Talk:Match Point

	Match Point has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 21, 2012 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: British / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't know if I'm doing this properly, but here it goes. I was reading the article on Match Point, and this line caught my attention: "The story is a fable about the role that luck plays in determining everyone's destiny." A fable is a story were animals are given human-like qualities, therefore I don't think it's suited for Match Point. I'm not 100% sure (although it's lik 99.9%), so I was kinda reluctant in editing the article. I'm not sure what word should be used to replace it either —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmafcerqueira (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dictionary defines fable as "a short tale to teach a moral lesson, often with animals or inanimate objects as characters." Therefore, although anthropomorphic creatures in such stories are common, they are not a required element. Also, one could argue that the tennis ball seen at the beginning of the film is a kind of character, as it symbolises the plot's underlying meaning. --Heslopian (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who on wikipedia has it out for Woody Allen, but they keep smearing shit about him all over his movie pages. Such as the link to the bad review here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.94.76.7 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 December 2005

This article could definetly use more information such as critiques and other informations. Gryffindor 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions Crime and Punishment, but it should go into more detail about the film's allusions to the book, especially in the structure of the murders.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.235.45 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 January 2006

The article should mention thematic similarities to earlier films by Allen, especially Crimes and Misdemeanors.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.235.45 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 January 2006

I returned my comment concerning W. Somerset Maugham's 1939 story "The Facts of Life" which was made into a short film in 1948. While the movies are very different: "Match Point" being dark and Maugham's tale almost flip; --I'm certain the voice-over stating "I'd rather be lucky than good" is Allen's homage to Maugham.LarG (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy (2/19/06): The warning label seems misplaced. I thought the Dostoevsky allusions were valid & accurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.66.85.99 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 February 2006

The template, {{SectOR}}, does not challenge the section's validity or accuracy. It asks editors to add references for what appears to be original research. Could you add sources to the section? Just follow the example from the critical response section (i.e. bracket references with the <ref></ref> pairs). If you or someone else is unwilling to do that, I believe the warning should be reinstated. Kayaker 11:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Subtext section clearly includes spoilers...should they really be placed after "spoilers end here"?Eric Sieck 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, alhough there is a second spoiler warning (which we can keep for clarity anyway).--Patrick 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't need this section anymore because there's no point of relating to this source except we passed by expectations and there may be a trivial purpose. Shall we live without it? Why or why not? How? —69.227.160.7 22:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added a number of details in relation to the connection between the book and the film. For instance, I roughly organized the similarities into the structural similarities and the psychological similarities.

I also added comments regarding both charachters attempts to reject traditional morality as well as a comment regarding Chris' success at this task relative to Raskolnikov.

Azymuthca 10:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe in Chris' success. It was match point but not championship point) We don’t know what will happen with Chris next. Nola said Chris in the dream: ‘Prepare to pay the price, Chris.Your actions were clumsy. Full of holes. Almost like someone begging to be found out.” Indeed, there are a lot of strong evidence against Chris that are about to arise:

1. Chris called Nola on her mobile using his own mobile before the murder. Police always check calls on victim’s mobile. It usually takes some days.

2. Nola’s close girlfriend at work knew about Nola’s situation with Chris. They talked about him before the murder.

3. Nola’s agent knew that Nola canceled the appointment for some reason before she was killed.

4. All young murdered women are tested on pregnancy. Pregnancy must be also mentioned in Nola’s diary.

5. Suspected drug addict could have accomplices. This version needs to be checked.

6. Old woman was killed in her room with a medicine in her mouth. She definitely knew the murder and let him in.

7. Chris’s boss noticed that he is going to play tennis after work and it’s not true.

--GeorgeRu (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subtext section seems like wikipedia:original research to me.. thoughts? Rhobite 00:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this section as original research a while back, and now I removed it. Feel free to replace/rewrite it with sources. Rhobite 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does this line mean, exactly? "Many internet users claims that this film Johansson's first sex scene, though the scene involves her being fondled." User:Yllosubmarine 10:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should any mention be made of this film's similarity to Edith Wharton's novel, Age of Innocence?

This description of the movie is one paricular interpretation, which misses an important point. In the only supernatural scene of the movie, Chris talks to his murder victims and expresses the pain that the actual getting away with the crime causes him. The fact that his luck lets him gets away makes for a terrible revelation: there is no justice, no hope for justice, blind luck rules our lifes. Thus, he loses---not wins---the match point. The opening voice-over tells you: when the ball falls short, you lose. Chris' ball is the ring. It fell short (on the pavement), and Chris lost. His getting away is a defeat. It takes away his hope. If the ring went over and disappeared in the river, the cops wouldn't have stopped pursuing Chris as a suspect. He would end up in jail but with hope that there is justice, some higher power maybe, a reason behind this maddness. Sorry, there isn't. If you hoped for one, you've lost. 199.169.240.132 06:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a spoiler tag the Inspiration/Adaptation per Wikipedia:Spoiler subsections 1.1, 1.2 REASON: the major plot twist is revealed in a section which is NOT a Plot/Synopsis section. Tomgreeny 14:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section is reasonably clearly marked as "Inspiration/Adaptation", and moreover it doesn't give any plot details. I've removed the intrusive and ugly tag. --Tony Sidaway 21:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section tells you that "a married man ... has an affair that ends up in shotgun-related murder" the fact that the murder happens is the big surprising twist in the plot. Tomgreeny 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Woody Allen film. If you watch it for the plot twists, you're wasting a cinema seat. --Tony Sidaway 22:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Google: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22match+point%22+%22plot++twist%22+film&hl=en&safe=off&start=0&sa=N

