In "Penetrating Keanu" Cynthia Freeland argues in her comparison of The Matrix and Existenz that The Matrix, though "sleeker" is actually more "infantile" emotionally and philosophically and that, really, we have very little that is new to learn from the film. What reasons does she give for this claim? What evidence does she supply? Do you agree with her or not? Why or why not? Write a multi-paragraph blog entry engaging with Freeland's arguments.
before starting this blog i would have to say that my arguement may seem a bit incomplete since i've never seen Existenz, and although i have a small amount of helpful data in comparision to the different styles of the films. I would still need to see it to deliver a full subjective viewpoint.
However I understand what cynthia freeland is saying when she bashes the matrix. Although the movie is trying to deliver something new its still typical hollywood bullshit. The main protaganist (Neo)and supporting female role (Trinity) fit the stereotypes that we all know and...love. She doesnt agree with the way they describe the matrix, in my opinion she see's it as an excuse to throw in the special abilities these characters have while inside.And in short she's basically saying she preferes the way existenz handled many of the things she feels the matrix failed at. i cant bash the matrix because admittedly i liked it alot maybe im some sort of "geeky young male who yearns autonomy and super powers" as she so elequently puts it, but i cant compare it to existenz because i havent seent yet. But that goes without saying that i agree with some of her points so far, the matrix is a bit flashy, and sometimes i feel like its trying to balance style with meaning but thats only sometimes but either way it succeeds admirably. That being said the matrix is still a good film with interesting meanings behind everything. so until i see existenz...
