Post by yodapluto on Dec 27, 2021 3:04:23 GMT -5
In Notes from Underground, Dostoevsky makes a case for taking illogical choices. He argues that the logical choice is one that animals can make, and that what makes us human (that is, higher beings) is our ability to be illogical. I won't try to elaborate on or justify his long and high minded argument in a movie review (I also haven't read it in over a decade, so just don't want to misrepresent it too much), but I bring it up because that novella to me is the skeleton key for the Matrix franchise, since its argument is consistently the primary theme/idea that drives the original Matrix trilogy: making the right, human choice over the logical choice.
Neo's arc in the first movie is going from making logical but wrong choices, like being taken in for questioning instead of scaling a highrise building to reach freedom, to making illogical but right choices, like getting up and continuing to fight Agent Smith, despite knowing agents have never been beat (cue Morpheus: "He's beginning to believe"). The machines are able to create the Oracle, because of how most people and things rely on logical choices, and so the complicated brains of the supercomputers can predict most of what might happen. The Merovingian talks about our ability to make illogical choices endlessly in Reloaded. The Architect with his high vocabulary mocks our lack of logical reasoning. In Revolutions, Agent Smith -- the second biggest cheerleader of logic, behind the Architect -- has Neo beat in their climactic fight, and is perplexed to see Neo still getting up. He asks Neo why he keeps fighting, even though he's beat. To Smith's fury, Neo replies simply, "Because I choose to." In other words, because he's human, and so he has the freedom and ability to have faith, despite logic telling him to give up. It's a great moment among many, in terms of dramatizing the series' philosophy regarding true freedom of choice.
Anyway,
With all that context, I thought this new installment made an effective take on the series theme of choice: characters in this sequel were repeatedly stripped of the ability to make any choice at all. At least three times, the characters complain out loud that the choice they have is no choice at all. Having just watched the movie, I haven't fully digested what that means. I guess it recalls/follows the original premise of humans being removed of their choices by being hypnotized by the matrix world. Also, I think it comes out of the argument -- said out loud in this movie (importantly, if I'm remembering right, by Morpheus Smith) -- that "choice is an illusion". By stripping characters of choices, I think the movie is trying to dramatize that argument. In other words, I think it's trying to stack the odds against the characters by fooling them and us into falsely believing that they've lost the freedom to choose, when they haven't. The movie's villain, the new Architect, states that he approaches the matrix differently than his more logical predecessor. He likes to embrace illogical choices -- human interest in fiction. That is, hope. His predecessor called humanity's reliance on hope foolish in Reloaded, as Neo walked to the logically incorrect door, choosing to save Trinity. However, this new Architect exploits hope, even allowing Neo to be a game designer to foster stories of hope.
I think it's no coincidence that the complaints of no-choice-at-all scenarios are mostly (or exclusively?) made by the character that is a fusion of the echoes of Morpheus and Smith. A fusion of a "good guy" and a "bad guy". Agent Smith has ceased being a villain in this movie, and has become more of a begrudging ally. The lines of conflict have blurred. Some machines even help humans in the real world. The movie is looking beyond the black and white us vs. them dynamics, because those are traps. Traps of fiction, as the new Architect would have it.
I liked that the ending had Neo and Trinity trying to flip the script on the Architect, by implying he was now the one out of choices and rendered inconsequential to their grander plan.
So thematically, the film succeeds for me in continuing the series' driving philosophy. The movie also embraces the theme on a meta level. It would have been a betrayal of the theme and therefore the entire series to make a normal and obvious (re: logical) sequel. The whole first third of the movie is super meta and very about Lana making a sequel that's faithful to the series' ethos, and some might find that meta commentary annoying, but I found it interesting at least on this first watch.
That all being said, this movie wasn't successful to me on a basic story and entertainment level. What it lacked most of all was a direct antagonist. A face of villainy. The new Architect was the chief antagonist, but he was completely removed from the action. The fictional traps he sets are more intellectual warfare than direct action based, which was an interesting, but also self-defeating creative move, given the medium: intellectual warfare isn't very cinematic, and disappoints the general expectations that come with an action movie. The original Matrix trilogy would not have worked if the previous Architect was the primary antagonist. What made those movies succeed where this one failed was the direct hunt Agent Smith (and the sentinels in the Real World) endlessly made of the heroes. Like Darth Vader, the Alien, and The Terminator, Agent Smith was always coming after you. Villains that chase relentlessly are the best action movie villains, because they provoke a visceral fight or flight reaction from heroes and audiences. But this movie didn't have that. In this movie, Agent Smith was a kind of incidental sideshow, whose fights were all redundant descendants of better fights in the original films. The Architect was always removed, and more like an amused trickster than a true, active enemy. There was no direct in-the-action villain, so the stakes weren't as clear on the visceral level that action movies require.
