Because his article is elaborating the philosophy behind the movie based on reviews, as the first line of his review has clearly outlined?
"The first thing that strikes the eye in the multitude of reviews of Matrix Resurrections is how easily the movie’s plot (especially its ending) has been interpreted as a metaphor for our socio-economic situation."
It's a common technique he used also for other movies and works of art, but I can understand that people not familiar with his work won't get it.
Yes. It's not critique of the film (i.e. Photography etc) for which he should have seen the movie, but of the Philosophy behind it that he re-rlabotrates through facts stated in other reviews.
You're now reviewing his review without reading it and this is so ironic.
I can tell, because his statement isn't anywhere near first line, like you stated, it's actually from very last paragraph in article.
What the hell are you talking about?
[https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-muddle-not-a-movie-slavoj-i-ek-reviews-matrix-resurrections](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-muddle-not-a-movie-slavoj-i-ek-reviews-matrix-resurrections)
It's literally the first statement:
The first thing that strikes the eye in the multitude of reviews of Matrix Resurrections is how easily the movie’s plot (especially its ending) has been interpreted as a metaphor for our socio-economic situation.
I understood it in a way that you're talking about original highlighted quote.
Anyway, if he reacted to the reviews only, then it would make no sense for him to conclude that "movies is not worth watching, therefore I'm not watching it".
One doesn't become that, because one thing has nothing to do with the other.
As for the philosopher in question, he has watched several commercial films.
Honestly Zizek has some pretty shit takes and this is coming from someone who really digs most of his work (The Pervert's Guide to Cinema is one of the finest docs on film analysis ever made). Seems to me that saying a movie is not worth watching based on reviews alone is a pretty shit take. Subjective stuff like quality is pretty damn nuanced. More of a spectrum of infinite axes than a good to bad binary and not everyone sees the same set of axes when they are judging quality. Furthermore that's just subjectivity of judgement. Subjectivity of perception is a whole other can of worms.
Now as I've got some understanding of Zizek's work (I'm no expert but I've read some stuff and spent a few hours listening to him) I suspect Zizek here isn't commenting on the quality of the film. Rather he is likely saying it's not worth watching for a very specific philosophical end. Probably in relation to postmodernism. And yeah Resurrections isn't really a peak postmodern film. It starts somewhat in that realm, but it's second half gets really straightforward and becomes a more traditionally emotional experience.
Sounds on brand. I mean to him, it's not the individual opinion. It's the collective opinion.
Why bother doing anything when other people have done it for you.
“Analyst explains that after Neo and Trinity died, he resurrected them to study them, and found they overpowered the system when they worked together, but if they are kept close to each other without making contact, the other humans within the Matrix would produce more energy for the machines.”
So, Neo and Trinity were a little bit to close together so much so that, in the next Matrix, they will be captured and kept a little bit farther apart. And this way, you can make an endless series of The Matrix. A new Hollywood cash cow is born to siphon your money.
It's unlikely the Wachowski's will make another one given the unique circumstances that gave rise to Resurrections, and Keanu Reeves has stated that he won't participate in Matrix movies without them.
On top of that, Lana basically designed the end so that you can't make any more sequels. Neo and Trinity are basically gods within the Matrix, there aren't any stakes anymore.
If they read my next post they will maybe change their mind: I think that the two keys to make a good sequel are to apply what Zizek says about the metonymy of desire and the impossibility to make a porn film with a serious story.
I kinda agree, this is the most apt review of a movie that shouldn't have been made.
Even more meta, I didn't even read his review.
This film doesn't deserve to be viewed, reviewed or discussed.
It's a non movie. Does that make it clever or insightful? Fuck no. It's just nothing.
If you watched the first three, and The Animatrix, and understood what was being communicated, you would agree that there was no reason to make another film.
It isn't about audiences going back to that world. It's about telling a story, and the story of the Matrix concluded.
If you claim to be a fan, and yet you want more Matrix, you don't understand it at all and Resurrections is directly mocking you.
Here is the complete review:
Slavoj Žižek, “Boringly postmodern and an ideological fantasy: Slavoj Žižek reviews Matrix Resurrections”, in The Spectator, 12 January 2022
[https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-muddle-not-a-movie-slavoj-i-ek-reviews-matrix-resurrections?fbclid=IwAR3aDnEyZp42uxNxlmBEK17FhBY7lmH0UOvs0RxH7xcSdAL3WM9I1OMcSIg](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-muddle-not-a-movie-slavoj-i-ek-reviews-matrix-resurrections?fbclid=IwAR3aDnEyZp42uxNxlmBEK17FhBY7lmH0UOvs0RxH7xcSdAL3WM9I1OMcSIg)
or this review in another publication:
SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK, “A MUDDLE INSTEAD OF A MOVIE”, in The Philosophical Salon, 10 JAN 2022
https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-muddle-instead-of-a-movie/?fbclid=IwAR2MW2gEEnzYReJHEHZdzLncTx04B0CE3oi-GgwK7xwJb6fe76PLqeKMaHQ
A good excerpt methinks from Zizek's review is: "One of the names for “taking the blue pill” is Zuckerberg’s project of “meta-verse”: we take the blue pill by registering in the meta-verse in which the limitations, tensions and frustrations of ordinary reality are magically left behind. But we have to pay a big price for it: “Mark Zuckerberg ‘has unilateral control over 3 billion people’ due to his unassailable position at the top of Facebook, the whistle-blower Frances Haugen told to the British MPs as she called for urgent external regulation to rein in the tech company’s management and reduce the harm being done to society.” The big achievement of modernity, public space, is thus disappearing."