"a delicious plot twist reveals the true nature of the film", "has a clever plot twist towards the end", "the late plot twist got my attention, it came so much out of the blue", "The movie has a lame plot twist toward the end", "I don't want to divulge too much about the ridiculous plot twist" that's just from the first page of results Tomgreeny 22:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding a the "significant plot points" spoiler tag to the article. The "plot" section explains the entire plot, twists and all. The aesthetics of the tag are not the point. Further, do we really need a spoiler for "Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the section? I'll leave it in for now but perhaps it could be worded differently so as not to accidentally spoil people who haven't seen "C&M". Clockster 09:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plot section is supposed to discuss the plot - what else would it talk about? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added spoiler tag to the 'Thematic antecedents' section, note that this is NOT a 'plot summary' section, and it contains spoilers for several other works in addition to Match Point (An American Tragedy, A Place in the Sun and Crimes and Misdemeanors). c.f. WP:SPOILER "Spoiler notices may be appropriate when significant plot revelations appear in unexpected places" Tomgreeny 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, that "Thematic antecedents" seems like little more than original research, and should be removed altogether. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the section is original research and has a needless spoiler tag. Remove the whole section. Marc Shepherd 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sideways has removed the tag from this section giving the reason 'Obviously a discussion of theme is going to discuss plot.' while it may obviously discuss the plot of the film in question (Match Point) it clearly contains spoilers for 3 different works the plot of which a reasonable person would not expect to find in an article about an entirely different film.

On the question of original research in this section; it could only original research on the most stupidly strict definitions (quite aside from the fact that all the content of the section is obviously true), if we are to hold the article to THAT high a standard we would have to remove all of it save the 'reception' section (certainly the entirely of the plot section would be OR under such a strict interpretation). Tomgreeny 21:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you're (all -- this is not directed at one party) lying on your death beds, do you really think this was a good thing to spend your life worrying about? A little tag, on a little webpage that no-one outside of the project gives that much credit anyway? The JPS^{talk to me} 22:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how someone can wish to read a section on thematic similarities but not want to know the plot of the film or know other films with the same plot. What else could such a section possibly contain, if it has any content at all? — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand these constant comments about plot. For most people, plot discussion does not automatically mean the revelation of spoilers or plot twists. I think you're coming at this from the point of view of someone who edits a lot on Wikipedia, while I'm trying to approach this in the way a casual user would. The fact that there are spoilers for other movies just solidifies it for me - this needs a small spoiler tag. Why on earth would anyone object to that? Clockster 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of this moment, no movie article on Wikipedia has a spoiler tag. None. Nada. Marc Shepherd 21:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be rude, but I have used Wikipedia for lots of movie research in the last few years, and I've seen spoiler tags before. If they've all been removed now, that's fine; I'll take your word for it. However, I honestly don't know what relevance that has to anything. If it's Wikipedia's policy to never use a spoiler tag in movie articles then the spoiler tag option should be removed. Clockster 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small number of high-ranking admins have taken it upon themselves to eliminate spoiler warnings entirely from Wikipedia. The best thing to do would be to read Wikipedia talk:Spoiler and some of the archives if you want to learn more.--Nydas^(Talk) 14:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is untrue: not all the participants are admins. In addition, I'm not aware that there is any ranking of admins.

However, it is indeed true that, as of now, no movie pages on Wikipedia have spoiler tags, even though many of those movies have the kind of surprising plot twists found in Match Point. The current de facto spoiler guideline isn't what I would have personally chosen—though I can live with it. But whatever its merits, I certainly think that we should be try to be consistent. If Psycho doesn't have a spoiler tag (and it doesn't), it's hard to see the case for Match Point. If they're both wrong, that's a broader issue. Marc Shepherd 15:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for complete inertia, unless one is supposed to edit all film articles simultaneously somehow. The fact is that a spoiler tag here would be completely in-line with the guideline WP:SW. Now I agree that a group of editors are enforcing a DEFACTO guidline/policy of no spoiler warnings in film articles (indeed no spoiler warnings at all); but if you want to enforce such a guideline YOU NEED TO CHANGE THE GUIDELINE to reflect this defacto enforcement. (I think the reason you are not doing this is because there is no consensus for such a guideline.) Tomgreeny 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I made my original comment, I was simply correcting the statement that Match Point ought to have a spoiler tag because other film articles do. Match Point may indeed warrant a spoiler tag—but not for that reason. Marc Shepherd 16:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since your comment above was posted directly under mine, I assumed you were addressing me, but I should point out I never said that Match Point should have a spoiler tag because other film articles do. Unless I've missed something, no one has made that particular argument. Clockster 03:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MatchPointPoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amazed by the statements about Allen's 'good reviews'. In Britain it is one of Allen's most slated and trashed films - a new low.

