A drama set in London? Just a thought Allen had
The famously New York-centric writer-director travels across the pond for "Match Point." Source: Los Angeles Times
CANNES, France — The reporters revealed their film-theory backgrounds and desire for symbolism, but Woody Allen resisted all attempts to categorize his new film.
"Match Point" is a drama set in London with an almost completely British cast, the exception being Scarlett Johansson, that revolves around the familiar Allen themes of passion, betrayal and consequences. But no, the writer-director insisted, it does not mark the end of his infatuation with New York, a personal trend away from comedy or toward sensuality, an homage to "A Place in the Sun" or a cynicism about the nature of justice.
"I write the idea that occurs to me," he said at a news conference Thursday following an early morning screening of the film. "My films are done much more by chance than by design than people seem to think."
One by one, journalists, mostly from the U.K. and the U.S., ignored the cast members present — Johansson, Emily Mortimer and Jonathan Rhys-Meyers — to ask the director rather esoteric questions that seemed more about where "Match Point" fit in the Allen oeuvre, and what it signified to his future, than the film itself. And one by one, Allen answered with the bottom-line pragmatism of a veteran filmmaker.
He made the film in London, he said, because the conditions there were more conducive to creativity. Although he has no problem getting financing in the U.S., he said, studios have become increasingly meddlesome.
"They want a say in casting, they want to see the script, sometimes they come to dailies," he said. "I've never worked that way. I want the money in a brown paper bag and then I'll give them a film a few months later. In London it went more that way."
The cast was British because of the tax laws, and the moment he found out it did not have to be 100% British, he cast Johansson, who, he said, was fortunately available. "She was willing to work for little money. The budget is small and we're very democratic — everyone gets nothing."
The story follows a poor Irish tennis pro as he enters the cozy rich environs of a British upper-class family, and involves more sex — Johansson and Rhys-Meyers have scenes that involve rain-soaked blouses and baby oil — and violence than a typical Allen film. But, he points out, compared to most films today, it is still quite discreet. "To me, this is a crime story," he said. "I was interested in the crime and the characters filled themselves in."
Without giving too much away, many viewers felt there were similarities to "A Place in the Sun" and other films as well as to Allen's own "Crimes and Misdemeanors," similarities Allen dismissed. "This film is about luck and ambition, quite a bit about luck, and passion."
The story could very well have been set in San Francisco or New York or Paris, he said, but he liked working with the cast members because they were such fine actors "and for some reason whatever British or Irish or Australians, whether it's their delivery or training or genetics, but it all sounds just great to me."
Blinking a bit in front of the bright lights and asking that many questions be repeated "because I'm a little hard of hearing," Allen was clearly happy to answer all questions, even the ones that seemed more like a film student thesis than a question. But he wanted to be clear that most of his decisions are made from practical need rather than from some overarching philosophy — although he acknowledged the influence 19th-century Russian literature and his own observation of widespread injustice had on his main characters and the story's ending.
"I never think I am cynical in general," he said. "Cynicism, to me, is an alternate spelling for reality. It is clear to every thinking person that an enormous amount of crime goes unpunished or even is rewarded. I don't think that's cynical."
His own creative impulse is also based on need. "I need the distraction," he said. "If I don't make them, I don't have distraction from depression and general terror. It's like patients in a mental institution — give them something to do like basket weaving and it soothes them."
"Match Point" was well-received at the press screening (it premieres tonight). Allen thinks it turned out rather well and the whole experience of working in London was so satisfactory — "the weather was cool, the sky gray; perfect for me" — that he will return this summer to shoot an as-yet untitled movie, also with Johansson, who some are dubbing Allen's new muse. But no matter how this movie does, or where it fits in the grand scheme of "cinema, subset Woody Allen," Allen will continue to do what he's always done: write stories he finds interesting and turn them into movies.
"And if people come and like it, I'm glad. But if they don't, I still have the benefit of living in an unreal world for a year."
DreamWorks nets Allen's 'Match Point'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Woody Allen has found a home for his dark relationship thriller "Match Point," which screened Out of Competition at the Festival de Cannes. The New York auteur is back in business with DreamWorks, which has picked up North American rights for $4 million.
"I've always had enormous respect and affection for the people at DreamWorks, and their enthusiasm over my film makes me feel absolutely certain we chose the right people to distribute it," Allen said.
The first film Allen has shot in England, "Match Point" stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers as a social-climbing tennis instructor who marries into a wealthy family. Scarlett Johansson, Emily Mortimer, Matthew Goode, Brian Cox and Penelope Wilton also star. The movie was among the best-reviewed in Cannes; many Croisette observers believed that if Allen had agreed to submit the drama in Competition, it might have snagged the Palme d'Or.
Hanway Films, Allen's sales agents, had been looking to sell the BBC Films co-production for as much as $10 million, several North American buyers said. But while many considered the film Allen's best in years, they also said the director's name might mean less at the boxoffice than it did during the Oscar winner's prime.
Fox Searchlight, which released Allen's most recent film, "Melinda and Melinda," did not make a bid. But according to sources at DreamWorks, the company beat out a higher bid from the Weinstein Co. Reps for the Weinstein Co. had no comment at press time.
There were offers as well from Focus Features and Sony Pictures Classics. Allen opted for the DreamWorks' bid -- even if it was not the highest offer on the table -- because of his interest in teaming again with DreamWorks.
In 2000, Allen forged a three-picture deal with DreamWorks, which released "Small Time Crooks," followed by 2001's "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion" and 2002's "Hollywood Ending." After hearing the critical buzz in Cannes, DreamWorks marketing chief Terry Press returned to Los Angeles and asked to screen the dramatic thriller, which has a darker tone than Allen's comedies. On her recommendation, DreamWorks co-founder Steven Spielberg, chief operating officer Rick Sands and production executive Adam Goodman decided to pursue the acquisition.
Sands, who joined DreamWorks this year, worked with Allen at Miramax Films, which released "Celebrity," "Everyone Says I Love You," "Mighty Aphrodite" and "Bullets Over Broadway." "The film screened fabulously in Cannes," Sands said of "Match Point." "We enjoy being in business with auteurs and major directors like Woody Allen."
Press, who persuaded the media-averse Allen to attend his first Academy Awards ceremony in 2002, plans to pursue the top film festivals in the fall as well as launch an Oscar campaign, which will include a push for Johansson as best supporting actress. Press believes audiences recognize that Allen not only directs comedies but also more serious dramas such as "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and "Interiors."
"The tone of this movie is classic Hollywood moviemaking with a twist," she said. "It's a movie for adults that will work on a grass-roots level like 'Crash.' The cast is very appealing. The movie sells itself."
"Match Point" is a BBC Films and Thema Prods. presentation of a Jada production, written and directed by Allen, produced by Letty Aronson, Gareth Wiley and Lucy Darwin, with Helen Robin and Nicky Kentish Barnes co-producing. Executive producer is Stephen Tenenbaum, with Jack Rollins and Charles H. Joffe serving as co-executive producers.
The deal was negotiated by DreamWorks' Sands, Hanway Film's Tim Haslon and Aronson.
Allen is preparing to shoot his second London film this year, also starring his current muse, Johansson.
I'm really excited for this movie.
I haven't even watched Allens last 10 or so movies cause they just look so bad. But the fact that he shot this in england is encouraging. A different setting can work wonders. He was taken out of his comfort zone and that is very key. But with Allen, he wasn't ever really about directing to me, just writing, then making that writing happen. This interests me, big time.
Trailer here. (http://www.dreamworks.com/trailers/match/match_trlr_qt_480.mov)
Release Date: TBA 2005 (limited)
Cast: Alexander Armstrong, Morne Botes (Michael), Brian Cox, Matthew Goode (Tom Hewitt), Scarlett Johansson (Nola Rice), Rose Keegan (Carol), Eddie Marsan (Reeves), Emily Mortimer (Chloe), James Nesbitt, Steve Pemberton (DI Parry), Miranda Raison (Heather), Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (Chris Wilton), Colin Salmon, Zoe Telford (Samantha)
Director: Woody Allen (Melinda & Melinda, Anything Else, Hollywood Ending)
Screenwriter: Woody Allen
Premise: Chris Wilton, a young tennis instructor, begins teaching a member of a wealthy English family. This leads to his rise in the world of upper class people and his subsequent romantic involvement with two women. A clandestine affair follows, leading him into an ever deepening quagmire until the only way out for him is to contemplate doing away with one of the women.
cool, crimes and misdemeanors with hotter women.
I dunno if it's a good or bad thing that this movie looks and sounds nothing like a woody film.
dear woody allen,
what
fins
You can tell that it will be a great movie, because everyone knows Woody Allen would never use such lame cliched thriller music in one of his movies and that's the only problem with the trailer.
yeah well.. its definetly not a woody allen trailer... but maybe he is pulling the same trick they did with the shining!
Quote from: andykyeah well.. its definetly not a woody allen trailer... but maybe he is pulling the same trick they did with the shining!
i was just thinking that. these are definitely marketing cousins.
good lord. it's just so...trite. making out in a field of wheat or whatever? fuck that. and did the make those credits with imovie?
Quote from: Gamblourmaking out in a field of wheat or whatever? fuck that.
oh i know! who DOES that?! ...
Quote from: Gamblourand did the make those credits with imovie?
have you seen his credits in his other films?
c'mon gamblor..... c'mon...
have i misstepped somehow? i just woke up to go to work, so i'm not understanding much of anything right now. i have no time for your playful brand of patronizing sarcasm. haha
maybe shower before you post cause it'll WAKE YOUR ASS UP. :yabbse-thumbup:
Hmm, i stand by my sleepy comments. Cinephile is a rouser of rabble.
what "trick" was pulled with the shining marketing?
Quote from: Tictacbkwhat "trick" was pulled with the shining marketing?
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=8148
seriously tho what's with the negativity, the trailer might not be LOL hilarious or even that original-looking, but did anyone see the shot with scarlett on the bed? or any close up of her for that matter? emily mortimer seems to be acting well also, as the cheated wife she could channel beatrice straight and a woody film may finally return to the oscars/acclaim.
[/hasn't lost hope]
International Trailer here. (http://www.iconmovies.co.uk/matchpoint/trailers/match_point_lg.mov)
happy birthday to me...
An Evening With Woody Allen
Monday November 28th 7:00pm
Alice Tully Hall 65th & Broadway
Please join Wendy Keys in a conversation with Woody Allen illustrated by select clips of his films with a special screening of the upcoming Match Point.
Tickets are $100, $50, $30 - Reserved Seating - Ticket requests will be filled in order of receipt. The Tully box office opens on October 20 for sales to the general public. For ticket information please call (212) 875-5050.
For some reason the international trailer seems a lot more like a Woody Allen film to me.
Quote from: Figure 8For some reason the international trailer seems a lot more like a Woody Allen film to me.
My roommate said the same thing, but I still think it doesn't seem anything like what I interpret as a "Woody Allen" type film(none of the dialogue is witty nor does it go on at any length)...the only Woody Allen-ish thing in the trailer to me is the music.
Although maybe compared to the other trailer anything seems more like a Woody Allen film.
It does seem a lot more Woody Allen, but more in the vein of Crimes and Misdemeanors than his recent lighter stuff. Especially in its portrayal of things like guilt and the metaphors and analogies with life and a tennis match.
I like it much better... the other one is also kinda Spiderman where they tell you the whole movie
In Ebert's great movies review of Crimes and Misdemeanors, he says that this movie is among the top four Woody Allen movies. I trust Ebert.
i saw Match Point tonite. and they showed a few highlights from his prior films and Woody Allen was there to speak before the film. it was good. like the trailer, it is a very un-woody allen woody allen film. there are a few really sexual scenes (blindfolds, oil) ha, that seem a little out of place but it's good he's stretching a bit outside his normal i think. johansson doesnt have much to do in the film but look hot and jonathan seems like he might be more believable lusting after another man, but hey. he kept saying scarlett and jonathan were 'hot'. and there is a point 3/4'ths of the way through where you're almost like ALRIGHT ALREADY but maybe thats also intentional letting the guilt build and build in the sameness of it. but the film did take me by surprise with a few great scenes that made it overall very enjoyable (though not quite a masterpiece). and the ending is killer. and thats okay. with this and Melinda and Melinda he seems to be on an upswing (after the horrifying lows of Anything Else) so thats good news.
Quote from: modage on November 28, 2005, 11:57:03 PM
3/4'ths
"quarters"
i'm glad it's hot, that's all i wanted to hear. also that it's good. but mostly that scarlett's hotness is used to its full potential as the trailer suggests.
Quote from: modage on November 28, 2005, 11:57:03 PM
i saw Match Point tonite. and they showed a few highlights from his prior films and Woody Allen was there to speak before the film. it was good. like the trailer, it is a very un-woody allen woody allen film. there are a few really sexual scenes (blindfolds, oil) ha, that seem a little out of place but it's good he's stretching a bit outside his normal i think. johansson doesnt have much to do in the film but look hot and jonathan seems like he might be more believable lusting after another man, but hey. he kept saying scarlett and jonathan were 'hot'. and there is a point 3/4'ths of the way through where you're almost like ALRIGHT ALREADY but maybe thats also intentional letting the guilt build and build in the sameness of it. but the film did take me by surprise with a few great scenes that made it overall very enjoyable (though not quite a masterpiece). and the ending is killer. and thats okay. with this and Melinda and Melinda he seems to be on an upswing (after the horrifying lows of Anything Else) so thats good news.
how the fuck did you see it and why didn't you call me? you still need to make up for the time you invited me to Thumbsucker.
ok i did one of my first double headers today in the theater. first kong, then this-- and i'm still shaking.
woody scores, BIG. the trailer is so wonderfully misleading. this fucker is ballsy, rich, beautifully shot, and HOT as hell. and with lines so cold and witty they could break glass. most importantly, it side-steps the obvious cliches you would assume would accompany such a premise.
what a day. :bravo:
The ball is in Woody's court
Susan Wloszczyna, USA TODAY
NEW YORK - Can it be true? At a time when the likes of Paris Hilton is capable of inspiring a Christmas shrine, Woody is hot again.
That's Woody Allen, of course, the bespectacled nerd with the ginger hair, pipsqueak physique and existential Borscht Belt humor who made films that mattered, such as 1977's still-sublime best-picture Oscar winner, Annie Hall.
Steadfast fans might have been able to forgive, or at least discount, the 70-year-old filmmaker's past indiscretions. (Perhaps you heard about the 1992 scandal that erupted when then-companion Mia Farrow discovered that the man in her life was secretly romancing her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi, now his wife of eight years.)
But chances are even his staunchest loyalists skipped Melinda and Melinda, probably mistaking the March release for a redundant law firm instead of an over-reaching mix of comedy and tragedy. As Allen morosely notes, "I always felt that if my name wasn't on many of my movies, they would have made more money."
Yet, after a half-decade of barely making a dent in the cultural landscape, Allen has a film that is earning enough praise to merit leaving the house to see: Match Point, which begins its run on Dec. 28.
The hosannas began in May at Cannes. The once-mighty auteur of urban angst stunned festivalgoers with a deadly serious and class-conscious affair about infidelity, immorality and murder among the posh set in, of all places, London.
The story, with its echoes of Hitchcock, Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy and Allen's own Crimes and Misdemeanors, goes something like this: Chris, a social-climbing, Irish-born tennis instructor (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers of Bend It Like Beckham), is taken on as a work in progress by a preppy young client, Tom (Michael Wilde), who introduces him to his sister, Chloe (Emily Mortimer).
Soon, the upstart ingratiates himself with everyone in the family manor, including Nola, his rich pal's sultry American fiancée (Scarlett Johansson as perhaps the world's first slacker femme fatale).
When Rhys Meyers and Johansson face off at a ping-pong table and begin to swat double-entendres back and forth, it's clear no goodwill rise from the heat between these pretty pouters. Chris weds Chloe, revels in their cushy lifestyle and is pulled up the corporate ladder by her father. But he can't resist regular trysts with Nola, who becomes pregnant and threatens to spill the illicit beans.
No Manhattan. No Jewish intellectuals. No obvious Allen alter ego. No joke, either. In fact, the moody melodrama is so drained of obvious Woody-isms that audiences who view its somber trailer have been known to titter in disbelief when his name flashes by. For a generation that knows Allen only as that old guy who makes creaky comedies, this could be a revelation.
"A change of scenery does Woody Allen a world of good in Match Point," writes Variety critic Todd McCarthey. "(The) well-observed and superbly cast picture is the filmmaker's best in quite a long time." Others agree: Match Point picked up four Golden Globe nominations and is seen as having a shot at a couple of Oscar slots.
Just don't expect Allen to cough up much insight about the sudden career turnabout with this, his 36th film in almost as many years.
Lately, this very private public figure has been submitting to interviews, often in the green-velvet womb of a screening room at his office, located in a stately Park Avenue building. Still, he politely yet stubbornly refuses to admit his films have any conscious agendas.
The main motif of Match Point is luck, as symbolized by the image of a tennis ball teetering precariously on a net. In this case, the ball has definitely fallen to Allen's advantage, and he knows it.
"I had a good time doing it, and I don't know if I could do it again," he says. "I was very lucky with the film. Money fell right in for me. When I was shooting, if I needed a rainy day, I got a rainy day. If I needed it to be gray and no rain, I got that. It's like I couldn't screw it up, no matter how hard I tried."
But there must be more than luck involved. Why did he choose to do a straight melodrama after a run of mainly comedies?
"It just happened. All my films just happen. People always impute to them calculation of different types. There was never any calculation. This was just the idea that I had. And I did it."
A gift of a box of Nihilist Chewing Gum - whose motto is "We don't believe in flavor" - doesn't loosen his tongue any, though a grin does briefly flicker. "This is perfect for me," says the longtime believer in the meaninglessness of existence.
Whether or not he'll own up to a grand plan, he does possess a knack for picking just the right talent for the right part. His actors have been rewarded with a stellar 14 Oscar nominations, including five wins: Diane Keaton for Annie Hall, Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest for Hannah and Her Sisters (1986), Wiest again for Bullets Over Broadway (1994) and Mira Sorvino for Mighty Aphrodite (1995).
"I've been lucky" - there's that word again - "in that no one tells me who to cast. I choose the very best person I can find for a role. The fact that no one heard of Samantha Morton when I put her in Sweet and Lowdown, that didn't matter to me." Her breakthrough as a mute waif in the 1999 film duly earned her an Oscar berth.
Allen also is able to snag performers, even star attractions such as Will Ferrell (Melinda and Melinda), at bargain prices - union minimum, to be exact. "I get them between lucrative jobs. I give them a good part to play, get out of their way, and they do it."
Just why do up-and-comers still regard being in a Woody Allen production to be a big deal?
"Getting a role in one of his movies is like getting a medal," says Rhys-Meyers, 28, who has been on the cusp since the 1998 glam-rock saga The Velvet Goldmine. "Someone who sees you in a Woody Allen film will take you more seriously."
Then there is the chance to hang with the enigmatic wonder himself. "He's a fabulous little mystery," Rhys-Meyers says of his director. "There's something magnetic and attractive about him."
As for the lack of money, Rhys-Meyers simply states, "Woody doesn't pay anybody. There is a reason why he doesn't, and I think it's right. The biggest detriment to a film set is ego. Eliminate the money and make it about work."
Mortimer, 34, who describes Allen as "a person who has a twinkle in his eye at all times," sounds like many other happy veterans of Allen's no-fuss filmmaking when she tries to explain why he is able to draw out the best in his actors.
