« Thought For the Morning | Main | Be Back Later »
May 16, 2003
The Effects of it All
OK, I might be the last one in America already to not see ‘The Matrix Reloaded’, but I have to say that while I’m incredibly excited to see it, nearly every non-spoiler review I can get my hands on is decidedly non-plussed. ‘Too technological’, ironically, seems to be the general sense. ‘Neo fighting 100 Agent Smiths’ sounds really cool in theory, until you watch it and realize you’re watching the best scene that ‘Final Fantasy’ never had.
Now, obviously, I can’t talk about the merits of ‘Reloaded’ until next week, since I’m pretty sure at some point I’ll get to one of 8,300 screens in America that is showing it, but this idea of ‘too technological’ is interesting to me, especially in terms of ‘The Matrix’ as a cultural base. It’s no great overstatement, nor is it terribly original, to label the original movie as Generation Y’s ‘Star Wars’. I’d never been to a movie where so many times I thought, ‘OK, I’ve never, ever seen anything quite like this.’ The oft-copied ‘bullet time’ effect has become as much a part of the cultural lexicon as Obi-Wan Kenobi or ET; you can go up to pretty much anyone under the age of 30 and say, ‘I know kung fu’ and have them most likely whisper back, "Whoa". Or "I've got mace and I'm not afraid to you it on you, freak boy." That too.
What made ‘bullet time’ work for ‘The Matrix’, however, were the stakes involved with the effect. After the initial use with Trinity with the police officer, every bullet time had a specific life-of-death situation attached to it, whether it was the bullet-dodge atop the building or the fight in the subway station. Subsequent uses in cinema, television, etc, referenced the technology but not the stakes themselves. You can’t see ‘bullet time’ without thinking of ‘The Matrix’. It's the most self-referential effect since Anna Nicole's implants.
One would think that simply increasing the scope and capability of ‘bullet time’, or the F/X in general would only heighten the sequels’ ability to transfix and transform us. After all, ‘X2’ shows what the first movie could have been like with twice the money. More importantly, though, ‘X2’ had, for most people, twice the story as well. And therein lies the crux---people’s tastes for F/X have been so refined (or dulled, which is often the same side of the same coin) that they don’t expect to only see mind-blowing effects; they want to be drawn into the effects themselves. In other words, the F/Xs need to serve an emotive as well as aesthetic purpose.
The best example I can give lies in a contrast of the climatic battles of ‘Attack of the Clones’ and ‘The Two Towers’. When I first watched the last 20+ minutes of ‘Clones’, I was in sheer awe of what I was watching. The size, the scope, the sheer breadth of imagination that went into staging the biggest battle that never happened…I ate it all up. Heck, I’m getting decently excited typing about it now. However, it wasn’t until seeing ‘The Two Towers’ that I saw exactly was missing in ‘Clones’: any sense on my part of actually caring about what was happening onscreen. In ‘Towers’, we see a short but extremely effective montage of families being ripped apart by the upcoming battle at Helm’s Deep. We see people who will never, ever see each other again. What we have, in short, are truly high stakes for the upcoming battle. When people die at Helm’s Deep, there’s a sense of loss that 10,000 computer-generated clone deaths simply cannot muster.
Thus, we have two directors, in Peter Jackson and Bryan Singer, who essentially are adorning emotional stories with visual effects, whereas the Wachowskis, in many early reviews, have retreated into the Lucas territory they so successfully avoided the first time around. People love to appreciate the surface of cinema; what really sticks is when they can disappear into the movie itself. ‘But, you moron,’ you say, ‘The whole damn movie takes place inside a computer! Of COURSE the effects are going to look fake!’ I can deal with the fact that Keanu Reeves in real life can’t fly---I’m really OK with that. I can suspend my disbelief with the best of them. Ask some of my college girlfriends.
What I want, even within this computer-generated world, is the human element that pervades computer-aided scenes such as Helm’s Deep. The effects there serve the story, they are not in and of themselves the story. And if ‘The Matrix’ trilogy is about humanity overcoming machinery, then damnit, I demand to see such a tale embedded in the effects I will be seeing this weekend. I want to see a very human Neo battle against the crushing mechanical world of The Matrix. I want to see major kung-fu battles, of course; but I want to see them fought with the life-or-death ferocity than Wolverine brings to his fight with Lady Deathstrike in ‘X2’.
