Coalescent

I was wondering that, too. :)

(And there is no way you read the whole article that fast. Unless you cheated.)

From:

applez.livejournal.com

hehehehe...I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

btw, 'Dog Soldiers' was on last night on SciFi ... soooo cool! I'm probably going to have to fail my budgetary discipline and buy it next chance I get. :-)

----

From:

Dog Soldiers

It is great. But a word of advice: Don't rent it on a cold winter's night when you're on your way to a house in the middle of the woods you've never been to before that is inhabited only by a beautiful yet mysterious woman. I'm just sayin'. Might be a bit disquieting.

From:

I have no idea if it's available on the R1 DVD but the director/writer/cast commentary is a hoot.

From:

scribeoflight.livejournal.com

That's an enormous article - I'll bookmark it, and return to it later... But the bits I've read sound quite intriguing. I'm just not sure how much of it was intended by the creators... (Also, I haven't actually seen it, so I can't really comment).

From:

I'm just not sure how much of it was intended by the creators...

I would wonder about this too. Since Roberts does (briefly) categorise his theory in theological terms I'm tempted to treat his account as a classic example of Christian apologetics: there are certain facts that are unarguable, (for Christians, the text of the gospels, for example - for Matrix fans, the two Matrix films we've seen so far,) and there are certain facts we want to be true, (for Christians, that evidence for a plethora of Christian beliefs is to be found in the gospels - for Matrix fans, that the second film is as good as the first,) so endless abstract theorising is necessary to reconcile the facts with what we want to be true. Roberts' article seems to be an exercise in explaining why a film we thought was a bit of a let down is actually great, because it's all about being a bit of a let down.

(And part of me wants to believe him too. The film was a bit of a let down for me, so any argument that means it isn't is worth considering.)

The post-climactic stuff is an interesting take on the film, and something that's worth thinking about if (when?) I do watch it again, so thanks

coalescent for pointing this article out. Though I'm far from convinced that it was intentional on the Wachowski's part.

I'm not sure about the Nietzschean interpretation, but then, I'm not sure about Nietzsche. Last time I tried to read Nietzsche I got three pages in, up to the point where someone had scrawled in the margin "Professor Williams said that reading Nietzsche was like being trapped alone in a train carriage with a raving mad man. He was right." And he was right. Nietzsche was barking.

I can see what 'recurrence' means in The Matrix Reloaded, but what does it mean when he says that we all live our lives over and over again? Unless he's talking real science fiction stuff, as in The Matrix Reloaded, then I can't make head nor tail of what Nietzsche's on about, and hence, I don't know what it means to apply his thought to the film, apart from highlighting an obvious plot point.

From:

Roberts' article seems to be an exercise in explaining why a film we thought was a bit of a let down is actually great, because it's all about being a bit of a let down.

Yes, I did notice that. :-)

but what does it mean when he says that we all live our lives over and over again?

If I understood correctly, the argument is that in an infinite universe, everything must happen repeatedly - eventually everything will happen, and you'll just go round again. But that doesn't make any sense, because (a) surely there are an infinite number of things that can happen? and (b) what about entropy?

This is why I didn't do philosophy.

I agree that it's not necessarily intentional on the part of the Wachowski brothers. I can't quite believe that when they were writing the burly brawl, they said "Right. We need this to go on much longer than is necessary and, in fact, begin to bore people because then it will reflect the larger structure of the plot." I think they just wanted a kick-ass fight scene.

I'm not sure whether Roberts really is a devotee of the theory that art can contain interpretations the auteur didn't put in there, or whether he just likes seeing how far he can stretch an idea. A bit of both, I suspect.

From:

but what does it mean when he says that we all live our lives over and over again?

If I understood correctly, the argument is that in an infinite universe, everything must happen repeatedly - eventually everything will happen, and you'll just go round again. But that doesn't make any sense, because (a) surely there are an infinite number of things that can happen? and (b) what about entropy?

Hmm, yes. I got as far as you did with it, and came up against the same problems. I understood his theory of infinite recurrence in an infinite universe, but can't grasp what that means in the context of everything else philosophy and physics tells us about the fabric of the universe. I can't make it make sense on a metaphysical or literal level, so am left a bit stumped. Is he saying that we, personally, actually relive our lives over and over again? How? Why don't I remember doing this? What about time, does that 'repeat' too? Too many questions, not enough answers.

This is why I didn't do philosophy.

No, I've got the same problem as you here, and I did do philosophy. But the type of philosophy I did was about pinning things down and trying to make them make sense, trying to ferret out some kind of truth about the universe. It seems to me that Nietzsche was mostly spouting waffly metaphors, (though I've not studied him in any great detail, so am not exactly in a position to comment).

From:

something that's worth thinking about if (when?) I do watch it again

Iiiiiimaaaax...... there's no if about it, surely?

From:

something that's worth thinking about if (when?) I do watch it again

Iiiiiimaaaax...... there's no if about it, surely?

If I'm honest, no, no, there is no doubt.

(I cannot resist!)

From:

Mmm, freeway carnage on a giant screen.

(Mmm, Monica Belucci on a giant screen)

From:

I feel we're getting a bit off-topic here.

On second thoughts, you're arguing you have no choice but to go and see the IMAX version. You're arguing you have no free will, and your actions are predetermined.

Carry on. :)

From:

Mmm, freeway carnage on a giant screen.

Mmm, yes!

(Mmm, Monica Belucci on a giant screen)

(Mmm, Carrie Ann Moss on a giant screen.)

Yes indeed, I have no mind of my own, and am a slave to the Matrix marketing hype. But who needs free will when you've got that car chase on the big, big screen?

From:

(Mmm, Carrie Ann Moss on a giant screen.)

Also acceptable.

Just checked the google cache of the BFI website (actual website doesn't seem to be working for me) and it says 4th July release date!

Squuuuuuueeeeeeeee! :D

From:

truecatachresis.livejournal.com

Mmm, Carrie Ann Moss and Keanu Reaves in full sockets-and-all cyber-fetish sweaty glory on a giant screen?

Mmm, perhaps not. Although Carrie Ann Moss's leather-clad arse on a giant screen, mmm, yes.

From: