Movie Review: Woody Allen's Match Point: Not Enough, Already
Published January 16, 2006
While clever, the pseudo-documentary structure keeps Allen from coming up with anything more than the idea of the character. And though Zelig is sub-episodic Allen can't wait 20 minutes before telling us what it all means. Thus, under hypnosis Zelig tells Dr. Fletcher that he assumes other people's characteristics in order to be safe, to be liked. The unfortunate irony here is that Allen is one of the most recognizable, and least protean, performers in the world; it's hard to imagine him pulling off impersonations if he tried. He can't act out Zelig's story more fully because he's miscast and as the author of the piece he would hardly write material for himself he can't play. The fact that Zelig doesn't become a woman while talking to Dr. Fletcher indicates the extent to which Allen has restricted the character to his own comfort zone as a performer. The movie would be more engaging with a chameleon-like star, and perhaps if Allen had cast someone else as Zelig that actor could have got the idea across without the blandly explicit dialogue and brought more dimensions to the role, besides. Playing the part himself Allen only compounds the one-note pathos of the conception. As director, writer, and star, Allen deflates the comic premise with his scrawny-Jew's self-pity and then tries to fill it back up with banalities about American conformism.
In Zelig Allen kills a potentially great joke by riding a downcast attitude for more than it's worth; Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) is probably the best example of how inadequate his "serious" ideas are in the first place. In Crimes and Misdemeanors, Judah Rosenthal (Martin Landau), a successful, married ophthalmologist, wants to end a stale two-year affair with a stewardess. The tacky, clinging, thick-spirited Dolores (Anjelica Huston) feels Judah has elevated her (e.g., he's fed her his opinions on Schumann and Schubert) and demands that he live up to the promises she feels he made (which he denies). Dolores wants the two of them to sit down with his wife to discuss what should be done, and threatens to expose some financial sleight-of-hand he engaged in by which nobody was cheated but which technically violated his fiduciary duties. His brother Jack (Jerry Orbach in a note-perfect performance) inhabits a rougher world and advises Judah to let him have Dolores taken care of, to which Judah reluctantly assents. Judah and Jack's father was a pious Orthodox Jew who told them that the eyes of God were always on them and that the righteous would be rewarded and the guilty punished. The boys, however, take after their atheistic aunt who used to challenge and ridicule their father's faith, even during Seder. Tormented by guilt after the murder, Judah comes close to exposing his crime by his erratic behavior. Later we're told that he managed over time to adjust to what he'd had his brother do and so gets away with murder, inside and out.
- Movie Review: Woody Allen's Match Point: Not Enough, Already
- Published: January 16, 2006
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Art House, Video: Comedy, Video: Drama, Video: Romantic Comedies, Video: Suspense and Mystery
- Writer: Alan Dale
- Alan Dale's BC Writer page
- Alan Dale's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Presumably if Allen had died he'd have stopped making and releasing movies, though you can never be sure.
the planet would be a better place if this child molestor had died!
What's wrong with the long review? I thought it did justice to how bad Match Point was.
Thanks, Penny, for the back-up. In fact, the review covers four WA movies, so its length is that much more justifiable. (The fact that WA has been working for half a century, as Ruvy points out, is only more reason a review of his work would be longer--there's more work to talk about.)
The question of length comes up for me on Blogcritics periodically, so let me lay out my defenses of the in-depth reviews I post here:
1) some people actually like the fuller discussion possible only by writing more;
2) while the average reader may want no more than short-form consumer advice about what to see this weekend (i.e., thumbs-up/thumbs-down), I'm not writing for the average reader;
3) there's no particular reason any individual reader's attention span should set a limit on the length of movie criticism--i.e., you can stop reading at will, it's a review not homework;
4) this isn't a market so readers can't bring economic pressure to bear on me and thus don't have the complaining rights that a paying readership would; and
5) there's not limited space on Blogcritics as opposed to a print or online magazine, so I'm not squeezing anyone else by writing longer pieces.
On the other hand, the enormous length of a review may indicate that the writer is simply long-winded, has no particular talent for persuasion, cogency or boiling an argument or point of view down to its essence, or has simply never heeded the advice "If you can say it in fewer words, you probably should."
This comment addresses personality rather than principles--it's inherently subjective. "Long-winded" doesn't decide anything; it's just another way of saying you personally think the review sucks. As for heeding advice, what's the difference between "talent for persuasion" and "cogency" (Chambers dictionary defines the latter as "convincing power")?
Alan, this is going to sound terribly selfish and self-centered.
Allen Koenigsberg is the most famous graduate of Midwood High School (so far, anyway), and a fellow alumnus. I can't admire how this man has lived his life. I'd LIKE to admire his art. But you have tken a long time to say it isn't worth admiring.
Your article may be cogent and display immense talent for persuasion, even if it is a TAD long. But I'm disappointed. Not davka, with you, but with yet another possible hero with feet of clay...
Hey Ruvy,
I'm not judging WA the man--with the possible exception of his making a second movie about killing an ex-girlfriend, in which the man inevitably crosses the boundary from life into art. And I am not at all saying that his art is worthless. Apparently the review was long enough that the first paragraph hasn't lingered in your mind! In the '70s WA was a hero of mine, my family's, and friends', entirely for aesthetic reasons--we loved his early comedies, we read his books out loud on car trips, and, as I hoped to make clear, I think that The Purple Rose of Cairo, Bullets Over Broadway, and Sweet and Lowdown are classics. By his own admisson he's not an intellectual or a great director. Unfortunately his ambitions lie in areas that require more talent of a certain sort than he's blessed with. That still leaves him with an impressive legacy. (If you rewatched his movies in reverse order you'd probably feel better about his career.) So take heart--one foot of clay, at most. Maybe only four toes.
Thanks for writing.
I can't help but be reminded Woody's commentary on that idiot's pretentious rambling in Annie Hall...
"You know nothing of my work...how you got to teach a class in anything is beyond me!!"













ENOUGH ALREADY!! Who would have thought that a poor putz who wrote comedy sketches for Sid Caesar a half century ago and did stand-up comedy in the Village FOUR decades ago would get reviews SOOO long? Did Allen die? Were you writing a eulogy, maybe?
Honey! Get me the Tylenol! PLEASE!