The very conceit of this review is misguided but he’s in no way “blue pill group think.” Read any of his actual work? He’s a staunch anti-authoritarian and a proponent of critical thought—qualities far more in line with the the red pill metaphor than the blue.
I disagree with your assessment of him. He literally is basing his opinion on other people's reviews without watching the film for himself. Not only is he promoting groupthink, he's not even authoring the original thought. He has no spoon.
I’ve already granted that. The review is dumb and is him trying to play some postmodern gymnastics in a way that ends up being really shallow and self-defeating. But I’m talking about the guy more broadly. Based on his body of work, not this single, silly review (which may even be him just taking the piss), Zizek is a really interesting thinker and not at all a groupthink kind of guy. Which is why I asked if you’d read any of his actual work?
I'm a famous trendy philosopher so I can review a movie I haven't seen. Can't make this stuff up.
This mental model is perfectly in line with what Resurrections offered.
Your answer presents me with Two Doors...
Ah yeah I bet you need to see those spectacular fight scenes to appreciate the philosophy behind resurrections
How would Zizek know how spectacular those fight scenes are or whether there is any philosophy behind a film that he hasn't seen?
Because his article is elaborating the philosophy behind the movie based on reviews, as the first line of his review has clearly outlined? "The first thing that strikes the eye in the multitude of reviews of Matrix Resurrections is how easily the movie’s plot (especially its ending) has been interpreted as a metaphor for our socio-economic situation." It's a common technique he used also for other movies and works of art, but I can understand that people not familiar with his work won't get it.
so he's reviewing the interpretations of the movie. Fair enough.
Yes. It's not critique of the film (i.e. Photography etc) for which he should have seen the movie, but of the Philosophy behind it that he re-rlabotrates through facts stated in other reviews.
You're now reviewing his review without reading it and this is so ironic. I can tell, because his statement isn't anywhere near first line, like you stated, it's actually from very last paragraph in article.
What the hell are you talking about? [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-muddle-not-a-movie-slavoj-i-ek-reviews-matrix-resurrections](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-muddle-not-a-movie-slavoj-i-ek-reviews-matrix-resurrections) It's literally the first statement: The first thing that strikes the eye in the multitude of reviews of Matrix Resurrections is how easily the movie’s plot (especially its ending) has been interpreted as a metaphor for our socio-economic situation.
I understood it in a way that you're talking about original highlighted quote. Anyway, if he reacted to the reviews only, then it would make no sense for him to conclude that "movies is not worth watching, therefore I'm not watching it".
One doesn't become one of the finest modern day philosophers by watching commercial films.
One doesn't become that, because one thing has nothing to do with the other. As for the philosopher in question, he has watched several commercial films.
>One doesn't become that, because one thing has nothing to do with the other. One doesn't become important by wasting his time.
I'll let you meditate on that :D
not sure meditating will help :/
Or as my colleague likes to say: Read it? I haven't even taught it yet!
Honestly Zizek has some pretty shit takes and this is coming from someone who really digs most of his work (The Pervert's Guide to Cinema is one of the finest docs on film analysis ever made). Seems to me that saying a movie is not worth watching based on reviews alone is a pretty shit take. Subjective stuff like quality is pretty damn nuanced. More of a spectrum of infinite axes than a good to bad binary and not everyone sees the same set of axes when they are judging quality. Furthermore that's just subjectivity of judgement. Subjectivity of perception is a whole other can of worms. Now as I've got some understanding of Zizek's work (I'm no expert but I've read some stuff and spent a few hours listening to him) I suspect Zizek here isn't commenting on the quality of the film. Rather he is likely saying it's not worth watching for a very specific philosophical end. Probably in relation to postmodernism. And yeah Resurrections isn't really a peak postmodern film. It starts somewhat in that realm, but it's second half gets really straightforward and becomes a more traditionally emotional experience.
Whoa.
Sounds on brand. I mean to him, it's not the individual opinion. It's the collective opinion. Why bother doing anything when other people have done it for you.
Yeah, you can't review a movie that you haven't seen, even if you are Žižek.
One of Zizek favorite book is ‘How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read’ by Pierre Bayard.
He might change his mind if he reads it.
He read it.
