I’m pretty sure it was Aristotle who first wrote that
every story must have a beginning, a middle and an end. It’s
a seemingly simple concept, to be sure, but also a frequently
forgotten one.
As a trilogy, “The Matrix” should have the stuff of
Aristotelian models. Andy and Larry Wachowski themselves even
seemed to buy into the idea: the tag lines on all “The Matrix
Revolutions” posters clearly state that “everything
that has a beginning has an end.”
But there’s a subtle implication in Aristotle’s
story structure that makes all the difference. The middle of a
story must necessarily follow the beginning, and the end must
necessarily follow the middle. And that’s where the problems
in “The Matrix Revolutions” shine through.
To put it simply, the end of the “Matrix” trilogy
doesn’t make sense. It explicitly contradicts the rules and
story that precede it, ending a different story that never began.
Meanwhile, the end of the “Matrix” story still
doesn’t exist.
While watching the Wachowski brothers fail at philosophy makes
“The Matrix Revolutions” disappointing, watching them
fail at filmmaking makes the movie awful. Where the first two
“Matrix” films succeeded in raising the bar in action
choreography, “The Matrix Revolutions” does not. Of the
two big fight scenes in the movie, one is entertaining but
uninspiring, and the other is so frantic it becomes laughable.
The battle for Zion takes up much of the second half of the
film, but because it’s set in the “real world,”
the action lacks the detailed choreography that accompanies scenes
set inside the Matrix. And while the fight between Neo (Keanu
Reeves) and Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) is set in the Matrix, both
characters are so powerful that the tussle quickly degrades into
the two of them flying around in the rain, occasionally banging
into each other.
When nobody’s fighting (read: the first half of the film),
“The Matrix Revolutions” is a film that seems to be
confused by its own inevitable existence. At one point early in the
film, as Neo waits in an underground train station, a young girl
asks him if he’s from the Matrix. He responds, “Yes.
No. I mean I was.” Like the film, he has no idea where he
came from or where he’s going. The only thing he knows for
certain is that he exists, and to move outward from that assumption
would only cause confusion.
The station is called Mobil Ave. and even though
“mobil” doesn’t appear in the Oxford English
Dictionary, we have to assume the Wachowski brothers are
highlighting Neo’s mobility in the scene, or lack thereof.
The station, Neo and the film itself are all missing something to
make them mobile. But while the station needs only a letter, Neo
and the film need an understanding of where they came from, where
they’re going, and, most importantly, why they need to get
there in the first place.
Questions regarding why things are the way they are come up
frequently in the film. To be fair, they come up frequently in the
entire trilogy. But in the first two films, the questions were
asked explicitly, to help expand the plot and story, while in
“The Matrix Revolutions,” many such questions seem to
be asked implicitly, with no answers in sight. Why was Trinity
(Carrie-Anne Moss) at the Oracle at the right time when she
didn’t know she was supposed to be there? Why does Morpheus
(Laurence Fishburne) seem to only speak in conclusive, out-of-place
Shakespearian couplet-sentences? Why does Neo’s idea that
sparks the film’s conclusion make sense?
They’re all good questions, and none are really answered.
As a trilogy intent on making us question reality and our own
existence, what “The Matrix Revolutions” finally proves
is that it’s easier to ask questions than to answer them.
But didn’t we already know that?
– Jake Tracer