Why I Hated The Matrix Revolutions
Nov. 4th, 2003 07:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lapsedmodernistTotal spoilers
Gee, I was so excited about Revolutions. I was prepared to enjoy it even if it was not the amazing climax, tying up all loose ends and answering all the questions from the previous movies, and in general solidifying some sort of consistent cosmology with an internal logic. But not this. J. pointed out that, in fact, the cosmology was sustained, because the Matrix was about belief from the get-go, and having Neo become Jesus was completely consistent. But sorry, that so does not work for me.
Here is my problem with the movie: the first two movies set up a premise and a world with its own rules. The premise had to be resolved according to the rules of that world. I did not care that some rules got bent in the second movie, I am not an obsessive geek fan, I will suspend my disbelief, as long as it is done in a way that makes some sort of sense and contributes to the overall arc of the narrative. You know, even if it does not make literal sense, as long as it makes sense within the larger project of the assumed genre aesthetic, I will go along with it. For example, at the end of season 5 Buffy, when Buffy "realizes" at the 11th hour that the monks "made" Dawn out of her, and that somehow they have the same blood/essence that will allow her to close the portal if she dies in place of Dawn? I mean, Joss Whedon kind of pulled that one out of his ass, it did not make a whole lot of sense, but I dealt with it because in the end it took the story where the story needed to go. I will accept emergences out of the left field as long as they contribute to some larger making-sense-of-it-all in the end. But about two-thirds of the way through, The Matrix Revolutions went somewhere left of the left field, and pretty much stayed there.
I felt completely jipped by the ending. Not because it was not "conventional"--in a sense it was, but it was a pile of conventional elements from different genres piled together to create something completely insane. I like a good classical story if it is well-done. The first two Matrix movies set up the story as a homage to the classical archetypical hero narrative, a modernist narrative, straight out of Joseph Campbell. I have no problem with that. But I expect a pay-off that is consistent with the assumption of such genre. Obviously, if a film is a self-conscious postmodern homage to a certain genre, I have no problem with subversive twists and turns; "Kill Bill" gets to play around with the Samurai/revenge genre, and I loved it. But the end of Revolutions was not even subversive in some way of commenting on the parameters of the archetypal "heroic" narrative. It was completely Christian in ethos, in a way that completely collapsed the existential/epistemological/gnostic complexities introducted in the first two movies, and it made no sense in terms of the plot. Okay, fine, I can deal with the fact that Trinity dies. It's structurally necessary for Neo to go to make his final stand alone, as some sort of Frodo/Oedipus/Karate Kid figure. I can even dig the really literal, anvil-like embodiment of the metaphorical "blinding yourself to truly see" idea. But then what happens? The war ends because Neo makes a pact with the Machines; he destroys Agent Smith, the out-of-control "rogue" program for them, and they...uh...leave Zion alone. The climactic battle for Zion ends with the machines suddenly stopping and leaving to the understandable befuddlement of the Zion population, and no real explanation is offered to them or to the audience except for The Kid who is The Believer who riles everyone by screaming that "Neo did it!" Cuz he is The One. THAT is what The OIne does? Makes a deal with the machines? What the fuck? First of all, the whole idea of machines having some sort of "feelings" (I guess in this case "honor" would be the necessary one, as the machines inexplicably fulfill their end of the bargain and withdraw from Zion; this is probably how Dubya expected the "roadmap to peace" in the Middle East to work) is shoved down the audience's throat in the beginning of Revolutions, because there is nothing in the first two movies that would justify such a plot twist. Secondly, and more importantly IT GOES AGAINST THE VERY PREMISE OF THE MOVIE. So, like, the war between machines and humans is because the machines feed off human energy, and humans are enslaved in the matrix; Zion is a bastion of resistance for people who have stopped being machine food. How can there possibly be a truce? I am sorry, you can't make a three-part narrative about evil machines versus liberation activist humans, and then call a "truce"--that is totally insane. The implication at the end, in the conversation between The Oracle and The Architect is that those who want to leave the matrix can...and I don't really understand any of the ways that can work out. What if everyone wants to leave the matrix? How will the machines feed? The other alternative is that most people won't want to leave because the "real" world is, obviously post-apocalyptic and hellish, that being highlighted by the sequence where Trinity literally rises above it and sees the clear sky and the sun before plunging back in. OK, fine, but then what's with the insistence on the importance of the objective reality versus false illusion? Isn't that the whole premise of the movie? Isn't that what made Neo the hero in the first place, that he took the red pill and chose truth/reality? Isn't the loathsome traitor in the first movie someone who chose the matrix instead of reality? How can this be, in any way, shape or form, a resolution that is satisfying and consistent with the parameters set up by the first two films? here's my synopsis: Belief trumps choice, Trinity dies, Neo cuts a deal with the machines and becomes Jesus, crucified on the Golgotha of the Machine City, but transcendentally present forever according to The Oracle.. The end.