"It has everything to do with how the film is made," she says. "It feels like nothing is happening, and you're not doing anything. He doesn't rehearse. He likes to go home early. There is something to be said for casting very appropriately for each role."
Then there is Johansson, who at 21 has been anointed as Allen's latest muse in the Keaton-Farrow tradition. She already has done a second film in London with him, a comedy called Scoop in which she plays a college journalist.
"I've been a fan of Woody's even before I was allowed to watch his movies," Johansson says. "One of the most wonderful things about Woody is that he's this pop culture icon, so intellectually smart and funny but without any ego. He always says when he's not working on a project, he goes crazy and gets riddled with anxiety. I guess it's lucky for us he is so anxious."
Before anyone concludes that Johansson is just the latest in the director's cradle-robbing fixations, a notion first planted with Mariel Hemingway's precocious schoolgirl in 1979's Manhattan, Rhys-Meyers has a different theory about what Allen sees in his Match Point co-star: "If Woody was a beautiful 20-year-old girl, he'd want to be Scarlett Johansson. He's living out part of his life through her."
Allen confirms that he is simpatico with the young actress, who inspired him to write Scoop. "Match Point is a very serious film, but she's a very funny girl. I thought, 'I should be really doing a comedy with her.' I was impressed with how amusing she was. How quick. Every time I'd say something funny, she would top me. As I used to do with Diane Keaton, I give myself all the jokes and funny stuff to do. Yet when the movie is finished, she comes out the funny one."
Since, as Allen points out, the outcome of his films is a matter of luck, it is difficult to say whether Match Point is a sign of more satisfying projects to come. But he won't leave such matters entirely to chance. He's not about to stop cutting his morning banana into seven pieces each day.
"I cut it in seven slices that first day 35 years ago or so, and nothing bad happened to me," he explains. "The next day I cut it in seven again, and nothing bad happened. The truth is, I've been pretty lucky in my life. And since you can't prove a negative or disprove a negative, who knows how much the seven slices is accounting for it."
As someone who once directed a film titled Bananas, perhaps Allen knows exactly what he is doing.
I was lucky enough to see Match Point in October. There was a free preview screening and all these studio bozo's were there prodding us with questions about how to market it. All I know is that it IS one of Woody Allen's best films. Certainly his most bold aesthetically in about 30 years. There is one dinner scene that is composed of about 10-15 shots all of which are extreme close ups of the actors faces. There is also one of the most beautiful scenes I have seen this year shot entirely in the rain... I don't want to give away too much, and I'm not being terrible articulate. But I did love this film.
how come no one is seeing this? :yabbse-huh:
... it's not out in the U.S. yet...
.. or in the AUS
.. or in the CAN
oooooh. :doh:
my bad.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1810%2Farticle.jpg&hash=1cbee53495a8f97deac1e3c9ba9c64500b4042d2)
Scarlett Johansson goes through every emotion in the new Woody Allen film, Match Point. After she breaks up with her British fiancé, she begins an affair with his brother in law played by Jonathan Rhys-Meyers. Rhys-Meyers soon realizes that he doesn’t want to end his marriage and realizes this can only end one way
Johansson is the definition of smoky femme fatale at the young age of 21. Her unique looks combined her subtle command of acting has made her a favorite of directors and audiences.
Daniel Robert Epstein: Even though it is an honor to work with Woody Allen, did a twinge ever go off in your head about Match Point not being a comedy?
Scarlett Johansson: No, I didn't think about that actually. I was so thrilled to be saying his dialogue that it never occurred to me. I love his comedies but I love his dramas too. So I was just so excited to be a part of it. I couldn't believe that it happened so suddenly. I've been a huge fan of Woody's before I was even allowed to watch his movies. I always imagined and dreamed that being in a Woody Allen film would happen to me.
DRE: How was your first meeting with Woody?
Scarlett: I actually didn't have any time to meet him because he was already in London and I was cast a week before shooting. I just went there and my first meeting was at an actual wardrobe test. I harassed him and we've been friends ever since.
DRE: It is common for Woody to fire people, was that a fear?
Scarlett: I'm always afraid of being fired so that's nothing new. I'm always afraid that they're going to find me out or something. Until you're actually done and it’s in the can you never know what's going to happen.
DRE: You’re also in his next film, Scoop, have you become his muse?
Scarlett: Our relationship inspired him to make Scoop but I think the word muse is overused. We have a very similar sense of humor and when we were making Match Point I said, “I'd love to act with you in something” and he agreed. We'd make fun of each other constantly so I think he felt that it was necessary for our own selfish desire to capture it on film. I would love to work with Woody again but I don't think I've inspired a whole new wave of Woody Allen films.
DRE: The press notes said that Woody allowed the UK actors to change his dialogue to how British people would talk. Did he do that with you as well?
Scarlett: Yeah but I never really improvise that much because I'm not really that good at it. With Woody's dialogue there wasn't that much to improvise. So if anything I probably took a lot of out. We had all these emotionally elevated scenes where there's a lot of dialogue that will pour out of your mouth but it won’t mean anything if there is too much of it.
DRE: One of the themes of the film that is you can't always have lust in a marriage which is why Jonathan's married character is attracted to you. Do you agree with that?
Scarlett: I think that love is something that is very selfless. You're thinking about the other person and you're trying to understand their emotion. Lust is very selfish. It's something that's very passionate and you're just thinking about what your fiery loins are calling out to you. Love is something that you work on over time and the more you get to know someone you love them more or not. Lust is immediate. It's something that you feel upon first meeting.
DRE: Woody trusts his actors a lot but were you ever afraid of going too far with this character?
Scarlett: You're always wondering whether you're going too far one way or the other and you trust that the director will say something. It's difficult when you don't have video playback which I never used to watch and then I realized that it can help sometimes especially if you can't really understand what the director is trying to communicate with you. But you know when it feels right so if it feels right then I trust that it's good. It's not always good, but I trust it anyway. Sometimes the director will say, “A little bit more seductive” or whatever and then you do it more seductively and then they go, “Whoa, whoa, that was too much.” So you trust that the director is going to direct you.
DRE: Do you think she was too needy?
Scarlett: Her affair wasn't what ruined her engagement. She's very desperate, she needs to be in some sort of comfortable position and she doesn't want to go back home. That's not an option, so she's looking for the next best thing. I don't think that she's very needy. She's trying to get control of her out of control life and sometimes people adjust to things that are thrown at them better off than others. She's just trying to grab onto what she can so that she doesn't have to admit that her life isn't the way that she wanted it to be.
DRE: What do you look for in a director?