The Guardian calls it a 'cinematic crime" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jan/31/woody-allen-vicky-christina-barcelona

and "disasterous" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/feb/08/woody-allen-barcelona-review

The London Times calls it "below par" http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3932061.ece A more balanced write up is needed, wouldn't you agree? Spanglej (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to work this in now. it's worth noting that the film recieved a much worse reception in the UK than elsewhere, such as the USA or France, in part due to its failure to capture English idiom. Other English reviewers have in turn attacked those who criticised it for presenting a nice portrait of life in the cpaital. The Guardian articles you link here are, 1) not actually focused on Match Point, 2) clearly polemical and outside of mainstream opinion, 3) "cinematic crime" is a headline which puns on one of his other films, it is not an appellation for Match Point. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why there's no mention of this film being nominated for an Oscar anywhere in the article? I've added info about it to the critical response section. I'm sure there are category tags that should also be added, but I don't know how to do that. 67.133.229.226 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a typo for vacant, because it makes no sense to me as is? 3eguoxn02 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-worked this section, largely using the Goyios source, a comprehensive analysis. If someone wants to check it over, I'd be very grateful. I'm also taking out this bit since it seems to disagree with that account, if there's another source then we can consider re-including it.

Mrs. Eastby (Margaret Tyzack) is listening to budget price Naxos CD Operatic Duets for Tenor and Baritone by Janez Lotrič and Igor Morozov (the aria "Arresta...Quali sguardi!" from Gioachino Rossini's Guglielmo Tell, then Desdemona's murder scene from Verdi's Otello) when she is shot.

Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Match Point/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Encycloshave (talk · contribs) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall

This is my first review for a GA, but here's what I have come up with:

• Y Well written? Overall, the writing is clear and easy to follow. One place I think could use a little clarification is in the synopsis, "Tom's mother Eleanor (Penelope Wilton) clearly does not approve of her son's relationship with Nola, who is a struggling American actress, a source of tension." Perhaps slightly rewording as "Tension exists between Tom and his mother Eleanor (Penelope Wilton), as she clearly does not approve of her son's relationship with Nola, who is a struggling American actress."
• As for the smaller stuff, there are things that might like typos but are more due to cross-Atlantic differences. Quotation mark placement is mixed. Most of the article has "text". (British usage) though Production and Reception have only three quotes with "text." (American usage). In the synopsis, there is " Scotland Yard investigates the crime and conclude it was committed by a drug addict stealing money." I think both are correct in isolation. In the U.S., we would say Scotland Yard investigates, but I think the British would say investigate, since Scotland Yard is a collection of people who investigate, hence plural. "Investigate" and "conclude" just need to be the same.
• Accuracy I haven't checked the references or links
• Y Thoroughness, neutrality, and images
• Y Stable All the issues raised on the article's talk page seem to have been addressed.

Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Encycloshave. You certainly seemed to have a solid grasp of the encyclopaedic :format and Wikipedia's stylistic principles.

The placement of quotation marks on Wikipedia is defined in the Wikipedia:MOS#quotation, which advises placing puncutation outside of them. In the contrary cases you cite, the quotation included ends a sentence--thus the full stop is from the original rather than Wikipedia. I think Scotland Yard should be a singular everywhere, though people vary in their adherence to this rule. I'll change it now.

You seem to have have throughly read the article: culd you make a final call on it? What needs to be looked at before promotion?

Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay here. I recommend the article for GA. I agree with you on Scotland Yard having singular verbs, since I would imagine that's how the English would say it. Either way, the important part is that investigate(s) and conclude(s) are consistent. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the recent changes to the Template:Infobox film instructions, we should be using databases such as the BFI to determine nationality of the film. Both the AFI and BFI databases have Match Point as UK/USA/Luxembourg production, so by the guidelines, we should be following suit. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hanway films (the film's sales agent) mentions that "Match Point" is an UK production[1], while "Fast Food Nation" is an US/UK co-production.[2]

If there is any conflict, I think it would be ridiculous to use the infos from the unofficial source [AFI/BFI database] instead of the official source (Hanway's site).--Marychan41 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Hanway, being a primary source may have motive for only describing it as a UK film, or at least a different set of criteria. By using the secondary (or tertiary?) sources recommended in the infobox guideline, we have impartiality and uniformity, where the nationality of each film is not judged by different criteria. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Match Point. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081203150712/http://www.visitbritain.co.uk/things-to-see-and-do/interests/films/top-film-titles/match-point/index.aspx to http://www.visitbritain.co.uk/things-to-see-and-do/interests/films/top-film-titles/match-point/index.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Match Point. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110906134033/http://www.lesinrocks.com/cine/cinema-article/t/33827/date/2005-01-01/article/match-point/ to http://www.lesinrocks.com/cine/cinema-article/t/33827/date/2005-01-01/article/match-point/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]