The Matrix - Spoon-fed Symbolism

[Ilker81x]

Here's a scenario that actually happened. The original climax to "Blade Runner" was scripted as a Bruce Lee style fight between Rutger Hauer and Harrison Ford. Here we have a movie with some intense visuals and some equally intense philosophical points, with a fair bit of action that actually served the purpose of the plot. When Harrison Ford is chasing down Joanna Cassidy through the city streets, or when he is taking a beating while being mocked by Brion James, it's action, but it doesn't overshadow the story...it helps to advance the story. Now they want to have an elaborate action-oriented standoff more suited to "Bloodsport" or "Enter the Dragon"? The thought doesn't exactly work does it? It was Rutger Hauer who said, "No matter how much I train, I will NOT be Bruce Lee. Let's make it more like the game of life." In this suggestion, they ended up filming a climax that was thrilling AND poetic. The point was made more poignant by the vision of the android not as a fighting machine as he was created to be, but as a man taking in every ounce of life he could. Martial arts movies can be fun, and the action is great, but to me there's always the sense of the characters getting busy dying as opposed to enjoying their life. In the fight, I hardly ever get the sense that they truly feel alive (which I think was one of the few ideas "Fight Club" tried but failed to portray). In "Blade Runner," you can tell that Rutger's character felt more alive than he ever had, and he was going to squeeze as much life out as was possible, even so far as to driving a nail into his hand to get that extra burst of adrenaline. And then he saved Harrison Ford, because in those last moments of his life, he also recognized the beauty of life in general. He didn't want to kill Harrison Ford...he wanted to make him see how beautiful a thing life is while simultaneously reaffirming his own. And this climax was just as thrilling as any fight scene could have been.

In "Blade Runner," it is not an action scene pretending to have a point. It is a point made stronger by a good action sequence, one in which the action is less about violence and more about the heightening of tension and suspense. When dealing with violence, it's easy to get lured into the idea that it must have a point. I think it speaks volumes that the director's cut of "Blade Runner" omits the extra bits of violence that the international version includes. We don't have to see the blood shooting out of the man's head when Rutger Hauer crushes his skull to understand what is going on. We need only see Rutger's reaction and to hear the sound. Maybe it's Hitchcockian in that regard, but it proves to be more effective because it's more powerful. Through suggestion, the audience fills in their own blanks, and in doing so instills more thought into the point that is being conveyed. It's hard to think about that point when you're busy being grossed out and shrivelling in your seat. I think this is why many gore flicks do not often attempt to have a deeper story than it actually does. This is why I think "Fight Club" fails. It had a good idea in theory, but there was too much emphasis on the violence. I didn't need to see Jared Leto's face getting beaten to death (at all...nevermind that the version in the final film is different from what they originally had planned as the DVD shows...it should've been cut even more) to get the point...but seeing it just made me resist what he was trying to say. Yes the story can be advanced by the violence since its premise is based on it, but did we need to see so much of it? I don't think so.

As far as "The Matrix" having religious undertones...I'm not surprised nobody raised a fuss, but at the same time I find that a bit insulting. I'm not a Christian...far from it...but I admire anybody who tries to defend their belief system, no matter how flawed it might be. There is no belief system without flaws, no faith without contradiction. The Christ-like references in "The Matrix" are pretentious because of the inherently violent nature of the film. Leaving aside the fact that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than any other cause, the idea of Christ was that of nonviolence. Do you fight injustice by killing a tyrant? It's almost the same argument that ensues in police dramas...is it better to catch the criminal by breaking the law, or is it better to obey the law and let the criminal go free? Christ, as best as I understand it, fought injustice not by killing the Roman emperor, but by preaching the word to others...fight injustice and violence...by being just and nonviolent. He didn't scorn those who crucified him...he said, "Forgive them lord, for they know not what they do." "The Matrix" on the other hand is loaded with violence, all surrounding a central Christ-like figure who fights tyranny...with more weaponry in his coat than an army can carry a whole brigade. When he is resurrected...he destroys the evil figure, blows him up from the inside out. Not that I want to accuse the filmmakers of blasphemy, but it seems like a pretentious way to make your point. Same thing with "The Phantom Menace." All the Christ references were there...and already it was a practice in blasphemy because Christ, though flawed and still human (as Scorcese's film and Kazantzakis' book tried to convey, not as blasphemy, but as a dualistic interpretation of how a divine figure touches us as humans), was never evil. He may have succumbed to temptation, but the idea of Christ is that as a divine figure, he is representative of all that is good and divine in both god and man. In "The Phantom Menace," the Christ figure is destined to become a servant of evil. It doesn't matter that in the end he finds his way and returns to good before dying, he still became evil. You don't get more blasphemous than that. Did anybody raise a fuss? If they did, please tell me. It's not uncommon for these things to happen in films pretending to have some deeper truth or meaning. In the end, it becomes just a muddled mess. You can pretend all you want that it had something significant to say, but if you don't say it in a good way, it becomes pointless. It's like trying to demonstrate the horrors of war to people by starting one yourself. Do people see your point? No...they see you as a warmonger, and they punish you. Your point is lost.