Scarlett: I don't look for anything in a director. I've worked with directors that I thought we're going to be more compassionate than they were or not as compassionate as they ended up being. I've learned that their reputations are mostly not the case with them particularly concerning Woody. Everyone always said that he's cold and he's very self absorbed. It's not true. He's the most available person. He's always on set. He's very sociable but also shy.
DRE: Congratulations on your Golden Globe nomination.
Scarlett: It was very surprising. To have Woody Allen at 70 years old pull through to the Best Picture category was thrilling so I'm very excited about that. It's very exciting. The Hollywood Foreign Press has always been very supportive of my career and it's nice to be nominated by a group of people who really watch and analyze the movies. I think it's nice that people who respect film would be so complimentary of my career but now I have to think of what to wear. It's always a fun event to go to. Something always ridiculous seems to happen in the middle of the Golden Globes.
DRE: After films like Ghost World and Lost in Translation you’ve definitely picked up a certain kind of young fan, have you met any of them?
Scarlett: Yeah, absolutely. Being a New Yorker I run into a lot of those people. Since I live a sort of an alternative lifestyle and I am into alternative, progressive music and progressive films so I know a lot of those kids. It's always exciting to meet new kids who are sort of different. It's nice to have cool fans.
DRE: What are you working on next?
Scarlett: I play a magician's assistant in The Prestige which is a Chris Nolan project. Then The Nanny Diaries and a film called Borgia directed by Neil Jordan.
Spoilers. As the post began with 'The ending' I figured I should add spoiler.
The ending was like "Look it all ties together fine, big gulps huh, see you later." The point (erm, not a pun) was already home though so it was wise. No need to tack on another ten minutes to make it 'realistic' or whatever nonsense you know. I thought the development of plot and character were fucking dead-on in every way. It felt cinematic and realistic at the same time, there were moments ('I have no one to talk to about this because it's all so secretive.' Next: friend at work knows about it) where it felt like Woody was playing the fiddle and then you realized we were the fiddles.
He said in some article that Mac probably posted that might be in this very thread that Purple Rose, Husbands and Wives, and this were the only films of his that anybody could look at objectively and call good. I wouldn't add this one to his best of list personally, though I certainly would call it good.
B.
i believe in EW he said he thinks it is his best film.
went to see bareback mtn and it was sold out so we caught this again. the audience cheered at the end.
go see it.
That's cool. Mine was silent.
Some Spoilas in here:
I didn't love this film. Liked different things about it - the premise, Jonathon Rhys-Meyers, how the end fooled me. And disliked some of the dialog, some of Johansson's acting, weak plot points (she leaves then comes back, why? she hates it there), the ghosts of Scarlett's character and of the next door neighbor scene (even though this is Allen esque, I didn't feel it worked in this unAllen esque film).
How does modage put it... okay to kinda good.
I was loving this film until James Nesbit (the policeman with a the dream) showed up in the last 20 minutes. Absolutely terrible. Apart from that it was great to see London as a substitute for New York.
Saw it in a packed, sold out theatre. I'm a big fan of watching movies during the day with fewer people around, but I had forgotten how great it is to react to something with 400 other people. That's when you see what a great filmmaker he is...and I was never a big Woody Allen fan. I was into it from start to finish, which is rare for me, cause I have the attention span of a turnip (damn sesame street). I was a touch put off in the first five minutes by the style of pacing. It felt like it was going to be one of those "long shots staring out into nothingness" type movies, but once all the characters were introduced, I really wanted to know what would happen.
Kind of a spoiler, but not really now that I think about it:
I really liked all the scenes with the family where everyone is talking over each other, yet you always know who to pay attention to. Great sound editing, I found.
The only semi-annoying thing I found, and I'm being pretty picky, was the non-diagetic opera music with the scratch and hiss of a record. Every time it came up, I would sort of fall out of the story and pay attention to it.
fuck this movie. this movie was BULLLLLSHIIIIIT!
oh, how fucking sudden and unexpected that whole ending was. wow, really, totally caught me off guard. (SPOILER - and having the ghosts of the two women to come back and haunt jonathan rhys meyers, oh my gosh, my skin really fucking crawled). blow me. your audience deserves better, woody. quit while you're behind.
ALL I'M SAYING IS, I AIN'T GOING TO SEE ANY MORE MELINDA AND MELINDA'S AND HOLLYWOOD ENDING'S ANYMORE! I'M DONE BEING TRICKED BY YOU AND ALL YOUR FUCKING CRITICS WHO EVERY TIME SAY "IT'S A RETURN TO FORM FOR WOODY ALLEN!" IT'S NOT AND IT NEVER WILL BE!
brian cox. never stop being in movies.
jonathan rhys meyers. go fuck boys and stop getting chicks in the movies. who're you trying to fool? (i don't know about anybody else, but i thought the twist would be that jrm was gonna jump emily mortimer's brother's bones. "hey, you wanna chill out and watch some opera with me?" "sounds really gay. i'm in!" chi chi larue style, bitchez!)
scarlett johansson. shut up and look pretty.
emily mortimer. you're adorable. but trim your pubic hair.
and, for chrissakes, if you're gonna make such awful shit, over two hours is kinda pushin' it.
Spoilers.
I think I love you, taz. First your defense of Fight Club, and now this.
Yeah, I thought Match Point sucked. I saw it and was with it for a while, but it all went down the tubes once Rhys-Meyers' character flipped. The whole contrived "lucky versus good" thing didn't help matters. Could write so much more on why, and I was gonna write a more solid criticism of the film, but it wasn't worth the time at the time. Later maybe. As smart as Xixax is, I can't see too many people falling for this one ... although, they have fallen for worse movies. This was my highest hope for film of the year, and it's a shame that's it's fallen so short.
Johansson was beautiful but wasted, and hers was the only truly real performance in the film. Proof that she can act is here in spades. See, you think she's the one flipping out, but to me, her emotions are the only real ones. Rhys-Meyers was such a coward, and I think that's what angered me about him. It's okay to have an unsympathetic protagonist, but I require that he's less of a douchebag. I did enjoy Brian Cox in his minimal role. That, and Scarlett playing ping-pong, smoking, and cavorting in that grain field (so steamy) were the only redeeming things about this flick. And even that was unsatisfying because she should've been given more.
It's funny because you guys seem to be disappointed in the movie because it's from Woody Allen and you expected better, but I was relieved that it was as good as it was.