Gee, I was so excited about Revolutions. I was prepared to enjoy it even if it was not the amazing climax, tying up all loose ends and answering all the questions from the previous movies, and in general solidifying some sort of consistent cosmology with an internal logic. But not this. J. pointed out that, in fact, the cosmology was sustained, because the Matrix was about belief from the get-go, and having Neo become Jesus was completely consistent. But sorry, that so does not work for me.
Here is my problem with the movie: the first two movies set up a premise and a world with its own rules. The premise had to be resolved according to the rules of that world. I did not care that some rules got bent in the second movie, I am not an obsessive geek fan, I will suspend my disbelief, as long as it is done in a way that makes some sort of sense and contributes to the overall arc of the narrative. You know, even if it does not make literal sense, as long as it makes sense within the larger project of the assumed genre aesthetic, I will go along with it. For example, at the end of season 5 Buffy, when Buffy "realizes" at the 11th hour that the monks "made" Dawn out of her, and that somehow they have the same blood/essence that will allow her to close the portal if she dies in place of Dawn? I mean, Joss Whedon kind of pulled that one out of his ass, it did not make a whole lot of sense, but I dealt with it because in the end it took the story where the story needed to go. I will accept emergences out of the left field as long as they contribute to some larger making-sense-of-it-all in the end. But about two-thirds of the way through, The Matrix Revolutions went somewhere left of the left field, and pretty much stayed there.
I felt completely jipped by the ending. Not because it was not "conventional"--in a sense it was, but it was a pile of conventional elements from different genres piled together to create something completely insane. I like a good classical story if it is well-done. The first two Matrix movies set up the story as a homage to the classical archetypical hero narrative, a modernist narrative, straight out of Joseph Campbell. I have no problem with that. But I expect a pay-off that is consistent with the assumption of such genre. Obviously, if a film is a self-conscious postmodern homage to a certain genre, I have no problem with subversive twists and turns; "Kill Bill" gets to play around with the Samurai/revenge genre, and I loved it. But the end of Revolutions was not even subversive in some way of commenting on the parameters of the archetypal "heroic" narrative. It was completely Christian in ethos, in a way that completely collapsed the existential/epistemological/gnostic complexities introducted in the first two movies, and it made no sense in terms of the plot. Okay, fine, I can deal with the fact that Trinity dies. It's structurally necessary for Neo to go to make his final stand alone, as some sort of Frodo/Oedipus/Karate Kid figure. I can even dig the really literal, anvil-like embodiment of the metaphorical "blinding yourself to truly see" idea. But then what happens? The war ends because Neo makes a pact with the Machines; he destroys Agent Smith, the out-of-control "rogue" program for them, and they...uh...leave Zion alone. The climactic battle for Zion ends with the machines suddenly stopping and leaving to the understandable befuddlement of the Zion population, and no real explanation is offered to them or to the audience except for The Kid who is The Believer who riles everyone by screaming that "Neo did it!" Cuz he is The One. THAT is what The OIne does? Makes a deal with the machines? What the fuck? First of all, the whole idea of machines having some sort of "feelings" (I guess in this case "honor" would be the necessary one, as the machines inexplicably fulfill their end of the bargain and withdraw from Zion; this is probably how Dubya expected the "roadmap to peace" in the Middle East to work) is shoved down the audience's throat in the beginning of Revolutions, because there is nothing in the first two movies that would justify such a plot twist. Secondly, and more importantly IT GOES AGAINST THE VERY PREMISE OF THE MOVIE. So, like, the war between machines and humans is because the machines feed off human energy, and humans are enslaved in the matrix; Zion is a bastion of resistance for people who have stopped being machine food. How can there possibly be a truce? I am sorry, you can't make a three-part narrative about evil machines versus liberation activist humans, and then call a "truce"--that is totally insane. The implication at the end, in the conversation between The Oracle and The Architect is that those who