Review: Match Point


I recently went to go see the latest offering from Woody Allen. Most people have been quite harsh on Mr. Allen's films as of late (although I believe that Curse of the Jade Scorpion was very good). They supposedly have been too verbose and analytical, taking the infamous neuroses of Woody Allen and turning them into meaningless rhetoric. I believe that the major problem that Mr. Allen encountered, and something that most "classic" directors face, is the transition from one generation to the next and the subsequent shift of attitude in their audience. The audiences that saw Annie Hall and Crimes and misdemeanors are not the majority of viewing public. Therefore, Mr. Allen had to go back to the basics and augment his approach. With that sentiment, Mr. Allen's latest offering takes on the elitist upper class of London (giving the traditional New York backdrop a hiatus) and proposes a very simple question: is it better to be lucky than good? The question is simple enough but no one ever thinks of its significance. How much of an effect does "luck" actually play in the daily existence of human beings? Some people reject the concept itself, and others, particularly those who are particularly religious, believe that the thought is blasphemous.
The question is tested in the character of Chris ( Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) an Irish import who is serving as the local tennis pro at a country club after retiring from the professional circuit. While instructing he meets Tom (Matthew Goode) who introduces him to his upper-crust family and their ridiculously lavish lifestyle. Tom also pretty much hands Chris his beautiful and amazingly kind sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer). After romancing Chloe for a while they are engaged, and life seems to be on the up and up for Chris. That is until he meets Tom's fiance, Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson), and the seduction begins. Nola is the polar opposite of Chloe. She is challenging, confrontational, self-absorbed, and sensual. The combination is intoxicating for Chris (and most other men with a pulse). The relationship between Tom and Nola eventually dissolves, and therefore, the relationship with Nola and Chris stalls.
When Nola returns from her hiatus in the United States, the passionate affair resumes, and the question of luck returns. To those who want to compare this film to those of Alfred Hitchcock, I would say that this film is not of that caliber. I'm not saying that the film is bad, because its not, but the depth of suspense is not evident. All of the characters are severely flawed emotionally, and therefore, a sense of morality is lost and usurped by the character's obvious physical charms. Beautiful people, particularly those who are aware of their own beauty, often lack the moral fiber necessary to create a clear conscience. In the film, morality takes a backseat to the libido and the basic carnal desires of the character's (Chris in particular). He craves success, both financial and romantic, and is willing to usurp the sanctity of marriage and laws of common decency to accomplish both. Therefore, the conclusion of the film is not entirely a surprise.
The film's biggest asset is also its biggest hindrance. Scarlett Johansson radiates sex appeal as Nola Rice, the pseudo actress and pretentious object of affection for both Tom and Chris. The character of Nola Rice is an unusual dichotomy because her confidence as a seductress is top notch. Her dialogue with Chris is very captivating, yet she always performs disastrously at auditions for potential roles. The imbalance in character takes away from her performance. It was not a major problem but I did find her character to be problematic. The character of Chris was also a problem. Mostly because he was presented with such a cool stoicism that it was hard not to be able to see his true intentions and take him seriously as a dynamic character. The "corruption" subplot is a facade because there is nothing to corrupt. Chris does not seem to feel anything, anything that involves another human being and their welfare at least.
At the end of the film, the question on the value of luck is posed to the audience one more time. I personally believe that people create their own good luck. I always believed that those whom believe everything is fated have just taken every ounce of excitement out of the human experience. What is the point of living if you can't feel alive? Mr. Allen answers the question of luck very honestly and examines the upper class with a mastery that his garnered him the reputation he rightly deserves. The transition from New York to London works well for the film and the scenery is very appealing. The only problem I saw with the film is that it tried to be a morality tale but did not feature any semblance of morals. But then again, as the film says, morality is irrelevant, it is only the end result which is consequential.