L | A
By Greg Ehrhardt
Casino is better than Goodfellas.
Do I believe this? Personally, I 60% believe this, in the sense, that I find Casino a more interesting re-watch as a 40-year-old vs Goodfellas than I did as a 20-year-old.
Do I believe this is a ridiculously fun take to have on a night out with friends, even if I don’t 100% believe this?
100%.
For my generation, Goodfellas is the movie that served as our induction ceremony, cinematically speaking. Instantly quotable, always rewatchable, and fun to rehash with friends. It is one of the best movies of the last 40 years, if not more.
That makes bar nights talking about Goodfellas fun, but also boring after a while. When you’re out with friends, do you really all want to be in agreement? Do you? Or, do you want to cause a good-natured fun argument that Goodfellas may not be all it’s cracked up to be, especially compared to its cousin, Casino.
Do you want to sing Kumbaya, or do you want to look like Flynn Rider here?
There’s no particularly wrong answer. It is ok to talk about your favorite movies with fellow fans.
However, maybe you secretly like Casino more than Goodfellas, or you want to stand out and have fun playing devil’s advocate against one of the most popular movies of all time?
Well, I have a column for you.
The following is the contrarian’s guide to how to argue that Casino is a better movie than Goodfellas, framed in a debate structure. This is a guide like how a debate team would prep for a topic. It’s not necessarily about proving yourself right, but how you best defend yourself against the typical takes you will get that will try and dismiss your argument.
Do not attempt to take this on if you want to just fit in with the crowd or if you’re squeamish about debate or confrontation. This is for the contrarian, the person who loves to verbally spar, just for the fun of it.
Let’s go.
(side note: if you have a good southern drawl, break it out for this opening speech. The great heroes and villains of courtroom dramas always had a good southern drawl, so it will bring the house down if you even just give it the old college try.)
“Ladies and gentlemen, while we concede Goodfellas is a more entertaining movie than Casino (few movies are), Casino has meatier things to say about how we screw up our dreams, how you can never truly take the jungle out of the tiger, and how things can quickly escape your control the tighter you squeeze. Casino has more to say about the human condition, and it says so brilliantly, all while getting fantastic performances from De Niro, Pacino, and Stone.”
(Feel free to add on to this speech to make it your own, along with the other contentions in this guide)
It’s important to concede initially that Goodfellas is more entertaining. It is an argument you will never win, so a typical debate trick is to lead with a concession to disarm your opponent, at least temporarily.
Where you will successfully parry with your friends is the substance of the movie. It’s not that Goodfellas has nothing to say of substance, but it is purposely designed to feel like a roller coaster, or, to put in more adult terms, a cocaine trip. It’s exhilarating, but leaves you empty inside, which was exactly Scorsese’s intent.
Casino is inarguably meatier, with much more nuanced performances from De Niro, Pesci, and Stone than you get from De Niro, Pesci, and Bracco in Goodfellas. This is generally how you will win this debate, so always keep focus there.
You will need more than that to carry on the argument, so let’s get to the three core arguments in favor of Casino.
Now, this may enrage your friends, but make sure you bring up a few key scenes, starting with Joe Pesci, who shows the same type of ruthlessness that he did in Goodfellas, but in a more interesting and complex way.
a. Joe Pesci tells the Banker what kind of guy he is
This lays out better than any scene in Goodfella what kind of Monster Pesci is. He’s communicating his evil through words, not with action
b. Pesci at the restaurant wondering what the hell happened
This is the essence of Casino: Rothstein and Santoro had it all, and they let it all go downhill. Pesci shows a human side not seen in Goodfellas.
c. The Charlie M Scene
Pesci still brings it in this scene: if you want expletive-ridden tirades, you got it all here.
Counter argument: But Pesci wins the Oscar for Goodfellas!
Response: You will concede this, but you will also comment that it was mostly because Goodfellas came first, and this is Pesci’s biggest exposure at this point. Point out that Tommy Devito is a one-note character, and Nicky Santoro has more nuance and is a tougher mobster to play.
Now with Robert De Niro, you will also get some initial laughs in your face at suggesting Ace Rothstein is comparable with Jimmy Conway, but you will let them wave their hands and make their case, wait it out, and then come at them with the following:
Jimmy Conway is the monster you will most likely never meet. Ace Rothstein is the monster women too often meet.
