Matchpoint
Jan. 16th, 2006 05:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[As an aside, sometimes I hate coming up with subject headings, draw a complete blank.]
Just finished seeing the film Matchpoint with Wales, whose seen it twice now. It's the new Woody Allen flick for those not paying attention to these things, and unlike any Woody Allen movie I've ever seen, although there are vestiges within that remind me vaguely of Crimes and Misdeamenors. If I didn't know Woody Allen directed this film, I would have thought it was by someone else entirely. And yes, I've seen quite a few Woody Allen films, actually all of them except for maybe three, which I've seen portions of - Manhattan,
Zelig and Celebrity. Trust me when I say this is not like any film he's done before and it will blow you away.
It also hit me at exactly the right time - moodwise. Because it hit a couple of issues I've been playing with in my head. The idea that luck has a heck of a lot to do with how we end up. And plays a much larger role in the universial scheme of things than most people want to admit. A good portion of the movie addresses this and Allen uses the metaphor of a tennis match to get across. There's a moment in every match where the ball lands on the net and it is a matter of pure luck which side it will fall - if it falls across one side of the net - you win, if on the other you lose. Yes we make choices in life, but our choices are to a large extent motivated by and governed by chance or pure unbridled luck.
The other issue it played with was having children. A topic that has been bugging and scratching under my skin for some time now. People take the ability to have children for granted. They think that everyone has this choice. But we don't. In the film, Allen throws that question out as well, although far more subtlely. Quoting a greek philospher who stated once upon a time - that it may be quite a boon never to have been born. An issue I spoke to in a response to a friend's post today. Here the answer is much darker, yet also reassuring. The writer states - "I'd rather be born lucky than good." And you ask yourself what he means by good. And by the end of the film, you get your answer.
Which leads to Allen's third theme and perhaps most shocking, but in my view, realistic. One Allen stated that most Americans are oblivious too - having grown used to the simple justice served within the Law and Orders and CSI's - to the extent that we assume that's how life plays out. People are punished for their crimes. In MAtchpoint, like Crimes and Misdeamenors, he examines the possibility that this too is governed by luck.
Finally, we deal with the idea of indentity. Who we are and to what extent do we become what someone else wants us to be. At the center of MatchPoint is a man who remakes himself to be what a family he's entered into wishes him to be. After the movie was over, Wales who'd seen it twice now, asked what we knew about the central character. We are so tightly in his point of view through-out and Allen does an excellent job of keeping us there with the exception of five or six sequences, that we really don't know more about him then what he decides to tell people. He takes on what they ask. Becomes the role they set for him. And in the process, loses bits of himself, until he cannot leave their world and is willing to stay in it at any cost. You get the feeling at the end that he regrets the price he pays, the love he's lost forever. Yet at the same time, know he'd have made the same choice. He wants to fit in after all. Have the grand apartment. The swanky job. The success.
And therein lies the fourth and final bit - success and the degree to which success in any field is governed by luck. We have two characters in the film - an actress and a tennis player - both good at what they do, but not excellent. Neither succeed. Neither can get past that certain hurdle. The tennis player states at the very beginning, that while he's good, he doesn't have the drive or skill of an Agassi. The actress states she's made commericials, but isn't the classical beauty her sister is and doesn't have the whatever it is to be a star.
Both are put down. Asked what sensible job they will take now, by the rich family they've fallen in with.
This film haunts me. I find myself playing with scenes in my head, flipping them over. Picking at them. It won't let me alone, long after it's completed. And it very well may be amongst the best of the Woody Allen's I've seen.
It has periods of humor - that made me laugh out-right, and periods of pain. It is both a tragedy and a comedy in one breath. The acting? Ah. Johnathan Rhys Meyers may be the first and only actor I've seen lead a Woody Allen film that does not play Woody Allen. His performance has layers upon layers to it, making us both love and hate his character simultaneously. The same can be said of Scarlett Johansonan - who is almost unrecognizable from her previous role in Lost in Translation. Each character is complex. As I told Wales, you understand why these characters do what they do, they feel real.
The direction is also fascinating and I almost forgot to mention it, partly because it is so subtle and not gimmicky. Many shots are done with mirrors or with paintings propped in the background. Nothing, including a film or play title is not used to add color to a scene or metaphor to a sequence. In one scene, we only see the protagonist's reflection in a mirror, blurred or clear depending on the focus of the protagonist and where the protagonist is looking. Another sequence, takes the camera through hallways following a voice that is calling to the protagonist. Through the direction, we feel the protagonist's fear and urgency that the voice will locate him. I've seen these techniques before by both Francis Ford Coppola (When Peggy Sue Got Married) and Martin Scorscese (The Aviator), but not done quite this subtlely or well. If you love or appreciate film, you need to see this one - just for the direction if for no other reason. It is amongst my favorite Woody Allen's, course my favorites don't jive with anyone elses, since I may be the only person outside of Woody Allen himself, who did not like Annie Hall.
Highly recommend. A+
Oh my top five favorite Woody Allen Films, excluding Matchpoint:
1. Crimes and Misdemeanors
2. Purple Rose of Cairo
3. Broadway Danny Rose
4. Husbands and Wives
5. Deconstructing Harry
[Updated - there may be spoilers in the comments, but still very vague.]
