Match Point: Luck, Justice, Realism

The following review was published originally on cinekklesia on May 29, 2006. To see extensive comments initiated by Paul Marchbanks, cinekklesia's founder and coordinator, check out the original review.

At the beginning of Woody Allen's Match Point (2005), we see a shot of a tennis net with a ball sailing back-and-forth, in slow motion, right over it. We also hear the voice of Chris Wilton (Jonathan Rhys Meyers) discussing how so much of life is mere chance: while we can practice and prepare diligently, sometimes minor, seemingly inconsequential circumstances can alter our entire destiny. The introductory scene ends with the ball hitting, just barely, the top of the net, and falling backwards — presumably "bad luck" for one of the unseen players.

While watching Match Point's plot unfold, we might find ourselves confused that the theme of luck/chance plays such a dominant role; after all, the main character seems to make so many bad choices that he has only himself to blame. Chris is a tennis pro who has retired from the touring circuit, taking up residence in London and starting a new job at a local country club. While teaching the wealthy members, he befriends Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode), the son of a businessman, and soon becomes a regular part of the Hewetts' social life, eventually dating and betrothing Tom's sister, Chloe. However, he soon becomes entranced by Nola Rice (Scarlett Johansson), an aspiring American actress, who also happens to be Tom's fiancée. Chris' interest in Nola becomes an obsession, and when Tom breaks his engagement, Chris pursues a series of sexual liaisons with the American — never mind that he already has married Chloe.

Much of the movie shows how Chris tries to have it both ways, maintaining his newly obtained socio-economic status with the Hewetts while hitting the hay with his mistress. Woody Allen does a good job of portraying the stress, if not the immorality, associated with adultery. Chris constantly is juggling his new job responsibilities (working for one of his father-in-law's businesses, of course), his "regular" family life, and his liaisons with Nola. We thus do not sympathize with his supposed "bad luck" but blame him for his bad choices: he has made his bed (literally), so now he needs to lie in it.

Yet, Allen returns to the theme of luck with a vengeance: Nola becomes pregnant with Chris' child, an ironic twist of fate since he and Chloe have been trying unsuccessfully to have one of their own. This unleashes a chain of events that shifts Match Point from the genre of "drama" to that of "thriller." I won't give away the ending, but suffice it to say that Chris' life unravels quickly, and he ultimately makes choices that are even worse than his previous ones. Yet, as Chris' life spirals out of control, as he makes those bad choices, Allen nevertheless demonstrates that "luck" still plays a large part in the outcome — so much so that luck ends up trumping justice.

We should note at this point that Allen doesn't question the existence of the idea of justice. It is clear that he believes that notions of right and wrong exist and that Chris has violated those norms repeatedly. However, can we say that Justice—the abstract, almost metaphysical Justice—exists when so many people who have done so many bad things "get away with it"? In addition, if they get away with it because of favorable circumstances ("dumb luck"), then does Justice carry any significance in the universe? If something as spurious as luck can thwart Justice, then the latter is, at best, impotent and, at worst, non-existent.

Theologically, of course, all of this leads to two classic questions: (1) does the continued existence of injustice serve as evidence of the non-existence of God and (2) how can a good and sovereign God allow bad things to happen? The first question is a bit silly since there seems to be no reason why injustice on earth should necessitate the non-existence of God. However, the second question is hard and currently unanswerable. Some attempt an answer by saying that God has given us free will and allows us to make bad choices — in part because He doesn't want mere machines to serve Him. However, this viewpoint presumes that the modern conception of "free will" is Biblical (I do not think it is), and it ignores the fact that a sovereign God can intervene to alter an injustice — and yet, in many cases, He (seemingly) does not. As such, we have a question that so far remains unanswerable, residing in the dimness and partiality (1 Cor. 13:9-12) that make up our current lot.

Thus, we are left with faith. The only thing we can do is trust that God is, in fact, just, and that we eventually will have some understanding of why injustice was allowed to exist. Any current attempt to answer the second question ultimately proves speculative and unhelpful.

Allen, of course, does not provide faith as a recourse. For him, "Luck" both exists and signifies an intrinsic chaos in the universe: there is no "Purpose" for anything, nor can we hope for "Justice" to prevail. We may feel bad about the immoral actions we have committed, but those guilty feelings eventually subside (time heals all wounds, after all — even those self-inflicted), life moves on, and the victims of injustice (if we even notice them in the first place) eventually fade into memory.

Allen's metaphysical views, of course, do not cohere with a Christian understanding of the universe, but his temporal realism is helpful. On this earth and in this life, bad things do happen, perpetrators go free, and we usually forget the victims of injustice. A full understanding of our faith life requires our acknowledging this reality. What differentiates a Christian's response from Allen's, however, is whether said acknowledgement comes with a meaningful hope for the future.