I'm back with a post, unfortunately no new writing to report - I've had a bit of an uninspired patch lately, my creative get-up-and-go seemed to have got up and went! Anyway, I apologise for using that clichéd joke - I've not completely dried up as I've a couple of ideas that have sprung to mind in the last couple of days; I just need some time to sit down and wrestle them in to my (still non-existent) story plan.
In the meantime, I thought I'd write about some more films, and as this month marks 10 years since the release of the first of the two sequels to 'The Matrix', I felt it an appropriate time to reflect on them.
They are, with some justification, widely regarded as two of the most disappointing sequels ever filmed. Whilst their flaws are pretty apparent, I believe there are redeeming features to them which shouldn't be entirely dismissed. I recently decided to watch them both back-to-back (it was actually the first time I'd watched 'Reloaded' since it was in the cinemas), and here are my thoughts on them.
I'll start with 'The Matrix Reloaded'; elements of this film have been widely derided, and viewing it ten years later hasn't dulled these. Firstly, there's the Zion Rave scene - a miss-handled attempt to show why humanity is worth fighting for and warring for its salvation. Only, it does look pretty laughable, especially interwoven with a particularly unconvincing sex-scene... There is also the Architect scene, famously parodied on more than one occasion - the revelation this delivered about Neo and his role in the Matrix should have hit like a Vader-sized bombshell; but because of the ostentatious, overly-verbose and slightly pretentious speech the Architect delivers it is robbed of its power. This speech requires multiple viewings to really get your head round, and while I think any film that is designed to encourage and reward repeat viewings with an enhanced understanding of its message, if the majority of the audience can't follow it on the first viewing then it's kind of failed to achieve it's point.
Aside from these glaringly obvious problem points, I think 'Reloaded's biggest problems are its structure/pacing, and the heavy-handedness with which it presents the philosophical points the makers want to get across. Probably the worst example of this is early on in the film when Neo and Councillor Hamann have a conversation about the machinery which powers Zion - who is in control, the humans or the machines? It does nothing to advance the plot, and is the equivalent of hitting the audience over the head with the film's philosophy: 'freedom of choice is an illusion!!! Or is it?!?!'
This is a shame, as (like the preceding film) there are some neat visual metaphors for this, in the shape of doors (...lots of doors, as Neo might say ;-) ) - some of which lead the characters to places they might not expect; and as in the first film, this imagery is underpinned by Don Davis' great score. So while all of this unsubtle and thinly veiled philosophical exposition is taking place, you can forgive the audience for thinking 'Christ's sake, get to the Kung Fu already!!!'
This is where the weight of expectation was always going against the film - its predecessor redefined a lot of action cinema beats, with the gun play and fight scenes, and the ground breaking introduction of 'Bullet Time'. Perhaps there was no way the sequels could have improved on that, or even matched it really - but part of the desire for these sequels was to see more of the great action, so it was frustrating for the audience to have to wait for it - and to be honest, it still is, 10 years on. But when we get to the action sequences, it does deliver (mostly) - the 'Burly Brawl' and Freeway sequence are still, by and large, two well executed and at times jaw-dropping sequences.
Finally, the two-part structure of these sequels is another thing that impacts upon 'Reloaded' - the ending is far from satisfying, and leaves unanswered questions; okay, so it IS a cliff-hanger - but the sudden turn of having Neo sucked in to the Matrix without being plugged in is a twist which at that point doesn't make sense.
So it was down to the final Sequel, 'Revolutions', to redeem the two-hander. It clearly wasn't entirely successful doing this, as it is regarded as a disappointment like 'Reloaded'. It has similar pacing issues - the introduction, with Neo stuck in the train station, doesn't clarify things really, and the attack in the S&M club just feels like a dispassionate re-tread of the previous film's better action sequences; also, the reasons for Neo being sucked in to the Matrix just don't ever seem to be defined in a clear and satisfying manner.
Also, the ending is not entirely clear or satisfying - especially as the first film seems to set up a conclusion which would have Neo lead the rebellion to eventually defeat the machines and free all of humanity from The Matrix. But there are clues as to why the film heads to this conclusion: firstly, in the suggestion that programs in the Matrix are individual intelligence's in their own right, capable of creating 'life', so in effect are a species of sentient being worthy of survival; secondly, visual clues, such as the big freakin' (and painfully heavy looking!) ear-rings worn by The Oracle.
I'm not saying that the Wachowski's execution of their message was particularly great - but at the same time I think audience expectations were pretty much confounded by the ending; I for one wasn't expecting it. But looking back and re-considering the signals and imagery that leads to it, there are certain elements of the story telling which mean the conclusion does make sense. This article on Ain't It Cool, published towards the end of last year, hit the nail on the head for me - these two films have quite a strong anti-war message, where the conflict does not lead to a clear victory for either side; rather a peaceful balance is what should be aimed for - two sides co-existing side-by-side without war. Whilst I disagree with the writer's assertion that The Wachowski's most probably changed the direction of the sequels to reinforce this message as a result of 9/11 (the films were already well in to production before those terrible atrocities), I think, in retrospect, this is what they were wanting to convey with these films. Whilst this is a laudable message, as a way to conclude an action and conflict packed block-buster trilogy, it's understandable why they are still viewed as a disappointment.
So, having set out the many flaws of these Sequels, I still find myself wanting to watch them from time-to-time. Yes, despite their myriad problems, there is still so much to enjoy about them. I personally find 'Revolutions' the better of the two films - aside from it being the more satisfying in terms of story-telling as the conclusion, it features one of my favourite action sequences of the last decade: The Battle for Zion. In the midst of all the Kung-fu fights, this Japanese Anime and Mecha influenced action scene was a pleasant surprise. I love the design of the Battle-suits, the way they're portrayed on screen, the little details of them pulling the guns from their backs, with big belts of bullets feeding ammo to them. The scenario, the desperate last stand, is well realised, making it a gripping sequence. If I ever flick through the channels and find this film is on, and it is about to start this sequence, I will always leave it on that channel and watch it. When I watch it, I am once again sucked in to that world and for a few minutes, completely forgetting about the real world. That is the mark of a great fantasy setting, whether it is sci-fi or any other setting - and that is why, despite their problems, I'll keep going back to The Matrix Sequels.
No comments:
Post a Comment