Where Have Wachowskies Been Hurtling Toward?

From Bound Through Matrix To Speed Racer
by Mehmet Cihan Yalcin

A few weeks ago, we were discussing with Anil his post about difficulties of dissenting from the norm, where I heartily agree with the principles he mentions. More heartily than he does in fact. So much so that he accuses me of “thinking that I have nothing to learn from anybody”. The statement is unjust, naturally, yet there is a grain of truth in it: The fact that I would not sift through tons of mud to find the grain of truth in anything that anyone says.

There are people who put so much weight on grains of truth. What matters for me are grains of falsities, because one single tiny contradiction in a logical train of reasoning allows you to prove anything. One can find elegant examples of this mathematical fact in those fun “1=0” or “all triangles are equilateral” proofs. Actually if one looks the right way one can find this happening everywhere in our lives, as Basin City Senator Roark puts forth so well in his brilliant soliloquy. Accept one untruth and you lose all the meaning in every discourse associated with it. I cannot live with them. So when I hear an assertion what I dig for immediately is flaws, not insights. When they exist, the assertion is nothing to me. Consequently I disregard most of the stuff I read or hear, almost immediately.

That includes almost all of the praise I've read or heard about the Wachowskis since The Matrix.

So you now know that this critique will be a negative one. If you think “all our ridiculous analysis doesn't hold up to the smiles on your children's' faces when you left the theater” and that's that, you'd better not waste any more time reading this. Otherwise, here's my perspective on Wachowskis' journey through cinema.


For quite some time, every project of the Wachowskis have attracted immediate, widespread attention, from the moment they were announced. The duo had been the target of so much acclaim, focus of so much expectation and the center of so great hype that people are loathe to directly criticize them or their work. Although they were not in the director's seat, Assassins* was Wachowskis' brainchild more than Donner's: The film included something original, something that Wachowskis brought with them to cinema. It was a new, refreshing, and most important of all, an intelligent take on several cliché characters and plots, which had become cliché due to their inherent riveting nature. They managed to put the unprecedented twist to their already interesting subject matter that could grasp the viewers and pull them through the thrill ride. Although the film wasn't technically or dramatically anything special, one could see there was a bud in it waiting to blossom and offer something groundbreaking.


It did not take too long to do so: Bound**, the directorial debut of Wachowskis was far more than solid all around. In it, there were film noir clichés that we loved, with new faces and facets. The dupe lead, the femme fatale, the twitchy, flamboyant and no-nonsense mafioso types, cunning plans that horribly fall apart, they all were there, in a never-before-seen way. Yes, tempo falters in the latter half, yes the ending is rather weak, but in the end the film is nothing short of astonishing. Sadly though, its reception was disheartening. The reviews at the time were mixed, although in time they shifted strongly toward praise. The real letdown were the revenues, which drove the message home: It was not complexity and intelligence, clever references and twists -which the film had aplenty- that was going to sell their movies, nor controversial themes and characters. Challenge the viewers more than they'd like, and they shun your film.


The application of the idea did soon follow. It was The Matrix***, for which they received unparalleled attention. They took some concepts from the underappreciated cyberpunk literature and drew inspiration from several films containing some bright ideas. Then, instead of carving their mark of intelligence intricately on them as they did so before; they beat them on an anvil of special effects with a hammer of stylishness, till they had no depth at all. And the hype was everywhere even before the film was released: computers this, style that, zounds of cameras whatever. Then everyone was uttering half-baked, unjust, borrowed words of praise for a visually polished, well-paced action movie that had no merits plot-wise whatsoever, and very little in the name of acting. Of course, the film does merit serious analysis that I do not intend to fill this article with, but let me at least underline one aspect that disturbs me to no end: Anil in his “Against the Current” article told of “the phenomenon of loving a film for all the wrong reasons”, stating that “...when the reasons behind the film's brilliance is reduced to [the wrong reasons], counter arguments will focus less on the actual noteworthy aspects. The whole discussion will be rendered less fertile and more futile.”. The focus on the “philosophical connotations” of The Matrix is exactly this.

