The Matrix was a movie that I saw at my uncles house about 7 years ago. I was amazed at how the special effects were so advance at that time. At first glimpse it seem just like an action thriller. However, the Matrix is just another superhero archetype. According to Linda Seger, a hero myth follows a certain recipe. I saw matrix as the perfect example of these set of instructions. In the matrix, Neo is a reluctant hero whose journey begins when he receives a message instructing him to “follow the white rabbit.” This first contact ignites Neo’s curiosity. He is afraid and reluctant until a mentor is brought upon him in the form of “Trinity” and “Mofeus.” He then enters into a new world with many test and obstacles on the way.
Archive for January, 2010
This piece was particulary interesting because it related heroes in film with our personal experience. Linda Seger states in her essay that “myths” are stories lived and experience by everyone one way or another. She explains that “myths” is the reason why people go see these hero movies over and over again. One of her examples is the hero myth. She explains the classic myth is like a “mission or a task.” This task that the hero sets out to do relates to our normal everyday task. Her argument some what parrellels with that of Virginia Prostrel’s because she says that these movies are an escape from the mundane. She goes on to explains different types of myths. This essay and recent essays are all about why hero movies are so successful. In my opinion they all point out the same thing. That hero movies appeal to the people by relating to their everyday life in a more exciting way.
In Superhero Worship, Virginia Postrel explains why superhero films are so successful and why it appeals to so many people. He proposes that Superhero flicks, much like those movies of the “Golden Age” give off a sense of “glamour”. As fan of superhero movies myself, glamour is not as important as the glory that comes with being a superhero. Glamour as a word just seems too superficial. Glory has more meaning; in the sense that you had to overcome some sort of great obstacle to be where you are. People go to movies to see the glory of superheroes. Glamour is just something made possible through special effects, makeup, costume. Glamour or Glory? I want to know what you think.
25 years ago, Vivian C. Sobchack wrote an essay on how the “new” screen violence of 1960s and 1970s had a different and more meaningful representation than “classical” movies. Now in her most recent essay “The Postmorbid Condition”, she argues that 20th century movies have more emphasis on the thrill that violence invokes rather than the hidden meaning it can bring out. She calls Quentin Tarantino’s style “senseless” and merely for “comedic effect”. I believe that Tarantino is a master of violence and quirky comedy. He provides a perfect balance between the two and makes it extremely enjoyable to watch. This is his style and he is good at what he does. Furthermore, arguing that movies are losing its meaning in violence cannot be based off several selected films. Movies like Avatar, and the not so recent, Boyz in the Hood, touch the human emotion within us. ”. It is not just senseless splattering of blood and gore; through violence and tragic death, these movies definitely teach us something “real”. In my opinion, violence in today’s movies still show us this “realness” that Sobchack believes it lacks.
My name is Duy Pham. I am cooler than Duy Nguyen. Nice to you!