I have just returned from a viewing of the Matrix: Reloaded. On the one hand, I feel that I need to weigh in on my interpretation of the movie's successes and failures. On the other, I recognize that no one is reading this, so I'll simply transcribe them for my own benefit. Just in case anyone is reading this, please don't interpret my statement of lack of readership as some kind of angsty comment about loneliness. I simply haven't told anyone about the blog. How could I expect people to stumble upon it?

In any case, the movie. Taking into account a number of factors, I have to give the movie a positive review, but just barely. It's incredibly flawed, but a portion of this is explainable. First of all, the first movie was seen as ground-breaking, an historic cinematic achievement. I'm not sure I necessarily give it that much credit, but that makes any kind of follow-up a difficult task. Additionally, this movie and the third part of the trilogy are - as described by the Wachowskis themselves - really one long five hour movie. So this makes Reloaded suffer from a particularly acute case of middle-part-of-a-trilogy disease. The middle of a story arc, trying to stand on its own, is almost inevitably the weakest, I find. Despite this claim by the writers/directors, there does seem to be a kind of attempt to force the story arc to work on its own, which may or may not have been a good idea.

The action, in my opinion, was just what I expected. The fights scenes were beautifully choreographed (they were obviously choreographed, but it was still beautiful) and well-executed. I found them exciting. I have heard some grumbling that at certain points its obvious how much work was done with CGI. I can understand this, knowing what I know about the movie's problems with money and CGI firms that went backrupt during filming. And unlike most people, I can ignore it, for this knowingly convoluted reason. The parts of the movie that look painfully like they were done on computer in the film (for example, at one point during the "burly brawl" I noticed Keanu Reeves looks like he was lifted directly out of a PS2 game) all take place within the Matrix. Which is a computer program. Even in the context of the movie, they're being computer generated. And with that kind of action going on, I can understand some lag and problems with the polygon count, eh? :)

So yeah, the action and effects were pretty cool. Nothing ground-breaking like before, but you can't invent "bullet time" twice.

I'm suddenly realizing I've got a lot more to say about what I didn't like than what I did. So I'll just move it along, then.

The action was cool, but there wasn't enough of it. There's a lot of time spent in Zion with nothing going on where the person I went with nearly fell asleep. The Wachowskis are great at action and story ideas. They are not so talented at plot and diologue. They could get around this little handicap if they didn't make use of plot and diologue so much. It sure doesn't help that Carrie Anne Moss and Keanue Reeves act about as well as blocks of wood. This time around, even Laurence Fishburne seemed to be acting relatively poorly, but at least he was consistent with the others this time. Hugo Weaving, on the other hand, was good. He seemed to be having fun, not as the character but as the actor, I mean. Unlike most of the other actors and the creative team behind the movie, he seemed to realize it is not a good idea to take oneself too seriously.

And the Wachowskis seem to me to be taking this whole thing really seriously. The Matrix expressed one good philosophical idea in a way that hadn't been popularly explored before, Descartes's idea of skepticism of reality. In addition to that, it had a lot of bombastic posturing and pseudo-discussion of other ideas, including but not limited to fatalism, gnosticism, zen buddhism, the christian second-coming, the nature of artificial intelligence, and the dangers of reliance of technology. This inspired a lot of people who had no idea what was being talked about to think it was profound. It is my opinion that a lot of the philosophy in the Matrix can only be understood while high. And the diologue throughout most of the movie reeks of what one reviewer described as "pot talk" which I found to be quite accurate. As a philosophy major and enthusiast, I think I'm not out of my capability to claim that this movie makes no sense and should stop pretending that it does.

Actually, the whole concept is inherently flawed. If robots were to take over the planet and require a new source of power, cows or pigs would be much more efficient than humans. When someone "wakes up" from the Matrix, they are unceremonisouly dumped by the machines, so they can be picked up by the other freed humans with ease. Why not just kill them? Third, Zion is a pretty cool place. The transition from being taken over and enslaved by machines to humanity as freedom fighters is left unresolved, even though the Wachowskis explain a good deal of things that really don't need to be explained. Through the Animatrix, we can see the rise of the machines and their attack on humankind.