Every Allen flick has at least thrity things to hate. Sure the ending here wasn't unexpected, but Allen isn't the kind of guy who'd pen a contrived twist twist ending here. His writing style is more classic. Though neither of you knew that it was the investigator's dream you were watching. I won't ask if you did, but you can tell me you did if you feel like flinging some shit. You didn't. Which is hardly the point I apologize. The point is that like ono I thought Johansson's flipping out was real, but unlike ono I thought that Rhys-Meyer's was equally as real. Like I said in my earlier post, I thought that the majority of the characters' actions felt real. Inside of a thriller even. No less, the plight of Rhys-Meyer was tangible, the hot bomb shell who has absolutely nothing to offer or the kind-of cute girl who has a future to offer. Given the facts, I wouldn't classify either a loveful relationship. Which is where I would differ with ono as well, I would say that the character was entirely worthy of my sympathy.
I feel that the criticisms of the film that have been expressed have more to do with a lost sense of storytelling and expectations for all the gadgets of modern filmmaking. That and the continuing discussion of Rhys-Meyers' girlish looks and Scarlett's 'that's hot' body have done little in shedding any light on the film that would convince me it wasn't good.
Come on you two. It was good. I agree a little long. And tales of morality and amorality are better served from tennis pro Atom Egoyan. And the movie wasn't much more than realistically developed characters and a message story. Okay. It was least average, yes. This Woody Allen film was at least average.
you guys are insane, or maybe i just do not belong on this board anymore.
Spoilers
It felt more like two movies slapped together. The first one felt like an inferior but minorly intriguing version of Closer. It's just too bad it dragged on and on. The second one seemed more like a lessor Hitchcock work. Though it's not the comeback many critics are raving about, Match Point has numerous charms. I agree with onomabracadabra's point about Johansson's acting, as I thought her meltdown scenes were probably the best point of the movie.
I thought that the murder plotline kind of invalidated what the audience had gone through. I'd much rather see the protagonist deal with having a pregnant mistress and a wife than taking what seems like the easy way out (from a screenwriting perspective) and killing a major character.
Hopefully this is a sign that Allen is back on track, and that his next London movie(s) will improve on the flaws of this one. Hell, anything is better than Melinda and Melinda. I'm more than excited about another Allen/Johansson collaboration.
C+
SOOO MANY SPOILERS.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 24, 2006, 04:21:40 PM
It's funny because you guys seem to be disappointed in the movie because it's from Woody Allen and you expected better, but I was relieved that it was as good as it was.
no. i was disappointed in match point b/c it was stupid. better than woody's previous three or four efforts, but still stupid.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 24, 2006, 04:21:40 PM
Sure the ending here wasn't unexpected, but Allen isn't the kind of guy who'd pen a contrived twist twist ending here. His writing style is more classic.
actually, i thought the ending was completely unexpected, in a totally jarring way. not the way where i'm like "wow, i can't believe they DID that! how genius!" but in the way where i'm like "gosh, this really doesn't make sense in the context of this movie. this is bordering on silly, now i'm going to look for flaws b/c i'm totally aware that i'm watching a movie." yes, woody writes great dialogue. i absolutely loved every word that came out of the characters' mouths. but their actions were totally unbelievable and over the top. now, most people on the board know that i like ridiculous, over the top situations in movies that point out artifice. but, when the rest of the movie makes such a point to say "yes, i'm woody allen, and yes, i'm doing a serious movie. these are real people, going through real situations that real people go through." it's cheating the audience who's expecting a REAL ENDING. not some bullshit cop-out that woody wrote b/c he couldn't think of a way to REALLY END THE MOVIE! there's a point where johannson is flipping out and telling meyers to leave his wife for the umpteenth time and you can feel that woody was really stuck here and knew that any normal ending would just end up being a boring retread if not done carefully. so instead of being honest with his audience, he tacks on an extra forty minutes of some totally different suspense/cop drama film that is COMPLETELY incongruous with the rest of the film. he can't show that meyers is feeling guilty, so he has the ghosts of his victims haunt him. i just felt so cheated! i didn't realize that the movie was this big setup for some stupid parallel of opera/tragedy formulas and that the whole time i was being talked down to and asked to believe that what i was seeing was an excuse for real human drama, and when i found out i was so mad!
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 24, 2006, 04:21:40 PMThough neither of you knew that it was the investigator's dream you were watching. I won't ask if you did, but you can tell me you did if you feel like flinging some shit. You didn't. Which is hardly the point I apologize.
where the hell did you pull this shit from? the investigator's dream? are you completely fucking insane? that is the most nonsensical thing i've ever fucking heard. what a totally idiotic thing to say or even think! how do you live with yourself? can you really look at yourself in the mirror every morning and keep your stomach from turning? if, in fact, your interpretation is right, however, and it was the investigator's dream, then i hate this movie even more. what a REAL copout that would have been. and where do you get off telling me i'm an idiot b/c i didn't come with as ludicrous an excuse as you did for why this movie blew? like, who the fuck do you think you are, man, talking down to me almost as much as that movie did. fuck you, prick.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tv-nostalgie.de%2FSound%2FUKF-Nellie.jpg&hash=fd2f59363ca35061bf303f4fab5d011110ac5c03)
how's that for "shit flinging?" on with the post!
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 24, 2006, 04:21:40 PMI feel that the criticisms of the film that have been expressed have more to do with a lost sense of storytelling and expectations for all the gadgets of modern filmmaking. That and the continuing discussion of Rhys-Meyers' girlish looks and Scarlett's 'that's hot' body have done little in shedding any light on the film that would convince me it wasn't good.
yeah, no. if allen did a good job of eschewing the "gadgets of modern filmmaking," i would have been devastated when meyers blew those chicks away, not cheated. and my comments towards johannson and meyers were simply meant to illustrate humorously that the two should just be underwear models or something, b/c all they really know how to do is look pretty and/or brooding. and don't tell me johansson can act. you just think she's hot.
Quote from: Losing the Horse: on January 24, 2006, 04:21:40 PMCome on you two. It was good.
don't tell me what to think, or i'll get a shotgun and KILL YOU!
and it will make more sense than it did in this movie.
Haha. Good times.
The starting point for the film was the killings. It was the human drama that was tacked on. And I absolutely refuse to agree with either Rhys-Meyers or Johansson's characters and/or acting being over the top. Maybe acting, but definitely not characters. I say that wthout even taking into account that the king of neurosis was behind them; which there, I now just have. I don't agree at all that movies should consist of the same characters again and again who act in the same way, who act according to or in direct opposition to social norms values attitudes mores folkways or whatever. A writer should be free to have his characters act in any logical manner, I did not see any slip of logic in either of the two main characters. That you cannot like the characters does not negate the film for me, who did like the characters.
And yeah. I totally thought it was the investigator's dream. It was, right.
Quote from: ©brad on January 24, 2006, 09:27:06 PM
you guys are insane, or maybe i just do not belong on this board anymore.
We're not
insane, the movie just simply wasn't all that good. But taz, he may very well be
insane.
