![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Nov. 20th, 2003 04:52 amWent to see Matrix today. I didn't like it, but it did make me sit there throughout the movie deconstructing it, and generally thinking quite hard. Some of the things I was thinking about were admittedly only tenuously connected with the movie at hand, though. I did like it best of the three, which (as I said a couple of times to Chris) isn't exactly a resounding recommendation. It was nice to talk with him afterwards, as his opinion was somewhat similar to mine. It was fun deconstructing it afterwards. I was amused by the fact that our reaction to ( major plot spoiler ) was the same: "I was more upset by the final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth." I happened to run into Daniel earlier today, which was a joy, as always. ;) He really likes the Matrix movies, and talked about Foucalt briefly. I have not read Foucalt. I have an urge to go and read a lot and then watch the movies to see if I'm missing something.
My biggest complaint is that the human aspect of the film is really poorly done. I don't care at all for the three main characters (Neo, Trinity and Morpheus). It's like the cinematic equivalent of a Patricia Cornwall novel. I don't actively dislike them, but if the three of them suddenly keeled over from the plague, I wouldn't care. My favourite bits of this movie was the scenes in the base. It showed off the Gigeresque graphics, and didn't involve any of the three main characters. I was thinking during the movie that the main problem was that both Neo and Trinity are not exactly Mr and Ms Forthcoming when it comes to feelings. I suddenly realised the reason why so many stories have the Female Love Interest; her whole purpose is to be fluffy, and hence get the Hero to react emotionally. Of course, in my stories, the fluffbunny has (amusingly enough) been played more by guys than girls. In Mad Gods and Englishmen (working title), Al(ice) has a foil in Mark, who does his emotional reaction through humour (so, not at all like me, then) and secondarily in Liz. In the current NaNo, Deirdre's hard-arsedness is offset by Bertie's habit of falling in love with everyone who looks at him funny.
Of course, even the staunchest of staunch heroes usually has a facial expression or two, no matter how minor, which can clue us into his emotional state. Neo doesn't. Nor does Trinity, really. They spend all three movies looking stalwart, and not giving us an expression at all. This is a problem. Hell, the Balrog has more emotions than N&T inc. Admittedly, the emotion seems to me mostly one of anger, then probably one of surprise when it comes to the flashback in TTT (I've only seen it once, due to extreme poverty at the time it was in the cinema).
My other problem is that Neo doesn't seem to have a journey. He starts out the series looking resolute (and occasionally vaguely confused), and he ends looking resolute (Ah, thesaurus.com, you are indeed my friend). He shows no indication of having learned any sort of lesson at all, if indeed he was meant to have learnt one. He moves through the movie like an automaton, seeming to react in a Newtonian fashion to what happens rather than think or emote. He asks questions because they need to be asked, rather than out of any sort of burning need for knowledge.
Admittedly, and for the sake of argument, the main character doesn't always learn and/or change as a result of their journey, even one as Joseph Campbell as Neo's. The original Morpheus (and interestingly enough, the one that the Matrix-Morpheus was named for) in Gaiman's Sandman dies at the end of the aforementioned series because of his inability to change sufficiently. This is an imperfect example, as the Morpheus of the story has clearly changed dramatically from the Morpheus in flashbacks to earlier eras. Still, it's a case of too little, too late, and so he dies. The important thing in this example, is that we're given reasons for why the character hasn't really changed, and we're shown the effects of it. Too much for a two-hour-or-however film? Perhaps. But I would argue that one doesn't necessarily have to spend a lot of time showing character growth. A few moments can do it, if used correctly.
The thing that struck me during the showing was that this is my generation's Star Wars. That frightened me a bit.
I think this is why Daniel and I differ so much on opinion when it comes to the Matrix: I've reacted on a visceral, emotional, story/myth level, and he's reacted on a cognitive, intellectual, philosophical level. ;)
In non-Matrixy news, Cosgrove Hall ownz me. They did the Wind In The Willows movie that is to me the definitive, and which I watched numerous times through my childhood. They did Count Duckula, Victor and Hugo and Dangermouse. All of those coincidentally had David Jason as a voice. They also did Alias the Jester, which I had completely forgotten about until I saw it in their drop-down menu. They did the Discworld animated series, and also the animated series of Truckers. They did Noddy, but we forgive them for that. I am amused by the fact that they actually say that Hugo's voice from Victor and Hugo was based on Bluebottle, from the Goon Show. I discovered that when I heard my first Goon Show episode. Yay for Hugo/Bluebottle! They also did Bill and Ben, which I have admittedly not seen.