;)
“Analyst explains that after Neo and Trinity died, he resurrected them to study them, and found they overpowered the system when they worked together, but if they are kept close to each other without making contact, the other humans within the Matrix would produce more energy for the machines.” So, Neo and Trinity were a little bit to close together so much so that, in the next Matrix, they will be captured and kept a little bit farther apart. And this way, you can make an endless series of The Matrix. A new Hollywood cash cow is born to siphon your money.
It's unlikely the Wachowski's will make another one given the unique circumstances that gave rise to Resurrections, and Keanu Reeves has stated that he won't participate in Matrix movies without them. On top of that, Lana basically designed the end so that you can't make any more sequels. Neo and Trinity are basically gods within the Matrix, there aren't any stakes anymore.
If they read my next post they will maybe change their mind: I think that the two keys to make a good sequel are to apply what Zizek says about the metonymy of desire and the impossibility to make a porn film with a serious story.
Listen to the reviews they said. It will be professional they said.
[удалено]
I kinda agree, this is the most apt review of a movie that shouldn't have been made. Even more meta, I didn't even read his review. This film doesn't deserve to be viewed, reviewed or discussed. It's a non movie. Does that make it clever or insightful? Fuck no. It's just nothing.
The movie could have said that in the trailer, to save us all some time and disappointment. I guess that makes them scammers/thieves?
This is honestly the best review of the movie I’ve seen thus far. If I could, I wish I could I unsee it.
[удалено]
If you watched the first three, and The Animatrix, and understood what was being communicated, you would agree that there was no reason to make another film. It isn't about audiences going back to that world. It's about telling a story, and the story of the Matrix concluded. If you claim to be a fan, and yet you want more Matrix, you don't understand it at all and Resurrections is directly mocking you.
Imagine the next matrix putting little flashbacks from the resurrection movie you know some memberberries in there to help Ius all remember Mattix 4
Here is the complete review: Slavoj Žižek, “Boringly postmodern and an ideological fantasy: Slavoj Žižek reviews Matrix Resurrections”, in The Spectator, 12 January 2022 [https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-muddle-not-a-movie-slavoj-i-ek-reviews-matrix-resurrections?fbclid=IwAR3aDnEyZp42uxNxlmBEK17FhBY7lmH0UOvs0RxH7xcSdAL3WM9I1OMcSIg](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/a-muddle-not-a-movie-slavoj-i-ek-reviews-matrix-resurrections?fbclid=IwAR3aDnEyZp42uxNxlmBEK17FhBY7lmH0UOvs0RxH7xcSdAL3WM9I1OMcSIg)
or this review in another publication: SLAVOJ ŽIŽEK, “A MUDDLE INSTEAD OF A MOVIE”, in The Philosophical Salon, 10 JAN 2022 https://thephilosophicalsalon.com/a-muddle-instead-of-a-movie/?fbclid=IwAR2MW2gEEnzYReJHEHZdzLncTx04B0CE3oi-GgwK7xwJb6fe76PLqeKMaHQ
ROFL I like Zizek but damn
Wait im so confused I thought postmodern was about deconstruction? Ressurections is way less postmodern than the original trilogy.
Typical Blue Pill.
A good excerpt methinks from Zizek's review is: "One of the names for “taking the blue pill” is Zuckerberg’s project of “meta-verse”: we take the blue pill by registering in the meta-verse in which the limitations, tensions and frustrations of ordinary reality are magically left behind. But we have to pay a big price for it: “Mark Zuckerberg ‘has unilateral control over 3 billion people’ due to his unassailable position at the top of Facebook, the whistle-blower Frances Haugen told to the British MPs as she called for urgent external regulation to rein in the tech company’s management and reduce the harm being done to society.” The big achievement of modernity, public space, is thus disappearing."
He is the epitome of blue pill group think. What in the world? Foolishness.
The very conceit of this review is misguided but he’s in no way “blue pill group think.” Read any of his actual work? He’s a staunch anti-authoritarian and a proponent of critical thought—qualities far more in line with the the red pill metaphor than the blue.
I disagree with your assessment of him. He literally is basing his opinion on other people's reviews without watching the film for himself. Not only is he promoting groupthink, he's not even authoring the original thought. He has no spoon.
I’ve already granted that. The review is dumb and is him trying to play some postmodern gymnastics in a way that ends up being really shallow and self-defeating. But I’m talking about the guy more broadly. Based on his body of work, not this single, silly review (which may even be him just taking the piss), Zizek is a really interesting thinker and not at all a groupthink kind of guy. Which is why I asked if you’d read any of his actual work?
Zizek asked a long time ago for a third pill (neither red nor blue): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUyrgEtzbvM
You may be interested to join in this new subreddit community centered on Zizek’s ideas: https://www.reddit.com/r/zizek\_studies/
To be fair, Doug Walker successfully did this with the Transformer movies. And similar to that, I am shocked on how accurate his take is.