Skip to content

The Theater’s Well-Read Carps

January 21, 2015

Somewhat random given my general topics on here, but still…

Twice today I have seen videos smearing the quality of The Matrix: Revolutions. I grant you, it is always a matter of taste for literature and movies, and there are serious issues with plot, characterization, and rational development in all The Matrix movies. CinemaSins (on YouTube) has them, and I agree with most. But here’s the point I make here: people argue how the ending of Revolutions, and many critical (though subtle) philosophical subplots seem conflicting or not enough of a resolution for the arc. The bulk of these criticisms hinge on the fact whatever commentator it happens to be simply doesn’t understand the concepts employed enough to comprehend the nature of resolution for such a story. It’s irritating.

In terms of presentation, The Matrix live-action films have always been known to be milking special effects to such a degree any plot is almost a completely divergent directorial intention, and not a smooth synthesis of these two things. I acknowledge that. It detracts from the story in obvious ways, but it does nothing to the resolution provided in Revolutions.

Essentially, what is happening here is people complain about the ending they don’t get because they are watching the movie primarily or solely for the action and have a complete lack of comprehension on any deeper level. Whether or not they were done well—that can be argued both ways—the Matrix movies play off very complex philosophy. If it is resolved and one doesn’t understand the nature of what constitutes resolution in such a case, it can only seem ambiguous. The end itself is a blank slate because, however little the critics ignore this, any peace between human and machine following the battle for Zion and the destruction of Agent Smith is going to be ungodly complicated. It is just too much to delve into after the battle and Neo’s… death? Peace is always more complicated than war. Why didn’t they answer questions about machine-human relations? It would extend the movie by another half hour of dialogue everyone would only judge as superfluous and as wordy as the Architect’s lines.

There is a minimum of brain power required to tackle the nature of resolution for this movie franchise. That is intellectually elitist, I know, and I can’t say it is entirely fair in literature known to lure audiences who enjoy stupid humor, by means of mindless violence on screen; but it is also perfectly reasonable to ask those who don’t understand something not to make belittling comments about it, whatever “it” is—mechanics, science, finance, or literature.

My rant here can be summed up to if you don’t get it, don’t watch it. Apart from required reading for school and work, one doesn’t read a book one doesn’t get. The same should apply for movie commentators and reviewers, too. Rant concluded.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: