The object of the game is not a part of the game

Rating: Null/10 (17 October 2009)

According to Game Theory (a branch of mathematics), a game consists of a set of players, a set of moves (or strategies) available to those players, and a specification of payoffs for each combination of strategies. What make several non-mathematicians astonish in this definition is that nothing is said about the object of playing. From non-mathematical games we know that one can play with balls, chess-figures, straws (Halma), dominoes, etc. But what happens when one of the players become the object of the play or game? According to the above definition, then, he must know about the moves of the game, and also about the specification of payoffs for every move - in this special case also for his own moves and not only for those of the other players.
This is, abstractly said, what "The Game" (1997), a very intelligent and metaphysically deep movie, is about. Mr. Van Orton gets as a very special gift from his brother with whom he has a very problematic relationship, a gift which is on first sight nothing more than an entrance billet to a VIP-club. After Mr. Van Orton has filled in a very detailed questionnaire, the play starts - but without knowing him any parts which belong per definition to any game. As a matter of fact, the audience who does in this case not has the luck of the distant observer to be always at least one step in front of the protagonist, gets involved in the game, too, and without knowing that until just before the movie ends. Therefore, the game, which is based, both the main actor and for the watcher, on fully obscure rules, appears more like a dream, or better a nightmare, and the only question in the two hours of running time is: When and how will this nightmare end? In the end, however, one will see that a game which is based on the violation of all defining rules of what a game must be, has to follow enormously complex rules in order not to risk the life of the object of the game.