Dark City Strangers vs. The Matrix Agents

I saw Dark City recently. It is clearly one of the larger, if not the largest inspiration for the Matrix. I have some questions on the villians.....

1) If they were to get in a fight, who would win?
2) Which Stranger do you think was the main inspitation for Agent Smith? Mr. Hand or Mr. Book?

__________________
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" - Howard Beale

ahhh its too hard, if the strangers were part of the matrix then the agents but in real life uhh

my head hurts

Rah, what a great modern b-movie! Is there another thread for Dark City around then?

I reckon...

1) Um, the Agents come across as harder, no doubt (man were those special effects funny in DC. I'm so proud to be british right now ) But...if the Strangers could change reality, they could alter any physical components that generate the matrix and/or make up the machines. So they'd probably win. But damn, test-tubes of thought-juice just don't cut it compared to stalking pod-pickers and all the mind-bending bizarreness the brothers added.


2) It's gotta be the one who received the injection of "John" (john the one - woohoo) - mr hand (was it?)


DC was a brave stab, but the bros have made so much more of the potential. Their story might ultimately add up (like, how were the strangers going to become immortal thru learning about individuality? It was never explained i don't think). Just on over-all message Matrix wins it so far, for linking technology/humanity themes and maya/deception stuff i.e. more down to earth stuff ultimately (and better images than a small, floating city in space. It drifted off into scientologist silliness really. And the message that we are "more than our memories" seemed more escapist than activist really. Shame)

Still, cool recommendation. I spiral my admire-al

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

By the way, SPOILERS!!!!



Thanks so much for watching the movie! I'm glad you liked it. I thought you would.

A few notes (As I've been waiting for this for a while)(I won't overload you right away...so just a few comments on what you said):

I think the Strangers would win as well. (altering reality...)

Yes, that was Mr. Hand (although Neo's final fight with Smith is largeky based upon the battle with Mr. Book, the larger Stranger, near the end of the film. Still, you can see the similarity between the final exchange between each of the protagonists and their respective antagonists and how each antagonist is finally disposed of).

Now comments on you're individual comments:

Individuality was only a portion of the larger goal. The Strangers thought they could discover the secrets of the human soul by performing psychological experiments on the humans they had captured. They were desperate for a means to keep up their existance. They were dying off. There tragic flaw was they didn't understand how humans operate, and thus the experiments on the humans had little bearing on their living longer (quite the opposite in fact).

I didn't think the floating city was all that silly. I thought it was kind of cool. I enjoyed it more than the familiar images of earth. A matter of preference really.

While "we are much more than our memories" is a large theme, it is not the only one, much less the largest one. It shares many of the same themes with the Matrix, such as freedom, deception and many more. If anything, it is as deep as the Matrix (maybe Deeper).

The Matrix is a brilliant landmark film, mind you, but just imagine how brilliant Dark City is for coming up with the concepts used in the Matrix. Also, where the Matrix has action, Dark City has plot and character development. Although I love the Matrix, I'd have to say that Dark City is the better of the two. It is a much darker/noirish movie (and I really go for the tech-noir by the way), and is the more original of the two. The brothers did add lots of things to the movie, like the creepy stalks of people, as well as many other now classic elements, and for that I thank them. They put together a great piece of film. But lets not forget that the Matrix is built upon the skeleton of Dark City.

Oops, yeah, more SPOILERS...(and some mad philosophy too )

Ahh, i see, you're saying it was a search for our "immortal soul" they were after - via those tests of personalities in different contexts. I see how that works, i suppose, tho it doesn't quite work for me coz i don't believe in the traditonal christian idea of a soul (i.e. a personality that is immortal). I prefer more hindu-style interpretations that say each individual body filters the spirit of god differently - so there is no consistant/immortal personality across time as such, more re-inventions and expressions of "life force" (or however you care to conceive it. Physics force. Whatever). The re-incarnation idea in buddism is interesting, but even the Matrix boys don't suggest that each One is the same One, (instead, buddism says that your actions will determine how you re-incarnate, but again i'm not sure they believe in consistant personality across time, except in special cases like the Buddha etc and others who can perceive the people they were)

