![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Match Point
Jan. 22nd, 2006 10:28 pmWell, to finish my media consumption weekend, Carly and I went to see Match Point this afternoon. I really enjoyed it. She really hated it. Whether or not you should see it depends on how much you enjoy seeing immoral people get, or not get, their just desserts.
The movie explores the role luck plays in people's place in life, and makes an entirely cynical suggestion that luck is more important than prestige, power, or hardwork in making a life what it ends up being. A moment that really dug into me is when the extremely wealthy daughter of an extremely wealthy family tries to argue that hardwork is the root of success. How would she know? Her "gallery" is bankrolled by inherited wealth, her entire life, including her husband is bought for her.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers (who is looking rather tan in this movie, and much more mature) plays the same kind of character he's played in lots of other films: beautiful, cold, opportunistic, and amoral. The character he plays in this film begins as amoral and ends as immoral. The success of the film really depends on there not being spoilers.
This movie has been and is aptly compared to Henry James in terms of outsiders seeking entry to the British upper class. Somehow it also reminded me of E.M. Forster, who covers the same material as James, but much more gently. It also owes a great deal to various suspense films of the 20C; and there are definitely those "Woody just wishes he were Bergman" moments that make Allen's films so damn annoying. One wishes he would quit trying to be Bergman and focus on those uniquely Allen things that have made him great in the past.
Nevertheless this film contains a great deal of the Bergmanian quality of "Oh God! I can't watch!" that make the master of existential dilemma so excrutiating. The suspense is almost unbearable. Looking around at the rest of the audience there were people literally on the edge of their seats.
Whether you leave the film thinking it is a powerful argument on the side of luck and meaninglessness, or thinking it is a convincing argument for the need for moral agency regardless of material outcome, is up to you. So is whether or not you see it. I thought it was fabulous, but can't imagine it being the same film a second time around, knowing what choices the characters have made.
S
P.S. Carly gave me a copy of "Monster Ballads." I am having a total blast listening to it.
The movie explores the role luck plays in people's place in life, and makes an entirely cynical suggestion that luck is more important than prestige, power, or hardwork in making a life what it ends up being. A moment that really dug into me is when the extremely wealthy daughter of an extremely wealthy family tries to argue that hardwork is the root of success. How would she know? Her "gallery" is bankrolled by inherited wealth, her entire life, including her husband is bought for her.
Jonathan Rhys Meyers (who is looking rather tan in this movie, and much more mature) plays the same kind of character he's played in lots of other films: beautiful, cold, opportunistic, and amoral. The character he plays in this film begins as amoral and ends as immoral. The success of the film really depends on there not being spoilers.
This movie has been and is aptly compared to Henry James in terms of outsiders seeking entry to the British upper class. Somehow it also reminded me of E.M. Forster, who covers the same material as James, but much more gently. It also owes a great deal to various suspense films of the 20C; and there are definitely those "Woody just wishes he were Bergman" moments that make Allen's films so damn annoying. One wishes he would quit trying to be Bergman and focus on those uniquely Allen things that have made him great in the past.
Nevertheless this film contains a great deal of the Bergmanian quality of "Oh God! I can't watch!" that make the master of existential dilemma so excrutiating. The suspense is almost unbearable. Looking around at the rest of the audience there were people literally on the edge of their seats.
Whether you leave the film thinking it is a powerful argument on the side of luck and meaninglessness, or thinking it is a convincing argument for the need for moral agency regardless of material outcome, is up to you. So is whether or not you see it. I thought it was fabulous, but can't imagine it being the same film a second time around, knowing what choices the characters have made.
S
P.S. Carly gave me a copy of "Monster Ballads." I am having a total blast listening to it.
