A reason why #1is liked more than #2 and #3
I've recently read The matrix and philosophy: welcome to the desert of the real (ISBN 0-8126-9502-X), a collection of essays about the film as edited by William Irwin (other books in the series are: Seinfeld and Philosophy and The Simpsons and Philosophy). Anyway, there's an essay in this book that may go a long way to explain why the 1st film is so liked, but the 2nd and 3rd not so. Now the book appears to have been written after the 1st film, but before any sequels, as there's no reference to either. None-the-less the comments in "Real Genre and Virtual Philosophy" (by Deborah Knight and George McKnight) seem relevant and pertinent.
In the essay, the authors describe the film as belonging to a "master genre" rather than a "consensus genre". A consensus genre is mainly described the the setting (e.g Westerns, SciFi, Detective Stories, et cetera), whereas a master genres (such as Tragedy, Romance, Comedy and Irony/Satire) deal with tone, narrative, and audience expectations. the authors put the first film in the master genre of "Romance". Because you type out a hasty reply, saying that it wasn't a Barbara Cartland or Joan Collins type story, I should point out that "Romance" means something different here. To quote the essay:
The Romance, as a master genre, is quest story, and attempt to discover something as crucial one's identity or to save one's society from a fallen existence if not a certain doom. The protagonist of Romance undergoes a series of trials, through the course of which his or her true character is fully revealed...
...The Matrix is unproblematically a Romance. It is a quest narrative, and like so many quest narratives it combines three classic themes: the discovery, initiation, and self-realisation of the true hero, the threat to rightful community, and the eventual romantic union of the hero and heroine, which also symbolizes or at least signals the triumph of their community over the evil forces that had threatened it.
(pages 190-191)Now I think this is partly what makes the first film so appealing. As we watch the film, we see the main character (Neo) learn about reality and himself, in the stages mentioned above. We see him grow, and identify with him in the process.
The secrets that are revealed in the 1st film are crucial ones, about what the Matrix is, and how it works. In the 2nd and 3rd films, none of the revelations are crucial in the same way that they are in the first film. rather, they add to the knowledge already gained. Whereas in the first film, Neo is still playing with the role he's been given, in the 2nd and 3rd films, he's already accepted these.
And there's the difference. The first film may have been a "Romance", but the 2nd and 3rd ones seem to be "War" films, in which sides are set and while there may be twists and turns, there is no real further revelation. And because our expectations were raised after the first film, we expected more "Romance" films in the series. In a "romance version of the 3rd film, we would have had more startling revelations, like Zion and reality being just another Matrix; or that there was no war, and that humanity had voluntarily put itself in the Matrix because it'd ruined the Earth.
Hence the disappointment felt by many, because the 2nd and 3rd films didn't match those expectations. It was like when they released Shock Treatment, a "sort of" sequel to Rocky Horror. Everyone was expecting Rocky Horror II, and instead what they got was a brilliant satire about Television. Good, perhaps, but not good enough -- where were the fun transvestites, the sexual innuendo, and all the other elements? Whether they wanted to be or or not, audiences were disappointed.
And it's the same for some folk with Reloaded and Revolutions. They're not the same as The Matrix, nor were they intended to be.
It's interesting too, to look at the structure of the trilogy. Trilogies like The Lord of the Rings can be seen as an "intended trilogy" as all three parts need to be watched to fully appreciate (and resolve) the storyline. Contrast this with trilogies such as the original Star Wars, Back to the Future and The Matrix, which might be called an "opportunistic trilogy".
In each case, the first film in the trilogy (now considered "episode IV" for Star Wars) is a "stand-alone" film. If you watch the first film, the storyline is more or less resolved, without ever having watched any of the sequels. The films were probably made that way, so that if they were flops at the box office, they'd still be complete. The 2nd and 3rd films actually form part 1 and 2 of a longer, secondary story. You can't just watch part 1, you have to watch part 2 and resolve the clifthanger at the end of part 1.
Star Wars and The Matrix trilogies have another common element. In each, a member of the good guys has to be rescued before the "real story" can continue.
Cool, eh?
In the essay, the authors describe the film as belonging to a "master genre" rather than a "consensus genre". A consensus genre is mainly described the the setting (e.g Westerns, SciFi, Detective Stories, et cetera), whereas a master genres (such as Tragedy, Romance, Comedy and Irony/Satire) deal with tone, narrative, and audience expectations. the authors put the first film in the master genre of "Romance". Because you type out a hasty reply, saying that it wasn't a Barbara Cartland or Joan Collins type story, I should point out that "Romance" means something different here. To quote the essay:
The Romance, as a master genre, is quest story, and attempt to discover something as crucial one's identity or to save one's society from a fallen existence if not a certain doom. The protagonist of Romance undergoes a series of trials, through the course of which his or her true character is fully revealed...
...The Matrix is unproblematically a Romance. It is a quest narrative, and like so many quest narratives it combines three classic themes: the discovery, initiation, and self-realisation of the true hero, the threat to rightful community, and the eventual romantic union of the hero and heroine, which also symbolizes or at least signals the triumph of their community over the evil forces that had threatened it.
(pages 190-191)Now I think this is partly what makes the first film so appealing. As we watch the film, we see the main character (Neo) learn about reality and himself, in the stages mentioned above. We see him grow, and identify with him in the process.
The secrets that are revealed in the 1st film are crucial ones, about what the Matrix is, and how it works. In the 2nd and 3rd films, none of the revelations are crucial in the same way that they are in the first film. rather, they add to the knowledge already gained. Whereas in the first film, Neo is still playing with the role he's been given, in the 2nd and 3rd films, he's already accepted these.
And there's the difference. The first film may have been a "Romance", but the 2nd and 3rd ones seem to be "War" films, in which sides are set and while there may be twists and turns, there is no real further revelation. And because our expectations were raised after the first film, we expected more "Romance" films in the series. In a "romance version of the 3rd film, we would have had more startling revelations, like Zion and reality being just another Matrix; or that there was no war, and that humanity had voluntarily put itself in the Matrix because it'd ruined the Earth.
Hence the disappointment felt by many, because the 2nd and 3rd films didn't match those expectations. It was like when they released Shock Treatment, a "sort of" sequel to Rocky Horror. Everyone was expecting Rocky Horror II, and instead what they got was a brilliant satire about Television. Good, perhaps, but not good enough -- where were the fun transvestites, the sexual innuendo, and all the other elements? Whether they wanted to be or or not, audiences were disappointed.
And it's the same for some folk with Reloaded and Revolutions. They're not the same as The Matrix, nor were they intended to be.
It's interesting too, to look at the structure of the trilogy. Trilogies like The Lord of the Rings can be seen as an "intended trilogy" as all three parts need to be watched to fully appreciate (and resolve) the storyline. Contrast this with trilogies such as the original Star Wars, Back to the Future and The Matrix, which might be called an "opportunistic trilogy".
In each case, the first film in the trilogy (now considered "episode IV" for Star Wars) is a "stand-alone" film. If you watch the first film, the storyline is more or less resolved, without ever having watched any of the sequels. The films were probably made that way, so that if they were flops at the box office, they'd still be complete. The 2nd and 3rd films actually form part 1 and 2 of a longer, secondary story. You can't just watch part 1, you have to watch part 2 and resolve the clifthanger at the end of part 1.
Star Wars and The Matrix trilogies have another common element. In each, a member of the good guys has to be rescued before the "real story" can continue.
Cool, eh?