Still, I'm not belittling this film. I can see huge inspirations for the matrix. Everything from: the telephone at the start being used to contact the now "awakened" John; his mastery of the environment (which needs to be learned/controlled and not just be emotional/responsive etc); the near-all pervasiveness and sinistersness of the strangers; their inability to comprehend many aspects of the human psyche i.e. being "unemotional"; the cross-over between Hand and John's make-up (where J comes out on top) etc etc etc

Yeah, i picked on the "memories" one coz (again, i can see it backing up the "immortal soul" idea) i felt it was one the bros left out, and also that it's a philosophy that i just personally don't believe in. You should accept your memories/actions, if they're of things you've done, tho of course we all have to be scrupulous about how we remember/rationalise past events etc

Loads of other themes that are vital to the matrix are all there tho, like you say. Like: enslavement via perceptual manipulation, exploitation of humans by a manipulative but uncomprehending, overly rational/scientific "race" (that a message i see in both of the films anyway)

I'd plump for the Matrix (series) being the better and "deeper" film(s). I felt all of their loose ends were there for a reason (i may well feel differently if no. 3 doesn't resolve/re-touch on enough of them tho) whereas DC didn't seem to present a complete/multi-interpretable set of allegories in the same way the Ms have. DC plays the still-not-"understood"-nature-of-humans off against the merely "other" aliens, hence making it a another them-vs-us and they're real bad (so we're real good) scenario. I prefer the Ms use of this mysterious human condition that is ours being compared with the relevant threat of over-technolization (dunno if that's a word - i'm genuinly pro science and technology - it's just i feel that human nature, and the limitations of these processes, are combining in a negative way at the moment and desperately need to be re-assessed)

For these reasons, and others, the M-series speaks about more relevant, yet difficult and profuse topics for me. DC was a cool thought experiment, and started the ball rolling. The bros picked up the ball and realised they could juggle with it to teach us about how magic deceives us - if you'll excuse the dodgy metaphor.

Alright, i admit, the island did make a nice change from the old earth image etc etc, (but it sort of made me think of a dream-world even more, rather than a workable allegory for our situation in reality)

Sorry to bang on. Bring on your real deliberations then, now you're back in town

On the Immortal soul: Regardles of what you or I believe, that was their motive. It was stated in the movie that that was what they were looking for (I'm almost certain anyway). What you believe personally is irrelevant. (And you could've just said you were Hindu. Just because I'm a Christian it doesn't mean that I'm completely ignorant to other religions . Nice explanation though, if not irrelevant)

On the "them-vs-us": I think it is important to note that the aliens weren't as a whole classified as evil. (Although some, just like in humans, are. One such example is Mr. Hand, who is psychotic and evil). Thank you for bringing this up though. The Matrix (of the two) is much more black and white in terms of good and evil. All of the humans (save one) are for the most part characterized as pure, no matter how much they disagree. All of the computers are evil and ruthless, (or at least completely cold hearted). The characters in Dark City are diverse in their morals and characterization. Humans are dipected as everything from weak to superhuman. I felt that Dark City was by far the better character wise. (There is much more development, while the Matrix has action instead).

Aside from that, cool. The Matrix has done wnders with this wonderful concept.

Yeah sorry, i didn't mean it to sound quite so offensive to christianity (or so patronising). It is just my preference. Oh, altho i'm not hindu. I'm a voodoo mystic so i am (tho i don't believe in voodoo, as such Sorry, any time i say i believe something, i often seem to believe plenty of things that disagree with it too. Inconsistant i know, but at least consistantly. Normally )

We'll have to agree to disagree again (tho "U-571" is still awaiting your yardstick )

Who were the amiable/"good" aliens? I don't remember any. And Mr Hand doesn't seem to be reprimanded for his psychoticness (remember the little alien being shown carving the woman too, suggesting that all the aliens were capable of this etc) - it's only when he's acting all "human" and inexplicable that they have a problem with him

Well that's the same as the M then. Humans are depicted as everything from weak to superhuman too. In fact there's no human in DC that's actually shown to be truly viscious/"evil" (which we can be), whereas in matrix at least one is incredibly amoral/"evil". Even the evil doctor turns to good in DC.