(If you’re hanging out with any women, they will immediately have your back at this moment, regardless of whether they have seen Casino or not.)
Ace Rothstein represents the man who cannot breathe without control of his situation. Casino establishes this from the jump. Rothstein doesn’t make a bet without all of the information he can have; he can’t manage a casino without meticulously controlling every aspect of its operations either, to the point that he’s counting the number of blueberries in the muffins. This is somewhat played to laughs the first couple of times you watch, but after repeated viewings, you can see what abnormal, antisocial behavior this is.
Counter argument: It is his casino, he can manage it how he wants, and it led to a successful operation! He’s so cool doing it!
Response: Show them this gif, and then inform them they are missing the point of the movie. You see how destructive that behavior is when it comes to relationships and marriage. He views Ginger as an asset, not as a person. He puts her essentially under house arrest and deals with Lester Diamond in the most brutal way possible to demonstrate to Ginger that he, not she, is in control. This is the type of monster women deal with in abusive relationships, and makes Ace Rothstein much more relatable to the type of men women have to deal with instead of the gangster Jimmy Conway represents that most people would never ever have to deal with.
Counter: How Can Robert De Niro play a Jewish mobster?? It makes no sense!!
Response: He can play a Jewish mobster just as well as he can play an Irish one in Goodfellas!
Counter: If Rothstein is such a control freak, why did he give Ginger the only key to his safe deposit box?
Response: Quickly switch topics and redirect either to contention #2 below or back to Joe Pesci.
When you bring up Sharon Stone, be prepared for significant pushback in general. There’s a contingent that thinks she’s terrible in this movie, but it is nonsense. Remind your friends she was nominated for an Oscar for this performance, which is more than can be said for Lorraine Bracco. (This will be fighting words, be warned, but you want your opponent angry!)
A key component of this argument is that Ginger is a very difficult character to portray effectively. You have to nail how good she is playing an escort (and con artist) and living the high life, but also portray her as hopelessly loyal to her roots and never fitting in completely to a life you would think she could glom onto.
Tip: Bring up to your friends the nice girl you knew back in high school who would always date the jerks. That’s Ginger! Casino explains exactly why those girls date the jerks: it is who they think they deserve (like Lester Diamond). You may see some lightbulbs go off, but you will probably get some nonsense counterarguments about how Lorraine Bracco deserved an Oscar in Goodfellas, yaddi yaddi yah.
Counter argument: Sharon Stone dials it up to 11 too much, she’s constantly yelling and screaming, it’s way overdone
Response: Yes, that’s how the greatest living American director told her to do it!!
Also, remind your friends this is how a woman acts who feels like she’s in prison with a life sentence. Bring up the Rothstein/Diamond scene, how Rothstein made it clear Ginger has no outlets, no relief, no escape from this life she chose. Discuss how Ginger had more freedom under Lester Diamond than she ever had with Ace Rothstein, even though she has way more money and power than she ever had with him.
Ask your friends how Goodfellas stacks up against an arc like that. Don’t worry, they’ll bring up Pesci’s “Am I a Clown” scene or some other viscerally entertaining scene. That’s fine, let them. That means you scored a point in this round.
Chances are your friends will have opinions on Las Vegas, so this is a good point to always bring. When you say Casino is the definitive Las Vegas movie, bring up the amazing shots Scorsese has of the desert, especially this one. No better movie brings to light the glitz and glamor of Las Vegas, contrasted with the emptiness of the desert, better than Casino.
Counter argument: But ‘The Hangover’, ‘Swingers’, etc is the definitive Las Vegas movie!!!
Response: To properly portray Las Vegas definitively, you MUST capture both elements of Vegas: the fun, the seediness, and the danger. Casino does that in spades throughout. Dismiss any argument that ‘The Hangover,’ ‘Ocean’s 11’, or similar comps portray Las Vegas better than this.
Now, these 3 contentions should be enough for any jury to rule in your favor, but here are some other counterarguments to have in your pocket should you need them.
Casino is just as, if not more vulgar than Goodfellas (if that’s something your friends enjoy about Goodfellas)
The tracking shot of the casino floor operations is in the same league as the famous tracking shot in Goodfellas.
The soundtrack is basically the same as Goodfellas.
Nicky’s John Barrymore line (and the entire scene) is as funny as any scene in Goodfellas.
Also, be prepared for these counterarguments from Goodfellas stans:
Casino has no performance as good as Ray Liotta’s in Goodfellas!
