REVIEW

Movie Review: Woody Allen's Match Point: Not Enough, Already

Written by Alan Dale
Published January 16, 2006
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Nothing is more pathetic, however, than Nola and Chris's "hot" sex. During one midday quickie she blindfolds him with his necktie, which is embarrassing not because you're being exposed to Allen's sexual fantasies but because you aren't--he's faking heedless arousal. (The only genuine heedlessness in evidence is the fact that this is Allen's second film about getting away with murdering an obstreperous ex-girlfriend, but this one, unlike Crimes and Misdemeanors, was made after his scandalous, litigious breakup with Mia Farrow.) In Match Point Allen is faking everything--the premise, the characters and their world, every detail, internal and external. (The fakery includes the characters' love of opera; the soundtrack is full of Enrico Caruso arias, including crazy-driving repetition of "Una furtiva lagrima" from Donizetti's L'Elisir d'amore, which you'd never guess is the most Shakespearean of comic operas not adapted from Shakespeare.)

And perhaps because Allen doesn't appear in it, and there isn't a character based on his persona, the dialogue is oddly unpunctuated (apart from a daring first exchange between Chris and Nola, a fair homage perhaps to Bogart and Bacall). The storytelling and the film editing, which are at least intriguingly elliptical in Crimes and Misdemeanors, are likewise monotonously straightforward here. Allen gets into the story of Match Point only to get out of it what he'd already sought to demonstrate in Crimes and Misdemeanors, that there are conscienceless people among us getting away with their crimes and not even God is watching. (How Allen knows God isn't watching, as opposed to interceding, is apparently not a question that has occurred to him. The literal-mindedness of his metaphysical speculation--God doesn't exist because Hitler did--reflects no imagination for transcendence.) In Crimes and Misdemeanors Allen at least tries to entertain us while demonstrating his slim thesis by juggling his storylines. In Match Point he stands at the blackboard for 124 minutes and plods through the equation--which we know already from his previous efforts.

To his credit, Allen does not boast about his attainments to interviewers. In this recent L.A. Weekly interview, for instance, he goes on,

I'm a middle-class person playing the part of a neurotic intellectual. People mistake that for who I am, but actually, I'm the guy who sits next to you at the ballgame or the movie house. I'm the guy who will be home tonight with a beer watching the Knicks on television. I'm not going to have my nose in my Kierkegaard.
Allen admits to having read Kierkegaard, and Freud and Marshall McLuhan,
[b]ut only because I had to to survive. I didn't read them because it's an instinct in me or because I liked it. I read those things because the girls I was dating wouldn't go out with me if I hadn't. It's not something that comes natural to me or which I find very enjoyable.

(There's more Lester in Allen than you might guess from Crimes and Misdemeanors.) If he's not an intellectual, then why does he keep making "idea" movies? (And why oh why did he use the term "deconstructing" when he plainly didn't know what it means?) Why doesn't he make movies about the guys at the ballgame or the movie house or at home with a beer watching the Knicks on television? Now 70, he's lived long enough to know that the opening narration in Match Point--"The man who said, 'I'd rather be lucky than good,' saw deeply into life"--is enough to make any reasonably educated person cringe. Match Point has, nonetheless, prostrated the critics, which suggests that in the movies it's possible to soar way beyond the level of your incompetence.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Alan Dale earned a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from Princeton University and a J.D. from Yale Law School. He currently works as a corporate tax attorney in Portland, Oregon. He is the author of What We Do Best: American Movie Comedies of the 1990s and Comedy Is a Man in Trouble: Slapstick in American Movies.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
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
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Alan Dale
Video: Art House
Video: Comedy
Video: Drama
Video: Romantic Comedies
Video: Suspense and Mystery
All Video Articles
Alan Dale's personal weblog
All Review articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — January 18, 2006 @ 05:22AM — Ruvy in Jerusalem [URL]

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!

#2 — January 18, 2006 @ 07:37AM — Alan Dale [URL]

Presumably if Allen had died he'd have stopped making and releasing movies, though you can never be sure.

#3 — January 18, 2006 @ 07:39AM — Andy Marsh [URL]

the planet would be a better place if this child molestor had died!

#4 — January 22, 2006 @ 00:19AM — Penny Woods [URL]

What's wrong with the long review? I thought it did justice to how bad Match Point was.

#5 — January 22, 2006 @ 13:45PM — Alan Dale [URL]

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.

#6 — January 22, 2006 @ 14:13PM — Rodney Welch [URL]

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."

#7 — January 22, 2006 @ 14:50PM — Alan Dale [URL]

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")?

#8 — January 22, 2006 @ 17:30PM — Ruvy in Jerusalem [URL]

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...

#9 — January 22, 2006 @ 18:02PM — Alan Dale [URL]

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.

#10 — August 24, 2007 @ 02:39AM — V

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!!"

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/42380)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments