Thanks, Daniel. It's really what this newsletter is about. I don't need to convince anyone they're wrong about anything. I just want to share my passion and inspire people to look at and enjoy art differently than they might be. Not necessarily my way, but just reconsider the narrative as much as possible.
Finally, somebody has explained #4 to me! After I watched it I felt just like, "What the hell was that?" The Banksy analogy makes a lot of sense now that I have some context to behind the scenes. Thank you! :)
Well, mission accomplished. I love this film, and I don't think it was given its proper due by audiences. Probably because most of the audience expected something else. Art can sometimes hurt. Thanks for reading!
It's a film that certainly reveled in pissing people off, and I think that can be an important function of art. We need that kind of fearless confrontation from time to time.
You’re a great writer, and I deeply respect your opinion as well as the viewpoint we don’t always have to like it. No sense of rebellion probably equals no art. And you do such a good job in this post delving deep into Lana’s psychology and motivations. i really enjoyed reading that. I thought you painted the opposing viewpoint in a really oversimplified mustache-twitching way, which is so counter to the rest of the piece. But, either way, really enjoy the piece. I don’t agree (at all) that it’s the reason the piece wasn’t so successful, but so much good stuff in here. Thanks for your newsletter I really enjoy and appreciate it
I think it was a bold and necessary move from Lana to create RESURRECTIONS that way. To be honest, I’ve never seen any connections to trans people in The Matrix trilogy, but I always thought that the immense amount of symbolism in these movies was much more like what usual cinema viewers would see and understand.
Anyway, thank you so much for this view of the movie. I am eager to watch this movie now, even more than before.
I think the trans allegory is one that belongs to the filmmakers and to trans and other closeted people who were able to easily recognize the coded messages. I didn't start to pick up on it myself until the first of the sisters announced she was trans. It was a process of inquiry for me that the sisters slowly added to as, I think, they became more comfortable discussing it themselves. And, of course, academic commentary on the films from the trans perspective existed for a long time, but was not mainstream'd. The culture is changing, is my point, and what we are permitted to see and think is changing, too -- all very MATRIX-like, as I put it like that.
I took the opportunity to watch Matrix Resurrections on Netflix’s last day. What a movie! Now, I can relate to your essay and understand it perfectly. Also the transition from Neo to Trinity, from the Chosen as a man to a chosen as a woman. Lana managed to create an extraordinary piece of art. This movie is one of the most underrated films of the last decade. This is unfortunate since it shows me that today's problem of Hollywood producing valuable and good movies is not only a problem of Hollywood itself. The audience is a problem as well. On the one hand, most viewers want simple entertainment full of action, sometimes touched by nostalgia, or even a good old boy meets a girl story. The expectation of something familiar, something unchanged, especially in a sequel of a movie like The Matrix, is weighing higher than a sequel that wants to be more than just some simple action. But in the other hand, the modern audience don’t want to see something which requires them to think about deeply, to use their brain.
I am really glad that I read your essay. This was eye opening for me, and gave me the opportunity to watch this masterpiece with other eyes, free from expectation which shouldn’t be met, because this would ruin it otherwise.
Sergej, I'm so pleased to read that you went out and watched RESURRECTIONS because of anything I wrote, but also that you seem to have loved it as much as I do. As you say, RESURRECTIONS is very much an anti-Hollywood film. As someone else in these comment said, it's also an anti-MATRIX film. I think in the long run, it will be recognized as far more than just a failure in the franchise, but a greater denouncement of the system that produced it.
After seeing the movie and writing to you, I decided to write my own essay on the resurrection. I did a little research and have been very disappointed with how prominent critics have reacted to the movie. Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian wrote: "Where the original film was explosively innovative, this is just another piece of IP, an algorithm of unoriginality." Or Johnny Oleksinsky of the New York Times, who complained that the movie contains more talking points than a 24-hour marathon of 'The View'.
How can they react like that? I would expect such reviews from a regular audience, but reading this from a critic left me speechless. We live in very strange times, where the boundaries between all sorts of things and layers are so blurred that it's almost impossible to have a familiar normality. How could these prominent critics watch this movie with the same naivety and the same "spittle-fleckedness" and write about it like that? How could it happen that the movie's deeper meaning, which was not even that deeply buried, remained hidden from their professional eyes?
The state of Hollywood reminds me a lot of the current state of the games industry, where I originally come from. Large studios are no longer able to produce good-quality games. Old AAA is no longer made by companies like EA or Ubisoft but by smaller AA or even B indie games. This is why even low-budget projects, such as the first Joker, shine today. And when a Hollywood movie defies everything and reaches a high quality, it goes unrecognised by the audience and critics.
I have always appreciated your contributions and will definitely subscribe. Thanks again for your valuable contributions! And sorry for my very long response 😊
I was horrified reading reviews of the film, which demonstrated a concerning lack of curiosity for anything that remotely challenges the Hollywood model. I described some of my frustration with this kind of lazy modern criticism here, in fact:
And welcome to 5AM STORYTALK - I’m glad to have you!
Really enjoyed this. Made me think again about films that I’ve been dismissive about just recently. Always the sign of a good post 👍🏼
Thanks, Daniel. It's really what this newsletter is about. I don't need to convince anyone they're wrong about anything. I just want to share my passion and inspire people to look at and enjoy art differently than they might be. Not necessarily my way, but just reconsider the narrative as much as possible.
Finally, somebody has explained #4 to me! After I watched it I felt just like, "What the hell was that?" The Banksy analogy makes a lot of sense now that I have some context to behind the scenes. Thank you! :)
Well, mission accomplished. I love this film, and I don't think it was given its proper due by audiences. Probably because most of the audience expected something else. Art can sometimes hurt. Thanks for reading!
I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. I love Revolutions so much for exactly these reasons, and even more because it pissed so many people off.
It's a film that certainly reveled in pissing people off, and I think that can be an important function of art. We need that kind of fearless confrontation from time to time.
You’re a great writer, and I deeply respect your opinion as well as the viewpoint we don’t always have to like it. No sense of rebellion probably equals no art. And you do such a good job in this post delving deep into Lana’s psychology and motivations. i really enjoyed reading that. I thought you painted the opposing viewpoint in a really oversimplified mustache-twitching way, which is so counter to the rest of the piece. But, either way, really enjoy the piece. I don’t agree (at all) that it’s the reason the piece wasn’t so successful, but so much good stuff in here. Thanks for your newsletter I really enjoy and appreciate it
Thanks for reading, Thomas.
Wow! What an essay! I can’t wait to watch the film and be made to feel uncomfortable. But I also need to go back and watch the other 3 films, too.
I hope you enjoy the experience. The fourth film is really an entirely distinct experience.
Wonderful essay! I’ve enjoyed it!
I think it was a bold and necessary move from Lana to create RESURRECTIONS that way. To be honest, I’ve never seen any connections to trans people in The Matrix trilogy, but I always thought that the immense amount of symbolism in these movies was much more like what usual cinema viewers would see and understand.
Anyway, thank you so much for this view of the movie. I am eager to watch this movie now, even more than before.
I think the trans allegory is one that belongs to the filmmakers and to trans and other closeted people who were able to easily recognize the coded messages. I didn't start to pick up on it myself until the first of the sisters announced she was trans. It was a process of inquiry for me that the sisters slowly added to as, I think, they became more comfortable discussing it themselves. And, of course, academic commentary on the films from the trans perspective existed for a long time, but was not mainstream'd. The culture is changing, is my point, and what we are permitted to see and think is changing, too -- all very MATRIX-like, as I put it like that.
I took the opportunity to watch Matrix Resurrections on Netflix’s last day. What a movie! Now, I can relate to your essay and understand it perfectly. Also the transition from Neo to Trinity, from the Chosen as a man to a chosen as a woman. Lana managed to create an extraordinary piece of art. This movie is one of the most underrated films of the last decade. This is unfortunate since it shows me that today's problem of Hollywood producing valuable and good movies is not only a problem of Hollywood itself. The audience is a problem as well. On the one hand, most viewers want simple entertainment full of action, sometimes touched by nostalgia, or even a good old boy meets a girl story. The expectation of something familiar, something unchanged, especially in a sequel of a movie like The Matrix, is weighing higher than a sequel that wants to be more than just some simple action. But in the other hand, the modern audience don’t want to see something which requires them to think about deeply, to use their brain.
I am really glad that I read your essay. This was eye opening for me, and gave me the opportunity to watch this masterpiece with other eyes, free from expectation which shouldn’t be met, because this would ruin it otherwise.
Sergej, I'm so pleased to read that you went out and watched RESURRECTIONS because of anything I wrote, but also that you seem to have loved it as much as I do. As you say, RESURRECTIONS is very much an anti-Hollywood film. As someone else in these comment said, it's also an anti-MATRIX film. I think in the long run, it will be recognized as far more than just a failure in the franchise, but a greater denouncement of the system that produced it.
Thank you so much, Cole!
After seeing the movie and writing to you, I decided to write my own essay on the resurrection. I did a little research and have been very disappointed with how prominent critics have reacted to the movie. Peter Bradshaw of the Guardian wrote: "Where the original film was explosively innovative, this is just another piece of IP, an algorithm of unoriginality." Or Johnny Oleksinsky of the New York Times, who complained that the movie contains more talking points than a 24-hour marathon of 'The View'.
How can they react like that? I would expect such reviews from a regular audience, but reading this from a critic left me speechless. We live in very strange times, where the boundaries between all sorts of things and layers are so blurred that it's almost impossible to have a familiar normality. How could these prominent critics watch this movie with the same naivety and the same "spittle-fleckedness" and write about it like that? How could it happen that the movie's deeper meaning, which was not even that deeply buried, remained hidden from their professional eyes?
The state of Hollywood reminds me a lot of the current state of the games industry, where I originally come from. Large studios are no longer able to produce good-quality games. Old AAA is no longer made by companies like EA or Ubisoft but by smaller AA or even B indie games. This is why even low-budget projects, such as the first Joker, shine today. And when a Hollywood movie defies everything and reaches a high quality, it goes unrecognised by the audience and critics.
I have always appreciated your contributions and will definitely subscribe. Thanks again for your valuable contributions! And sorry for my very long response 😊
I was horrified reading reviews of the film, which demonstrated a concerning lack of curiosity for anything that remotely challenges the Hollywood model. I described some of my frustration with this kind of lazy modern criticism here, in fact:
And welcome to 5AM STORYTALK - I’m glad to have you!
actually my favourite of the series … in some sense the anti matrix movie
Absolutely. It's there to destroy the original trilogy in some way, which I kind of love.
Me to
This was so wonderful Cole! Spot on.
I'm glad to hear you enjoyed the read!