blog22

The movies the Matrix and eXistenZ are both controversial films that question the concept of reality in their own ways. There might be several argumentative points to this discussion, but for me, The Matrix takes the cake.
In the essay "Penetrating Keanu", Cynthia Freeland argues that The Matrix is no more than an "infantile" movie that teaches the audience nothing new and that the real message is behind the film eXistenZ. She claims that not only is it a sexist movie, but has no connection with the human body and flesh as it apparently does in eXistenZ. She goes on to say that the meaning of the movie is basically clouded by all the special effects incorporated into the film. On top of that she feels that Trinity's character is insignificant, not having the female role she'd desire, being a feminist and all, so ultimately eXistenZ gets named the better film.
The only thing i can say i agree with her on is that fact that we're given the illusion that Trinity is a strong independent character, when in fact, she just plays sidekick to Neo and his attempt to "save humanity". I'm not a feminist myself, but Freeland does make a point in saying that Trinity is nothing more than a "love interest" and "decorative". She's supposed to be this famous tough hacker, but beside fighting off an agent, we never really see her do much of anything else. Regardless of anything i still like the movie The Matrix and all the characters and their significance despite of anything Freeland says. She's holding eXistenZ at a much higher value simply because she believes it has a closer connection to the human body and our perception of reality, but it's really just her personal opinion which i mostly do not agree with.
I believe The Matrix is more culturally relevant on account of the strong reference it has to the development and use of technology. eXistenZ is based on this silly game that is manipulated through a rather gruesome looking "bioport", which i would never use had i the choice to, and the question of whether or not the events that took place in the movie were in fact reality or not were NEVER answered. With The Matrix, we at least know that it's a computer generated world and that in their real world, everyone is "asleep". Whether or not the characters themselves can tell if what they're experiencing is really real, at least we can, which i appreciate. I didn't like the fact that i wasted an hour and a half of my time watching a movie that i thought was going to be simplified in the end, I wont discredit the director for the effort of a "twist", but either way i still didn't like the movie or it's concept. Maybe it was because i simply didn't understand it, but i still felt it was pointless and would MOST definitely never say it was better than The Matrix.
Truthfully, i was about nine to ten years old when The Matrix came out, so i was mainly focused on all the special effects and the action of the movie, not it's philosophical insinuations. Now that i know and understand it's significance and the correlation it has to this society becoming mind slaves of technology, i can relate to it on a much deeper level. Freeland argues the difference between the films being the importance and distinction between reality and the "illusory reality", when if you ask me, you can't really distinguish that difference with eXistenZ because they don't blatantly declare their actual reality. I think most of Freeland's arguments would be justified had they been practical and had she had unbiased reasons. I don't think she can really make an argument on whether or not one movie valued or depicted reality in a much clearer form, because either way, both films were relating to very similar concepts.
The Matrix isn't the best movie in the world, but in comparison to eXistenZ, it's definitely a better choice for taking a 2hour and 16min vacation from your own reality into a world full of mind boggling questions !