What if the bad guy won?
- Martyn Foster
- 1 hour ago
- 10 min read
Getting away with crime doesn’t mean you escape punishment...or does it?
I make no intention to hide how much I’m fascinated by morality and ethics. So, with the third week of my movie themed exploration, we take on Woody Allen’s Match Point (2005) starring Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Scarlett Johansson.
If you haven’t read my first two please find them here:
What has always intrigued me about Match Point is that it bucks the trend of the “good” or “happy” ending, hence the title of this post. The good guy doesn’t win in this film, primarily because there is no “good guy” per se, nor does the bad guy realise the error of his ways and redeem himself or is defeated/punished for his misdeeds. So, you don’t have the traditional satisfactory conclusion from a moral standpoint which I find interesting to explore sitting with such feelings because it isn’t right.
The idea of exploring “what if the bad guy won?”, it’s the opposite of hero mythology. Normally, audiences would be why it can't be so as the bad guy always has a weakness which is some character flaw in him, usually intellectually superior to hero. The bad guy is usually seen as a "failed genius" with misdirected energy. As illustrated in the opening scene of Swordfish and how they discuss that with morality tales, the bad guy has to go down one way or another.
The story begins with Chris Wilton (Meyers), a former tennis pro who gave up the life after a few unlucky bounces of the ball caused him to realise he wasn’t good enough nor otherworldly determined to beat the elite of the sport, and it was taxing him to the point of wanting to stop and do something special with his life. From a poor upbringing, Chris used tennis as a means to escape a poor existence, with the opening scene illustrating that he’d “rather be lucky than good”, but luck evaded him in his pro career. Luck, and the role luck plays in our lives, is very much a central theme of this movie. Also in the opening, Chris is spotted reading Dostoevsky’s Crime & Punishment, and there is no doubt it’s influence on the story, and I’ll be referring to it later. Similar background, similar motives between Raskolnikov and Chris, for one.
Chris gets a job at this swanky tennis club offering lessons to the English upper class, and befriends a man called Tom Hewett (Matthew Goode). The class contrast is noticeable throughout the entire film, it’s clear Chris has had to work for everything in his life and is more of a struggler/battler and earnest in his ways. Tom and Chris bond over their love of opera, and invites him to one where he’s introduced to the rest of the Hewett family and where Chloe (Tom’s sister, played by Emily Mortimer) begins her infatuation of him.
Chris begins fraternising more and more with the Hewett family and meets Nola (Tom’s fiancé) over a game of table tennis when at their estate in the countryside. Chris has no idea who she is yet as she greets him seductively, “who’s my next victim?”, and they continue to flirt back and forth with Nola commenting on the aggressive game Chris likes to play. Tom seems unfazed and laughs it off, tells Chris to watch out for her as he introduces who she is.
Chloe clearly cares a lot about Chris, she’s beyond keen on him, smitten even, and tries to get her father (Alec, played by Brian Cox) to help him out. It’s obvious how at ease Tom and Chloe are with wealth, and the upper class lifestyle, with the constant referral to “mummy and daddy or mother and papa” along with always socialising/having their lives involved in one another. Alec is impressed by the story of Chris’ life and his attitude, and decides to get him a job in one of his companies.
I know it may feel I’m labouring the point with the character relationships and all the interactions, but there is a point we’re building to which all this is important for.
At this point it’s difficult to find fault as it appears Chris has finally been a bit fortunate in his life, lucking out on becoming involved in such a wealthy and connected family who seem to be really keen on him, opening the doors to a life he could only have dreamt of. Poor people usually dream of riches because it’s so removed from a possibility in the lives. Chris comes across a relative normal human being, but as his obsession with Nola intensifies following a dinner double date, this begins to change. During the dinner discussions, Chris places an emphasis on the role of luck in our lives (though hard work is mandatory), and that existence is of a lot of blind chance with no real purpose or design. It’s clear that Nola and Chris think similar (with a similar upbringing/class) whereas Tom and Chloe are from another upbringing/class with a contrasting worldview. Tom chuckles at when a vicar told him despair is the path of least resistance. Chris, rather seriously, believes faith is the path of least resistance. These aren’t the same men, couldn’t be more different, and it’s quite telling given the rest of the film.
