I pride myself on being a very non-judgmental person. It’s a total lie, but I pride myself on it anyway. In my fantasy version of myself, I have a very open live-and-let-live way of looking at the world. I may have a well developed values system for my own behavior, but I don’t expect others to conform to my beliefs and I would never pass moral judgment on a friend, family member, or stranger. I don’t know where I picked up this New Age twaddle but it’s a good thing it only exists in my head since such an outlook isn't always the best approach (should I not judge Hitler for his actions?). The sad truth is that I’m one of the most opinionated people I know. I just can’t help it—present me with a situation, any situation, and I can usually muster up a fairly strong opinion about it. I will say, however, that as I mature, at least I’m more willing to change that opinion once I get more information or once my knee-jerk judgments start to fade.
In Kendall’s family, loyalty was a key factor in determining how the entire clan felt about certain people. If someone dissed one of her father’s plays or treated a member of the family badly, that person could go from trusted confidant to lifelong opponent overnight. Once someone made it to her father’s Enemy List, no matter how large or small the infraction, all of the Haileys were expected to follow suit and write that person out of their lives. It worked in reverse, too. If someone was a close friend, they could do no wrong, and their work was revered. Their play was pure brilliance, their book outstanding, their performance stellar. I’m not saying that the Haileys were insincere in their praise—it was just that their love for people colored the way they perceived the actions, behavior, or creative output of these individuals. Even though I used to mock this dynamic, there was always something I admired and envied about it. The Hailey Way has softened quite a bit since Kendall’s father died in 1993, but to this day you couldn’t wish for a more devoted friend, a more focused listener, or a more appreciative audience than anyone in Kendall’s family. They are a unique breed and rightfully beloved by their large circle of friends. But watch out if you happen to get on their bad side—they can disappear you faster than the Argentine Junta. I felt that undertow myself many years ago at the end of one of Kendall and my early attempts at a relationship. She later admitted that it was only her late grandmother, Hallie May Hailey, who committed the treasonous act of questioning Kendall’s decision to dump me, daring to ask in her heavy Texas accent, “Why is Kendall bein' so mean to Danny?”
I grew up very differently from the Haileys. The more someone was condemned at the hands of my loved ones, the more I felt I had to defend that person or urge my family members to try to understand the offender’s point of view. Equilibrium had to be maintained at all costs. I am still guilty of this reflex and it has infuriated Kendall on many occasions. If she’s having an issue with a family member, friend, or even a nasty sales clerk, my instinct is to jump to that person’s defense and try to make Kendall see the situation differently. It is only when Kendall is singing someone’s praises that I suddenly find myself offering up critical comments, as if I have to constantly balance out any reaction on her part with an opposite reaction. Why do I do that? Am I playing Devil’s Advocate…or just Devil?
I started thinking about the nature of my judgment last night as Kendall and I were watching Woody Allen's latest film. “Match Point” is Allen’s first film shot entirely in England, and, except for “Interiors,” his 1978 attempt at “serious drama,” it is his most goyishe film to date. While some of the themes in the film are very familiar (sexual obsession, infidelity, the lengths outsiders will go to fit in with the established upper class), the film lacks the usual stand-in for Woody’s Jewish angst-ridden psyche (even in “Interiors” we had Maureen Stapleton’s colorful Pearl, who, while not Jewish, represented that kind of vibrant persona that’s an oil-and-water mix with the elitist Gentile families Allen loves to write about—“She’s a vulgarian!” shouted Mary Beth Hurt about Stapleton’s character). There is also a noticeable lack of humor in “Match Point.” Although some laughs can be had from Penelope Wilton’s biting portrayal of the Hewett family’s upper crust Mama Bear, and from Matthew Goode as Wilton’s affable son who in the end wants to please his mommy, the film’s main stars, Jonathan Rhys-Meyers and Scarlett Johansson, are about as comical as broken glass. Not that they’re supposed to be funny. I hope I don’t sound like one of those nudniks Allen skewers in the wonderful “Stardust Memories” who keep telling the director how much they prefer his earlier funny films. Still, after two hours of tortured Gentile machinations I wanted to stand up in the theatre and shout, “Dear God, somebody get me a Jew!”
It’s impossible to follow the plot of “Match Point” without remembering Allen’s own troubles. Who can forget when Mia Farrow unleashed her wrath at her longtime companion after finding out he was having an affair with her daughter, Soon-Yi Previn. Allen then held a press conference where he uttered his famous line, “The heart wants what it wants” to explain his behavior. I was disgusted by the media bandwagon that had turned against Allen during this time but hearing him utter that line made me join their ranks, at least temporarily. I remember getting into arguments about Allen’s situation with my ex-wife and other defenders. The heart may want what it wants, I posited, but that doesn’t mean you have to act on it when doing so will lay waste to the lives of the people you care about. My feelings about Allen never extended to a boycott of his films—I eagerly saw them all, but it took a viewing of the documentary “Wild Man Blues” for me to release my judgment of his personal life. The film provided a telling glimpse into Allen’s relationship with Soon-Yi, and I had to admit that they seemed perfect for each other. Who the hell was I to judge them anyway?