want to leave the matrix can...and I don't really understand any of the ways that can work out. What if everyone wants to leave the matrix? How will the machines feed? The other alternative is that most people won't want to leave because the "real" world is, obviously post-apocalyptic and hellish, that being highlighted by the sequence where Trinity literally rises above it and sees the clear sky and the sun before plunging back in. OK, fine, but then what's with the insistence on the importance of the objective reality versus false illusion? Isn't that the whole premise of the movie? Isn't that what made Neo the hero in the first place, that he took the red pill and chose truth/reality? Isn't the loathsome traitor in the first movie someone who chose the matrix instead of reality? How can this be, in any way, shape or form, a resolution that is satisfying and consistent with the parameters set up by the first two films? here's my synopsis: Belief trumps choice, Trinity dies, Neo cuts a deal with the machines and becomes Jesus, crucified on the Golgotha of the Machine City, but transcendentally present forever according to The Oracle.. The end.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
a more pressing matter
Date: 2003-11-05 05:20 pm (UTC)Re: a more pressing matter
Date: 2003-11-05 05:34 pm (UTC)Re: a more pressing matter
Date: 2003-11-05 11:45 pm (UTC)but anyways, i'm glad you posted your response to the matrix this evening. i returned from seeing it an hour ago and am equally unhappy... as were 3 of the 4 i saw it with (one of them being an 8 year old boy). the ending was tepid at best, with it's wizard of oz representative from the machine world interfacing with neo to destroy smith and bring peace, and it sure didn't help that half the movie consisted of "the battle" - computer generated and seemingly never ending. the oracle's ambivalent statement about neo at the end could also be read literally to make way for a) another matrix movie (i hope not) or b) a continuation of the story in the video game (more likely); after all, we don't know if neo is really dead or not. there is a more farfetched c in which the oracle's statement refers to the repetion of the entire cycle because inevitably peace will not last, the battle will begin again, the prophecy made, the one sought out, choices made that either give rise to the next version of the one or temporary peace. any way you cut it the movie is, as you said, totally insane. what do you make of sati?
i need to go play some video games to rid myself of the unsavory memory of revolutions.
awww, you had to take the short bus!
Date: 2003-11-06 09:47 am (UTC)i really think the function of "sati" is to "humanize" machines further to make it plausible that the machine master at the end would hold up his part of the bargain. which is retarded, because they already "complexified" programs/machines with the oracle, the keymaker, etc. machines that enslaved teh human race can't just suddenly stop being evil at the end of the third act. it makes me so MAD! because then the whole message becomes that the only truly evil thing that needs to be defeated is something "rogue" and "out of control." all other "evil" can be managed and bargained with. i mean, did Donald Rumsfield approve the script?
Re: a more pressing matter
Date: 2003-11-06 04:29 pm (UTC)jesus christ, look at that photo of him! yoikes. So why go see violent movies, y'know? are they cathartic? And everything always turns out ok.? whatever, this reply is bunk, you don't have to respond.
Re: a more pressing matter
Date: 2003-11-06 04:33 pm (UTC)http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031106/D7UKP13G0.html
Now why watch a movie that glorifies violence when there is enought to be scared of anyways?
Re: a more pressing matter
Date: 2003-11-06 04:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 02:35 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 09:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 11:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 06:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 09:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 09:51 am (UTC)www.villagevoice.com/issues/0345/lim.php
no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 04:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-11-07 09:46 am (UTC)Pissed
Date: 2003-11-06 07:26 am (UTC)Blech.
ZP
Re: Pissed
Date: 2003-11-06 09:49 am (UTC)Re: Pissed
Date: 2003-11-06 10:04 am (UTC)ZP
no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 10:29 am (UTC)In a nut shell, I was really expecting this final Matrix to be like Star Wars Episode II and it wasn't, thank goodness...
no subject
Date: 2003-11-06 12:20 pm (UTC)