Ang VavourisOld vs New: 'North By Northwest' / 'The Matrix'
March 19th 2008 09:38
First of all, let me make it clear that, yes, this comparison will centre on ‘North by Northwest’ (1959) and ‘The Matrix’ (1999), and, no, I haven’t inadvertently left the caps off about 25 markers on my desk and succumbed to the fumes. These two films do actually have some common ground.
For example, try to guess which film I am describing in the following paragraph:
Featuring a leading man universally considered swoon-worthy by the fairer sex, this movie is a big-budget extravaganza boasting an accomplished cast. The plot centres on an ordinary Joe Blow, who gets mixed up in dangerous intrigue and finds himself in over his head before rising to the occasion. His nemesis, the villain, is calm, gentlemanly and speaks with a highly distinguishable dialect that secretes malice, and the action sequences have etched themselves into popular culture thanks to some original and spectacularly iconic images.
To be honest, I’m not sure which movie that is, either. Everyone remembers the slow-motion dodging of bullets in ‘The Matrix’. Equally unforgettable is the lone man, on foot, being chased by a crop-duster in ‘Northwest’. Or the “cliffhanger” on the faces of the US presidents carved into Mt. Rushmore. Cinematic history, all.
But enough about the similarities between the two movies. The aim of this post is to determine what sets them apart.
‘(Name withheld)’ takes the early lead. Why? It is simply a more believable concept. The opposition film relies on a premise that is, to put it mildly, unlikely to occur. It appears to be a mere excuse to generate the subsequent action and suspense, and the audience is asked to take a mighty big leap by accepting it.
This is by no means an indictment of the film, though, because the exhilarating pace sweeps the viewer along and makes said suspension of disbelief easier than it has any right to be - I am simply saying that the premise does not stand up well to logical inquiries.
Of course, the core concept of ‘(name withheld)’ is not without its flaws, either. Few films are. But it does appear less of a desperate script-writer’s tool and more of a valid platform for the story.
The second point of judgement centres on the plausibility of the unfolding events. In this, ‘Northwest’ and ‘The Matrix’ are a lot closer, both only about 50% logic-proof. Where they lose points are in the occasional employment of cliches. ‘The Matrix’, for example, sees one of the good guys, thought to be assassinated by a traitor, recover just enough to save leading man and alleged actor Keanu Reeves plus love-interest Carrie-Anne Moss from being murdered by the traitor.
What piece of plotular profanity does ‘Northwest’ provide? Well, its leading man, Cary Grant, pulls the knife out of a murder-victim just as a photographer takes a highly inopportune snap. Even in 1959, such inadvertent self-incrimination were already old hat.
'(Name withheld)' suffers a narrow loss in this category, too.
So, considering the criticisms that can be aimed at both movies, what is it exactly that makes them such classics? Well, both have X-factor up the wazoo.
Their narratives capture any viewer in an enjoyable maelstrom. One is an action-packed visual adrenalin-ride, and the other is a stylish adventure set in an era that, through nostalgia-goggles, appears more noble, innocent and desirable than contemporary times.
Furthermore, both employ insanely charismatic baddies. Hugo Weaving’s linguistically pedantic “Mr Smith” and James Mason’s “Vandamm” are both ominous in their refinement and steal every scene that features them (a particularly commendable feat when one is acting opposite Eva Marie Saint).
I could talk about the movies’ respective X-factors all day, so I won’t.
Before I reveal my personal winner of this final discipline, however, let me reveal the title of the film previously referred to as '(name withheld)': ‘The Matrix’.
It won the concept discipline because, within the rules of its own universe, it simply made more sense. ‘Northwest’ was supposedly set in a realistic 1959, but, let’s be honest, how many professional spies and experienced henchman would have have gotten their target - a government agent - mixed up with an advertising executive? The arrogance and toxic slime excreting from the very pores of any advertising-man is a dead giveaway. The fact is that the entire plot-structure of ‘Northwest’ is supported by a rather flimsy foundation.
‘The Matrix’, on the other hand, can trace its origins back to a philosophical conclusion by the renowned French thinker Rene Descartes, who said (and I am paraphrasing) that the only think we can be certain of is that we exist - because to believe that, or doubt it, we must exist to form the thought in the first place. Everything else, however, could be a dream, a figment of our imaginations, a hallucination, or - as illustrated by ‘The Matrix’ - a deception of our senses by some malevolent force.
The first time I saw ‘The Matrix’ (which was not at a cinema, incidentally - the over-the-top action sequences shown in the trailer turned me off), I was floored by the logical explanation of why the protagonists were able to dodge bullets and perform various other superhuman feats. Within the movie’s universe, it simply made sense.