Watching “Match Point” last night made me wonder whether I really did let go of that judgment. Rhys-Meyers, though light years away from the classic Allen character in looks and ethnic background, is definitely a student of the “heart wants what it wants” school of moral decision-making. I enjoy movies that explore characters with questionable motives who do all sorts of things in their quest to get what they want. I never watch these films and think about the personal ethics or beliefs of the screenwriter or director. But last night as the film played out (and incidentally, I do agree that it’s Allen’s best film in years), I couldn’t get Woody the Man out of my head, or more accurately my past judgments of Woody the Man. I couldn’t shake the feeling that the writer/director was somehow condoning Rhys-Meyers’ reprehensible actions by the way he was presenting them and that the film somehow revealed Allen’s own twisted view of women and relationships.
Kendall thought the film seemed like a thematic retread of Allen’s own “Crimes and Misdemeanors” but it reminded me more of the 1951 film “A Place in the Sun.” In both films we empathize with the protagonist’s desire for a better life and thus are initially torn when he engages in activities that are terribly out of character for a leading man. The difference in “Match Point” is that Scarlett Johansson is no boorish Shelley Winters. Rhys-Meyers goes after her with a vengeance until his obsession turns her into something else entirely, something that no longer has any appeal. The heart wants what it wants until it doesn’t want it anymore.
I’m trying hard not to give any of the major plot points away. Let’s just say the ending of the film is a shocker and never would have passed muster with the 1951 censors who made sure Montgomery Clift paid for his sins in “A Place in the Sun.” I also couldn’t help noticing how my perceptions of certain character types keep changing as I get older. I know there was a time when I would have been rooting for Rhys-Meyers’ obsessive interest in mystery girl Johansson and I would have thought his wife Chloe (played by the excellent Emily Mortimer) was a boring character. Today, Johansson’s Nola Rice sent up red flags from the minute she appeared on screen. Trouble with a capital T, I thought. Emily Mortimer seemed a much more appealing match, why would Rhys-Meyers possibly want to stray? Oh yeah, the heart wants what it wants, I keep forgetting.
I enjoyed seeing this film but by the time it was over I felt an uneasy creepiness that made me want to go home and take a shower or watch a few MGM musicals to get the sour taste out of my mouth. “What kind of mind would write a story like this?” I asked Kendall, my old judgments of Woody Allen’s personal life filling my consciousness. I then went into my usual self-reproach: What the hell do I know about what makes Woody Allen tick? I’ve never met the man and even if I had, why do I assume that the plotlines of his films are direct windows into his subconscious thoughts?
Suddenly I was overtaken by the screaming cacophony of judgment that lives in my head all the time—harsh opinions about the real-life celebrities I was watching, the other patrons in the movie theatre, the people selling refreshments, anyone within eye- or earshot. In the end, I reserved my harshest judgment for myself: Who died and made you king of the universe? Where do you get off with your holier-than-thou attitude? Why don’t you just focus on your own dysfunction before setting your sights on the foibles of the rest of the planet? By the time we got home I vowed I would not write about “Match Point” on my blog. I didn’t want to risk unleashing this tirade and exposing myself for the judgmental lunatic that I am. So what am I doing? Damn. With these thoughts still swirling in my head, I just couldn’t make myself write about anything else.
The blog wants what it wants.
Interesting reflections here, Danny.
Once upon a time, I thought that I wasn't an opinionated person and believe it or not, it came as a shock to me to finally realize that I am.
It can be hard to separate our judgments about people from their artistic output, especially when they often promote their ideas and project their personalities through their art.
I don't think that it's altogether horrible to form such judgments, though. I don't mean that we should be judgmental in a holier-than-thou way. But I know that I am turned off by people who seem to take the attitude that they have the right to be as exploitative of others as they want to be, for example. When I perceive that as their modus operandi, I tend to refuse to participate in enabling them in that lifestyle.
As to Woody Allen himself, I once was an enormous fan. In fact, as a junior high student, then bent on being a comedian myself. I was very into his comedy. (That was before he got into film.) I used to love his essays and articles, too.
I enjoyed his early films, especially 'Sleeper' and of course, 'Annie Hall.' I liked these films in spite of their frequent technical flaws, like microphone booms that were visible.
But, over time I simply lost interest in his films. It had nothing to do with revulsion. Nor did I think he had to be comedic.
