(no subject)
Nov. 20th, 2003 04:52 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
changelingWent 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 Trinity's death 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.
Bill turns to Ben and says "Blubalublub." Ben says, "If you loved me, you'd swallow that."
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.
Bill turns to Ben and says "Blubalublub." Ben says, "If you loved me, you'd swallow that."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 02:19 pm (UTC)Bit of a spoiler there! Ack!
The thing that struck me during the showing was that this is my generation's Star Wars. That frightened me a bit.
Actually, I think Lord of the Rings has that honour, which isn't as frightening a thought ;-)
Lots of people do like the Matrix though. Hmm. I guess people consistently liked the first one, but opinion of the series has dropped hugely with the release of 2 and 3.
I liked 3 a fair bit. Not as good as 1, better than 2, but I'm disappointed with the series as a whole. The overall storyline was a bit dopey.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 06:05 pm (UTC)And although people say that the dialogue is crap and tacky, if you go into it with this predermination/free-will dichotomy in mind, it all fits together a lot better.
However, I did feel that the christian imagery towards the end of Revolutions was a bit explicit :-/
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 08:54 pm (UTC)I don't recall the purpose/choice thing being made anywhere. I wouldn't mind viewing all of them again with that in mind. Hmm.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 08:56 pm (UTC)And I actually was told that gem before picking up a single Sandman. Sorry about that. Thought you knew, for some reason.
Well, you see, I thought of that, but then Matrix is an original film. LOTR is an adaption.
Agreed.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 09:38 pm (UTC)Note that while Star Wars fired the imaginations of a generation, it wasn't entirely original. It's the old "farm boy becomes king" story with gritty sci-fi trappings. Far from Star Wars succeeding despite being derivative, I think it succeeded because it's derivative.
Lord of the Rings is straight from the books (more or less (*sigh*)), and the books are highly derivative of Norse mythology (among other things), but I think that makes it even more important to people seeing it today. Also, the casting in LotR is absolutely phenomenal. I knew from reading the cast lists years before the first film came out that if there was ever going to be a good LotR film, this was going to be it. Ian McKellen for the sake of all that is good in this world!!! (woohoo)
Also, the Matrix, while it's nifty and everything, boils down to being a series of action films splattered with chronic masturbation by the directors et al, and the plot, aside from the initial "what is the matrix" bit (which was interesting) being mind-bogglingly predictable and wanky. Good special effects and fight scenes don't make a classic.
I think Lord of the Rings will end up being more important.
Maybe that's just my bias showing though, I do know people who rave about the Matrix . . .
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 09:49 pm (UTC)And I also knew that LOTR is taking mostly from Norse and Celtic mythology (particularly Norse). "Middle Earth" is just the English word for Midgaard, after all.
LOTR? Rocks my socks six ways to Friday. But the story's been around longer than that, and it was highly popular (in book form) with the same generation that initially watched Star Wars. It's an amazing piece of cinematography, but is still an adaptation from a book. It's not *new*.
I honestly hope that LOTR ends up being more important, but I must say my hopes aren't high. There are people who like Jar-Jar, after all.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 10:10 pm (UTC)I don't think something has to be new to be a landmark.
After all, the Matrix, while it seems new compared to other films, doesn't come up with any ideas that haven't been in sci-fi books for ages ;-)
Anyway, there are plenty of idiots in the world, but I remain confident that it'll be LotR that sticks in peoples' memories, not the Matrix :)
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 10:17 pm (UTC)Hm. On Rathergood.com, one of their little shorts is called... Jamie and the Magic... er... Todger.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 10:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-19 10:22 pm (UTC)*coughs* There's always one, isn't there...?
no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 03:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-20 08:51 pm (UTC)or the Architect explaining that he was designed as The Anomaly for the whole purpose that is explained in "Reloaded".
or the Oracle saying "we've all got to do what we've all got to do." and "you have to make a choice... the trouble is that you've already made it."
and finally, in "Reloaded" when Naiobi says "I don't believe in The One, but I believe in Neo..."
and the whole fact that Neo refuses to go to the source simply because that is his purpose (Reloaded) but eventually chooses to go to the Source anyway, in order to negotiate stopping the destruction of Zion (Revolutions)
And in the original Matrix, the Oracle says "You've got heart, kid, but..." and Neo says "but I'm not the One." He doesn't become The One until he chooses to take up that role.
Anyway, that just points out the obvious ones... it's a good reference point to enjoy the films by... the metaphysical dilemma of determinism vs. free will.
no subject
Date: 2003-11-21 01:37 am (UTC)