This Animatrix idea is cool, but has a lot of problems. In one, a character is nearly freed, but while escaping an agent tries to take over his body. Why don't they do that to everyone? Why didn't they do that to Neo? And I am aware of the possible explanation. In the most recent movie, a claim is made that would, as I understand it, answer most of my questions.

When Neo meets with the Architect, it is explained that the Matrix has existed at least six times longer than humanity belives it has. The first program failed because it was perfect and was rejected by the people inside it, as explained in the first movie. The current version is not perfect, but is accepted by 99% of the population. The other 1% are allowed the break out and create the city of Zion to fight against the machines, only to be destroyed so that a new Zion can be created, and the process can restart. This means that Neo is the sixth "chosen one" and that the revelation we received in the first movie was mostly fabricated. Kind of a cheap shot, but I'll take it. He carries with him some connection to the Matrix, some code that is essential to this cycle. This means that the selective laziness of the Matrix program in allowing humans to continue their threat can be explained.

But Agent Smith stands out, then. He was somehow surprised when he was unable to kill Neo, which seems a little odd. Is he unaware of the overall machinations at work? And is he outside them now, as a rogue agent, or is his existence a recurring event in the other cycles of this plan? He manages to escape the Matrix and inhabit the body of a human in the real world, which is an interesting twist that doesn't get anywhere near the attention it deserved. At one point, he is seen cutting his hand for the reason (I assume) that he is fascinated by this sensation of pain, which is unfamiliar to him. In any case, this movie manages to leave me with more questions than I expected going in. However, I think that the real interesting stuff is hidden amongst a lot of meaningless babble, so that most people won't see it. Which is a shame, because there just might be hope for the movie, from a story standpoint. Maybe. I need to see the ending, first.

In conclusion, I think the Wachowskis misdirected a lot of the focus in the movie to things that shouldn't have been made to seem important, and muddied up their interesting plot points with absurd, meaningless ones. Their writing of actual diologue is poor, not Lucas-poor, but still poor. The soundtrack fluctuated before perfect accompaniment and laughably incongruous. Despite all that, if the third movie does what I hope it will, this one will seem much better, once it makes sense. Of course, the Wachowskis have quite a Gordian Knot to untie for themselves in that third movie, so let's hope they don't take Alexander's way out. To find out that everything is inside another Matrix or the whole was somebody's computer program or dream is not unthinkable at this point, but would not be cool. To cop-out an entire film trilogy with that kind of ending would be a shameful way out of making sense of all this mish-mash.

  posted by Matthew @ 6:34 PM

 
Granted, what I had to say last night was more along the lines of a nightmare than a daydream (and for that matter, probably wasn't all that coherent) I'm in a much happier state of mind today. There's nothing that will pull you away from the world's problems better than your own good mood. Last night and this morning was not a success. I was successfully awake until almost seven, when I caved. I would have thought that an insomniac as experienced as I would know that the one hour of sleep simply can't be pulled off. Almost needless to say, I slept through my alarm and nearly through my Spanish class. I can still recall the moment of waking up and looking at the clock. I blinked and yelled, "Fuck me!" before I jumped out of bed, gathered my books, and ran off to what was left of class. I had slept in my clothes, which saved me valuable minutes. I was able to turn in my homework and feign illness as an excuse. "Estoy infermo." It was too early for me to be moral, give me a break. Insomnia can be categorized as a disease, can't it?

Anyway, following that, I came home and dozed for the majority of the remainder of the morning/afternoon. Then, I got in touch with some friends and hung out until just recently. Dinner was involved, pool, ping-pong, foosball, a funny movie (Super Troopers), and the most ill-advised yet probably memorable aspect of the evening, night swimming in 65 degree weather in mid-May. Let me advise against it, if any of you are considering doing something similar. While it was fun, I am and probably will be sore for the foreseeable future. Being submerged in cold water does not make my muscles happy. But it's fine with me, I'm more than satisfied with the activities I undertook tonight. I had a great time with my friends. Tomorrow, I'm going to go see a matinee showing of the Matrix: Reloaded. That should be fun.