The films didn't appeal to me and that began to happen long before his set-to with Mia Farrow. I don't know why, for sure. One reason though may be that he seemed so intent on being "profound" that he aped Bergman. I hate it when people mimic others. It's true that nobody's artistic output is absolutely new or unique. (Solomon had something to say about that.) But all the clips, previews, and reviews I saw of Allen's post-Annie Hall output seemed so deliberately imitative of Bergman that I couldn't bring myself to get interested. So, I haven't seen any of his movies since Hall.
I can't imagine plunking down good money to see an Allen film today. I guess your review of this new film confirms me in feeling that way. If I'm being judgmental in saying so, I can live with that.
Mark Daniels
Posted by: Mark Daniels | January 07, 2006 at 07:52 PM
Well said, Mark. I agree that total lack of judgment is not a desirable goal, that's why that fantasy version of myself needs a reality check.
I'm also a bit disenchanted with Allen's later work although there were a lot of post-Annie Hall films that I was crazy about. I guess my 5 favorite Woody Allen films would be:
• Radio Days
• Annie Hall
• The Purple Rose of Cairo
• Broadway Danny Rose
• Manhattan
Oh wait, what about Hannah and Her Sisters? Zelig? Mighty Aphrodite?
And, of course, the "early funny ones."
Posted by: Danny | January 07, 2006 at 08:49 PM
Well, I am so glad I saw "Match Point" before I read anything about it or heard other peoples "Judgements" of it..(lol)...because....I was able watch this film with a completely fresh eye that had not been tainted by EVERYONE ELSES thoughts about it!!! (I'm sure I do the same thing...talk about films and write about them and influence in a subliminal way the people who have NOT yet seen them..) All this Danny is by way of saying I think most of the people I know have opinions...(if not opinionated...there is a difference, to me....) and I'm glad they do, even when I don't agree with them...you know?
In the specific case of "Match Point", I felt closer to Kendall's view, though I did not think it was so much rehashed, but revisited--once again, sort of--the themes of Crimes & Misdemeabors" a favorite film of Woody Allen's of mine...and I say revisited because I do think Woody has some rather radical thoughts about the M word...and I am fascinated with his thoughts about the outcome of this subject...
You know, I'm trying soooo hard not to give anything away either and so maybe I should just call you and talk to you about this....BUT, leaving messages at the Miller-Hailey Household is like leaving stuff at the dead letter office!!! (LOL)...
But, I will give you a call, cause I think everything you write about is very thought provoking and always fascinating...and I'd love to talk to you about it, my dear...
So, till we can connect by phone...or something...!
Posted by: OldOldOldLady Of The Hills | January 08, 2006 at 01:03 AM
One of my favorite Woody Allen movies is "Alice." I haven't heard many people talk about it - an in-depth look at Mia Farrow, scenes of Mother Teresa and a choice towards *goodness* at the end - if you need to "balance" anything out, Danny. And I loved "Wild Man Blues."
I saw "Match Point" last night and all I could do for hours afterwards was sit and smile and think what a brilliant artist Woody Allen is. Sadly, I have never judged him for his life and have always remained a fan even as I didn't *adore* his later movies. Have always wondered what that says about me! But, in my opinion (and I guess I admit openly to being opinionated!) this film is brilliant. It's dark, aesthetic, as subtle as can be, and shocking. And it's oh such an antithesis to all the moral preaching, puritannical rubbish that's rife in our society right now. Once again Allen has made me think, smile quietly in wonder and gasp in amazement and horror.
Brilliant. I'll probably go again quite soon. Lots of wonderful scenes I missed, including two that smacked of Bergman - another Director I adore. I admire Woody for "aping" Bergman, as Mark puts it. I like to incorporate brilliance into my work too - who doesn't?
Posted by: Tamar | January 08, 2006 at 04:31 AM
"Somebody get me a jew" - HIL.A.RIOUS... I am glad you wrote about this film - I want to see it as well, but that should come as no surprise as I have a not-so-subtle obsession with doomed and dangerous love. I really enjoyed your angle, Danny because I hear those voices too - the judgment, etc but think about if the people who made art, wrote, made music, etc if those people all listened to 'their' voices, we may never have any creativity in this world. It might be the fact that these people are 'off' that ignites the pilot of their talent. Excellent post, Danny.
Posted by: Wendy | January 08, 2006 at 05:48 AM
Is it judgment or discernment?
Posted by: wtuckercoach | January 08, 2006 at 08:30 AM
Your closing line is priceless.
Posted by: amba | January 08, 2006 at 05:25 PM
Hi Danny, all I can say is...I want to spend just one day inside your brain!