Other human failings are addressed in the matrix thru: Morpheus's failing of faith (dogma?); the previous Ones consigning the Zions to destruction; and the extention of human behaviour which i believe the Mhuhbuvbuaunb (french-accented-bloke) and his lady represent (with all their murder and manipulation). But you're right, there are no real bad guys amongst the humans. They're all super-rebel/best-of-the-best types.

I agree that for character development/personalities DC did more in one film than the M series has done in 2 (but c'mon, keanu reaves is the lead! What d'ya espect?). But the Matrices have action and analogy - which for me still packs a more powerful punch. If only the DC crew could have made the aliens represent or echo something more pertinent. Like something about ourselves, or denial, or hiding in your dreams or what you want to believe etc. Instead, altho it created the structure which Matrixbuilt itself on in many core ways, it doesn't deliver any over-all messages i don't think - or at least not with any final impact.

What did you think the film makers wanted to say with this film?

I'm post my answers tomorrow. I just wanted you to know I'm not ignoring you.

Very well my dark-side-of-the-earth chum. I shall await you re-emergance into the light (wish i'd seen this earlier tho coz i've just challenged u to continue our fight on the "U-571" topic)

Guess i'll just sit up all night, as i delight too, til you come into view

Sorry I hadn't gotten to this sooner. I'm gonna have to do this real quick...or try....(U-571 can wait)

I'm too much of a hurry to quote, so excuse my paraphrasing:

Believe me, you didn't offend me at all. I'm very hard to offend most of the time. But there is no agreeing to disagree on the topic (at least in the movie) as it was clearly shown that the movie included thoughts on the human soul. (Maybe you were talking about disagreeing on our choice of religion, in which case, it is all good)

The aliens as a collective were shown as curious. They weren't familiar with how the humans worked, and were experiments as such. (The only truely evil aliens were the ones we see for the majority of the film. The death squad of ruthless killers Mr. Book sends out into the city is probably what just about everyone basis their opinions of the aliens on)

On Mr. Hand - while all of Mr. Hands team were ruthless and psychotic, Mr. Hand was always the worst. This is amplified by the fact that he gets injected with the serum that contains the essence of a killer. He becomes even more of a monster. (At the very least, he was the most cunning of the alien team)

On the Matrix: True. Most of the humans are the best of the best in the Matrix, while this isn't the case in Dark City. This is because DC adopts a more noirish feel and plot. Noir characters are known for being weak, or at least diverse and dark. (Not to mention my point is based upon the Matrix and DC, while you seem to be using examples from Reloaded)

On you're conclusion: While it is very well thought out, I disagree. You seem to be looking for something deep about the Martix. While the "don't let machines get the better of you" idea is part of the movie, it is also part of the movie in Terminator. The point of both of these movies is not to stir the mind, but to entertain and be memorable in its action. The theology and "fear machines" ideas are used as nothing more than a plot device, or something to make the film more interesting. The Brothers themselves have admitted to this. The film is beautiful and succeeds on this level. DC is a more deep movie. It asks questions like "who are we really" and such things. But in the end, those are still plot devices. The beauty of this film is its feel, its mood, its development, and its surprise. I imagine if I thought hard enough, I could find something that the strangers symbolize. But the beauty of the movie is that they don' have to. They are largely just a device used to explore these ideas and points on man and experiment in film.

