most pleasantly surprised

totally not what i was expecting

a real departure for woodyee

and a total treat for the viewer (like me)



.
[Edited 7/28/06 12:01pm]

thread of the year???

shausler said:

I saw it when it first came out and really liked it. I'd like to see it again, to see if it holds up to waht i thought then...

do to the lack of success with this thread,


i am postponing my tallented mr ripley tribute thread

I saw it in the theater because I'm a fan of both Woody's and Scarlett's(and that's where they show movies), but it lulled me to sleep. Literally. Watched it again a couple months ago and enjoyed it.

I liked it...though it was a pale echo of The Talented Mr Ripley.

Scarlett was good and I always like Johnathan Rhys Meyers. He's really talented and takes interesting roles.

My second favorite Woody Allen movie.

namepeace said:

I liked him in Antz.




Or was that a Bug's Life?

we have a thread down people


THREAD DOWN!!!!

shausler said:

Shaus!

I would respectfully disagree. It owes much to his own Crimes & Misdemeanors and he's done straight drama before (Interiors, September, Another Woman).

WARNING: MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD IN THIS THREAD.

2the9s said:

Actually more a pale echo of Crimes & Misdemeanors.


I thought she was alright. As for JRM, I thought he was horrible; the only bad performance in the flick.


(Spoiler-alert edit)
[Edited 7/31/06 14:50pm]

JRM was awful, he always is. What's with that weird accent? He's Irish but sounds like an American putting on a crap fake posh English accent... and that's actually how he speaks cos they incorporated him being Irish in the film.

I didn't really like Woody Allen's representation of London that much, it was almost as bad as Notting Hill.

Ace said:

hey bro, long time

your absolutly correct

i forgot about that gem

landau was amazing

shausler said:

Just cause Woody Allen wants to kill women that give him a hard time doesn't mean that MAtchPoint is anything at all like Crimes And Mis.

Matchpoint is contains none of his humor. That is the normal thing that completely characterizes a Woody Allen movie. Match is so dry and english, and it's the most successful miming of Hitchcock I have ever seen. Depalma is like porno teenage Hitchcock, M Night is like speilberg Hitchcock through a Kubrick filter, and Spielberg is like a David Lean /Hitchcock/francis truffaut/disney.... but Woody Allen managed just plain old Hitchcock.

you all have opened up me eyes
[Edited 7/30/06 6:41am]

ufoclub said:

I really like your analysis. We should talk films sometime.

ufoclub said:

I'd say that when you could write the closing scene of one (Crimes) into the other, they have a bit in common. And, yes, Woody wants to "kill women that give him a hard time" just like Prince thinks all women are bitches.


Unless, of course, it's one of his dramas.


Allen's not even a fan of Hitchcock. It's a successful miming of Allen, transposed to England.

Ace said:

What dramas are you talking about? Really, I'm curious. The only ones I can think of that lack the humor (off the top of my head) are Interiors and maybe Sweet Lowdown. Just scan the list below and learn the proportion of humor infused works. Crimes/Misdemean is a prime example of him incorporating his serious themes with his humor. Also, it's obvious that Matchpoint plays like a miming of Hitchcock, from the tension of the METHODICAL murder by crosscutting (the focus here is the horror and suspense, not his character's transformation) mundane stoppers with the sinister workings, to the tension of METHODICALLY dealing with the evidence, plus you have "high society" drama created from the twisting of formal tea time society by base human (misogynistic?) impulses, and the smug guilty party going on with HIS affairs. Without modern trend (aside from the explicit sex), or Allen's usual American, tonight-show-monologue intellectual humor, you have a film that could have been processed in technicolor for the full old school effect.

The reason that this stands out, is BECAUSE Woody Allen has turned full circle and embraced the components that Hitchcock used over and over again. I think it's ridiculously obvious that he is using everything HitchCOCKian (he claimed to not be a fan of) as the core points of interest/entertainment in this film. And it's futile to argue against Hitchock's branding of those conventions simply because he used them over and over for 40+ years in films that are legendary and acclaimed. 40+ years.

PS, No woman has ever stuck with Prince... hmmmm....

And that quip about Woody Allen murdering women was a joke anyway!

# Match Point
# Melinda and Melinda
# Anything Else
# Hollywood Ending
# The Curse of the Jade Scorpion
# Small Time Crooks
# Sweet and Lowdown
# Celebrity
# Deconstructing Harry
# Everyone Says I Love You
# Mighty Aphrodite
# Bullets Over Broadway
# Manhattan Murder Mystery
# Husbands and Wives
# Shadows and Fog
# Alice (1990)
# Crimes and Misdemeanors
# New York Stories
# Another Woman
# September
# Radio Days
# Hannah and Her Sisters
# The Purple Rose of Cairo
# Broadway Danny Rose
# Zelig
# A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy
# Stardust Memories
# Manhattan
# Interiors
# Annie Hal
# Love and Death
# Sleeper
# Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask
# Bananas

ufoclub said:

Besides Interiors, there's also September and Another Woman. And Sweet & Lowdown's not a drama.