I can't wait till this film is out on dvd. :) Seems like a very interesting movie.
Oh, who cares if you figured out the ending before the ending. I don't know where this whole attitude of "I figured out the ending early so I hate it" came from. There were two other hours of the film before that that may have been worth watching. And we all say that we figured out the ending when, in reality, we figured out four or five possible endings and when one of them ends up being right, we claim it was the one we figured out. I spent years walking into theatres with my mind practically made up about whether I was going to like it or not. I don't care anymore. I want to be entertained and Matchpoint did that for me. We can criticize and rip it apart all we want, but there's no denying Allen knows how to work his audience. Can't we just repect that? Besides, watching movies is a lot more fun when you're not trying to time the start of the second act.
Now what if you enjoyed the first whatever hours, but then the third act came along and felt really sloppy? That let down in the end CAN affect the way you feel about the film overall. And that is pretty much what happened with my experience with Match Point.
i think...
the more i think about this movie... the more i like it.
Then stop thinking about it.
Quote from: bonanzataz on February 05, 2006, 08:22:07 PM
i think...
the more i think about this movie... the more i like it.
Okay, the fact that you're willing to reconsider a vehement opinion
and found a way to expose everyone who looks at this thread to the sight of the glorious Nellie Olson? I liked you before, but you've just been further elevated in my estimation.
As for the film, I need to see it again for my final opinion. I was too tired/harried when I saw it.
Spoilers, babies.
To me it was shocking for Chris to shoot Nola because she was such a strong character. It would have been less shocking if he shot his wife.
An interesting thought..I don't think Nola was even pregnant. That's just me though. Notice how the detectives never mentioned she was pregnant? After she was killed, there wasn't any mention of a pregnancy. If only it was brought up that she was indeed never pregnant, it would have made it that much better.
good point, Bethie. that might've been the case.
I did like it for the most part, but it's not particularly original or memorable. the 3 leads were good for their roles, although Scarlett is weak in a few scenes. but she's hot, so I forgive her. :yabbse-grin:
Universal (for DreamWorks) has announced the April 25th release of Woody Allen's Match Point (SRP $29.98). You'll get anamorphic widescreen video and Allen's typical mono audio. Special features, if any, are still TBA.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers%2Fmatchpointdvd.jpg&hash=e1bda3e5d4d6884db178032b4d2e7bcb502a0b74)
Unfortunately Woody is vehemently against extra features.
SPOILERS
Most of the movie was engaging. I was genuinely interested in the screwed up situation Chris got himself into. Okay, so its not the most original story, but I felt the unfolding of the story was convincing enough. But the film lost me when Chris gets a gun from the cabinet and goes to shoot Nola and her neighbor. It occurred to me earlier in the film that he could kill Nola, but then I thought, "Naw, this film isn't going to go that way." But as the film started to go there, I felt I was watching a plot formula had seen in other films.
The ending, with the detective and with Chris getting away with the crime felt rushed and by-the-numbers. We think the detectives are close to nabbing Chris for the crime, but some lucky accident causes him to get off scot-free, at least for the time. The Talented Mr. Ripley is probably the best modern film I've seen about someone getting deeper and deeper into a situation and then coming to a very disturbing end.
I saw this in January, and decided to rent it to make sure I still felt the same way.
I do.
I loved this movie. I find it engrossing in every moment. In watching it a second time, I noticed that all of the scenes are very short, and very to the point. Each scene had its place, and was set up beautifully. I found it to be so wonderfully constructed. I love the main philosophical point, I love the style and feel of it, and I even love Rhys-Meyers and Scarlett's awkward acting (I found it fitting). It may not emotionally resonate with me through the ages, but I still, after viewing it twice, regard it as a near-perfect and enthralling piece of work. It'd be somewhere on my top 3 for 2005, if I ever bother to make a list.
Quote from: Ravi on March 04, 2006, 02:17:52 AM
...The Talented Mr. Ripley is probably the best modern film I've seen about someone getting deeper and deeper into a situation and then coming to a very disturbing end.
It's funny you said this, because when the character of Chris was being introduced, I said to myself, "Oh he's a Tom Ripley character." It turned out I was wrong, but still felt Rhys-Meyers was awkwardly strange. He never really fit the character that Woody Allen was trying to convey, at least to me. The same goes for Scarlett. Not the best casting for this one.
As things moved along, I thought, "Oh, this is an abridged 'Crimes & Misdemeanor's." And it was. Even down to the talking apparitions substituting his conscience.
Anyway, the movie was ok. Not the most original. Not Woody's best. But still ok.
spoils
Quote from: Pwaybloe on May 09, 2006, 09:53:13 PM
It's funny you said this, because when the character of Chris was being introduced, I said to myself, "Oh he's a Tom Ripley character." It turned out I was wrong, but still felt Rhys-Meyers was awkwardly strange. He never really fit the character that Woody Allen was trying to convey, at least to me.
yes. at first i thought he was being a little weird, then when the murder stuff began i thought the physcopathicness of the performance made sense. but THEN when he felt really bad about the murder i thought nothing in the writing really suggested he was psychopathic. aside from the murder, which is the one point (afterwards) where he seems human. the idea of this psychopath no one notices who methodically climbs the bourgeoisie ladder for the perks and really doesn't love anyone and murders to maintain his position and goes unnoticed is very interesting but i think unintentional. Allen didn't write it that way, and i'm not sure if Meyers meant to appear so psychopathic and socially methodical and joyless, because he kills to maintain the rich life.. so it's a miscast. but if Allen had noticed what the performance was i think he could've rewritten this into something way better.
This has to be one of the worst Woody Allen films ever.
Its nothing new for Woody Allen to play homage in his work, but the homage here is dry. All sense of the enjoyment that comes with a Woody Allen film is not in Match Point. The homage here isn't even towards Hitchcock, its for Kieslowski. The theme is that luck and blind opportunities are our true saving graces. Hell, the film even uses the name of one of Kieslowski's films (Blind Chance) as a line to indicate the theme. The problem is by the 1990s even Kieslowski was having fun with his own themes. All Woody Allen can sum up to give us is a stuffy and bland 2 hour movie that does one jab at convention at the end and really gives us nothing we haven't seen before.
I remember observing the opening monologue of Match Point and thinking a second year film school student could have done that good to introduce a theme. The well is running very dry for Woody Allen. Melinda and Melinda was a turning point. It was the first time Woody Allen played homage to his own work. He merged his comedy and drama together in one film. Thing is, I think it was all he could do to make a complete film. His once writing talent no longer had the scrutiny to invent character for an entire feature length film. With Match Point, we see his writing scrutiny can't even invent a homage work the entire way through. The well runs even drier for Woody Allen.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 10, 2006, 07:56:01 PM
This has to be one of the worst Woody Allen films ever.
