[Nottingham] Matrix Reloaded

[Graeme Fowler]

On Mon, 2003-06-02 at 22:10, James Gibbon wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I have read, and understood both.

Therefore I bow to your greater education; this does not however qualify
you admirably to rip the arse out the one thing that the majority of the
entertainment underclass have been waiting for ages for. If you didn't
like it, fair enough. Lots of the rest of us did, and you're entitled to
your opinion. This is, after all, what philosophy is really all about
(on a grand scale).

> As far as the 'philosophy of the Matrix films' is
> concerned - ROTFLMAO, I doubt whether even the producers
> expected anyone over the age of 15 to take it seriously 

I don't think I mentioned 'philosophy of the Matrix films'. In fact, I
don't think I even alluded to it. I merely mentioned the amount of
philosophy the cast were expected to read in order to attempt to
understand some of the twists in the script. I happen to agree that
attempting to cast any modern form of mass entertainment in the same
light as the classical philosophers is, if you'll excuse the phrasing,
bollcks; however I also happen to fundamentally disagree with your "all
style no substance" claim. These films are the only mass-market films in
recent times with the faintest jot of an attempt at having many layers
of meaning to different mindsets.

> Don't get me wrong - I don't like ITV sitcoms.  But the Matrix 
> movies are - apart from the spectacular fight scenes / sets /
> effects / etc - superficial, insubstantial toss.  I'm not 
> entirely knocking it, because it IS entertainment of a kind, but 
> it is hilarious to see them mistaken for truly good films.

Why? People now class (see below for an example) many films disregarded
as "utter toss" at the time of their release as classics. All I'm saying
is that it makes a change for a film to be aimed at a segment of the
populace in terms of intellect, class (not in the UK social sense) and
way-of-life (as opposed to philosophy) as opposed to a "market" as
defined by researchers. This was a film made by geeks, for geeks. And
for once the geeks are standing up and quietly saying "YEAH!". Under
their breath :)

> The last Bond film suffered from the same emphasis on the
> impressive as well.  Impressive photography, stunts and sets, great
> soundtrack, deft editing, crap film.  'From Russia With Love' must
> have been made on a fraction of its budget, but it engages with the
> viewer in a way that 'Die Another Way' never will.

"Die Another Day", surely? And here I have to disagree - all Bond films
are style rather than substance. That's the whole point, and that's why
they are now regarded as classics. If the production team had ever tried
to intellectualise or otherwise change Bond in any way, that would have
been it for the whole series.

Graeme
-- 
Graeme Fowler <graeme@graemef.net>