I've noticed that you seem to pick out the wrong things in movies. In U-571, you picked out historical problems while it was meant to entertain, and in the Matrix you focused on deep thoughts and philosophy while it is meant to dazzle. While both of these things you focused on are parts of the movie, they aren't the largest part, or even a large part. Heck, they are a parts that the directors don't even really care if you care about. You have to understand what a film is meant to do, and what the director meant for the film to be. If you don't grasp this, you are limiting you're horizons in film.

Yeah, cool. I think you're right that the film want's to say that. I was sort of putting forward my muddled point that i don't see that as a valid description of the human condition (from my interests in neurology, psychology etc etc, and hell, before all that, people). Ultimately this revolves around a spiritual perception tho - so you're right - the agree to disagree thing was over the nature of the human mind (and our "souls"). So we won't get anywhere with that

Yeah. I agree that the aliens were portrayed as curious (but again, i felt in a parodying way. i.e. their curiosity was ham-fisted and destructive and manipulative without trying to shift their way of understanding. I saw this as a fairly direct criticism of inappropriate technology use in reality etc.

I'm not sure having a scale of "evil" from the very evil Mr Hand down to the mere minions who traipse after him and also try to kill/capture/manipulate humans works. It seems to me they all followed this objective therefore they are all "evil". We're never given more insight into their motivation other than the (slightly unreasonable) desire to be immortal. They don't come out as very sympathetic

Ok, leaving out reloaded, i was trying to address your point that Matrix is more polarising than DC. I think again, there is actually a sort of mini-noirish set of failings amongst the Zion-lot, equal to the diversity (but ultimately "good-guy" set up) in DC. So basically, i felt them to be very similar in their polarisations (tho you know my opinion that the M uses this polarisation to better real-life-comment effect). They're comparable i'd say (well, DC inspired Matrix after all, as you say)

I still believe the bros haven't gone to all the trouble they have gone to merely produce a bit of involving eye-candy. [im' afraid i have to dip into Reloaded and say that i don't think they would have inserted the "boring" Councillor, Oracle, Merovingian and Architect speeches in if that was there only aim]

Terminator for me is something that used the fear of "invincible-machines", future manipulation gone mad (AI etc) etc as mere plot aids as you say. The Matrix as it set out its stall was fairly similar (but still with more perceptual analogies in the actual "world" they created which already makes it a more thoughtful film than the Terminator series). In Terminator all the time travel and stuff is just a plot device etc.

Yeah, i don't want to try and take away from the things you're saying about DC being a great noir-film. It really is, and marvellously inventive for having come up with this questioning model for who we are. As i've said before my disappointment comes from me not agreeing with the simplifications they ended up with. I don't feel it reflects reality as well as it might of (but they did achieve so much with the idea).

now this is where you're trying to have it all your way Bealey. You can't say this film says things about human nature and that's why it's deep, but then turn around and say only the films you got something out of were the ones where the director/crew/writer etc were going for a bigger target, but in the ones where you didn't it was just a dazzle-fest (run by the directors perogative to engage the viewer visually etc)

I believe matrix tackles more aspects of humanity in some ways (on a more "global" and less personal/characterised scale certainly), and particularly uses its story-world structure to greater effect when representing these issues (the Mayan veil of illusion that the M represents etc). This suggests very involved work between writer and director (and lo-and-behold, the bros are both) (so was the DC director, but he took on more than he could chew i think, ultimately)

Films that dazzle to engage allow all kinds of perceptual shifts to occur "under the surface" of our semi-occupied consciousness in films like "U". I've made my point again and again that movies that allow you to enter a semi-comatose state of engagement are actually the most dangerous in some ways for absorbing perceptual and cognitive slants. That is the ideal hypnotic-state as i understand it. Matrix understands this and makes sure it is visually lavish/active and structurally intriguing enough to draw the viewer in (and, like "U", let them not-question-too-much/absorb other ideas it posits. The Matrices do this deliberately, the "U" style films do a bit of both i.e. they play on common-currency simplifications to allow suspension of disbelief. Reinforcing these beliefs is not their aim, just the result. The Matrices try something more subtle, by setting up more challenging norms, then breaking some of them to keep us on our toes. This allows them to engage us in ideas about consistency/perception/belief etc instead of letting us rest on a palid blanket of simple assertions). We need to return to this on the u-571 argument when you've got time and headspace. I genuinely believe this is important.

The best films (directors, crews, writers etc) use film style and "world-scape" as much as anything to build their complex and insightful views and stories. I think you are underestimating how other films just designed to entertain also acheive a more dubious version of this - by simplifying our norms for example, in cases like "U".

I have to argue still that, across the two matrix films, the bros are addressing a broader swathe of possible interpretations of human nature, the nature of perception, and technological limitations. I believe, despite some silliness, and a smooth style, there is more going on that some glamourised kick-ballet.

My reasons for not getting fully drawn in to/disagreeing with the (central) idea of DC is the "soul" perspective we discussed before, and my corresponding belief that the things that happen to us are intimately tied with who we are, therefore to say "strive beyond your memories to your true self" is a nonsense to me. Within the context of their story-world yes it makes sense, and it is very involving and noirish and enjoyable too. (and addressing, questioning and not surpressing your memories is a valid idea it posits) However, outside this i don't feel it works as a metaphor for human nature as you seem to feel. This is just personal disagreement. But one for me that makes the Matrix a film which has suceeded in making a complex world-structure (which is more than just the directors visual interpretation. Films ARE more than just the process the director is involved in. As a writer i insists Bealey - i think i understand what you're getting at - i just don't think it's the be-all-and-end-all, unless you want a two-dimensional story/3D-world )

DC address an individual's struggle towards self-realisation and the avoidance of manipulation. These are great themes which i believe the matrx and the matrix reloaded took to a different, wider, realm, by polarising things to a more super-human level but addressing the broader issue of HOW we are manipulated in real life, and HOW we decieve ourselves (and WHAT are some of the potential causes of these effects)DC let me down by not giving a valid model for this, despite its far superior characterisation and "human" story.

Whoops. Faaar too long again. Basically:

-Yep the film's about souls (and memories vs personalities it seems to me - which i find strange, when extrapolated to a religious level)

-Nope i don't think the Matrix series are just action films (i think they try and draw you in that way. But their structure shows that they are more than just director-controlled eye-candy and that they are trying to make and break norms within you rather than just build around and supplement them)

-Nope, i don't think films that are dumbed-down don't engage critical mental (often unconscious) faculties and alter opinions this way.

-Yep, DC was still the innovator.

Thank you sooooooooo much! Ok this is much easier.

-Cool.

-That is what the Bros intended for the movie(s). While thats not all they are, you have to realize what was intended for the film in order to appreciate it to the max.

-I do. This goes back to my weak mind comment a loooong time ago in the U-571 debate (which I'll get back to, I promise!)

-Cool.

Heheheh, this is much more civilised isn't it.

-Have to requote this tho...

I believe the Matrixes stretch over far more ground than just that theme. Do you think that is the only one? (aside from the themes of manipulation/self-discovery etc, expressed in different ways in both DC and the Ms)

I think even the memorable action scenes in the matrix have an allegorical flair to them which terminator lacks (outside of just representing that one theme of techno-fear etc). The Matrix...:

--- uses the battery-pod scenes etc and the Agents' take-overs of people and general ubiquity to represent a similar theme.

...but it also....

--- Has "bullet-time", which gives us an appreciation of the world seen from an altered perspective. I know this sounds pretentious, but i believe there is an element of that i.e. in one sense it's showing us part of how Neo's mind/perception has changed etc.

The film microcosmos helps us see the world from insects' eyes. Thought-experiments help us see the world's history as a "day", and special effects can do the same now, to give us fresh understanding of something ["overly"] familiar. These ideas are kind of caught up in this perceptual meddling methinks. A bit .

