K-SWAT ARCHIVES: 0004
25th Feb 2008 - Response to Why the Matrix Sucked
Discussion held on Livejournal: http://kradical.livejournal.com/1181470.html
| Keith R.A. DeCandido |
So I finally caught The Matrix on HBO. This is what all the fuss was about?????? I want those 148 minutes of my life back. Granted that I saw this on a television screen and not in a theatre, and granted that I am more steeply versed in the tropes of science fiction and comic books, this is still one of the most undeservedly overpraised movies I've ever seen. First off, what I actually liked about it: The effects were magnificent. After seeing this movie, I am, for the first time, convinced that Hollywood can do a convincing live-action Spider-Man movie. More to the point, the effects perfectly conveyed the flat, not-quite-real aspect of life inside the matrix, which is what they were supposed to do. (Two friends separately commented that The Phantom Menace had better effects than The Matrix, but I have to disagree. TPM's effects didn't always convince me that I was watching alien beings interacting with humans; in fact, I never believed that the Gungam/battle droid war was fought in the same universe as the space battle. But the effects in The Matrix did exactly what they were supposed to do, and the filmmakers deserve praise for that. I especially liked the qualitative difference in the visual style of the scenes outside the matrix as opposed to those inside.) But couldn't they have put an interesting movie under the effects? The plot is a collection of the hoariest clichés from the SF/comics world, with nothing new added to the concepts at all, the pacing is abysmal, the acting is pathetic, and the treatment of the characters poor. God knows I don't consider originality to be all that important. For one thing, it's damn near impossible. For another, the most original idea in all creation can still suck if the execution is poor. Hell, Shakespeare didn't have an original idea in his life. But if you are going tread ground that thousands of pulp short stories, SF novels, and comic books have already tread upon, at least give us something different instead of the stringing together of tired clichés that are only there because the plot calls for them -- the betrayer, the female love interest, the hero who has to realize that he's a hero, etc. It wouldn't be so bad if these developed logically, but since there was zero chemistry between Trinity and Neo, their falling in love at the end was totally unconvincing, especially since it wasn't brought out until it was necessary to the plot. Of course, by that point in the movie the plot has finally kicked in. Certainly took long enough. It takes an hour for the story to finally get into gear, which is much much too long. Establishing the world and then establishing that it's all a fake is something that should only take 20-25 minutes, not fifty, especially given how many of those fifty minutes were given over to cutesy FX set pieces, at least some of which (the thing that went into Neo's belly button, for example) were totally unnecessary, and others of which (Neo being freed from his gunky prison) took twice as long as they needed to. It brought back not-fond memories of watching Star Trek: The Motion Picture again -- the action is ground to a halt so we can see how much money the filmmakers had to play with. Not that the pacing improves all that much. So much of the 148 minutes of this monstrosity is given over to people standing around explaining things. There's a reason why the first rule of storytelling is "show, don't tell." Nobody ever shows anything in this movie (which is pretty ridiculous given what a visual feast the film is) -- we just get endless exposition, delivered in the same dull monotone almost everyone in the film uses. Which leads nicely to the next problem, which is the awful acting. One doesn't expect much from Keanu Reeves, especially when he's asked to act outside his limited range (that range consisting of Speed's Jack Traven and Bill & Ted's Theodore Logan), and he lives down to expectations here. I was never for one moment in any way, shape, or form convinced that he was at all special, messianic, or "the one." (Up all night coming up with that neologism, huh, guys?) This goes back to the telling, not showing problem -- we're constantly (repeatedly!) told that Neo is "the one," but there's nothing on screen to support that until he performs superhuman feats at the climax. And there's no indication as to what changed to lead him to this epiphany. This, in turn, makes it really hard for me to give a rat's patootie about what happens to the supposed hero. Laurence Fishburne is one of the finest actors currently drawing breath, but you'd never know it from this. His method of playing the inscrutable mentor is to talk in a dull monotone and stare straight ahead. It's a sad commentary on his performance that the only time I ever felt like he was acting instead of just line-reading was when he was a captive of Smith's. Just sitting there silently, half-broken, he did more acting than in all his "you must be one with the universe, grasshopper" scenes with Reeves. The only actor I was even a little convinced by was Joe Pantoliano as Cipher -- not surprising, as Pantoliano is probably the most underappreciated character actor around. He was a far more menacing bad guy than Hugo Weaving's Smith (Weaving seems to be counting on his sunglasses to do his acting for him), especially since his reasons for betraying the rest of the rebels actually made sense. Of course, the scene where he reveals his deception is right out of the cliché handbook -- he conveniently kills all the characters who don't have billing first, but then is stopped in the nick of time before he can kill either of our stars. And, of course, the energy weapon he uses is powerful enough to kill Tank's partner with one shot, and to kill Cipher with one shot later, but two shots to Tank do no appreciable damage, just leave him out of action long enough for Cipher to explain why he betrayed them -- and Tank is in perfect shape after that with no ill effects whatsoever. Right. Once Cipher is dead, the movie pretty much degenerates into a computer game. Trinity was supposed to be some major kickass bruja, but once she and Neo go into the matrix to rescue Morpheus, she's reduced to the role of sidekick so Neo can do all the really cool stuff. First we see them go in and shoot a bunch of cops in cold blood. This is nice: our theoretical heroes who are out to save humanity from the matrix -- except for those who happen to be in the way at the time. Aren't these cops also people who need to eventually be rescued from the Men In Beige? Not to mention the fact that Neo shoots up an entire room with an automatic weapon and somehow manages to never hit Morpheus. Right. Then we get the problem far too many people have when they dramatize people with super powers: they don't use them except when it's convenient to the plot. We've established that Neo can now leap tall buildings in a single bound and catch people out of exploding helicopters and leap out of the way of an oncoming train and dodge bullets -- so why, exactly, does he need to run up a fire escape to get to the third floor, thus leaving him vulnerable to gunfire? (Not that it matters, since the Men In Beige can't hit the broad side of a barn in the computer-generated world they created.) And why can't Tank send Trinity back into the matrix after she's come out? There've been hopping in and out of the matrix all movie, why is it suddenly impossible now? We won't even go into the abject stupidity of Neo brought back to life by the love of a leather-clad woman. *braaaack* Not only that, but the entire structure of the world is based on the premise that the Men In Beige need human energy. OK -- why humans? Why not bunny rabbits? They produce more heat and bioelectric activity per ounce of body mass than humans, they reproduce like -- well, like bunny rabbits, they take up less room in the tank, they're very easy to entertain, and they are extremely unlikely to get messianic delusions. (As for the complaint that bunny rabbits would make for a less interesting movie, I beg to differ, and submit as evidence Watership Down or any Bugs Bunny movie besides Space Jam.) One can make the argument that I should've seen it on the big screen to really appreciate it, but to that I say hogwash. I have, on one of my movie tapes, The Hunt for Red October, Star Trek: First Contact, and Tomorrow Never Dies. All three of these films were most assuredly made for the big screen, and all of them work better on the big screen -- but I can happily watch any of those three movies on my VCR and still get tremendous enjoyment from them. Hunt has some phenomenal performances, a tight script, and an excellent plot. ST:FC is perfectly paced, also has some fine performances, and a very strong villain in Alice Krige's Borg Queen. Tomorrow has some magnificent byplay between Michelle Yeoh and Pierce Brosnan, a superlative villain in Jonathan Pryce, and some brilliant fight scenes. The Matrix is a lot of sound and fury, but it doesn't signify a goddamn thing. (Thanks to Michael Burstein, James Harrahy, Dave Mack, John J. Ordover, Terri Osborne, and Shanti Feder for their contributions to this rant.) [First posted on sff.people.krad at SFF.net on 17 April 2000.] |
| K-SWAT: Anakin McFly |
This is with regards to the article on your website entitled 'Why The Matrix Sucked', dated 17th April 2000. While I respect your opinion regarding the movie, you did however make several inaccurate statements that need clearing up. First off, the story was a lot more than tired cliches. For an idea of just how much thought went into the story of the entire trilogy, these essays should more than suffice: http://wylfing.net/essays/matrix_reloaded.html
The film on the outside may be just another rendition of the typical Hero's Journey story, but beneath it lies deep philosophical ideas involving among other things the nature of reality, the notions of free will and choice, the human need for suffering, and... yeah, read the essays. They're better than they look. I know, because a friend gave me those links and insisted that I look at them after I said I didn't like Reloaded. Turns out the whole story is a very interesting allegorical take on the Garden of Eden story. Secondly, you mentioned something about many of the sequences showing "how much money the filmmakers had to play with". However, the Wachowskis were far from rich. Most of the time they were running on a tight budget; Keanu Reeves contributed some of his own money into the project so that it could continue. In fact, one of the things that most strongly differentiated the first Matrix from its sequels was the budget. In the first film, much of it was actually done in a low-budget manner, such as the sets - they couldn't afford to build large scale ones and had to settle for a lot of it being CGI. Once again, every single frame of the movie is there for a reason. It's chock full of rich symbolism and allegory, which, as a literature student, I tended to notice. In license plates and such are hidden over 40 Bible verses, all of which bring an added dimension to the story. Things like the theme of reflection is used in things from the sets to even the music score. Regarding Keanu's "limited range", perhaps a quote from fellow Keanu SWAT Team member would suffice: "What makes Keanu a puzzle is the lack of pattern in where he shines and where he bombs, IMHO. I mean, his better roles are the snarky lawyer, the depressed quarterback, the unwilling savior, the cop on the bus, the airheaded teenager, the philosophical dentist, the alcoholic poolshark, and the stoned undercover cop, and the flirtatious doctor. What's the pattern? These characters have very little in common." - nancloutier If anything, Keanu is versatile. If one insists he is a bad actor, they have to at least admit that he's a very versatile bad actor. You said, "I was never for one moment in any way, shape, or form convinced that he was at all special, messianic, or "the one."" But that was one of the strongest things about Neo. He wasn't your typical hero figure who was all awesome and macho and special and superpowered and invicible and everything. He started off as a regular guy whom people could understand. None of us are Superman, but some of us are disgruntled software engineers at stupid companies, just like Thomas Anderson. People could relate to Neo and follow him on his journey, and that was one of the keys to making the film work. Neo was the reluctant hero. He was human. He had his doubts, he didn't have all the answers, what he wanted more than anything else was for people to tell him what was going on. He had so many people expecting him to be something special, but he himself didn't think he was special and had to deal with all these expectations he didn't think himself capable of fulfilling. He was afraid that he might let them all down. The best leaders are those who think themselves unsuited for the job, and that was Neo. He needed time before he could come to accept the part he was meant to play. There needed to be no "epiphany". It was a gradual learning process that had carried on throughout the film as Neo grew to better understand himself and his place in the greater story, and only in the end did he come to finally believe in himself and be the hero that everyone saw him as. Regarding the killing of the cops, there's actually a very long discussion on it over at the Internet Movie Database's Matrix forums. Here. You said: "We won't even go into the abject stupidity of Neo brought back to life by the love of a leather-clad woman." Ignoring the fact that Trinity was not leather clad at this point in time, it is not the act of her love reviving him that is the issue here. It's a deep exciting journey into the ideas of predeterminism and other fun things like that. Trinity mentions the Oracle's prophecy of the man she loved being The One. This was hinted at many times earlier in the film, and each time she declined from saying it explicitly. In the resurrection scene, what we're seeing is a play out of Trinity's inner dilemma over whether to trust her own feelings or the Oracle's prophecy; she saw Neo apparently dead, in which case he couldn't have been the One, in which case she didn't love him. But such a conclusion didn't go down well with her, and her final assertive expression of her love for Neo is therefore, in effect, saying that the perceived reality could go screw itself because she did love Neo ergo he was the One ergo he couldn't be dead, and nothing that appeared to the contrary could therefore possibly be true; even if Neo had been decapitated and his head was rolling about the floor, he still couldn't have been dead because she was so confident in her knowledge that she loved him. It was a crazy and powerful leap of faith. About the machines requiring humans for energy; I did an explanation of this in IMDb's FAQ for The Matrix. From one of the two essays I linked up there, the idea of the machines using not just any energy but emotional energy - something best obtained from humans - was also brought up. Seeing as how your essay was written in 2000, the sequels weren't out yet and you can therefore be excused for making the comment about 'messianic delusions' - as is shown in Reloaded, Neo being The One and everything is all part of the Architect's overarching plan. I guess that's all then. Kudos to you for being able to provide substantiation for your opinions; that alone places you far above the folks who go "omg matrix suxxx!!!111". Have a nice day. - Anakin McFly
