Slate has a rather tedious essay up at the moment explaining The Matrix's appeal to geeks. (Nerd becomes hero; it's like a computer game; other obvious points.) A more pertinent question is why it did so well with non-geeks. I saw the movie in a packed Times Square theatre and can attest that the kung fu-cheering audience came from all walks of life--not just Silicon Alley. Salon critic Andrew O'Hehir had an observation three years ago that now seems almost nostalgic:
The Matrix was the first movie of '99 to tap into the deepening unease surrounding the info-consumption economy. Its vision of the human race as isolated prisoners being forcefed an electronic false reality is, after all, pretty much true.
I say almost nostalgic because while the context has changed from Clinton bubble to Bush endless-terror-war, the "electronic false reality" still remains in place. Even though I saw the World Trade Center fall with my own eyes, the image became intermixed almost immediately with the mediated version on TV, which had camera angles and freeze frame capability and running commentary unavailable to my bare senses. As Slovenian theorist Slavoj Zizek points out (thanks, Bruno), the twin towers' destruction was exactly the type of Hollywood blockbuster explosion America had been feeding itself as entertainment in the years preceding 9/11 (think Independence Day). In his essay written a few days after the WTC-toppling, Zizek somewhat touchingly wondered if the event would open our country's eyes to its own filtered, Truman Show reality. As if! From the slime tanks where we serve as human batteries, we've now seen two Matrix-like wars won with sheer technology. I didn't witness it, but read many media accounts of Pres. Bush's photo-op jet landing on an aircraft carrier after he "whipped Saddam's ass." The newscasters were gushing about how good he looked in a flight jacket. Maybe for the next war he can wear a long black coat.
President Bush's pilot missed three of the four arresting cables on the carrier deck.
Ow! I hate to think how much pressure the pilot was under not to flub it. Fishing the Commander in Chief out of the drink would not make a good news image.
glad to see it wasnt just a shameless photo-op.
Responding to Joester's post here:
I agree about Enemy of the State, at least insofar as it purported to be shocked about government intrusions into privacy while creating the impression that state surveillance technology is much more sophisticated than it is. Panic Room is harder to draw conclusions about: the people supposedly benefiting from high-tech security gear end up being trapped by it (at one point they're reduced to yelling through a hole in the wall, trying to get a neighbor's attention). Yes, the gear looks cool and so does all the glitzy camera work--the viewer's POV gliding effortlessly through walls, up staircases, etc--but it's mostly window dressing: by the end of the movie the characters are outside the panic room bludgeoning each other just like any action thriller.
Many of us are getting acclimated to surveillance (cameras in elevators & public parks), a few people are addicted to it (exposing themselves via 24 hour bedroom cams and the like), but I'm not sure people know how much they're giving up, privacy-wise, until they end up unfairly prosecuted. The one interesting point in the Slate piece is that the electronic sensorium isn't in itself bad: just that someone else controls it.
|
Slate has a rather tedious essay up at the moment explaining The Matrix's appeal to geeks. (Nerd becomes hero; it's like a computer game; other obvious points.) A more pertinent question is why it did so well with non-geeks. I saw the movie in a packed Times Square theatre and can attest that the kung fu-cheering audience came from all walks of life--not just Silicon Alley. Salon critic Andrew O'Hehir had an observation three years ago that now seems almost nostalgic: I say almost nostalgic because while the context has changed from Clinton bubble to Bush endless-terror-war, the "electronic false reality" still remains in place. Even though I saw the World Trade Center fall with my own eyes, the image became intermixed almost immediately with the mediated version on TV, which had camera angles and freeze frame capability and running commentary unavailable to my bare senses. As Slovenian theorist Slavoj Zizek points out (thanks, Bruno), the twin towers' destruction was exactly the type of Hollywood blockbuster explosion America had been feeding itself as entertainment in the years preceding 9/11 (think Independence Day). In his essay written a few days after the WTC-toppling, Zizek somewhat touchingly wondered if the event would open our country's eyes to its own filtered, Truman Show reality. As if! From the slime tanks where we serve as human batteries, we've now seen two Matrix-like wars won with sheer technology. I didn't witness it, but read many media accounts of Pres. Bush's photo-op jet landing on an aircraft carrier after he "whipped Saddam's ass." The newscasters were gushing about how good he looked in a flight jacket. Maybe for the next war he can wear a long black coat.
- tom moody 5-02-2003 7:29 pm
President Bush's pilot missed three of the four arresting cables on the carrier deck.
- anonymous (guest) 5-03-2003 12:47 am
Ow! I hate to think how much pressure the pilot was under not to flub it. Fishing the Commander in Chief out of the drink would not make a good news image.
- tom moody 5-03-2003 1:12 am
glad to see it wasnt just a shameless photo-op.
- dave 5-03-2003 1:23 am
Responding to Joester's post here:
I agree about Enemy of the State, at least insofar as it purported to be shocked about government intrusions into privacy while creating the impression that state surveillance technology is much more sophisticated than it is. Panic Room is harder to draw conclusions about: the people supposedly benefiting from high-tech security gear end up being trapped by it (at one point they're reduced to yelling through a hole in the wall, trying to get a neighbor's attention). Yes, the gear looks cool and so does all the glitzy camera work--the viewer's POV gliding effortlessly through walls, up staircases, etc--but it's mostly window dressing: by the end of the movie the characters are outside the panic room bludgeoning each other just like any action thriller.
Many of us are getting acclimated to surveillance (cameras in elevators & public parks), a few people are addicted to it (exposing themselves via 24 hour bedroom cams and the like), but I'm not sure people know how much they're giving up, privacy-wise, until they end up unfairly prosecuted. The one interesting point in the Slate piece is that the electronic sensorium isn't in itself bad: just that someone else controls it.
- tom moody 5-04-2003 10:07 pm