--- The multiplicity of Agent Smith after his mutation. On one level this is just his "virus"-like growth and increase in power. But seeing as he's got into this state via: being an ambitious-machine that wants to alter his environment and not take orders...plus...receiving some of Neo's intangibly "human" abilities of re-evaluation (or whatever - of accessing spiritual knowledge ).....I'm tempted to think he represents the potential for a human-altered bit of technology (especially one using human genes etc etc) to spread out of control once its novelty is introduced to an un-prepared environment. But that's just me

--- the "code" representation of things paralleling the "atomic" and chemical-scale appreciations of the world etc; [just another nice "perception-experiment". Note how it's particularly suitable during the Merovingmingy speech]



So, i'm afraid i still see more beyond the simplicities of some of the Matrices doors. I think there are more themes and mixtures of some of the above themes too, that add up to these films having plenty to say. Are you so sure you know what the bros intended completely? (ps can you recommend any good interviews you've read with them then. Ta )


-I'm looking forward to your "U" reply. Cheers for chatting

Gg

Altho my post above was mainly a refutation of this and similar points, i feel like refuting some more

Well considering in both these discussions/threads we're talking about the messages convayed and meanings contained within these films, it's a shame you're choosing to focus soley on the directorial aspects.

In "U" the action is almost everything, but never-the-less there are meanings and messages used to sustain/aid this construct which do not soley come from directorial handling of the material [worse meanings/messages too, compared to the matrices i reckon ]. You mustn't forget the "material" itself i.e the writers' work and the actors' input and representation of the ideas.

The Matrices are dazzling, riproaring adventures too, but they're also stuffed with choice goodies. I.e. combined blatent and latent messages and meanings all adding up to a great total picture, where you can get sucked in by certain aspects, or lots of them at once etc. The directorial style (and therefore the action, you seem to be saying) doesn't override the intellectual content in importance Bealey. Read this interview with the bros. I hadn't read what they thought til now, but they seem to be backing some of my assertions anyway

http://www.cleave.com/Sight/The_Matrix/wachowski.htm

Alright. They probably are on almost the same level for plot and depth.

While Dark City has lots more character development, the Matrix more than makes up for it with action.

The intellectual....forget it. Thepoint of my posts is that the Matrix and Dark City are pretty evenly matched films. It all boils down to personal choice.

(Although I think it is very fair to say Dark City is better than Reloaded....I feel some debate....)

I should've done this one. I tried to aviod further debate, as it takes so much time, but you asked so nicely...it wouldn't be proper for me to leave you like this. You are the kind to go down fighting.

As am I.

Of course not! I merely said that this is a very common theme. It is in no way the only theme! (I think I commented else where about how both films have worlds of theme)

We should try to keep this between the Matrix and Dark City...you keep trying to bring in Reloaded....

This is cool and all, but I feel that you are creating meaning for something that was intended to move the plot along or look cool. (One of the joys of the Matrix though is that you can connect several things and it has meaning. I just don't think those specific things were originally meant to be full of meaning)

A VERY nice thought. I'm not sure about the original intention, but a very nice thought.

A few things
1) I think that you are thinking about this way too hard. (But what you come up with is great)
2) A better possible connection is what Smith meant from the beginning. (I'm not suggesting that he did, as I figure this is one of those things that will have fan created meaning, but this is a great thought...). What I mean by this is that out of all of the agents, he is the only one with real personality. While all agents are designed to be calm and cool killers, Smith is semi-psychotic. A unique creature. Why?
3) I think all of this was to make Smith cooler, which he is. (My favorite character from the Matrix by the way....one of my favorite villians ever)

1) This I believe was meant to be. Very nice thought!

I love these little debates. You are pretty cool.

-Beale

Ok, i'll try to stop (maybe ), but reloaded is where the philosphies and plot-structures i'm suggesting in Matrix 1 really become apparent. Altho Matrix1's structure does a much better job of being an analogy for what they're saying, and so sets the scene well (in my interpretation of it - i.e. the one where they are trying to make some points about how we perceive the world and act within the world. Whether you pick up on them or just go for the action is up to each viewer.)

