student herself, Jo sticks with Mike through the loss of his $30,000 bankroll with which the film opens and encourages him to focus on completing his degree, notably making him promise not to play poker thereafter.  

Indeed, Mike and Jo’s relationship is introduced to us in such a way as to make Jo and poker seem mutually exclusive of one another.  That is to say, if Mike wishes to remain with Jo, he has to give up poker.  And if he wishes to play poker, he’ll have to give up Jo.

The only other significant female character in the film is the alluring, raven-haired Petra (Famke Janssen), also a poker player who manages the Chesterfield Club where Mike had been a regular before making his promise to Jo.  Mike reunites with Petra when introducing Worm to the club following his release from prison.  

While not as prominent a character as Jo, Petra could be said to represent poker’s “temptation” for Mike, further prodding him (like Worm does) to get back in the game.  She also provides a different kind of temptation for Mike shortly after Jo leaves him -- a physical one -- which Mike resists.

The two female characters interestingly evoke a pair of women from another great poker film, The Cincinnati Kid.  There a young protagonist, Eric (Steve McQueen), finds himself amid a comparable struggle in which it is difficult for him to maintain both a relationship with his girl, Christian (Tuesday Weld), and his commitment to becoming the best poker player around.  And when Christian leaves Eric midway through the film, Melba (Ann-Margaret), his friend’s wife, is quick to step in, similarly representing a kind of giving in to selfish pleasures for Eric.

The Cincinnati Kid likewise exploits a familiar symbolism via the innocent Christian’s blonde hair and the worldly temptress Melba’s auburn locks.  It’s a staple of cinematic love triangles, especially those of the noir tradition which Rounders obviously follows, with a “dark lady” trying to seduce a male hero away from his fair-haired destiny.

The twist introduced by Rounders comes in the way Petra is identified with poker itself, while Jo is anti-poker.  A common reaction among male poker players to the film is to like Petra who understands poker to be an acceptable activity and dislike Jo who seems unwilling to entertain Mike’s arguments about poker being a “skill game” and see it as anything but a destructive pursuit.

Stepping back a bit, it’s easy to see how both female characters are somewhat less “rounded” than the men who make up the rest of the supporting cast (no pun intended).  They are types, functioning primarily to symbolize the poker-or-not-poker decision Mike must make during the course of what ultimately becomes a kind of coming-of-age story.

That said, I don’t fault Rounders too greatly for giving more attention to fleshing out its male characters than it does the women.  After all, the culture it portrays of underground New York poker clubs circa 1990s was most assuredly a masculine one in which women really were more often than not part of the supporting cast, if that.

I do think the filmmakers are conscious of what they are doing with the female characters in the film.  For example, midway through the film -- after Jo has left Mike -- Worm is commiserating with his friend when he delivers one of the film’s more memorable lines.  In fact, it’s a line which he himself presents as if he were quoting someone else.

“Just like the saying says,” says Worm.  “‘In the poker game of life, women are the rake.’”

It’s a line a lot of male poker players have quoted from Rounders, a clever translation of a male-centric view of the world into poker terms.  Less often quoted is Mike’s challenging response to Worm’s proclamation.

“What the fuck are you talking about?” asks Mike.  “What saying?”  

“I don’t know,” says a somewhat chastened-sounding Worm.  “There oughta be one.”

The exchange shows me the filmmakers didn’t necessarily want to endorse the sexist idea that women are merely the “rake” or a burden men must shoulder in order to accomplish their real goals or dreams.  I also read the ending of the film as suggesting a more complicated view of women and poker and the idea that men must choose between them than Worm seems to be representing.

Considering the challenge presented by the story’s subject and setting, I believe Rounders does relatively well by its portrayal of women.  Indeed, one could argue that in order to present a believable late-20th century poker story the filmmakers couldn’t really avoid emphasizing the men a little more than the women.

See also: She Said: Rounders and the Portrayal of Women as Liabilities