Ashrem Bayle said:
Ok.... did you watch the same movie I did?
Oh, yes. I'm quite sure.
It might not have taken any physical effort on his part, but I think it is safe to say thet he payed the emotional and psychological cost in full.
Huh. Sure, it's safe to say that. Since we weren't given any evidence one way or another, why not? I think it's safe to say it's pointless to even talk about Neo as though he were meant to represent a particular human being.
Exactly why I loved the movie so much. I don't understand why you see this as a bad thing.
I don't see it as a bad thing. It's just that this film's appeal is based on criteria that have little value to me. I value sympathy over identification because sympathy demands greater emotional imagination. Identification lets us just run power-tripping scenarios in our heads. It discourages us from real investigation into our own behaviour -- instead encouraging self-congratulatory close-mindedness. Sympathy, on the other hand, because it asks us to imagine the emotional life of another person, demands of us that we step outside our own selfish concerns and see the world from somebody else's point of view. Which I happen to think is a good thing we should all be spending some time at.
That's a lot to lay on a goofy fantasy movie, I know. And I'm overstating the "what's wrong with identification" case simply because you asked why I see it as a bad thing. Fundamentally I don't, but I do prefer the one over the other, for the above reasons. A film that asks me to feel sympathy is, all other things being equal, a better film than one that asks me to identify with a character.
Um no. Watch the special effects additional material on the DVD. True, even comercials started ripping off the technology, but it was after it was invented for the Matrix.
I have watched it. Have you heard of a French effects company called BUF? According to John Gaeta, visual effects supervisor of
The Matrix, they are in fact the inventors of the technique most usually referred to as "Bullet Time". You can read his comments
here. Nobody's ripping off anybody, but get your facts straight before you start calling somebody innovative. Mr. Gaeta is a great effects technician and I've never said the effects in the movie weren't great -- I just said they weren't innovative. I'd seen them before.
Now, that said, virtually every major effects movie of the past twenty years HAS been innovating, and in that respect the Matrix is no different. Effects technicians are brilliant, hardworking people and John Gaeta is no different. I haven't liked much of the work he's done (I didn't think much of any of the effects in Eraser or Judge Dredd, which were his two films before the Matrix, but he wasn't the guy in charge on either of those shows), but that he's a smart, creative, passionate guy I have no doubt.
I think the fact is, you didn't "get" the Matrix.
No, I just didn't "like" the Matrix.
However, I think the Matrix appeales to a higher calibur of person who's opinion I might take notice of.
I think the idea you're reaching for is that the Matrix appeals to people like you. I'm unsurprised that you think people who share your tastes are a higher calibre of person.
The Matrix is for the deeper minded people who happen to love sci-fi and well done special effects.
You know, I would certainly characterize myself as someone who loves sci-fi and well done special effects. So maybe I'm not a "deeper minded person" -- though I have to ask, deeper than what? I don't claim to be Mr. Deep, but if I can recognize the goofball sophomoric spouting that the Matrix pretends is philosophy for what it is, who's the Deep One? I don't think you can convincingly claim that I've demonstrated a lack of sophisticated understanding -- except for the fact that I happen to disagree with you. Was my initial post especially banal? What are the impressive intellectual subtleties that I'm missing in this film?
It appeals to a very specific kind of person and it doesn't sound like you are that kind of person.
Well, on that we agree.
I made my post because I feel very strongly that
The Matrix was a bad film. On the other hand it was clearly very popular. There are many reasons why certain products become popular -- I put forward my ideas as to why this one did. I didn't say people who liked this film were bad people, or stupid people. I said that its appeal was based not a compelling story, nor intellectual content, nor visual innovation, but on generating in the audience the vicarious experience of acquiring unlimited power. Now, I don't happen to find that very much fun. Many people do -- hence the popularity of first-person shooter games. That's fine, I'm not one begrudge somebody their chosen form of entertainment. It's just not for me.
Look, you liked the film, it entertained you, it made you think, that's great. Really, I think that's fine. I'm glad you got your money's worth. I hated it, thought it insulted my intelligence, demonstrated some fundamental misunderstandings about what makes a good fight scene (or indeed tension) and failed to maintain much internal consistency. My point, however, is that there ARE reasons to like this film -- it's just that they aren't reasons that I care about very much.
I probably love films you hate, as well. And there's probably lots of films we both love. Nothing wrong with that. It's a big old world.