( Mikey Robbins' Bill and Ben Joke. You have been warned. )
My biggest complaint is that the human aspect of the film is really poorly done. I don't care at all for the three main characters (Neo, Trinity and Morpheus). It's like the cinematic equivalent of a Patricia Cornwall novel. I don't actively dislike them, but if the three of them suddenly keeled over from the plague, I wouldn't care. My favourite bits of this movie was the scenes in the base. It showed off the Gigeresque graphics, and didn't involve any of the three main characters. I was thinking during the movie that the main problem was that both Neo and Trinity are not exactly Mr and Ms Forthcoming when it comes to feelings. I suddenly realised the reason why so many stories have the Female Love Interest; her whole purpose is to be fluffy, and hence get the Hero to react emotionally. Of course, in my stories, the fluffbunny has (amusingly enough) been played more by guys than girls. In Mad Gods and Englishmen (working title), Al(ice) has a foil in Mark, who does his emotional reaction through humour (so, not at all like me, then) and secondarily in Liz. In the current NaNo, Deirdre's hard-arsedness is offset by Bertie's habit of falling in love with everyone who looks at him funny.
Of course, even the staunchest of staunch heroes usually has a facial expression or two, no matter how minor, which can clue us into his emotional state. Neo doesn't. Nor does Trinity, really. They spend all three movies looking stalwart, and not giving us an expression at all. This is a problem. Hell, the Balrog has more emotions than N&T inc. Admittedly, the emotion seems to me mostly one of anger, then probably one of surprise when it comes to the flashback in TTT (I've only seen it once, due to extreme poverty at the time it was in the cinema).
My other problem is that Neo doesn't seem to have a journey. He starts out the series looking resolute (and occasionally vaguely confused), and he ends looking resolute (Ah, thesaurus.com, you are indeed my friend). He shows no indication of having learned any sort of lesson at all, if indeed he was meant to have learnt one. He moves through the movie like an automaton, seeming to react in a Newtonian fashion to what happens rather than think or emote. He asks questions because they need to be asked, rather than out of any sort of burning need for knowledge.
Admittedly, and for the sake of argument, the main character doesn't always learn and/or change as a result of their journey, even one as Joseph Campbell as Neo's. The original Morpheus (and interestingly enough, the one that the Matrix-Morpheus was named for) in Gaiman's Sandman dies at the end of the aforementioned series because of his inability to change sufficiently. This is an imperfect example, as the Morpheus of the story has clearly changed dramatically from the Morpheus in flashbacks to earlier eras. Still, it's a case of too little, too late, and so he dies. The important thing in this example, is that we're given reasons for why the character hasn't really changed, and we're shown the effects of it. Too much for a two-hour-or-however film? Perhaps. But I would argue that one doesn't necessarily have to spend a lot of time showing character growth. A few moments can do it, if used correctly.
The thing that struck me during the showing was that this is my generation's Star Wars. That frightened me a bit.
I think this is why Daniel and I differ so much on opinion when it comes to the Matrix: I've reacted on a visceral, emotional, story/myth level, and he's reacted on a cognitive, intellectual, philosophical level. ;)
In non-Matrixy news, Cosgrove Hall ownz me. They did the Wind In The Willows movie that is to me the definitive, and which I watched numerous times through my childhood. They did Count Duckula, Victor and Hugo and Dangermouse. All of those coincidentally had David Jason as a voice. They also did Alias the Jester, which I had completely forgotten about until I saw it in their drop-down menu. They did the Discworld animated series, and also the animated series of Truckers. They did Noddy, but we forgive them for that. I am amused by the fact that they actually say that Hugo's voice from Victor and Hugo was based on Bluebottle, from the Goon Show. I discovered that when I heard my first Goon Show episode. Yay for Hugo/Bluebottle! They also did Bill and Ben, which I have admittedly not seen.
( Mikey Robbins' Bill and Ben Joke. You have been warned. )
