|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| MATCH POINT (2005) | |
|
|
After several decades of shooting intriguing comedies, dramas, and mutations of the two, Woody Allen has eventually reached the point where he again reinvents himself.
His newest film, Match Point, might be one of his very best, as it definitely is his best within the last decade.
Despite its similar application of interpersonal tension as his Interiors (1978) and September (1987), the film provides a distinctly different atmosphere compared to his other films.
Allen allows the audience to venture into the psyche of Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) in a beguiling cerebral drama that dissects the philosophical importance of mere luck. By appearance, it is rather obvious that Woody Allen never had a chance to reach stardom in athletics with the exception of being a jockey. Nonetheless, he has repeatedly displayed his intellect in regards to athletics and sports in a thoughtfully intelligent manner. Sure, on occasion, he has even made fun of the sports, but it has never been tactless. In Annie Hall (1977), his character Alvy Singer told Annie (Diane Keaton) in the theater line that those who cannot become teachers with the exception of physical education teachers. Almost two decades later Allen returns to point out the importance of athletics in the Western society, as the former tennis pro Wilton attempts to seek his fortune among the London aristocrats by using his skills in tennis and quaint discourse. Match Point begins by planting a seed in the audience’s mind by letting a tennis ball strike the top of the net and then freeze in mid air while Rhys-Meyers’ voice points out the importance of luck needed for a ball to continue over the net. It is an intriguing notion that luck often has decisive power of a situation such as it can determine the outcome of a tennis game. However, Allen takes the notion even a step further by applying it to the path of people’s lives. The existential determination based on luck is rather obvious in the beginning of the film when Wilton finds employment, as a tennis coach in an extraordinarily exclusive tennis club. Wilton, once born into Irish poverty, has now been fortunate to make ends meet through tennis while many of the people in his working environment have the privilege to enjoy the birthright of wealth and social status. The initial illustration of luck determined through birth eventually diffuses, as Wilton’s actions bring him in a desired direction. He befriends the rich Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode) by becoming his coaching tennis partner, and eventually Wilton finds himself invited to an opera. Wilton nurtures the friendship by never taking advantage of the situation, or his new friend by insisting on paying for himself despite his meager salary. Through Wilton’s new friendship, he also encounters Tom’s sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer) who he begins to court, after she shows interest in him. Even the parents of Hewett family performed by Brian Cox and Penelope Wilton take liking to him. It is evident that luck alone does not make things happen, however, luck still is the decisive factor of new encounters. As the film unfolds, Allen also allows luck to collide from two different directions – wealth and love. It all begins when Wilton meets Nola (Scarlett Johansson) who is Tom’s fiancé. Nola is much like Wilton, who is raised in poverty who tries to find her way out of her misfortunate situation, and Tom has fortunately crossed her path like a knight in shining armor with his deep bank account. Through Wilton, the audience realizes that he cannot acquire both, as he either must remain true to Chloe to secure his future, or pursue Nola for love. It leaves him with a deep personal predicament, as he must confront his own greed and lust, which he begins to rationalize in his own favor. It is in the conflict between love and wealth that the story’s treasure rests, as Allen rises several existential questions such as is it wrong to wish oneself riches and can love provide everything necessary in life? To increase the complexity within the story Allen pushes boundaries beyond what he has ever done previously in a ghastly manner. The film also has a slight tone of Robert Bresson with its unique minimalist approach, which augments the minute actions and incidents within the story. Allen never says what is right or wrong through the film, he simply lets the camera capture the truth. It is both refreshing and horrid, as the minimalism enhances the offensive nature of the story and compels the audience to ponder the morality of Wilton’s situation. The convergence between the notions of fortunate happenstance and morality ushers the audience into a thoughtful mode while following the intriguing rationalization of Wilton and his actions. The film also provides an interesting perspective of how luck ambiguously affects people’s lives, as Allen exhaustively presents an emotional drama that intentionally keeps its distance to the audience in order for the viewer to dwell on the concepts presented. However, it leaves the audience disturbed on a very intellectual level, as it purposely stirs the very foundation of moral development. The film does not allow the audience to feel neutral to the topic, as it presents a very dark tale, which can be summed up by Wilton’s statement, "I'd rather be lucky than good.” |
|
DIRECTED BY |
|
| Woody Allen | |
|
COUNTRY |
|
|
UK / Luxembourg |
|
| REVIEWED | |
| BY KIM ANEHALL – 1/10/2006 | |
| GRADE | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
The Internet Movie Database. |
