0
Usenet Posted 20 years ago
Screenwriting
Match Point Structure & Pacing
Spoilers
Saw Match Point today and although I liked it a lot, as I was watching it and even more in the hours since, I was very conscious of the nagging thought that its events had a great deal more to do with plot than story.
What I mean by that was that certain things had to happen in a certain sequence for anything major to happen near the end, and Woody Allen was more concerned about moving pieces around a chessboard to make that happen than telling a compelling, well structured story.
A great deal of time compression was involved pregnancies started and babies were born in record time, for instance. Relationships went sour for no very good reason. Scarlett went off to America for several months and returned right on cue... again for the plot to happen.
In the meantime we had absolutely no idea what was going on in Jonathan Rhys Meyers's head, what was happening in his marriage and so on during all those months we didn't see.
We never really* got inside Jonathan Rhys Meyers character the most interesting one on screen (and very well played). There were repeated references to his career as a tennis pro, and that he came up from poverty, but no real *insight I think again, he was more of a pawn than a person.
Same with Scarlett Johansson. All we ever learned was that she was an aspiring actress from Boulder, CO with possibly an alcohol problem, and that she would never go back. Why not? Never explained.
I could have done without the "collateral damage" scene.
I enjoyed the ride, but actually I think there was a much better film lurking just beneath the surface.
Cinema is the most beautiful fraud in the world.
Jean-Luc Godard
Saw Match Point today and although I liked it a lot, as I was watching it and even more in the hours since, I was very conscious of the nagging thought that its events had a great deal more to do with plot than story.
What I mean by that was that certain things had to happen in a certain sequence for anything major to happen near the end, and Woody Allen was more concerned about moving pieces around a chessboard to make that happen than telling a compelling, well structured story.
A great deal of time compression was involved pregnancies started and babies were born in record time, for instance. Relationships went sour for no very good reason. Scarlett went off to America for several months and returned right on cue... again for the plot to happen.
In the meantime we had absolutely no idea what was going on in Jonathan Rhys Meyers's head, what was happening in his marriage and so on during all those months we didn't see.
We never really* got inside Jonathan Rhys Meyers character the most interesting one on screen (and very well played). There were repeated references to his career as a tennis pro, and that he came up from poverty, but no real *insight I think again, he was more of a pawn than a person.
Same with Scarlett Johansson. All we ever learned was that she was an aspiring actress from Boulder, CO with possibly an alcohol problem, and that she would never go back. Why not? Never explained.
I could have done without the "collateral damage" scene.
I enjoyed the ride, but actually I think there was a much better film lurking just beneath the surface.
Cinema is the most beautiful fraud in the world.
Jean-Luc Godard
Top answer
[nq:1]We never really* got inside Jonathan Rhys Meyers character the most interesting one on screen (and very well played). [/nq] I think this kind of opportunist/outsider/conman was handled much* better in The Talented Mr. Ripley we could *see* almost *touch Matt Damon's hunger to climb the ladder Rhys Meyer is much more diffident.
- [nq:1]We never really* got inside Jonathan Rhys Meyers character the most interesting one on screen (and very well played).
- [/nq] I think this kind of opportunist/outsider/conman was handled much* better in The Talented Mr.
- Ripley we could *see* almost *touch Matt Damon's hunger to climb the ladder Rhys Meyer is much more diffident.
- And that's in the writing, not just the performance.
- Cinema is the most beautiful fraud in the world.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
[nq:1]We never really* got inside Jonathan Rhys Meyers character the most interesting one on screen (and very well played). ... up from poverty, but no real *insight I think again, he was more of a **** than a person.[/nq]
I think this kind of opportunist/outsider/conman was handled much* better in The Talented Mr. Ripley we could *see* almost *touch Matt Damon's hunger to climb
I think this kind of opportunist/outsider/conman was handled much* better in The Talented Mr. Ripley we could *see* almost *touch Matt Damon's hunger to climb
00
[nq:1]Cinema is the most beautiful fraud in the world. Jean-Luc Godard[/nq]
Wilford Brimley
Dan Aykroyd
Katharine Hepburn
Martin Scorsese
Jean-Luc Picard
~~ :~)
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Wilford Brimley
Dan Aykroyd
Katharine Hepburn
Martin Scorsese
Jean-Luc Picard
~~ :~)
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
00
[nq:2]We never really got inside Jonathan Rhys Meyers character ... again, he was more of a **** than a person.[/nq]
[nq:1]I think this kind of opportunist/outsider/conman was handled much* better in The Talented Mr. Ripley we could *see ... to climb the ladder Rhys Meyer is much more diffident. And that's in the writing, not just the performance.[/nq]
Indeed, Ripley is the s
[nq:1]I think this kind of opportunist/outsider/conman was handled much* better in The Talented Mr. Ripley we could *see ... to climb the ladder Rhys Meyer is much more diffident. And that's in the writing, not just the performance.[/nq]
Indeed, Ripley is the s
00
[nq:1]Spoilers Saw Match Point today and although I liked it a lot, as I was watching it and even more ... and that she would never go back. Why not? Never explained. I could have done without the "collateral damage" scene.[/nq]
Yes but at least the camera averted its gaze. I noticed because to have a scene like that and not have a shot of the "damage" itself was a surprise.
[nq:1]I
Yes but at least the camera averted its gaze. I noticed because to have a scene like that and not have a shot of the "damage" itself was a surprise.
[nq:1]I
00
Let me refresh the SPOILER warning here...
[nq:2]I think this kind of opportunist/outsider/conman was handled much better ... diffident. And that's in the writing, not just the performance.[/nq]
[nq:1]Indeed, Ripley is the superior film. While I found Match Point very engaging, it seems to be merely on the ... better way to get inside the main character's head (even if it is the wri
[nq:2]I think this kind of opportunist/outsider/conman was handled much better ... diffident. And that's in the writing, not just the performance.[/nq]
[nq:1]Indeed, Ripley is the superior film. While I found Match Point very engaging, it seems to be merely on the ... better way to get inside the main character's head (even if it is the wri
00
[nq:2]Indeed, Ripley is the superior film. While I found Match ... if it is the writer who is responsible for it).[/nq]
[nq:1]Let me just clarify that by the 'collateral damage' scene, I assumed you meant the scene in which Rhys-Meyers actually uses those words (speaking to ghosts/figments of his imagination), rather than the scene that the words refer to.[/nq]
Yes... that is what I meant.
[nq:1]Let me just clarify that by the 'collateral damage' scene, I assumed you meant the scene in which Rhys-Meyers actually uses those words (speaking to ghosts/figments of his imagination), rather than the scene that the words refer to.[/nq]
Yes... that is what I meant.
0
Related Questions