Response: If it was so good, why didn’t he get an Oscar nomination for it? (be ready to duck, once again)
Once you avoid all of the projectiles, if they continue to insist Liotta was awesome despite the lack of nomination, remind them that De Niro and Pesci were also awesome, despite the lack of nomination.
I can watch Goodfellas any time, anywhere, it is way more re-watchable than Casino
Response: Remind them that you conceded this in your opening argument, but also that being more re-watchable does not necessarily make it a better movie. Mission Impossible 2 is more re-watchable than say, Requiem For a Dream, but does that make it a better movie?
Be prepared for a lot of rebuttals to your pro-Casino arguments to just be quotes from Goodfellas and for your friends to look to other friends for acknowledgment about how funny the lines are. Don’t demand an actual rebuttal in these situations; just take note of this and bring this up later.
You will concede that Goodfellas had a deeper roster of funny and interesting mobsters as Casino, but the big three of Casino (Ace, Ginger, Nicky) are better and more complex mobsters than Henry, Tommy, and Jimmy. The story is deeper than Goodfellas as you have demonstrated, and Casino better captures the rise and fall of gangsters viscerally than even Goodfellas demonstrated.
As noted above, note the number of times your friends countered your arguments with quotes from Goodfellas instead of an actual argument.
As when it comes to most debates, end as patronizingly as possible: depict Goodfellas the movie meant to entertain the masses. Compare Goodfellas to the most amazing sugar rush ever, while equating Casino to the finest steak dinner (or portabella mushroom for the vegetarians in your group) you will ever have.
For one meal, you want the sugar rush.
For your life, you want the steak dinner.
And then,
“I rest my case”
In reality, the case will never be rested. Most of your friends, if not all, will never waver from their lifelong love of Goodfellas, and that’s ok. In life, it is better to present opposing views and stretch the minds than stay in your bubble and be comforted in group think.
If they don’t agree, take the bar tab over to one of your friends and say “Take this bar tab and shove it up your sister’s ass”.
By Greg Ehrhardt
Casino is better than Goodfellas.
Do I believe this? Personally, I 60% believe this, in the sense, that I find Casino a more interesting re-watch as a 40-year-old vs Goodfellas than I did as a 20-year-old.
Do I believe this is a ridiculously fun take to have on a night out with friends, even if I don’t 100% believe this?
100%.
For my generation, Goodfellas is the movie that served as our induction ceremony, cinematically speaking. Instantly quotable, always rewatchable, and fun to rehash with friends. It is one of the best movies of the last 40 years, if not more.
That makes bar nights talking about Goodfellas fun, but also boring after a while. When you’re out with friends, do you really all want to be in agreement? Do you? Or, do you want to cause a good-natured fun argument that Goodfellas may not be all it’s cracked up to be, especially compared to its cousin, Casino.
Do you want to sing Kumbaya, or do you want to look like Flynn Rider here?
There’s no particularly wrong answer. It is ok to talk about your favorite movies with fellow fans.
However, maybe you secretly like Casino more than Goodfellas, or you want to stand out and have fun playing devil’s advocate against one of the most popular movies of all time?
Well, I have a column for you.
The following is the contrarian’s guide to how to argue that Casino is a better movie than Goodfellas, framed in a debate structure. This is a guide like how a debate team would prep for a topic. It’s not necessarily about proving yourself right, but how you best defend yourself against the typical takes you will get that will try and dismiss your argument.
Do not attempt to take this on if you want to just fit in with the crowd or if you’re squeamish about debate or confrontation. This is for the contrarian, the person who loves to verbally spar, just for the fun of it.
Let’s go.
Opening Argument
(side note: if you have a good southern drawl, break it out for this opening speech. The great heroes and villains of courtroom dramas always had a good southern drawl, so it will bring the house down if you even just give it the old college try.)
“Ladies and gentlemen, while we concede Goodfellas is a more entertaining movie than Casino (few movies are), Casino has meatier things to say about how we screw up our dreams, how you can never truly take the jungle out of the tiger, and how things can quickly escape your control the tighter you squeeze. Casino has more to say about the human condition, and it says so brilliantly, all while getting fantastic performances from De Niro, Pacino, and Stone.”
(Feel free to add on to this speech to make it your own, along with the other contentions in this guide)
It’s important to concede initially that Goodfellas is more entertaining. It is an argument you will never win, so a typical debate trick is to lead with a concession to disarm your opponent, at least temporarily.