This pervasive nihilism runs strong in this film, there’s no real meaning behind life, none of this matters, so I can justify anything that I do and live however I want to. Nola is aware of her effect on Chris as his pursuit of her intensifies, with the turning point being the pair making out in a field in the rain after she walked out of the estate after the mum, Eleanor (Penelope Wilton), chastises her again. Afterwards, Nola plays it down as nothing more than passions in a state of emotional vulnerability, but Chris clearly thinks more of it, wants more of it, despite marrying Chloe soon after and getting in further with the Hewett family.
As soon as Tom tells Chris that he’s called off the engagement to Nola, it’s another contrasting image. Tom borderline couldn’t really care, as he’s already moved on and found someone better (and whom mother approves) whereas the news sends Chris into overdrive, desperate to get in contact with Nola, but can’t find her. Chloe laments the lack of intimacy between them and how quickly others fall pregnant, but Chris is dismissive, blames work. What we’re starting to see here is Chris having a relationship with someone for purely self-serving reasons, he pretends to care about Chloe to the extent of keeping his now comfy life going.
Chris clearly showing signs of stress – his obsession with Nola being the primary cause. He supposed to meet his wife at an art gallery to look at new artist, but bumps into Nola. Desperately tries to go for drink and find out where she lives etc. She’s reluctant and says aren’t you married? Chloe then finds them, yet acts oblivious. Chris eventually gets her number and they hook up. Chris becomes increasingly detached from Chloe, and more obsessed with Nola. They seek fertility treatment as can’t fall pregnant, but he continues sexual rendezvous with Nola. He has all the energy for her, none for his wife. Chloe literally says let’s have sex and he’s like I’ll be late for work – I mean he’s clearly maintaining the relationship for the life it now provides rather than any love to her, yet continues affair with Nola in secret with no feelings of shame or guilt.
The first of several arguments between Chris and Nola occurs, as the affair starts to shift beyond his control, and how he wants it. Nola, who was reluctant, now desires Chris and wants him to leave Chloe. This shocks Chris as suddenly his curated life of having his cake and eating it is thrown into disarray. His world rapidly begins to fall apart as he’s nearly found out. Nola becomes increasing possessive of him, and she becomes pregnant with his child. Chris views this more as an inconvenience and a problem that needs to be solved, almost no emotional feeling nor support towards Nola at all. The lying increases to everyone as Chris desperately tries to not be overwhelmed by the situation he’s created yet seems not wanting to take any responsibility for. He sees no future with Nola, clearly doesn’t love Chloe.
And now, we begin to see the beginning of Chris’ plotting to resolve the situation. It’s at boiling point. Nola is becoming increasing agitated and pushing Chris to leave Chloe. Chris trying to make it out like it’s some revenge plan for Nola on the Hewetts (i.e. that this is her fault, her doing, not his), whereas she just wants someone supportive, and that he doesn’t have the balls to leave his wife and wants someone else to do it for him.
Once again Chris fogs off wife about real problem bothering him, but she nearly discovers one of her father’s guns in his bag and shotgun shell in pocket. He can’t keep all this lying up. He’s lying to everyone at this stage. Tells Nola good news is coming and to be home.
Now, this is where we see some similarities between Chris and Raskolnikov from Crime & Punishment, in that both felt they were able to subvert common morality for a grander scheme as a greater person. They both planned to kill someone which they had completely justified as acceptable. Whereas with Raskolnikov, one was planned and one was an accident, Chris planned both, but made it look like an accident – which is ethically worse. Chris brutally murders the old lady next to Nola’s apartment, makes it look like a drug burglary, waits for Nola to come home and then shoots her as she entered her apartment. The back and forth madness and rationality is easily visible, he’s barely keeping himself together as killing someone is a little more emotionally and psychologically overwhelming than he imagined and he can’t believe what he’s doing, no matter how much he’s justified it to himself. He legs the scene of the crime and gets in a cab to go to the theatre as planned with Chloe, calls her and tells her he’s on the way, and then breaks down sobbing as the realisation of what he’s done begins to set in.
