Crimes and Misdemeanors II

I finally saw Match Point last night. While rigorously avoiding any reviews of the film, I went into knowing that

a) Woody has gone on record saying it's his best film, and
b) A large number of self-described 'non fans' really like this movie.

I'll attempt to briefly discuss both points.

1. The film, and Mr. Allen's attitude concerning it.

In my opinion, Match Point is far from Allen's best work. Now, it is indeed a very good movie, but it's hampered in part by poor pacing, clunky dialogue, and a not very good performance by Scarlett Johansson, who is clearly out of her depth in a film of this quality. The film itself is in many ways a retread of Allen's earlier, superior work, Crimes and Misdemeanors. It shares a major plotline with the earlier film, and the film's primary theme is identical. It's so similar, in fact, that I knew within a half-hour exactly what would happen for the next 90 minutes. While not a huge liability, this did render some of the more poorly paced sequences even more interminable.

So, why does Woodly like it so much? Probably because it's the most mature exposition of the recurring theme that the universe has no moral compass, that there is no inherent reason that good should triumph over evil. The New York Times critic AO Scott has written well about this, if you're interested. Also, after being in something of a creative slump for more than a decade, Allen seems to have really enjoyed working in London instead of New York. His films have long been better appreciated in Europe than in America, so it's only natural that he move production to that continent. It is of course somewhat ironic that the filmmaker who most heavily iconizes the city in his films would end up abandoning it, but I have to admit that London has given his films a freshness.

2. The "non-fanboys attitude concerning the film.

For a variety of reasons, the young generation of cinephiles raised on DVDs of Kevin Smith, Quentin Tarantino, and Wes Anderson films have no time for Woody Allen. They proudly claim to be ignorant of his work, and to not enjoy at all what they've seen. Yet, Match Point is a film this group seems to like in spite of themselves. I'm guessing there are two main reasons for this. First, their willful ignorance of Allen's work translates into a genuine ignorance of his work. They know the stereotype of his films (nebbishy New Yorker sleeps with attractive women who find his neuroses sexy, upscale Manhattanites discuss culture at Elaine's, etc) without knowing the content of them. They are unaware that Annie Hall and Manhattan set the mold for adult romantic comedies, that Crimes and Misdemeanors, Deconstructing Harry, and Husbands and Wives are masterpieces of late-20th Century drama, and that Allen's craft, casting, and writing is the equal of anyone's in the last 40 years of cinema, that his body of work matches those of Truffaut, Bertolucci, Chabrol, and other European masters. Then they see a film like Match Point, and are surprised they like it. Well, it should be no surprise. Match Point is a fine film which any cineaste should enjoy.

The second reason is easier to understand. These film nerds lust after Scarlett Johansson. They'll see anything with her in it, and any slight chance of seeing her breasts is enough for them. Sad and pathetic, but it's hard to expect much more from a crowd that loves films like Kill Bill and Clerks.