Where you will successfully parry with your friends is the substance of the movie. It’s not that Goodfellas has nothing to say of substance, but it is purposely designed to feel like a roller coaster, or, to put in more adult terms, a cocaine trip. It’s exhilarating, but leaves you empty inside, which was exactly Scorsese’s intent.
Casino is inarguably meatier, with much more nuanced performances from De Niro, Pesci, and Stone than you get from De Niro, Pesci, and Bracco in Goodfellas. This is generally how you will win this debate, so always keep focus there.
You will need more than that to carry on the argument, so let’s get to the three core arguments in favor of Casino.
Contention #1: Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci give better, more actorly performances in Casino than Goodfellas
Now, this may enrage your friends, but make sure you bring up a few key scenes, starting with Joe Pesci, who shows the same type of ruthlessness that he did in Goodfellas, but in a more interesting and complex way.
a. Joe Pesci tells the Banker what kind of guy he is
This lays out better than any scene in Goodfella what kind of Monster Pesci is. He’s communicating his evil through words, not with action
b. Pesci at the restaurant wondering what the hell happened
This is the essence of Casino: Rothstein and Santoro had it all, and they let it all go downhill. Pesci shows a human side not seen in Goodfellas.
c. The Charlie M Scene
Pesci still brings it in this scene: if you want expletive-ridden tirades, you got it all here.
Counter argument: But Pesci wins the Oscar for Goodfellas!
Response: You will concede this, but you will also comment that it was mostly because Goodfellas came first, and this is Pesci’s biggest exposure at this point. Point out that Tommy Devito is a one-note character, and Nicky Santoro has more nuance and is a tougher mobster to play.
Now with Robert De Niro, you will also get some initial laughs in your face at suggesting Ace Rothstein is comparable with Jimmy Conway, but you will let them wave their hands and make their case, wait it out, and then come at them with the following:
Jimmy Conway is the monster you will most likely never meet. Ace Rothstein is the monster women too often meet.
(If you’re hanging out with any women, they will immediately have your back at this moment, regardless of whether they have seen Casino or not.)
Ace Rothstein represents the man who cannot breathe without control of his situation. Casino establishes this from the jump. Rothstein doesn’t make a bet without all of the information he can have; he can’t manage a casino without meticulously controlling every aspect of its operations either, to the point that he’s counting the number of blueberries in the muffins. This is somewhat played to laughs the first couple of times you watch, but after repeated viewings, you can see what abnormal, antisocial behavior this is.
Counter argument: It is his casino, he can manage it how he wants, and it led to a successful operation! He’s so cool doing it!
Response: Show them this gif, and then inform them they are missing the point of the movie. You see how destructive that behavior is when it comes to relationships and marriage. He views Ginger as an asset, not as a person. He puts her essentially under house arrest and deals with Lester Diamond in the most brutal way possible to demonstrate to Ginger that he, not she, is in control. This is the type of monster women deal with in abusive relationships, and makes Ace Rothstein much more relatable to the type of men women have to deal with instead of the gangster Jimmy Conway represents that most people would never ever have to deal with.
Counter: How Can Robert De Niro play a Jewish mobster?? It makes no sense!!
Response: He can play a Jewish mobster just as well as he can play an Irish one in Goodfellas!
Counter: If Rothstein is such a control freak, why did he give Ginger the only key to his safe deposit box?
Response: Quickly switch topics and redirect either to contention #2 below or back to Joe Pesci.
Contention #2: Sharon Stone gives one of the great mobster girlfriend performances ever.
When you bring up Sharon Stone, be prepared for significant pushback in general. There’s a contingent that thinks she’s terrible in this movie, but it is nonsense. Remind your friends she was nominated for an Oscar for this performance, which is more than can be said for Lorraine Bracco. (This will be fighting words, be warned, but you want your opponent angry!)
A key component of this argument is that Ginger is a very difficult character to portray effectively. You have to nail how good she is playing an escort (and con artist) and living the high life, but also portray her as hopelessly loyal to her roots and never fitting in completely to a life you would think she could glom onto.
Tip: Bring up to your friends the nice girl you knew back in high school who would always date the jerks. That’s Ginger! Casino explains exactly why those girls date the jerks: it is who they think they deserve (like Lester Diamond). You may see some lightbulbs go off, but you will probably get some nonsense counterarguments about how Lorraine Bracco deserved an Oscar in Goodfellas, yaddi yaddi yah.
