PulpLit.net

Thoughts on The Matrix

Recently, I received an email from someone who had wandered into the archives of the old Biggerboat and stumbled across my original review of The Matrix. He, like many, took issue with the stunning fact that I didn't like the film. He asked me whether three years have changed my opinion of the film.

In a word: no.

But I have had time, in those three years, to come to a fuller realization of why I dislike the film. My reasons are, for the most part, fairly simple; some, I'll own, are personal, but there's nothing that requires me to like a film even if it's considered a classic of modern cinema. We all have tastes. What perhaps surprises people is that I'm a mid-twenties American male - who collects action figures and loves many aspects of pop culture, and can be considered a "geek" - yet I don't like The Matrix.

So, allow me to explain myself. First off, what has always bothered me the most is: in an argument over the merits of the film, someone wrote to me, "I hardly even noticed the effects because there's so much story" (emphasis mine). If the plot of The Matrix is what passes for quality narrative in cinema these days, I'll gladly take my $10 and spend it on two novels. As for not noticing the effects, I must argue that this is not possible, since the entire film is itself a special effect. Even I, who love films like Robocop and Terminator 2, had to draw the line at The Matrix - the special effects have officially overwhelmed narrative logic.

But it's not simply the fault of the effects; it's also the Wachowski brothers' slavish devotion to style. The film makes a few things clear: everyone (except Neo) can jump from one roof to another. Anyone who's not an Agent in the Matrix is a real-life person. If you die in the Matrix, you also die in the real world. Yet, in the famous lobby scene, Neo and Trinity brutally slaughter two dozen guards who are guilty of nothing but doing their jobs. The pair then head to the roof to get a helicopter. I ask, was all that death and destruction on the part of our "heroes" necessary? Could not Trinity have simply leapt from one roof to the other? Why did they "need guns" at all? I'll tell you why: because the Wachowski brothers wanted a cool Hong Kong-style shoot 'em up scene. Period. And it's a cool scene, no denying it; but, as with Fight Club, I have become increasingly disenchanted with movies in which style trumps substance and message. That was really noble, Neo, using all your gifted abilities to murder a bunch of workaday joes. So much story!

Then there's the climax. What one must accept, in this climax, is that Neo's biological brain is somehow capable of controlling the software of the Matrix. That's not science fiction, that's fantasy. Magic. The supernatural. And personally, I don't feel like buying it.

Actually, I loved that climax the first time I saw it - in the movie Dark City, where it made more sense. The Strangers (themselves a bit cribbed from the Hellraiser flicks) are far more interesting than the Matrix's cheap '50s G-Men, and their motives are more poetic. They search for man's soul. The Matrix just wants to keep itself running on batteries (very inefficient batteries, or so I've heard; the machines would get a lot more for their efforts if they focused on clearing the skies and getting solar power than they ever would from a bunch of humans. Like nuclear plants, humans cost nearly as much energy to keep running as they put out. I was told this by someone but don't remember who, so I welcome supporting or debunking evidence).

Then there's the whole conceit of the movie itself: that the "real world" is nothing more than a fantasy. Anyone who's glanced at a science fiction novel cover in the last fifty years has had this idea. Are we so disenchanted with our modern existence, where we have quality medical care and planes that can take us anywhere in the world and an average life span of 70 years and computers and oodles of leisure time, that we would embrace the concept that none of this is real? Sometimes, when I'm on my fifth hour of data entry, I might say yes; but that doesn't mean I don't find the conceit childish. It's pure solipsism for an increasingly solipsistic world, and "Neo the One" is a perfect example. What is he but the videogame avatar, defying all odds (and logic) to kill his enemies (or whoever's handy) with incredible feats in a world designed for his own benefit?

But let's put aside all that story and focus on more practical issues. The biggest one is our star, Keanu Reeves, aka "the Wall." Yes, in high school Keanu was known as "the Wall" for his trademark expression - a blank stare. That expression serves him well in The Matrix, where he is required to play himself as everything he sees dumbfounds him completely. I imagine he didn't even know they were making a movie, he just reacted to whatever was put in front of him and the directors went with it. I'll own to having a personal dislike of Mr. Reeves: a former girlfriend had a huge crush on him (which I never understood). I hold that and the fact that he can't act against him. If Ed Norton had played Neo, my feelings about this film might be entirely different.

But Reeves isn't the only one not bothering to act. Laurence Fishburne, best known as the cowboy from "Pee-Wee's Playhouse," delivers every line like he's using voice-text software. This is especially bad in the scene where he first meets Neo, where, despite Morpheus's staccato cadences, Neo still can't keep up. Tears started to run down my eyes during this scene - tears of laughter.

But now I'll briefly pause from my rant and give a somewhat more measured reason for not being obsessed with The Matrix: in the last five years or so, I have lost most of my interest in science fiction in favor of so-called fantasy. Yes, many geeks balance the two, but that seems to no longer be the case with me. As such, The Matrix doesn't hold the same interest for me it might have ten years ago. In truth, I think this may become an increasingly evident attitude (witness the immense popularity of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings and the waning of the Star Wars franchise). As our world becomes more and more like science fiction (computers, cell phones, the Internet, etcetera), the lure of fantasy - of a world without all these things - may increase. We long for the unfamiliar, the strange, and it's likely that many fans of The Lord of the Rings have never climbed a mountain or spent weeks trekking through a forest, though they may have spent years enclosed in a world of concrete and steel.

Those who know me will point to The Matrix's place on my DVD shelf as proof of my hypocrisy. Yes, there was a brief time when I liked the film. But I have only watched that DVD once, and I have seen the film a total of 2 times and then a few random bits here and there. Compare that to six for Gladiator and seven for The Fellowship of the Ring.

But I invite others (such as my cousin and colleague, Ed) to respond to my critique. I doubt my opinion will change - I'm a bit too committed to it at this point - but it might make all the legions of Matrix fans feel better. I'll certainly grant that I'm in the minority; but so are the Democrats right now, yet I'll still vote on the left. Everyone has to draw a line somewhere, and I drew it at The Matrix. GAP-ad technology, a cribbed script and the lesser half of Bill & Ted do not necessarily a good film make.