Its nothing new for Woody Allen to play homage in his work, but the homage here is dry. All sense of the enjoyment that comes with a Woody Allen film is not in Match Point. The homage here isn't even towards Hitchcock, its for Kieslowski. The theme is that luck and blind opportunities are our true saving graces. Hell, the film even uses the name of one of Kieslowski's films (Blind Chance) as a line to indicate the theme. The problem is by the 1990s even Kieslowski was having fun with his own themes. All Woody Allen can sum up to give us is a stuffy and bland 2 hour movie that does one jab at convention at the end and really gives us nothing we haven't seen before.
I remember observing the opening monologue of Match Point and thinking a second year film school student could have done that good to introduce a theme. The well is running very dry for Woody Allen. Melinda and Melinda was a turning point. It was the first time Woody Allen played homage to his own work. He merged his comedy and drama together in one film. Thing is, I think it was all he could do to make a complete film. His once writing talent no longer had the scrutiny to invent character for an entire feature length film. With Match Point, we see his writing scrutiny can't even invent a homage work the entire way through. The well runs even drier for Woody Allen.
I'd say it's not one of the best, but definitely not one of the worst. To me, Match Point was a great deal of fun. The whole production had the feel of a filmmaking exercise, like Allen finally decided to just play with his camera and stretch his skills a little bit. I'm not sure we're meant to take Match Point as seriously as a lot of people seem to be taking it -- that's why the glaring flaw in the gem is the dream sequence in which Allen can't resist spelling out the themes of his film for the blind and deaf people in the audience who had been playing PSP for the last hour and forty minutes. Strangely, I agree entirely with your assessment of Melinda and Melinda, but I had fun watching it. He was clearly at a turning point, paying homage to his own work, but at least he's stretching his muscles (as opposed to his previous several comedies, which retread the same, formerly golden, roads he paved with his earliest films). The whole of Match Point seemed design entirely to evoke a mood that even Crimes and Misdemeanors, with its heavy-handed ruminating, didn't quite touch. Match Point is crisp, ivory-textured, and thoroughly weighted with emptiness. I rather enjoyed Rhys Meyers and Johansson for that reason. The clunkiness in writing (the prologue and dream sequence in particular, plus some of the colloquialisms that make it evident Allen hasn't spent nearly enough time in London) again felt fresh to me, because he was just playing around and experimenting, like a college student trying to get a feel for his own voice. The themes are old hat, maybe even juvenily (did I just invent an adverb?) obsessive, but his view on luck seems even more cynical than Kieslowski's -- it means less than nothing. Kieslowski touched on a mystic nerve that suggested fatalism in his later work; here, Allen does just the opposite, though presenting it in an overwrought fashion that suggests fatalism. To me, that seems to be his own little joke. I wouldn't say I loved Match Point, but I wasn't entirely disappointed. As flagpolespecial said, Match Point is a bit of a one-trick pony, but it's still a lovely beast. :)
Matt, if this film was not made by Woody Allen, would you like it that much? Or is the film saved because it is made by Woody Allen and diversifies his already large body of work?
Exactly. This movie sucks.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 11, 2006, 04:32:56 PMMatt, if this film was not made by Woody Allen, would you like it that much? Or is the film saved because it is made by Woody Allen and diversifies his already large body of work?
I have no doubt about the fact that I wouldn't like it
as much if it wasn't made by Woody Allen, but I would still feel it's a solid film. After all, a few of your criticisms were rooted in Match Point's place in the context of his other work. As a standalone film, it still doesn't quite cover new territory in the realm of cinema as a whole, but the technique on display is so refined, the themes so clearly drawn, that I can't help but appreciate it. I also relished most of the performances, with Johansson being the odd woman out -- not that she stunk, but she sometimes seemed to be in a different movie. (That's part of her allure, I guess, but it doesn't always work for me.) A great deal of the dialogue flowed naturally -- even though it seemed more American than British -- and I love well-written dialogue. The music choices also intrigued me.
I guess I am having trouble separating Match Point from Woody Allen, so I'm just rattling off a list of the film's good qualities, but I lose my ability to articulate their resonance by restricting my references to the man behind them. The thing about Allen is that he is very emblematic of the auteur theory. There are many directors, I'm sure, whose films both fit together as a whole and are equally interesting taken individually. But one of Allen's hallmarks is that each of his films is distinctively his; that's one of the aspects of his work that I find appealing, that they seem to blur the line between the man with the camera and the man on-screen. He deliberately blurred the line, yet insists that it's definite and sharp. To me, that's a fascinating paradox, and one of the driving forces behind his work. So when Match Point comes along with its CGI wedding band, British cast, and hermetic cinematography, I'm compelled to stack it up against everything else he's done. As I said, I connected with its themes and most of its execution independent of the filmmaker... But I'm not sure I want to evaluate it on those terms.
Quote from: Split Infinitive on May 11, 2006, 05:36:32 PM
After all, a few of your criticisms were rooted in Match Point's place in the context of his other work.
I had to think about this film in the context of his other films. I really had to think about that while watching it. I had to because it was the only thing that kept me shutting the movie off. I understand your sympathies but this film really bored me. The elements don't even have to be breathtakingly new. The elements just have to be interesting. What you call Woody Allen having fun in Match Point I call him acting without inspiration.
Just curious.... how do people feel this stacks up to George Stevens's A Place in the Sun? Or, to go back to the real root source of both, Dreiser's American Tragedy? I have seen Stevens's film, which is very good in a completely different way than Match Point is very good, but haven't read the Dreiser.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on May 11, 2006, 05:58:07 PMI had to think about this film in the context of his other films. I really had to think about that while watching it. I had to because it was the only thing that kept me shutting the movie off. I understand your sympathies but this film really bored me. The elements don't even have to be breathtakingly new. The elements just have to be interesting. What you call Woody Allen having fun in Match Point I call him acting without inspiration.
Well, as you said about Melinda and Melinda, it's as if he finally ran out of territory to explore, so he just decided to make a more detailed map of the territory. I can't really argue with the basic gut reaction of boredom any more than I suppose you could argue with the basic gut reaction of enjoyment. If there were more at stake, I suppose I'd try, but Match Point isn't a career highlight. Now, on the other hand, if you started taking potshots at Manhattan... :yabbse-grin:
terrific film. the ending was spectacular. considering the crime, is it wrong that I wanted this character to get away with it? I even got pissed during the ring-tossing scene as i assumed it would be the downfall, but Woody spun the situation around beautifully.
yeah that's great.
say, don't you think it's about time for an avatar change?