Counter argument: Sharon Stone dials it up to 11 too much, she’s constantly yelling and screaming, it’s way overdone
Response: Yes, that’s how the greatest living American director told her to do it!!
Also, remind your friends this is how a woman acts who feels like she’s in prison with a life sentence. Bring up the Rothstein/Diamond scene, how Rothstein made it clear Ginger has no outlets, no relief, no escape from this life she chose. Discuss how Ginger had more freedom under Lester Diamond than she ever had with Ace Rothstein, even though she has way more money and power than she ever had with him.
Ask your friends how Goodfellas stacks up against an arc like that. Don’t worry, they’ll bring up Pesci’s “Am I a Clown” scene or some other viscerally entertaining scene. That’s fine, let them. That means you scored a point in this round.
Contention #3: Casino is the definitive Las Vegas movie in a way that Goodfellas is not distinctly definitive of anything other than being a mafia movie.
Chances are your friends will have opinions on Las Vegas, so this is a good point to always bring. When you say Casino is the definitive Las Vegas movie, bring up the amazing shots Scorsese has of the desert, especially this one. No better movie brings to light the glitz and glamor of Las Vegas, contrasted with the emptiness of the desert, better than Casino.
Counter argument: But ‘The Hangover’, ‘Swingers’, etc is the definitive Las Vegas movie!!!
Response: To properly portray Las Vegas definitively, you MUST capture both elements of Vegas: the fun, the seediness, and the danger. Casino does that in spades throughout. Dismiss any argument that ‘The Hangover,’ ‘Ocean’s 11’, or similar comps portray Las Vegas better than this.
Now, these 3 contentions should be enough for any jury to rule in your favor, but here are some other counterarguments to have in your pocket should you need them.
Casino is just as, if not more vulgar than Goodfellas (if that’s something your friends enjoy about Goodfellas)
The tracking shot of the casino floor operations is in the same league as the famous tracking shot in Goodfellas.
The soundtrack is basically the same as Goodfellas.
Nicky’s John Barrymore line (and the entire scene) is as funny as any scene in Goodfellas.
Also, be prepared for these counterarguments from Goodfellas stans:
Casino has no performance as good as Ray Liotta’s in Goodfellas!
Response: If it was so good, why didn’t he get an Oscar nomination for it? (be ready to duck, once again)
Once you avoid all of the projectiles, if they continue to insist Liotta was awesome despite the lack of nomination, remind them that De Niro and Pesci were also awesome, despite the lack of nomination.
I can watch Goodfellas any time, anywhere, it is way more re-watchable than Casino
Response: Remind them that you conceded this in your opening argument, but also that being more re-watchable does not necessarily make it a better movie. Mission Impossible 2 is more re-watchable than say, Requiem For a Dream, but does that make it a better movie?
Be prepared for a lot of rebuttals to your pro-Casino arguments to just be quotes from Goodfellas and for your friends to look to other friends for acknowledgment about how funny the lines are. Don’t demand an actual rebuttal in these situations; just take note of this and bring this up later.
Closing Argument
You will concede that Goodfellas had a deeper roster of funny and interesting mobsters as Casino, but the big three of Casino (Ace, Ginger, Nicky) are better and more complex mobsters than Henry, Tommy, and Jimmy. The story is deeper than Goodfellas as you have demonstrated, and Casino better captures the rise and fall of gangsters viscerally than even Goodfellas demonstrated.
As noted above, note the number of times your friends countered your arguments with quotes from Goodfellas instead of an actual argument.
As when it comes to most debates, end as patronizingly as possible: depict Goodfellas the movie meant to entertain the masses. Compare Goodfellas to the most amazing sugar rush ever, while equating Casino to the finest steak dinner (or portabella mushroom for the vegetarians in your group) you will ever have.
For one meal, you want the sugar rush.
For your life, you want the steak dinner.
And then,
“I rest my case”
In reality, the case will never be rested. Most of your friends, if not all, will never waver from their lifelong love of Goodfellas, and that’s ok. In life, it is better to present opposing views and stretch the minds than stay in your bubble and be comforted in group think.
If they don’t agree, take the bar tab over to one of your friends and say “Take this bar tab and shove it up your sister’s ass”.