Pity, no pontificating and editorializing tonight. Well, technically this morning. I'm content to let anyone who might be reading this tonight that I am feeling content, more so than I am justified in feeling. I am almost peaceful, right now. I suppose it really doesn't take that much to settle my soul, sometimes. Just good friends and some fun times. Although, that might be more significant than I'm giving it credit for, if it can inspire such a pleasant feeling in me. If anyone is reading this and has an iota of concern for me and my well-being (I by no means expect it, but I appreciate whoever is willing to harbor some) rest assured that I am well, and have every intention of continuing along this path. I think it's much better than the alternative.

  posted by Matthew @ 1:43 AM

 
Ah, another blissfully insomniacal evening/morning. I have no intention of sleeping tonight, as class starts in a mere four hours. But it's a non-issue, since my presence in class is all that counts, not my performance. I suppose I have to be at least coherent enough to hand in the homework, but I think I'll be able to manage it even on no sleep.

Since I'm not sleeping anyway, I might as well try and engage in some quality blogging. And what better way to begin my first non-introductory post than with my dissatisfaction with the current administration of this United States? In case you don't know me very well, expect political discourse (which will likely be relatively one-sided) to be a common theme here. That's one of my high-and-mighty intentions for this forum, actually. I generally have an interest in politics and news of most any feather, but I rarely have the oppurtunity or desire to discuss any aspect of current events with my friends. I can spout my inconsequential opinions here ad infinitum, if I so desire. Though it remains to be seen, I imagine I will desire just that.

Private First Class Jessica Lynch. If you haven't heard her name, then you haven't been paying attention to the news for the past several weeks. As I see it, a quick, off-the-cuff summary of her exploits as they were presented to the American people by the military and consequently the majority of significant news sources is as follows. She was taken prisoner by Iraqis and then rescued by a courageous battalion of her fellow soldiers, a la Saving Private Ryan. It seems as though new evidence is being brought to light which suggests that the story spoon-fed to the public of this heroic rescue was mostly untrue, and what actually happened was possibly engineered, or at least could have been prevented relatively easily.

Links for your easy reference:
http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/050403_real_saving_of_private_lynch.htm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-648517,00.html

On a side note, there is another chapter to this story that has yet to be resolved. This is perhaps even more disturbing than the "spun" story given by the military. I'll let you decide.
http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2003/04/21/lynch-impasse.html

There's no need for me to summarize what was said in those articles, which speak for themselves quite clearly. The injustices being committed against the American people are unforgivable, as I see them. Clinton was lambasted for lying about an extramarital affair. However, no one seems to mind that the high-ranking officials of the current administration are constantly working under the impression of facts that are not true or presenting made-up scenarios to the public as the truth. I make no claim to be an expert in any of these areas. I'm a college student, and I'm majoring in English and Philosophy. But politics is important, and I try to keep up. Allow me to list a few of the assertations or suggestions made by members of the Bush administration that seem to me to have turned out to be less than entirely accurate.

Saddam either had or was developing weapons of mass destruction, a buzz-phrase that seemed to me to be the lynchpin of the justification for a war in Iraq. Now that we're in the country and are conducting thorough searches, we can come up with nothing. Of course, it's moot now, isn't it? We went in there and ousted the despot (I would never make any claim denying the fact that Saddam was a cruel and malicious ruler) so the lack of WMDs doesn't seem to matter. But it does, really. Before the war, the perception I got was that Bush and his "people" had access to information that they could not publically display that verified the presence or development of chemical and/or nuclear weapons in Iraq. This was an acceptable claim, since we were looking at war and I'm willing to accept that some information should be classified in that type of situation. But it wasn't true. It is impossible to have any kind of evidence at all that proves something that is not true. But again, it's moot.