Just finished seeing the film Matchpoint with Wales, whose seen it twice now. It's the new Woody Allen flick for those not paying attention to these things, and unlike any Woody Allen movie I've ever seen, although there are vestiges within that remind me vaguely of Crimes and Misdeamenors. If I didn't know Woody Allen directed this film, I would have thought it was by someone else entirely. And yes, I've seen quite a few Woody Allen films, actually all of them except for maybe three, which I've seen portions of - Manhattan,
Zelig and Celebrity. Trust me when I say this is not like any film he's done before and it will blow you away.
It also hit me at exactly the right time - moodwise. Because it hit a couple of issues I've been playing with in my head. The idea that luck has a heck of a lot to do with how we end up. And plays a much larger role in the universial scheme of things than most people want to admit. A good portion of the movie addresses this and Allen uses the metaphor of a tennis match to get across. There's a moment in every match where the ball lands on the net and it is a matter of pure luck which side it will fall - if it falls across one side of the net - you win, if on the other you lose. Yes we make choices in life, but our choices are to a large extent motivated by and governed by chance or pure unbridled luck.
The other issue it played with was having children. A topic that has been bugging and scratching under my skin for some time now. People take the ability to have children for granted. They think that everyone has this choice. But we don't. In the film, Allen throws that question out as well, although far more subtlely. Quoting a greek philospher who stated once upon a time - that it may be quite a boon never to have been born. An issue I spoke to in a response to a friend's post today. Here the answer is much darker, yet also reassuring. The writer states - "I'd rather be born lucky than good." And you ask yourself what he means by good. And by the end of the film, you get your answer.
Which leads to Allen's third theme and perhaps most shocking, but in my view, realistic. One Allen stated that most Americans are oblivious too - having grown used to the simple justice served within the Law and Orders and CSI's - to the extent that we assume that's how life plays out. People are punished for their crimes. In MAtchpoint, like Crimes and Misdeamenors, he examines the possibility that this too is governed by luck.
Finally, we deal with the idea of indentity. Who we are and to what extent do we become what someone else wants us to be. At the center of MatchPoint is a man who remakes himself to be what a family he's entered into wishes him to be. After the movie was over, Wales who'd seen it twice now, asked what we knew about the central character. We are so tightly in his point of view through-out and Allen does an excellent job of keeping us there with the exception of five or six sequences, that we really don't know more about him then what he decides to tell people. He takes on what they ask. Becomes the role they set for him. And in the process, loses bits of himself, until he cannot leave their world and is willing to stay in it at any cost. You get the feeling at the end that he regrets the price he pays, the love he's lost forever. Yet at the same time, know he'd have made the same choice. He wants to fit in after all. Have the grand apartment. The swanky job. The success.
And therein lies the fourth and final bit - success and the degree to which success in any field is governed by luck. We have two characters in the film - an actress and a tennis player - both good at what they do, but not excellent. Neither succeed. Neither can get past that certain hurdle. The tennis player states at the very beginning, that while he's good, he doesn't have the drive or skill of an Agassi. The actress states she's made commericials, but isn't the classical beauty her sister is and doesn't have the whatever it is to be a star.
Both are put down. Asked what sensible job they will take now, by the rich family they've fallen in with.
This film haunts me. I find myself playing with scenes in my head, flipping them over. Picking at them. It won't let me alone, long after it's completed. And it very well may be amongst the best of the Woody Allen's I've seen.
It has periods of humor - that made me laugh out-right, and periods of pain. It is both a tragedy and a comedy in one breath. The acting? Ah. Johnathan Rhys Meyers may be the first and only actor I've seen lead a Woody Allen film that does not play Woody Allen. His performance has layers upon layers to it, making us both love and hate his character simultaneously. The same can be said of Scarlett Johansonan - who is almost unrecognizable from her previous role in Lost in Translation. Each character is complex. As I told Wales, you understand why these characters do what they do, they feel real.
The direction is also fascinating and I almost forgot to mention it, partly because it is so subtle and not gimmicky. Many shots are done with mirrors or with paintings propped in the background. Nothing, including a film or play title is not used to add color to a scene or metaphor to a sequence. In one scene, we only see the protagonist's reflection in a mirror, blurred or clear depending on the focus of the protagonist and where the protagonist is looking. Another sequence, takes the camera through hallways following a voice that is calling to the protagonist. Through the direction, we feel the protagonist's fear and urgency that the voice will locate him. I've seen these techniques before by both Francis Ford Coppola (When Peggy Sue Got Married) and Martin Scorscese (The Aviator), but not done quite this subtlely or well. If you love or appreciate film, you need to see this one - just for the direction if for no other reason. It is amongst my favorite Woody Allen's, course my favorites don't jive with anyone elses, since I may be the only person outside of Woody Allen himself, who did not like Annie Hall.
Highly recommend. A+
Oh my top five favorite Woody Allen Films, excluding Matchpoint:
1. Crimes and Misdemeanors
2. Purple Rose of Cairo
3. Broadway Danny Rose
4. Husbands and Wives
5. Deconstructing Harry
[Updated - there may be spoilers in the comments, but still very vague.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-17 12:48 am (UTC)If our local theaters wouldn't show non-stop commercials (at deafening volume) prior to the previews... I might actually go to the movies again!
Unfortunately they do - so I won't. But at least the wait for DVD's continues to get shorter and shorter!!
no subject
Date: 2006-01-17 03:20 am (UTC)This theater had better previews and commericials but wasn't as comfortable as the other theater - smaller screen and seats that were made for people five foot three inches tall. (ie. 0 leg room. My legs were literally in the aisle the entire movie or braced against the seat in front of me.).