With Friends Like These, Who Needs Friends?
Saw Match Point recently. I kind of liked it, even though it felt a bit like a self-important remake of my favourite Woody Allen film, Crimes and Misdemeanors. Still, I thought it had a certain compelling drive through it... kind of amazing given we don't particularly care for our "hero" Chris.
But here's the problem: Chris is dishonest with everyone in his world: his wife, his mistress, and his best friend. None of them can be his confidant. Maybe that would have been fine: he'd have just been a kind of anti-hero we don't really understand. (Is he really not sure who he loves? Is he waiting for fate to step in? Is he weak? Is it about the money? Is it a game? If I listened more closely to the bloody voice over, would it be clearer?)
Except the movie breaks its own rule. Briefly. Chris actually confides in an old school chum. Whose name is Henry. Henry is played by actor Rupert Penry-Jones, who is listed in the cast of the movie between "John the Chauffeur" and "Telephone Operator". He was quite the character... don't you remember? At first we meet him 'cause he's admiring Chris's car... then they meet and sit on a bench together and Henry offers Chris advice while expressing pretty much nothing about himself. No? Not ringing any bells?
Well, maybe it's because this Henry character isn't really a character. He exists only to allow Chris a moment of confession. Chris lays out his dilemma for Henry, in what may be his most honest and vulnerable scene in the film.
But... why? Chris speaks to us in his philosophical voice over. Why the need for this character-who's-not-really-a-character? Henry is transparently a creation of the filmmaker and serves no bigger purpose than to lend an ear to Chris. Once. One can even imagine how his inclusion worked: "We need a scene where Chris confides to somebody. Maybe an old school friend. Then we'll plant him real quick in a scene earlier."
The result is a couple of scenes that feel Frankensteined into the rest, and that don't make much of a difference to the story anyway.
When it comes to unusual choices--unlikeable heroes, leaving some things unexplained, unusual structures--be brave! Go big or go home.
Or be prepared to have the likes of me make fun of the likes of you.
But here's the problem: Chris is dishonest with everyone in his world: his wife, his mistress, and his best friend. None of them can be his confidant. Maybe that would have been fine: he'd have just been a kind of anti-hero we don't really understand. (Is he really not sure who he loves? Is he waiting for fate to step in? Is he weak? Is it about the money? Is it a game? If I listened more closely to the bloody voice over, would it be clearer?)
Except the movie breaks its own rule. Briefly. Chris actually confides in an old school chum. Whose name is Henry. Henry is played by actor Rupert Penry-Jones, who is listed in the cast of the movie between "John the Chauffeur" and "Telephone Operator". He was quite the character... don't you remember? At first we meet him 'cause he's admiring Chris's car... then they meet and sit on a bench together and Henry offers Chris advice while expressing pretty much nothing about himself. No? Not ringing any bells?
Well, maybe it's because this Henry character isn't really a character. He exists only to allow Chris a moment of confession. Chris lays out his dilemma for Henry, in what may be his most honest and vulnerable scene in the film.
But... why? Chris speaks to us in his philosophical voice over. Why the need for this character-who's-not-really-a-character? Henry is transparently a creation of the filmmaker and serves no bigger purpose than to lend an ear to Chris. Once. One can even imagine how his inclusion worked: "We need a scene where Chris confides to somebody. Maybe an old school friend. Then we'll plant him real quick in a scene earlier."
The result is a couple of scenes that feel Frankensteined into the rest, and that don't make much of a difference to the story anyway.
When it comes to unusual choices--unlikeable heroes, leaving some things unexplained, unusual structures--be brave! Go big or go home.
Or be prepared to have the likes of me make fun of the likes of you.
posted by Jennica at 8:56 a.m.
13 Comments:
Man, I hated this movie, and it pains me that I remember enough of it to point out that Henry wasn't a school friend, but an old tennis competitor. But same lame-ass lazy writing regardless.
Frankensteined? Definition please?
Oh, M, you're right! I can't believe it. All my street cred SHOT, and all for Goddamn Henry.
Frankenstein (verb)
1. To stitch or cobble together pieces that form an inorganic whole and on which the seams are clumsily visible.
Goddamn Henry!
Nice new look, by the way.
fancy
Thanks, M! T, is "fancy" a compliment?
I thought Match Point was beguiling and extremely well made, but I'm a self-important snob, so that fits my pattern perfectly.
What's the use of being Woody Allen if you have to follow Robert McKee's dos and don'ts on how to structure your screenplay?
Jennica, I look forward to being made fun of by you though. Fire when ready. And the new look of your blog has my stubborn, stuck-up approval.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
when referring to a blog, most definitely. when referring to a pair of pants? probably not. unless they are velvet, cause...well...velvet is fancy and kinda cool. sometimes anyway.
so yeah.
fancy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Love the look, J. And Match Point. The photocopied pages from C&M were my only real bump, but I admit I can't explain Henry. Therefore, I choose to forget his very existence. I ask you to stop inventing characters to make fun of in good movies.
Glad you guys like the new look! I do too. Thanks to Brad Morris (www.bradmorris.ca) for the rockin' design of my website, and for tailoring Reversals to match.
very neat design.
match point was no masterpiece but it was a good piece of filmmaking, and when i saw it in l.a. on opening day, everyone in the audience went *gasp!* when the wedding ring hit the wall (and then we all giggled for having been so instinctively communal).
this alone was worth the price of admission. why i love the movies!
Post a Comment
<< Home