the architecture of cognition

Rating: 10/10 (14 May 2010)

'The Matrix' must be one of the most ambitious and highly successful projects of the past twenty years. Its difficult to imagine how this film could have gone from conception to execution, and succeeded with such flying colors. For a long time I've avoided writing a review because this was my "Godfather" or "Star Wars" movie, having first seen it at 13 and instantly falling in love with it. I could never be truly objective about this movie, nor could I find a single truthful, objective analysis of it anywhere on IMDb or RT. Roger Ebert's review was nice, but too harsh.
'Bound' helped me appreciate better how 'Matrix' was conceived. Neither of these two films has a single wasted moment. It seems that the Wachowskis build a film by cascading a set of scenes, like a series of dominos, so that each scene projects into the next one. This is of course what all screenwriters do, but as simple as it sounds, it is no mean feat. The most important part of any film, I think, is how you connect scenes, how you work on transitions so as to create meaning and plausibility. What you show, how you show, and most importantly, what you Don't show. This is extremely difficult. It requires a deep understanding of the cognitive mechanics at work between a film and a viewer. It is, if you like, the most important part of film-making, as important (if not more) than the actual shooting process.
The brothers nailed this whole conception business down to the last detail. The editor won an Oscar, but the film was streamlined by the directors for perfect editing. The cinematography and sound design is breathtaking. Joel Silver brought another influence to bear in terms of production expertise. They worked on the formidable design and effects requirements, even bringing in a legendary Hong Kong action choreographer for the martial arts scenes.
And then they made casting choices that could not have been better. This film rests on the visual and vocal libido of the leads. It works only because the actors work, because we relate and identify with them. Just watch Weaving and Fishburne scorch the frame in their respective parts; these are their best roles. Moss is visually apt. Reeves is unwittingly perfect for his role, more perfect than anyone could have imagined.
Another important part of this film is the self-reference. This film riffs on itself many times in many ways, such as when Mouse asks Neo how the machines could possibly know about the taste of Tasty Wheat. This is essentially winking at the viewer by momentarily snapping the plausibility of the whole idea. Also, this whole franchise is one big stab at the Terminator movies and their enduring popularity. Instead of time travel, we have virtual reality. Instead of terminators, we have agents. Instead of John Connor....
None of this explains how they came up with this concept. The keystone of the arch is hidden. There are countless other 'influences' here : Phil Dick, William Gibson, Doctor Who, Grant Morrisson's 'The Invisibles' etc. And as with Tarantino, we are unable to say for sure whether it is homage or plagiarism. The innovation lies in the architecture of the whole thing, in the layering, in the flawless integration of so many different design elements to form a seamless, coherent entity. The Matrix is everywhere indeed.
This is the only way to make movies.