|
| Keith R.A. DeCandido |
First of all, for those listening at home, anivad is referring to my essay on why I find The Matrix to be the most overrated movie of the past twenty years. I haven't read the two linked essays referenced above yet -- I will, I just need to not let myself distracted right now -- but some quick notes: 1) You totally thoroughly and in all ways possible missed my point about being convinced that Neo was "the one." You said: "He wasn't your typical hero figure who was all awesome and macho and special and superpowered and invicible and everything. He started off as a regular guy whom people could understand." Guess what? Regular guys don't get to be messiahs. And I didn't mean that he had to be macho and superpowered -- I did mean he had to be special, because if he isn't special, then he isn't "the one." He's supposed to be a unique individual, by definition. I have no problem with reluctant heroes, but he wasn't a reluctant hero, he was just a bland person who suddenly started kicking ass in time for the climax. 2) Sure the movie has allegory and symbolism -- that doesn't mean it's good allegory and symbolism. I have a BA in English lit too, y'know -- I know it when I see it. I saw plenty of both, but I wasn't impressed with either. 3) Didn't realize it was so low-budget. According to Box Office Mojo, the budget for The Matrix was $63 million, which is low for a movie of this type. (The two sequels had budgets of $150 million each.) So fair point on that one. 4) "nancloutier" has a much higher opinion of Reeves's acting talent than I. I'd only list the airheaded teenager and the cop on the bus among his roles that don't suck. *wry grin* 5) You claim I made "inaccurate statements," but the only actual inaccuracy was my statement on the budget. Everything else was a difference of opinion. If you're going to argue with people, it helps to know the difference between the two. *grin* |
| K-SWAT: Anakin McFly |
Thanks for the reply! 1) Okay. Guess I misinterpreted your point there. (Actually, regular guys do get to be messiahs - just watch Life of Brian - but I digress.) Neo's uniqueness was supposed to be his ability to bend the Matrix to his will, something which other people were unable to do. In this sense, his ability to fight an agent and win - something that no one else before him had been able to do - did mark him out as someone different from the rest. He was also the reincarnation of a previous One (though the Wachowskis aren't very clear about this), and this is probably the more important point. There was a specific person that the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar were looking for. They weren't just picking people off the streets and hoping for them to do something great; there were signs that they had to look out for, and Neo's hacking mad skillz were one of the things that made him a possibility. The film mentions how Morpheus had been wrong before in his previous guesses at The One - all of them died because it turned out that they weren't the real deal, and they couldn't survive the agents. So the fact that Neo didn't die means that they had finally struck jackpot and he was really the reincarnated version of the previous One. 2) Okay, I respect your opinion. 3) Thanks. 4) Actually I think nancloutier was referring to the roles that had received moderate to good critical acclaim, rather than a personal opinion on his best roles. This also seems to differ greatly from person to person - performances thought excellent by some are thought horrible by others, and vice versa. It has been postulated that this is one of the secrets behind Keanu's success: there's something for everyone, and those who hate his acting hate different performances of his. My personal theory is that if you collect statements from people that go along the lines of, "I think Keanu's acting sucks, but I admit he was really good in *insert movie here*", you would eventually cover his entire filmography. It's kind of strange, actually. Have you seen The Gift? That appears most often as the insert-movie-here and has generally been regarded as his best acted role, though there have been the usual one or two who claim that it's the worst thing he's ever done. I haven't watched it myself so I can't give my opinion. 5) Point taken. :) Mostly I had started typing up my response before reading the whole thing through, so I just assumed that... wait, there are more inaccuracies - the agents aren't responsible for creating The Matrix, the machines are. Yeah, I think that was what I was referring to, in addition to the budget. |