Raskolnikov believed that great people, like a Napoleon, are above natural laws and can transcend morality in the pursuit of greatness, and he believes that true of himself…until realising that while he escapes crime, he is tormented and does not escape the punishment. Chris feels that Nola’s life (and the old lady’s for that matter) was necessary to be taken for the grand plan of his life to continue unimpeded, thus also feeling like a person above others whom this is acceptable for. “Sometimes the innocent are slain to make way for a grander scheme” Chris voices in a vision he has at night involving Nola and the old lady. The reality of his child (in Nola) being killed as well, Chris once again rationalises his actions by quoting Sophocles, “to never have been born may be the greatest boon of all”, as if he did his unborn child a favour to not be brought into such a meaningless existence. Chris ends the vision be saying it would be fitting if I was apprehended and punished…it would be a small sign of justice and a small measure of hope for the possibility of meaning. As I mentioned previously, the nihilism runs thick in this movie, and Chris has long lost hope of any kind of meaning in life, and therefore, as nothing matters, he can murder two people in order to continue his grander life and need to make a contribution and do something special.
The imagery of the old lady’s wedding being thrown away by Chris, mirrored the tennis ball and net in the opening scene, and instead of going over the guardrail and into the river (like the rest of her jewellery), it hits the lip and bounces back…for once in Chris’ life, a fortuitous bounce as it turns out. The ring is picked up by another druggie who commits a similar crime and the deaths of Nola and the old lady are pinned on him, and not Chris, despite one detective “correctly” piecing together how Chris did it.
Chris pretends to act shocked when Chloe reads of Nola’s demise, because in his eyes he did nothing wrong. Life goes on, Chloe gets pregnant and Chris is left there knowing the truth, but no one else does, oblivious and uncaring, and the film ends. Chris is left to carry the burden of his “crime”, but the film doesn’t really show him doing much, if any, of that, unlike Raskolnikov whose conscience is sent to hell and back as a result, and he later confesses. In what can only be described a true middle finger to meaning and any kind of objective morality, it is implied that Chris continues on living his life as if nothing has happened and he doesn’t feel a pinch of regret, as he said in his vision to Nola, “it wasn’t easy but I could do it. You sweep the guilt under the rug and move on. Otherwise it overwhelms you.” Raskolnikov couldn’t live with the punishment of his crimes and was paranoid of being caught, Chris, however, doesn’t regret what he's done and would never turn himself in voluntarily to bring any kind of meaning or redemption or justice, and thus the story ends rather tragically, with no real consequences to his actions. And that’s why it subverts the stereotypical morally fulfilling conclusion.
So, the bad guy won? Was it luck? Was he really bad or just an extremely flawed human being? Did he kill her because he could or because he should? The constant rationalising of all his poor/unethical decisions and motives, manipulating others behaviour and accusing others of doing what he’s doing. Doubting himself and his feelings as he wasn’t honest with others nor himself. Playing the victim, to Nola, to the Police. He ended up creating a situation that he couldn’t control, maybe he wasn’t in control – as is usually the case with obsessions – it grew beyond manageable or what he wanted. He felt he could have his cake and eat it. It was fine when Nola wasn’t obsessed back, but when she became in need of him, he started to lose control and the spiral began…and he even had the gall to tell her to be reasonable! It became overwhelming to him, emotionally, which accelerated the feelings of losing control.
Chris eradicated a problem rather than chose the woman he preferred to be with. Who is the type of person who thinks they can just take the lives of two people because of a problematic situation that they’ve created and then justify it as to not interfere with some grander plan? Someone who felt they’re owed (some luck)? Committing unjustifiable atrocities like you’re some Nietzschean Ubermensch who believes he’s above it all. It’s more of a case that life is meaningless, and we do what we see fit to further ourselves, no need for guilt/shame nor justice or meaning. Just make decisions and move on – no objective morality, no moral punishments. You use and dispense of people/relationships etc. as you please. I, obviously, do not agree with this mode of thinking, but it is interesting to explore those who do. It’s truly fascinating what, and more importantly how and why, the human mind will deem something as morally and/or rationally acceptable.
Please consider donating at one of the links below, if you are able to do so, I would very much appreciate it.