Someone with a more in-depth knowledge of the relevant information, check out this report and see how much ended up to be accurate.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Saddam was somehow involved with or responsible for the September 11th terrorist attacks. This was never explicitly stated by any member of the administration (a wise decision) and yet it was almost definitely suggested repeatedly. My criticisms of the current administration will never include the claim that they are unaware of subtle manipulation of public opinion. They are not bungling, they are deliberately misleading the American people to further their own goals. That's a criticism I will dole out quite readily. It's relatively simple to note that since no explicit connection was ever proposed, the administration suggested no such thing. I do not have the texts of Bush's speeches handy, nor do I have the time to go through them and find the instances where these tropes are made. This is one area where my English background would come in handy. Analyzing a text is something I can do. But alas, since I'm writing only to spout my opinions into the internet void, I will not put the effort necessary into finding them. The evidence persists that somehow the public established this connection. What was it, fifty percent of the American public who believed Saddam was responsible for the attacks? That's absurd. That's more of an indictment against the people of this country than the administration, that they can be so uninformed and so easily convinced of something that's not at all true, when the actual event occured less than three years ago. It's utterly horrifying to consider the implications of that number. Saddam's secular regime was also a target of Bin Laden's fanatical hatred. I have nothing more to say on the topic. Well, technically I have much more to say, but I'm depressing myself.

On a lighter note, how about Bush's appearance in full military regalia on the aircraft carrier? How was that for a photo op? While not technically a lie, it does seem curious that he would do this with his history of less-than-stunning military involvement. He was absent from a year of service in the Texas Air National Guard, I believe. He's creating a false image that the majority of the people readily swallow, since the majority of news sources do nothing to contradict them. I refuse to watch televised news for any reason other than to see what's not being said, or what is being said instead. (With one exception - I enjoy the Daily Show as often as possible)

When my sister was caught in a significant lie by our parents for the first time, they said it would be that much more difficult to believe her in the future. I'm skeptical, if not outright dubious of anything that the Bush clan has to say these days. For exampl,e the proposed tax cut won't do anything to create jobs, but it probably will benefit the rich people who financed Bush's campaign. Am I overly cynical to think this way?

Bah, I say. An hour and change into my ramblings, the insomnia has started to catch up with me. I can feel it in the back of my eyes. I'm by no means about to fall asleep, but serious political pontification is becoming increasingly difficult. I believe I will wrap this up, then, with a very interesting article on the newly-relevant again book 1984 by George Orwell. It's an interesting read, both the book and the article. I'd suggest you check out the book first, though.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,948203,00.html

Kudos to anyone who read this. Feel free to e-mail me at m.laird @ insightbb.com (spaces inserted to prevent SPAM-bots, a possible web superstition which I choose to uphold) with words of support, hatred, or whatever else you deem necessary. I don't really expect anyone to read this, so it would be surprising and interesting to hear otherwise. I hope you have better luck sleeping than I tend to!

Post-script: I'm working on the proper formatting for this site, so please be patient (if anyone's reading this) in case it does not appear as aesthetically pleasing as possible. Rest assured, that is my ultimate intention.

  posted by Matthew @ 5:27 AM

 
In the past, I've generally had rotten luck with these sorts of things. Journals, diaries, and the like have always started with high hopes, but quickly degenerated into one of two things: either a self-indulgent, passive-aggressive, reflexive multiplication of my insecurities and problems, or nothing at all. The number of journals I've started that I have never returned to even once is probably at least a dozen. With any luck, I'll get more use out of this one.

That said, a number of my friends have recently told me that I should set up one of these web logs. LiveJournal, the most popular of the available mechanisms to enable an individual to create and maintain a blog of one's own, requires a code from an existing member. And while I know several people who would probably be willing to look into supplying me with one, I find that the LJ community has a kind of connotation associated with it that I would rather not have applied to me. Not that it's a bad thing, in any way, but the fact that it is so popular encourages me to look elsewhere, if only for the purpose of meaningless self-differentiation. This blogger service, being significantly less widely used, carries with it no preconceived notions of what manner of people make use of its services. I appreciate this tabula rasa.

I've tentatively titled this blog "A Coherent Daydream" because nothing better came to mind and the inception of this page was quite spur of the moment. It's one of my favorite phrases and has been for a number of years. If I ever start a band, rest assured I will release an album titled Coherent Daydream. And not in an ironic sense either. Odds are the kind of music I would produce would be all too adequately describes by such a mellow-sounding title. In any case, the name will inevitably change, though the URL will remain constant. Mr. Cheshire has been an internet handle of mine for several years, as well. I find the character of the Cheshire Cat to be inexplicably enthralling and somehow personally involving. In addition, I think it sounds cool.

And that seems to be a sufficient first entry, don't you think? Many more to come, I'm sure.

  posted by Matthew @ 12:44 AM