To use the word one more time, the ‘stakes’ have been raised in the time since the original ‘Matrix’ came out. Audiences can have their computer-generated cake yet eat it, too. The Wachowskis have a lot to prove. And, so far, very few people seem convinced.
Posted by Ryan McGee at May 16, 2003 10:22 AM
Comments
As someone who won't see the movie until Sunday, I'm reserving judgment.
But woe, WOE to those who post plot information in the comments section without an ample SPOILER warning! WOE, I say!
Posted by: Commander Foley at May 16, 2003 11:06 AM
I hate it when people spoil movies, so I won't here. But I did see the Matrix Reloaded last night (albeit in the very first row. Hi, Lawrence Fishbourne pores. Nice to meet you) and I have mixed feelings.
The first film was so amazing not only because of the technology, as you said Ryan, but because of the story and the relatively complex philosophical ideas introduced. More than the slow bullets and kung fu moves, the story itself was pretty mind-blowing. Quite a combination.
Trying to top that, or even just stay on par with that, is pretty difficult. I respect the effort they made. It wasn't just a shameless rehash of the original.
But.
The film seemed to get sidetracked a lot and veer off in directions seemingly introduced only to complicate the plot or show-off cool effects. Some of the more philosophical issues raised were not as explored as such ideas were in the first.
Still, go see it. If nothing else, they deserve support for establishing a trilogy that strives to be both thought-provoking and visually stunning.
And boys - our former prof makes a cameo. Good ole Cornel West.
Posted by: Megan at May 16, 2003 11:35 AM
Saw the Matrix last night. I liked the film because I enjoyed the possibilities of it all. Was handed a survey form which had two useful pieces of info:
1. The preview for Matrix Revolutions is after the credits of Reloaded.
2. Reloaded will be showing on IMAX theatres in the upcoming weeks. That is definitely worth waiting for.
My shameless plug for today.
Posted by: A.J. at May 16, 2003 03:01 PM
Personally, I think I'm going to wait for the DVD. I'd rather stick with the fun, exciting and all-round enjoyably fulfilling experience of the second X-Men film than have my illusions destroyed immediately by a preachy, takes-itself-too-seriously pile of poop that's overly technical and has Keanu "Can't Act" Reeves trying to be too serious in it. Then again, I should probably see it for myself before assuming that even Messrs Fishburne and Weaving can't save it.
Posted by: Spike at May 17, 2003 04:18 AM
The matrix Reloded is a fun movie with ridiculous points trying to be established. If you can look past the ridicuous points and try to have fun with a kick ass science fiction movie then you will have a whole bunch of fun instead of looking for deep meaning and being upset. And hey maybe the stuff that doesn't click right now will fit like a glove come revolutions, until then keep on kung fu fighting...
Posted by: little mcgee at May 17, 2003 11:57 PM
Without ruining it for anyone, I thought there was only 1 fight sequence in the whole movie that seemed pointless, and it was only because the stakes were so low. (For those of you playing at home, it was the one involving swords and shields and statues and whatnot). But even the most over the top sequence was in service to the story, and certainly the stuff with Link was a very Peter Jackson-esque attempt to put a human face on the global conflict.
The second movie isn't going to throw your synapses into a tizzy with shock and surprise like the first movie did, but it's still a long way away from the soullessness that the later Star Wars project.
Posted by: Commander Foley at May 19, 2003 09:32 AM
Without totally disagreeing, I mainly disagree.
I'd give it a 6/10. Mostly for the idea-shift with the Architect and anytime Neo flew.
Posted by: ryan at May 19, 2003 09:35 AM
Please note my comment does not even resemble a review, as I've left out abut 9/10 of the movie. I restricted my commentary to your original question, "Are the special effects soulless or are they in the service of the story?" I say by and large, they were connected to the story much like the original.
Now whether the story sucks is a totally different question.
Posted by: Commander Foley at May 19, 2003 09:46 AM
The effects are mind-blowing. It's hard to argue that. I'd argue that they are generally so mind-blowing as to be mind-numbing.
The gist of my article will be that while the first movie invited the viewer into the world, this one holds them at a distance.
Posted by: ryan at May 19, 2003 09:49 AM