Inception and the Matrix
As you might guess from the title, the hubby and I finally got our chance to see this movie. It was well worth the wait.
I think the last film I saw starring DiCaprio was Titanic, when I was what…12? 13? It’s not that I don’t like him as an actor, although there is a part of me that still remembers the Titanic hype and secretly thinks DiCaprio will never live that down. But mostly it’s because he’s been in movies that I had no real interest in seeing. I’d heard that the Aviator was good, but personally I found the trailers for it cringe-worthy. DiCaprio simply cannot do an authentic-sounding southern accent. Yikes.
But you know…he’s not a bad actor. In fact, after watching Inception last night I’d say he’s a pretty good actor. He emotes very well and he never sounds like he’s just reading lines.
I’m not a fan of the action genre, most of the time. Inception was certainly that, but they managed to include a number of sympathetic characters, which made all the difference in the world. The movie was also unpredictable in a way that not many movies lately have been…where there are times when you genuinely don’t know what the characters are going to choose. That said, I caught myself in writer mode several times, thinking things like, “Ah, they’re raising the stakes again” or “this is an info dump” or “ooh, interesting symbolism”.
The story told in Inception revolves around one basic idea: “What is real? And how do you know?” Which put me in mind of another story that asked the same question: The Matrix. Now most people acknowledge that the first Matrix movie was very good, while the next two were anywhere from so-so to utter crap, depending on who you ask. The conclusion, in particular, was very disappointing. I did some brainstorming last night, comparing the two stories, trying to figure out why Inception succeeded and the Matrix failed.
I think it has to do with promises and expectations. An author, knowingly or not, will set up a certain number of promises that the reader will expect to be met by the end of the story. If the story begins with a question, the end needs to answer that question. If the story begins with a certain character, the end also needs to be about that character. If the story begins with a quest, the quest needs to be completed. You can’t mix those up. If you begin a story with a troubled character, that character can save the whole world but if their inner conflict isn’t solved, the audience won’t be satisfied. Conversely, if you begin a story with a threat to the world, and then proceed to tell a great story about a set of characters whose arcs are all neatly wrapped up at the end, it won’t be enough. There’s a great book by Orson Scott Card that deals with this: How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy.
Inception accomplished what it set out to do. The characters are given the task to perform inception on a person, and they do it. The main character starts out with a lot of inner conflict, which is resolved at the end. Even the little zinger at the end serves a purpose. It provides an answer to the underlying question of the story: “How do you know what’s real?” Answer: “You can’t always know”.
So where did the Matrix fail?
The overall story of the Matrix failed because the ending did not fulfill the promise set forth in the beginning. The overarching problem was that machines had enslaved the entire human race and were using them as fuel. The hope of the resistance was to one day overthrow the machines and free everyone from the Matrix. That was the promise. The crux of the rebellion was the One…Neo. Neo was going to save the human race. That was the promise.
Only…that’s not quite what happened. The story ended with a compromise. Neo’s unique status as the One didn’t matter in the end…only his ability to kill Smith as a bargaining chip. The war was not won at all, and what was gained in the end really had more to do with Agent Smith than with Neo. That’s not what we were promised. Neo’s sacrifice didn’t win freedom for the entire human race…only the ones who “wanted” to leave the Matrix. The machines weren’t defeated…they stood down. It’s a plausible ending, perhaps even realistic…but it’s not the ending the audience was promised, and I think that’s why everyone was so disappointed without knowing why. The machines should have been taken down. Nothing short of that would do.
I also think Agent Smith should have eventually joined the human cause. Not as an ally, exactly, but he was well on his way to “going native”, as it were. He was a perfect antagonist in the first movie, but I think his character had the potential to be more than what it was. I’m sure everyone appreciates the irony of him comparing humans to a virus, and then him practically becoming a virus himself. But they didn’t carry that arc to its conclusion. Agent Smith, like the human resisters, was once a part of the system before getting “unplugged”. He began to think and act in ways that were remarkably human, if you think about it. He was becoming the very thing he despised, and I think he should have been made to face it within the story. But the writers made him too much of an outright villain. He was trapped in that role, and the story suffered for it. The final battle between Neo and Smith was one of the most anti-climactic scenes I’ve ever watched onscreen, and I’m pretty sure that’s because something within me knew that Smith wasn’t supposed to be the ultimate enemy. That wasn’t the expectation set forth in the beginning.
He might not have ever joined the humans…in fact I think it would be far better if he didn’t…but I think he could have been talked into turning against the system, against the machines. The system was the ultimate enemy in the Matrix, after all…not the agents. Agent Smith and Neo should have brought down the system together, not as allies, but as enemies with a common enemy. Then, afterwards, Neo would let him walk away. (Smith would probably be inclined to fight Neo to the death, but that would be anti-climactic.)
See, letting Smith walk would set up future conflict and an entirely new storyline (read, more movies).
I think what may have happened is that the writers became too enthralled with the Christ metaphor aspect of the story, while simultaneously misunderstanding the Christ metaphor. They thought having Neo sacrifice himself in the end would be enough, that having the machines back off in response to that sacrifice would make a satisfying ending. First of all, you can’t promise the downfall of the machines in the beginning and then have it all end with a compromise. Secondly, Christ may have submitted himself to death and the enemy, but he did it in order to defeat them. He didn’t haggle or compromise with death in order to gain a few benefits. He won against death. Christ won, which is why his death is satisfying. (Please keep in mind that I’m not speaking from a religious perspective, but a narrative one). Christ’s death accomplishes what the man set out to accomplish, even if it wasn’t quite what his disciples or the enemy had in mind. The hero’s sacrifice means nothing if it doesn’t accomplish what the story set out to accomplish. Neo could have still died at the end, but his death should have bought the downfall of the system…not just a compromise.
Anyway, go see Inception. It’s a good movie. And I guess we can always hope that someone will eventually come along and redo the second two Matrix movies…but I’m not holding my breath.
Like!