Posted by: Randi(cruisin-mom) | January 09, 2006 at 07:16 AM
Brilliant, bravo. I love it--and I linked to you. Right on Danny, for telling it like it is. "The heart wants what it wants" is a totally corrupt, morally bankrupt statement. Ick is what I say.
Posted by: Vicki | January 09, 2006 at 10:19 AM
This film was, to me, like watching a root canal. I ran into some friends who were waiting to see it at the next showing, as I emerged from the theatre. I'm afraid I ruined it for them. Not by giving the plot away, but by saying, "It's two hours of agony. Then There's another 45 minutes."
I felt Penelope Wilton's character was a thinly disguised Jewish mother. They excused this by saying it happened when she had too many Gin & tonics; we never saw her in any other condition.
I sort of felt it was Allen trying to be all morally complex, when in fact it was just the story of a guy following his dick around.
On the other hand, the wife and I couldn't stop thinking or talking about the movie. And I'll stop there, lest I give stuff away.
Another provocative post! Blog on!
Posted by: david | January 09, 2006 at 12:47 PM
Woody Allen should never have agreed to film Match Point in England. In doing so, he may have made the movie that finally divides Woody Allen's British fans from his American fans. UK audiences will know enough about the manners and mores of the English upper classes to find watching Match Point a painful embarrassment. American audiences may simply be charmed.
Allen presents a picture of upper class English life that has probably never existed ouside the movies. In particular, his own respect for the arts allows him to imagine but England's wealthy are wealthy in culture too. Not so. The landed classes - what is left of them - operate from a culture of philistinism and anti-intellectualism. That means that the idea of a social-climbing Irish tennis pro working his way into their affections through a shared love of opera is nonsensical. The one moment when Allen gets it right is when Chris Wilton says to Emily Mortimer that he's got tickets to the latest Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, but the film's implied respect for Lloyd Webber - the idea that this too is high culture - is so laughable that it brought guffaws from the audience I saw the film with. (Note: Andrew Llord Webber may be a figure that Americans drool over; back here in the UK, he's regarded as a vulgarian and a figure of fun.)
Allen's wish to root his characters in a cultural setting goes wrong again and again: in starting and ending the movie with little slugs of philosophy - the first in Wilton's voice - and in putting a copy of Dostoyevsky into Wilton's hand. If Wilton's part had been played by Allen, we might just have bought the notion of a sports-playing thinker but there's nothing in the movie to suggests that Wilton's character has anything more going on up to than any of the other characters. Instead, they're all long-winded, unsympathetic bores - even Scarlett Johannson who, after her one moment of flirtation at the start, gives no further evidence for why anyone would want to puruse her. Allen's meant to be a wit, isn't he? Not here.
It's not just the characters that are inauthentic, it's the settings. There was one moment only when Allen's movie registered the reality of modern London: a brief shot of an ugly brick-walled factory unit opposite Tate Modern. For the rest, the film limits itself to the top-ten locations for a one-day sight-seeing tour, with a few international brand names - Aspreys, Ralph Lauren - thrown in. Johannson, a failed actress who struggles to get by as a sales assistant in a small boutique, nonetheless lives in a mansion flat somewhere in Kensington and gets around town by taxi. I don't think so.
The inauthenticity of the film runs so deep that UK audiences will find themselves wondering whether Allen's earlier portrayals of New York aren't equally fabricated. And once they start teasing that thread out, the whole skein of his oeuvre will begin to unravel. And that's a great pity.
The amazing thing is that no one among his backers - mainly, the BBC - had the balls at any time from pre-production to edit to intervene and, in the words of one genuine tennis pro say: Mr Allen, You Can Not Be Serious.
Posted by: Snog | January 10, 2006 at 03:39 PM
I just saw the movie this weekend and enjoyed it a lot. The only point on which I agree with the previous commenter is that the main character was a bit... what's the word, "vapid"? My friend said as we left the theater that he (the main character, not my friend) was a robot. Perhaps this was part of the point of the film, but it made it hard for me to really get into the conflict inside him. Still, I really enjoyed the film, however.
Have you seen "Crash"? I've been reading all these differing opinions on the film-- some calling the best film of the year, others the worst-- and was curious what you thought of it.
Posted by: Matt | January 22, 2006 at 06:26 PM
I really enjoyed reading this, very intersting thoughts. I was never a great fan of his movies but always fascinated with him as a person.
The supplied audio linked to my name is another commentary on this subject that you may or may not find interesting. I did though.
Posted by: alan | August 25, 2006 at 06:46 AM
I am a Woody Allen fan. I was very forunate to attend one of his early live stand-up comic sessions. It's ashame that Woody just like Django Reinhardt along with their brilliance will never be accepted.Their creative abilities are to complex for the American audience to understand. Their artistic works are way beyond our time.
Posted by: Fredrik Esben | January 02, 2007 at 12:56 AM