Because speaking of philosophical depth in The Matrix tells me only of philosophical shallowness of the speaker. Merely alluding to a discourse from antiquity, which has been transcended in every conceivable way does not entail philosophical depth. Epistemology has far more interesting and exciting discourses, some of which are active even recently. Of course, it is remarkable that people with no interest in high and mighty topics of philosophy are somehow introduced to an idea which has been influential for some time, but this is neither the aim nor the strong point of the film. There is merely a rather stale idea, presented without adding anything extraordinary or goading the viewer to think deeper on the subject. Had I not been subjected to this vein of discussions on the film (and the lengths to which a fad can be dragged is inconceivable for me, seeing books published on “philosophy of Matrix”, and worse, people -pretending to be- reading them, runs metal fingers on a blackboard in my head) I would consider it according to the visuals and action sequences, resulting in a rating of 5-6, whereas when I dig for depth and intelligence (in the aforementioned subject) I find nothing, consequently the film falls to my 3-4 range.

There was one extraordinary aspect though: Its accessibility. I'll quote the late George Carlin here: “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.” With The Matrix, Wachowskis did. And they also learned that avoiding insulting the intelligence of any potential watcher is a moneymaker. You can make people feel good through simplicity, simplicity that does not merely border stupidity but dives deep into its uncharted territories. Especially if you can label it as sophistication.

Why Mr. Anderson?

Sequels of The Matrix**** failed -though not miserably enough- not because they lacked the strengths of The Matrix, but rather because they merely repeated them. Expectations were high, originality was low, and visual thrills were mediocre, considering the high standard set by the first film. The thing fizzled, leaving even the fans of the first film disappointed. However they did yield enough revenues to let Wachowskis stick with the principle.

Then comes the vaunted V for Vendetta*****: the veracious vivification of Wachowskis' variation from vibrant to vacuous. Here what they do is the exact reverse of what they did in Assassins or Bound: Take an original work of high complexity, and make it accessible, simple. But what we end up with is a film that, after a brilliant beginning, drags through a dull period to end in a disappointingly meaningless manner. The interaction between V and Evey fails to be the philosophical discourse that it's supposed to be, and ends up reminiscing the shallow romances of '50s. Worse yet, the credibility of the events portrayed diminish constantly through the film suct that the ending is beyond absurd. Sadly, this is not the first film by Wachowskis that begins with enormous promise, only to lose power as it progresses.

Only now can we reach the film that instigated this article: Speed Racer****** - although my outburst about The Matrix obviously stole its thunder. Before watching the movie, I was as skeptical as Anil was hopeful - while he was criticizing the way Stephanie Zacharek berated the film, I was sure I was going to share her opinion. When I began watching the film I was pleasantly surprised. The visuals were a magnificent representation of an anime atmosphere in a feature film. From vibrant action, inventive slides, brilliant use of effects and colours to the plasticity of the characters, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory-esque company tour, and thrilling, well-paced action sequence starring Racer-X the first 34 minutes was a veritable fun, filled with all sorts of eye candy.


Then came the ordinary feel-good stuff: lightweight romance, family relationship stuff, exaggerated moral tones integrated in the supremely shallow plot and of course the pointless antics of the entirely inane kid and his monkey. Dull characters are forced into drama at points, dispersing all the momentum. Moreover, the “better”, “more human” acting by Susan Sarandon and Christina Ricci in fact harms the film than helps: Their acting robs the film of its entirely artificial feel, mars the integrity in style, and underline the failings of everything around them.

Before the treatment (left) and after the treatment (right)

Wachowskis has also been very successful at capturing the weakness in the anime that turned me off as a kid: The mind-numbing monotony, the repetitiveness and predictability of the action sequences. This is acceptable in a low-budget anime that recycles themes and even scenes, but failing to or refraining from introducing anything more than what has been shown in the first half hour in a feature film is inexcusable. Anil was spot-on in much of his criticism, and probably the only reason I rate this film higher than him is that I know the original anime and I admire what the Wachowskis did with it, if only for a quarter of the running time of the film.

Recently I told Anil that “the psyches of Wachowskis have been irreparably marred by the events that followed the release of The Matrix”. It was a joke, and was received as such, but when I think about it, that was what happened, for all intents and purposes concerning me. From then on they would give up adding intellect to what was done in the past and increasing the complexity of their subject matter, they would strive to remove the complexity while retaining a self-serious demeanor, rather than admitting their work is a caricature the way Tarantino does. With Speed Racer, which was refreshingly original, I am now hopeful that they will dare create something interesting in the future, something not only clever and creative, but strong through and through. I sincerely wish that they will relinquish the role of mainstream heroes they embraced with The Matrix, and return to their dissident magnificence they showed in Bound.

*Assassins
6/10

**Bound
8/10

***The Matrix:
3/10

****The Matrix Reloaded
1/10

****The Matrix Revolutions
1/10

*****V for Vendetta
4/10

******Speed Racer
6/10