Uh, I'm well-familiar w/his oeuvre, thanks.

You imply that Match Point is a total departure from his previous work, one of the reasons being that it's a straight drama. He's done straight drama before (three times, to be exact).





Actually, the core points of interest in this film are the themes of luck and dispelling the standard movie notion that the bad are always punished (whether by a God or their own guilty conscience). The latter is also the theme of Crimes.



The screenplay was originally set in New York and was only relocated (with minimal changes) to London because of financing issues. Any resemblances to Hitchcock are unintentional.

Ace said:

Ace is getting his dander worked up. I think any resemblance to Hitchcock is coincidental. And as a fan of both directors, I didn't see any stunning similarities in Match Point or Scoop to any of Hitchcock's work.
[Edited 7/30/06 13:27pm]

kidelrich said:

No dander here. Just think his characterization of MP as a Hitchcock rip is a total stretch.

Ace said:

Sweet Lowdown must have you fooled! It's a tragedy. Matchpoint is NOT a drama. It's a thriller complete with a pair of detectives. The whole movie functions as a setup for the "thrilling" portion, and the aftermath of tidying up.

This is a common general theme in many horror and thriller movies. It's such an overused theme that it cannot retain any poignance in this time. Unless you're unfamiliar with it. It's a cliche device! But his plot twisting of the evidence to actually free the guilty of suspicion is the narrative core, and such cliche devices are the fare of thriller/Hitchcock. Think about what the most interesting/engaging moments of the film are, his "operation", the innocent bystanders/victims/almost witnesses, the Police investigation. the only part that really seems like Woody Allen (and by this I mean his original established style) are the imagined ghosts and their nagging laments.

By dry english I don't mean set in England, I mean very cultured, civil, straight forward almost pragmatic or formal narrative.

Also, I never ever hold the director's intentions with much importance, I hold the RESULTS with importance. It is the final product that will stand long after his death that live's on it's own without his moderation. This is why after a while most SUCCESSFUL artists don't really even want to publicly dissect their original intentions.

Just think of it this way, imagine if you saw Matchpoint in 1973 as one of Hitchcock's last films. You really can't see it?

Do you see how Spielberg is influenced by Hitchcock?
[Edited 7/31/06 1:16am]

ufoclub said:

You said:


Sweet & Lowdown certainly does not "lack humour"; it's as much of a comedy as it is a tragedy.


Whatever, call it a "thriller". It's all secondary to the point of the film, anyway. You implied that it was a major departure because it contained no comedy and I've shown you that he's made non-comedic films before.


Actually, the most interesting/engaging moments of the film are the protagonist's sliding-scale morality.



Allen on Hitchcock, in 1993:



Match Point is a murder story of the former variety, so Allen did not “(manage) just plain old Hitchcock”. And any stylistic similarities are coincidental and trivial. The primary focus of the film (as well as Crimes and many other Allen films) is existential issues, whereas Hitchcock’s films aspire to no such heights.

You stated that MP isn’t anything at all like Crimes and that the fact that the former is a drama makes it a departure from Allen’s previous work. Wrong and wrong.

As for your contention that an artist’s intentions are irrelevant, this is the school of thought that says the viewer’s interpretation is equally or more valid than the creator’s and is usually held up in service of defending a pretentious work that has no meaning. I think you’ll find that artists who aren’t bullshitting are more than happy to tell you what their intentions were.

Your focus on trying to paint MP as being greatly indebted to Hitchcock is just film school masturbation. I say this with all due respect, of course.

The reason Matchpoint didn't fare quite as well as Crimes and Misdemeanors (for Woody Allen fans) is because it does not actually function on any higher level than a simple thriller. There is no new perspective, and the device of the matchpoint is very retro. The movie plays out and functions in the same scope as an old fashioned thriller. Thrillers have always used the themes of evil means vs idealism/values and letting the evil get away. Think about all those thrillers where the bad guy is revealed to be partying it up at the end free of all consequence.

This movie is a dramatic departure because the potent parts of it ring no deeper or scratch no newer surface, which is a beginning to be more common with Woody Allen even with some of his comedies.

And it is not his intention that is valid. It is how the film plays out to an audience. And I can tell you that the audience I saw this with was into the same mechanics, edge of the seat moments, and astonishment that they would get out of a typical Hitchocock type thriller. Some fans that were present (especially the ladies) who like Crimes and Mis HATE this movie because it doesn't have the dimensions they were accustomed to. I personally enjoyed the film, and applaud Woody Allen for being able to change his entire agenda.

The point of MAtchpoint is being a Thriller. Good thrillers work their thrills within a context of morality/consequences, so that is not remarkable.

the protagonist's sliding scale of morality was not present in MAtchpoint, unless you imagine it. That is what is different about this film. He merely exhibits his nature from the moment he physically flirts with the girl to the moment he lies to the detectives. Nothing slides/changes except your understanding of his evil potential.

The other thing is that there IS NO ROMANCE. The relationships are not romantic, unlike most all other Woody Allen movies, comedy or drama.

Your quote of Allen only proves my point, because he went against his stated preference and made a similar film as opposed to something like Crimes and Misdemeanors. He's also quite wrong about Hitchcock's films and meaning, because regardless of the intentions of a producer or director, if the final work has meaning and dimension, it will resonate culturally and influence art in it's wake. Just because it doesn't create context within the arena Woody Allen deems meaningful doesn't mean it is less meaningful. All you have to do to gauge meaningful importantance of themes is look at the art's influence and cultural significance.

"You stated that MP isn’t anything at all like Crimes and that the fact that the former is a drama makes it a departure from Allen’s previous work. Wrong and wrong. "

Matchpoint is a straightup thriller, not a drama. And that is what makes it a departure from Woody Allen's previous work. There is no romance, no sliding character morality/evolution/introspection. Again, the only part where the old Woody Allen seems to filter in is when the ghosts appear in his mind. Of course he dismisses them without fear or guilt.

I never said the film was indebted! I said it's one of the best Hitchcock movies by someone else. And it has raised my respect for Woody Allen (maybe that is what you have misinterpreted about me?)

PS, film school was about taping 16mm splices and transfering sound effects. All technical. At least 15 years ago...

PS, you got me wondering if I was the only one who thought that Matchpoint was hitchcockian (one guy I saw it with couldn't see where I was coming from either) , so I googled Matchpoint Woody Allen Hitchcock...

ufoclub said:

Well, I wouldn't dare presume to speak for all Woody Allen fans, but the reasons it pales next to Crimes for me have nothing to do with it "not actually function(ing) on any higher level"; that's just inaccurate. One of its two major themes is identical to C&M, with the added element of the role of luck in life. There is no denying that here "the murder is utilized as a springboard or a metaphor for a deeper story", as opposed to a Hitchcockian thriller for thriller's sake.


Wow, are you off base.


So, you know that they had no interest in or disregarded the themes of the film?


He didn't change his agenda one iota. He made a non-comedic film (which he's done several times before) in a "thriller" format (which he utilized in Manhattan Murder Mystery) to reiterate one point he's made several times before (the disparity between most films and reality) and add another that he'd talked about for years (the role of luck vis-a-vis success).


There's as much "romance" in Match Point as there is in Crimes.


Except he didn't. If Match Point isn't a flick "where the murder is utilized as a springboard or a metaphor for a deeper story", I don't know what is. You're the only person I've ever heard argue that it's 'just a thriller'.


He states that Hitchcock's films were not meant to have deeper meaning and they don't (despite some attempts by pretentious film buffs to graft some onto them after the fact). A perfect example is all the theorizing regarding The Birds. The writer himself has discredited these theories and stated quite flatly that there was no meaning behind The Birds other than to scare the pants off the audience.


While I obviously strongly disagree that this is "the only part where the old Woody Allen seems to filter in", you slough it off like that is a minor scene. It's the most important scene in the flick!


Hitchcock's movies were much slighter. To dismiss MP as such, is to totally miss the point of the film.


I haven't misinterpreted jack. You're trying to portray the flick as a Hitchcockian thriller when it's, in fact, a typical Allen meditation on morality.

You want to make Match Point out to be purely a thriller to fit your Hitchcock thesis, but it's not. Again, it has much in common with Crimes and is not at all the departure for the Wood Man you make it out to be.

one of latter day woody's best

Honestly, you think Matchpoint functions as a serious meditation on morality? There is no complexity to the situation. There's no complexity to the backdrops of society, marriage, sex. The lead is self absorbed/evil in both worlds.

What do you think of the Talented Mr Ripley?

You think the dual romance problems in Crimes = the relationships in Matchpoint? Matchpoint is not romantic, the characters are either in selfish lust, or going through the motions. They get no new meaning from each other. He gets a cush job and material wealth, and a place in society. He couldn't care less about either woman. This is in stark contrast to the usual meaningful relationships found in Woody Allen films.

Hitchock movies are tremendously more monumental then Woody Allen. A lot of Woody allen's films can be seen ingeniously scavenged styles/content from his influences (like Bergman or classic standup comedy). Hitchcock affected cinematic vocabulary, his films generated NEW emotions and patterns.

Also I think the scene with the "ghosts" came off as very theatrical, and not in style with the extremely natural realistic scenes that make up the rest of the movie. It broke the emotional flow, and feels like Woody Allen just made a cameo.

You brought up the comedy Manhatten Murder Mystery as a comparison?

it is funny. It's pure old Woody Allen.