Woody Allen is probably a garbage person.
OK, now that that is out of the way, Allen has had the most prolific career of any modern mainstream director. The last year he didn't direct at least one movie was the same year Britney Spears was born. He also writes the movies. That is an insane pace. Because of the fast turnaround, there's a pattern to his work. The most common is what I call his "first draft problem". Allen's movies normally have one great idea that the film is built around. Since he moves through movies so quickly, he doesn't get much time to flesh the ideas out. Most of his movies end up feeling incomplete. Endings especially happen suddenly, or in some cases, straight up deus ex machina (Mighty Aphrodite jumps immediately to mind). He tends to only be interested in one or two characters. The rest are filler. This is all true of Match Point, although this is one of his slicker films.
He has different eras based on common locations, story types, or actors. Match Point is a particularly significant film for him because it marks the beginning of both his Scarlett Johansson and his European eras. Interestingly enough, both of these were accidents. Johansson replaced Kate Winslet at the last minute, and he only shot in London because his funding for New York fell through. Given the indifferent response to films like Melinda and Melinda, Anything Else, and Hollywood Ending that immediately preceded this one, I think these changes forced Allen out of his comfort zone and challenged him. As a result, I get why Match Point is one of the better regarded of his films from the era. It's the movie that ended his longest Oscar nomination drought since Annie Hall (1977)*.
*For the record, I expect his Blue Jasmine nomination for 2013 to be his last, so a bigger drought it coming.
I'd be shocked if the idea that inspired this movie was anything other than a tennis ball hitting the net. It's the central metaphor of the movie and exemplifies most of what is going on. Because it's a movie about luck, I essentially have to throw out my idea of One Big Leap. Everything in a movie about luck is allowed to defy logic. And Allen uses this idea well. At first, the ending really bothered me because of how abrupt and unsatisfying it is. The longer I think about it though, the ending is true to the rest of the movie.
I did appreciate the first half of the film much more than the latter half. Watching Jonathan Rhys Meyers tactfully increase his social standing was a treat. He's so transparent to the audience (always offering to pay and pretending like he's too proud to accept handouts) but able to look sincere to everyone he interacts with in the film. Even some of the social commentary is weirdly delightful. There's the scene where the group is chatting at dinner. Only after a couple minutes of them talking do they acknowledge that there's a waiter at the table waiting on their food order. It's hilarious in a "they have absolutely no idea how privileged they are" kind of way.
The second half is less interesting because it turns into a pretty typical "cheating spouse" story. I like how it's tied to luck by the end, but most of it used the same beats we've seen a hundred times before in this kind of story.
Indirectly tied to the movie, I find it funny that apparently US critics loved the movie whereas British critics rejected it. A lot of the British reviewers seem offended by the fact that it was set in London without Allen appearing to know much about the city. I get that irritation, but as someone who has grown up with every lazy interpretation of Kentucky imaginable (Louisville in particular), I have a hard time caring that much that a city as well-documented as London isn't perfectly captured in a movie that isn't really about the city anyway.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
No comments:
Post a Comment