this film is designed
to win points just because the
people are British
to win points just because the
people are British
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
- Dan
- Father, musician, trail runner, reader, geographer, craft beer aficionado, meditator.
On the Bookstand
In the DVD Player
The Roll
-
-
Three Day Weekend14 years ago
-
King New Year 201214 years ago
-
-
Perfect Things.17 years ago
Other Favorite Places on the Web
In This I Believe
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(100)
-
▼
February
(14)
- Haiku Movie Review: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotle...
- I Can't Help Myself
- Cat Update
- Ah, Netflix!
- It's Worse Than That (of course)
- Here We Go...
- Haiku Movie Review: Match Point
- Grandpa Returns the Favor
- Happy Valentine's Day
- Ruminations After the Big Night
- Ruminations on the Eve of the Big Night
- The Speeds of Light and Sound Remain Constants
- Day 6 of the "Transition to Earthlink
- Take-Your-Breath-Away Cold
-
▼
February
(14)
Posts
9 comments:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Who the hell gets points for making people British anymore? It's certainly not something that appeals to the average American. And WA made movies for years that only appealed to New Yorkers, if you want to think that way. This seems far milder than any of a number of his more recent movies relative to the inside joke.
The basic plot doesn't make as much sense if these people are something other than British. Without the inherent class divisions, the sort of English aristocracy crap (like hunting such as it's portrayed), it doesn't work very well. It's a bit of a weak cousin to Gosford Park.
You could certainly rework the plot to make this work in America, but I believe Woody Allen was looking to break out of his mold and more specifically to make a movie in Britain. What his motives were, I have no idea. But to 'make points' seems a stretch for someone in his position.
Maybe the "designed to" was a little strong, but I think Americans in the market for a "thinker" are likely to view this movie more favorably as a result of the characters being British. Think "PBS Crowd."
Are you trying to imply there are not inherent class divisions in the USA? WTF?????????? What are we ranting against every day of the week, then? And, from a purely cinematic standpoint, isn't the American "aristocracy" what's portrayed in, like, every classic movie made before 1960?
I'm not trying to take a huge shot at Woody Allen. I'm actually a pretty big fan. But I actually wasn't all that wowed by this particular film, and about halfway in, it struck me that I was kind of hanging on to the notion that something special might be happening a little longer than I might have otherwise because of the accents. So that was the impression I got, which led to the Haiku. The film didn't seem to me really inventive or original until the last 5 or so minutes, when he throws in the little morality posit. Though even then, it was pretty much the same message as was in the much better "Crimes and Misdemeanors."
I basically agree and I was not implying that we don't have our own weird aristocracy, though I think it has been replaced in most people's minds by whatever Paris Hylton and celebrities represent. It still exists in the other form, it's just that we expect the British aristocracy to act just like that and so it helps the plot along.
For me the movie was interesting though not something I would highly recommend. I almost don't consider it a Woody Allen movie at all since it contains nothing of his signature elements at all. It could have been written and directed by anyone.
The PBS crowd (a crowd that you have become part of) is something you've been marginalizing almost as long as I've known you. And since you're a part of that crowd (Mr. History of Britain) I would think you would ascribe to that crowd a little greater depth than just throwing in some British accents as a lure.
Why does British programming (comedy specifically) show up on PBS? Because it's not seen as a money maker amongst the fans of King of Queens.
So why make points with a teeny tiny demographic that is the supposed PBS crowd? PBS averaged a 1.7 share for its nightly programming in 2004-2005. Deal or No Deal two weeks ago got a 10.8 share.
Two things at work here, as I see it:
1. As a PBS-watcher myself (as well as lover of a handful of British Comedies or more), I would submit that there is some fairly crappy programming on PBS that never would have made it on-air, but for the British Accents contained within.
2. Woody Allen has traditionally been pretty much been catering to the PBS folks. Almost pure overlap.
Now, I'm not necessarily suggesting that Woody had that idea specifically in mind when making "Match Point," but my Haiku was an attempt to humorously point out the possibility.
I'm not sure Woody Allen has been catering to anybody. If he were catering, he would have made movies which would have made more money. It's not like the NPR crowd has been bankrolling the guy. He makes small films, and has had to scrape from one distributor to another. He's a New York guy, hugely literate, plays the clarinet, etc... you want "American Pie 12"? Wait, he did make that one flick in 1974.
Bascially, I'm terrified of a world of film populated only by People's Choice award winners. That type of film, it's safe to assume, will be with us always.
Stephen! You know I'm not suggesting I want Woody's films to be more "more commercial."
Well, no. But you seem to be suggesting that Allen has nestled comfortably into a niche demographic, the "Middle Mind" elite, that chasm of quasi-intellectualism that many fall into, often in regards to something self-congratulatory, and with whom NPR shares a large audience. (I get "Middle Mind" from Curtis White, who I recall wrote an okay book about this topic). I don't deny that chasm exists completely, but I'm not sure it's fair to say Allen is stuck somewhere in it.
Definitely, I don't think he's stuck anywhere. Though I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that he KNOWS his audience and would be capable of pandering to it on occasion. That possibility is extremely likely when considering the situation from a satirical point of view.
Well, I can't say I disagree with the notion that Allen knows his audience. I'd like to crawl into any number of people's brains and figure out their true motivations, inspirations, manipulations, etc.
Since they likely don't come here to read comments, I'll say that there is a chasm between my family and my in-laws. Over the years I've been let known that I've turned my wife into an elistist by my in-laws, or at the very least, I aided and abetted (unlikely, since we both met at university and she'd already mapped out her life goal to travel overseas and then become a lawyer). So, I often find myself reviewing things: is this something I'm inclined to enjoy/criticize because of what it is or what I think it is. It's just a matter of, do I think about what I think about.
Post a Comment