So you think it's just coincidence that there are lots of angles to view and potentials to be mined? I think the majority of what i'm talking about has either been put there deliberately or just allowed to be interpreted that way coz they painted certain things with a broad brush i.e. left you to make up your own mind. I'm not sure for example, how much they intended the "anti"-technology theme to be taken, but by interpreting it thru a kind Tao-ist kind of persepective they get to discuss technologies' influence in numerous spheres. They have a "everything's connected" holistic thing going on, which encourages searching for these links, and makes me believe many were laid down to be found. Who knows what ideas they combined on their big yellow writing pads?

So i'm only guessing at how much is them and how much is me reading into it, but that interview above suggests i'm on the right track. The directorial style, altho definitely intended to be "cool" and part of their passion is by no means the whole picture. The bros were worried this kind of high-brow, more buddisty concept would leave people cold (so sure they went out of their way on the cool factor to keep 'em interested just as much as for their own satisfaction).

I agree with what your saying about smith - but again i believe this could have further meaning. Maybe it's all the time he's spent in the matrix that has humanised his thinking [i don't think he was designed that way by the Arch etc, but maybe he was.]
The suggestion is that Neo was too. Maybe that's the "joke", that setting out to acheive one aim can sometimes inspire a totally opposite but related result i.e. like i've said before Smith represents the worst of the human psyche in some ways (psychotic etc like you say) and the most uncontrollable aspects of some technologies.

Read the interview - for them this was an intellectual film first and foremost - using their beloved cartoon style as a very enjoyable and workable vehicle for the ideas.

Yeah, good chatting with you Bealeney. We could agree to disagree on this for now and go back to "U". I think the third film might play things my way (or destroy everything i've said ). Should be interesting to see if they give some more concrete expositions at the end that make everyone want to go back and re-see the first two for more meaning . Anyways, both DC and The M are damn good films - i just happen to prefer the actualised buddism that i see in the latter, and you prefer the
represented soulfulness of the former. Fair play.

Actually I think I wrote this for the wrong section....my mistake.


I can buy that now that you state it so nicely.


Ok.

Very well put.

"Bealeney"?

I prefer argueing about these over U-571...but if you insist....(Now you've created tht other inner meaning thread ....)

My brain hurts.

Just saw this movie (DARK CITY) for the first time a few minutes ago. I think you guys are overthinking some of this (in terms of this discussion).

-- DC did the idea first. Hard not to give them immense credit for that. After watching DC just now, my thought was that the Brothers aren't nearly as clever as I'd thought they were. Go figure. I do, though, still adore THE MATRIX as a stand-alone flick.

-- In DC, toward the end, John makes it plain that the reason the strangers didn't succeed in finding what they were looking for was that they were looking in the wrong place. He pointed to his head at that point. The stage direction and camera angle made it plain that you were supposed to immediately think, "The correct place to look was the heart." Even with the soul stuff mentioned earlier in the movie, by the end it was more about love and matters of the heart. This explains why John sacrificed himself for Emma (because he actually did care about her), etc.

-- One thing I didn't see you guys discussing, but which I felt was left dangling at the end of DC was this: At one point, Dr. Schreber says they were all brought to the city from somewhere else, but that he can't remember where because he erased it from his own memory. Well, we never do find out where they came from. At that earlier point in the film, I assumed it was from the "real world" somehow, or that they were in some altered state of reality but would find a way back to the "real world."

In the end, they didn't. John merely adapted the city-world into something nicer, sunnier, friendlier, etc. But are we to assume there was no other place they all came from? It was brought up when the doctor mentioned it, and then never really addressed again, which I found frustrating.

All things considered, if I had seen this when it came out -- before THE MATRIX -- I would have been far less in awe of THE MATRIX when I first saw it. I'm sure I would have thought, at least briefly, "Gee, they stole this idea from DARK CITY."

???

__________________
Linda's Author Website
Linda's Amazon Author page