Friday, November 07, 2003
This morning, I seem to be out of sorts just about every way that a body can be out of sorts.
And my office chair of seven years gave up the ghost a couple of hours ago. I hate it when things I depend on break and I have to discard them and buy new ones. Things like that should last a lifetime. Like my Docs. I bought them in March '93, and I've worn them constantly, on two continents, four countries, and walked countless miles in them. And they're still in great shape and shall probably last me another ten years, at least. Everything should be like my Docs. But that would put a crimp in our consumer society, I know. I just don't care.
Yesterday, we worked on Chapter One of Murder of Angels. It's a frelling long chapter. We'll finish it and, hopefully Two, today. I'm getting behind again. I have to start the novella. I spent a good bit of yesterday trying to find an idea. Sometimes, that's the hardest part of writing for me. Finding the right idea. Right now, I have only dead air. Bill Schafer has requested that this story not tie in to any of my other stories, which does make it all a good deal more difficult. But I'll take it as a challenge. Maybe I rely on my "milleau" a little too heavily. Maybe I use it as a crutch. Writers should have nothing but disdain for crutches. We don't, of course. We're crutch fiends, the lot of us. The moat between what is and what should be.
I just read over my second post from yesterday. I wasn't nearly hard enough on myself. I barely scratched the surface.
Have you bought your copy of Low Red Moon yet? Well, my the frell not? Do it now, kiddos. Do it now.
Last night, we saw The Matrix: Revolutions. I know that most of the critics and fanboys are savaging it. They've been sharpening their knives for months. But I was enthralled, captivated, engrossed, awed — all those things that movies are supposed to do. Yes, there were problems, but they didn't ruin the film for me. I think, in this instance, I should do what I did with the first LotR film and break it down into what I liked and what I didn't like. Bad news first (AND HERE BE SPOILERS - IF YOU HAVEN"T SEEN THE FILM, YOU MIGHT NOT WISH TO READ THIS):
That Which I Did Not Like: The pacing of the film starts out a little rough, suffering somewhat from being the beginning of the end of the middle of a story. People don't get this, of course. That we have one film divided into three parts. But it's true. Anyway, the Bane character remained cumbersome, due to his having been poorly introduced in The Matrix: Reloaded. But I do think that Ian Bliss ultimately did a great and chilling job playing Smith in human form. I was annoyed at all the war-movie cliches cluttering up the battle for Zion, mostly surrounding the characters of Kid (Clayton Watson) and Lock (Harry Lennix). I can't even begin to understand why anyone thought some of that dialogue would work. Tank (Marcus Chong) was sorely missed (again; and yes, I'm aware of the controversy). But, best I can recall, that's about all that really bothered me.
That Which I Did Like: Truthfully, I just loved this film. That's not to say it couldn't have been better. Everything can always be better. Almost always. Was it as good as The Matrix? That's the wrong question to ask, as it was, truthfully, the conclusion of the story begun in The Matrix. We can more honestly ask if the end of the story lived up to its beginning. My answer would be yes. What happened was (as I've said on my phorum), pretty much what I expected, with Neo and Smith and the machines and Zion and the humans. Carrie-Anne Moss seemed to sleepwalk through the second film, but she was in fine form for the end and I thought Trinity's death scene was played perfectly. The battle for Zion is one of the most superbly orchestrated action scenes in film history. The moment that the hovercraft broke through the cloud cover left me breathless. It was great seeing Bruce Spence in his too-brief appearance as The Trainman. I liked that this film relied less on extended martial arts scenes, and thought that boosted the strength of Neo's showdown with Smith. I can go on and on like this, but there's really no point. Most people who are having trouble with the film seem to be having trouble with its plot, with unresolved questions, and with the philosophical basis of the three films. By now, you should all know how I feel about resolution. There was plenty enough here for me. As for plot, if you don't know what happened, you weren't paying attention and should see the film (or films) again. And as for philosophy, which really seems to be a major point of contention as regards The Matrix trilogy, all I can say is that the Wachowski's did their homework. It's not a mishmash and if that's what you see, it's probably because you weren't prepared for a Campbellian fusion of so many religious traditions, from the Old Testament to Zen Buddhism, coupled with a complex synthesis of modern philosophy. This stuff isn't easy. It's hard. If the Wachowski's have erred, it's in expecting too much of their audience, which, it seems, mostly just wanted an action film, not an action film with depth. In my opinion, they've delivered the latter, as no one before them ever has. The first two Star Wars films tried, and came close, but the series ultimately faltered (horribly). But even if you're not interested in existentialism, the philosophy of AI, or Hindu mythology, The Matrix: Revolutions is still a beautiful, beautiful film.
And now I have to go back to the word mines.
|
|