So, although I liked this movie on a thematic and intellectual level, I didn't like it on a story and entertainment level. More of a success on paper than on screen. However, to be fair to it, I'm comparing it to the original, which is a high bar to reach by only half the duo that made the original. Also, studio notes get a bad rep (and sometimes for very good reason), but we never hear about how often they do work. For example, once the Wachowskis started getting full creative control, their quality of work fell dramatically. Could be a coincidence...
A couple other random thoughts:
- Probably worth noting that I love Reloaded and Resurrections.
- Was Hugo Weaving busy!? I get the movie logic's argument for why he looked different, but come on, lol.
- Filmmaker Tom Tykwer co-directed with the Wachowskis on Cloud Atlas, and now he's co-scoring this movie. Huh.
- Nerd alert comment: The source code was split between Neo and Agent Smith in the first two sequels after Neo burst through Smith at the end of the first movie, but now it's split between Neo and Trinity, and I'll have to rewatch this to fully understand how/why.
- Nerd alert pt.2 - In the OG trilogy, the agents have sunglasses with sharp corners (ie rectangles), while the heroes all have sunglasses with round curves. In this movie, Morpheus Smith's sunglasses have both, and that is a very nice small detail that you can always count on a Wachowski to make.
- All the characters in the original movie were distinct and well used, and the original took its time to effectively introduce them (they're so memorable, I think I can name them all right now, even though I haven't seen the original for at least a couple years), whereas I felt the new character, Bugs, was really undercooked and underused, which is a shame, because she had potential.
- The Wachowskis were always pretty great action directors, but some of it wasn't as coherent in this one, so maybe Lilly was the better action director of the two?
- I guess the new Architect is actually called The Analyst in this movie, but I'm not going to fix calling him the new Architect above, because it's easier to understand his place in the world if you understand he replaced The Architect.
- Yahya Abdul-Matee has now played a new Dr. Manhattan, a new Candyman, and a new Morpheus. What next?
Neo's arc in the first movie is going from making logical but wrong choices, like being taken in for questioning instead of scaling a highrise building to reach freedom, to making illogical but right choices, like getting up and continuing to fight Agent Smith, despite knowing agents have never been beat (cue Morpheus: "He's beginning to believe"). The machines are able to create the Oracle, because of how most people and things rely on logical choices, and so the complicated brains of the supercomputers can predict most of what might happen. The Merovingian talks about our ability to make illogical choices endlessly in Reloaded. The Architect with his high vocabulary mocks our lack of logical reasoning. In Revolutions, Agent Smith -- the second biggest cheerleader of logic, behind the Architect -- has Neo beat in their climactic fight, and is perplexed to see Neo still getting up. He asks Neo why he keeps fighting, even though he's beat. To Smith's fury, Neo replies simply, "Because I choose to." In other words, because he's human, and so he has the freedom and ability to have faith, despite logic telling him to give up. It's a great moment among many, in terms of dramatizing the series' philosophy regarding true freedom of choice.
Anyway,
With all that context, I thought this new installment made an effective take on the series theme of choice: characters in this sequel were repeatedly stripped of the ability to make any choice at all. At least three times, the characters complain out loud that the choice they have is no choice at all. Having just watched the movie, I haven't fully digested what that means. I guess it recalls/follows the original premise of humans being removed of their choices by being hypnotized by the matrix world. Also, I think it comes out of the argument -- said out loud in this movie (importantly, if I'm remembering right, by Morpheus Smith) -- that "choice is an illusion". By stripping characters of choices, I think the movie is trying to dramatize that argument. In other words, I think it's trying to stack the odds against the characters by fooling them and us into falsely believing that they've lost the freedom to choose, when they haven't. The movie's villain, the new Architect, states that he approaches the matrix differently than his more logical predecessor. He likes to embrace illogical choices -- human interest in fiction. That is, hope. His predecessor called humanity's reliance on hope foolish in Reloaded, as Neo walked to the logically incorrect door, choosing to save Trinity. However, this new Architect exploits hope, even allowing Neo to be a game designer to foster stories of hope.
I think it's no coincidence that the complaints of no-choice-at-all scenarios are mostly (or exclusively?) made by the character that is a fusion of the echoes of Morpheus and Smith. A fusion of a "good guy" and a "bad guy". Agent Smith has ceased being a villain in this movie, and has become more of a begrudging ally. The lines of conflict have blurred. Some machines even help humans in the real world. The movie is looking beyond the black and white us vs. them dynamics, because those are traps. Traps of fiction, as the new Architect would have it.
I liked that the ending had Neo and Trinity trying to flip the script on the Architect, by implying he was now the one out of choices and rendered inconsequential to their grander plan.
So thematically, the film succeeds for me in continuing the series' driving philosophy. The movie also embraces the theme on a meta level. It would have been a betrayal of the theme and therefore the entire series to make a normal and obvious (re: logical) sequel. The whole first third of the movie is super meta and very about Lana making a sequel that's faithful to the series' ethos, and some might find that meta commentary annoying, but I found it interesting at least on this first watch.
That all being said, this movie wasn't successful to me on a basic story and entertainment level. What it lacked most of all was a direct antagonist. A face of villainy. The new Architect was the chief antagonist, but he was completely removed from the action. The fictional traps he sets are more intellectual warfare than direct action based, which was an interesting, but also self-defeating creative move, given the medium: intellectual warfare isn't very cinematic, and disappoints the general expectations that come with an action movie. The original Matrix trilogy would not have worked if the previous Architect was the primary antagonist. What made those movies succeed where this one failed was the direct hunt Agent Smith (and the sentinels in the Real World) endlessly made of the heroes. Like Darth Vader, the Alien, and The Terminator, Agent Smith was always coming after you. Villains that chase relentlessly are the best action movie villains, because they provoke a visceral fight or flight reaction from heroes and audiences. But this movie didn't have that. In this movie, Agent Smith was a kind of incidental sideshow, whose fights were all redundant descendants of better fights in the original films. The Architect was always removed, and more like an amused trickster than a true, active enemy. There was no direct in-the-action villain, so the stakes weren't as clear on the visceral level that action movies require.
So, although I liked this movie on a thematic and intellectual level, I didn't like it on a story and entertainment level. More of a success on paper than on screen. However, to be fair to it, I'm comparing it to the original, which is a high bar to reach by only half the duo that made the original. Also, studio notes get a bad rep (and sometimes for very good reason), but we never hear about how often they do work. For example, once the Wachowskis started getting full creative control, their quality of work fell dramatically. Could be a coincidence...
A couple other random thoughts:
- Probably worth noting that I love Reloaded and Resurrections.
- Was Hugo Weaving busy!? I get the movie logic's argument for why he looked different, but come on, lol.
- Filmmaker Tom Tykwer co-directed with the Wachowskis on Cloud Atlas, and now he's co-scoring this movie. Huh.
- Nerd alert comment: The source code was split between Neo and Agent Smith in the first two sequels after Neo burst through Smith at the end of the first movie, but now it's split between Neo and Trinity, and I'll have to rewatch this to fully understand how/why.
- Nerd alert pt.2 - In the OG trilogy, the agents have sunglasses with sharp corners (ie rectangles), while the heroes all have sunglasses with round curves. In this movie, Morpheus Smith's sunglasses have both, and that is a very nice small detail that you can always count on a Wachowski to make.
- All the characters in the original movie were distinct and well used, and the original took its time to effectively introduce them (they're so memorable, I think I can name them all right now, even though I haven't seen the original for at least a couple years), whereas I felt the new character, Bugs, was really undercooked and underused, which is a shame, because she had potential.
- The Wachowskis were always pretty great action directors, but some of it wasn't as coherent in this one, so maybe Lilly was the better action director of the two?
- I guess the new Architect is actually called The Analyst in this movie, but I'm not going to fix calling him the new Architect above, because it's easier to understand his place in the world if you understand he replaced The Architect.
- Yahya Abdul-Matee has now played a new Dr. Manhattan, a new Candyman, and a new Morpheus. What next?