As the plot of ‘The Matrix’ unfolds, however, a few holes do appear. For example, surely the sentient machines could conjure up more efficient sources of energy than living beings. And if not, why not simply use animals, which would require a less complicated matrix?
To be fair, though, ‘Northwest’ has plenty of flaws, too, in this regard. In fact, it has more. Why send a crop-duster to kill a man waiting in the middle of nowhere? Why not simply drive up to him in a car and pop him? And going back further, why not pour enough alcohol into a man selected for suicide whilst operating heavy machinery to make sure that he won’t be capable of operating said heavy machinery? The list of “oversights”, sadly, goes on.
What does this mean? Well, ‘The Matrix’ has secured two categories out of three, so, mathematically, ‘North By Northwest’ cannot win this match-up.
And yet it does.
For the first time, I am left with no choice but to concede to the overwhelming appeal of a film’s X-factor. Yes, ‘The Matrix’ wins two categories, but only one of them by a significant margin. And the final category just appears to have so much more weight than the previous two. Perhaps, like a fine wine, ‘The Matrix’ will increase its already impressive appeal over time. Perhaps (due to the sequels that diluted the integrity of ‘The Matrix’, like the silly ‘Rocky’ sequels) it won’t. All I know is that, right this minute, the best way to gauge the truly superior of two movies is by asking this; which would you prefer to watch for the umpteenth time?
And the answer to that, in my case, ... is ‘North By Northwest’.
- Victor Figeczki
For example, try to guess which film I am describing in the following paragraph:
Featuring a leading man universally considered swoon-worthy by the fairer sex, this movie is a big-budget extravaganza boasting an accomplished cast. The plot centres on an ordinary Joe Blow, who gets mixed up in dangerous intrigue and finds himself in over his head before rising to the occasion. His nemesis, the villain, is calm, gentlemanly and speaks with a highly distinguishable dialect that secretes malice, and the action sequences have etched themselves into popular culture thanks to some original and spectacularly iconic images.
To be honest, I’m not sure which movie that is, either. Everyone remembers the slow-motion dodging of bullets in ‘The Matrix’. Equally unforgettable is the lone man, on foot, being chased by a crop-duster in ‘Northwest’. Or the “cliffhanger” on the faces of the US presidents carved into Mt. Rushmore. Cinematic history, all.
But enough about the similarities between the two movies. The aim of this post is to determine what sets them apart.
‘(Name withheld)’ takes the early lead. Why? It is simply a more believable concept. The opposition film relies on a premise that is, to put it mildly, unlikely to occur. It appears to be a mere excuse to generate the subsequent action and suspense, and the audience is asked to take a mighty big leap by accepting it.
This is by no means an indictment of the film, though, because the exhilarating pace sweeps the viewer along and makes said suspension of disbelief easier than it has any right to be - I am simply saying that the premise does not stand up well to logical inquiries.
Of course, the core concept of ‘(name withheld)’ is not without its flaws, either. Few films are. But it does appear less of a desperate script-writer’s tool and more of a valid platform for the story.
The second point of judgement centres on the plausibility of the unfolding events. In this, ‘Northwest’ and ‘The Matrix’ are a lot closer, both only about 50% logic-proof. Where they lose points are in the occasional employment of cliches. ‘The Matrix’, for example, sees one of the good guys, thought to be assassinated by a traitor, recover just enough to save leading man and alleged actor Keanu Reeves plus love-interest Carrie-Anne Moss from being murdered by the traitor.
What piece of plotular profanity does ‘Northwest’ provide? Well, its leading man, Cary Grant, pulls the knife out of a murder-victim just as a photographer takes a highly inopportune snap. Even in 1959, such inadvertent self-incrimination were already old hat.
'(Name withheld)' suffers a narrow loss in this category, too.
So, considering the criticisms that can be aimed at both movies, what is it exactly that makes them such classics? Well, both have X-factor up the wazoo.
Their narratives capture any viewer in an enjoyable maelstrom. One is an action-packed visual adrenalin-ride, and the other is a stylish adventure set in an era that, through nostalgia-goggles, appears more noble, innocent and desirable than contemporary times.
Furthermore, both employ insanely charismatic baddies. Hugo Weaving’s linguistically pedantic “Mr Smith” and James Mason’s “Vandamm” are both ominous in their refinement and steal every scene that features them (a particularly commendable feat when one is acting opposite Eva Marie Saint).
I could talk about the movies’ respective X-factors all day, so I won’t.
Before I reveal my personal winner of this final discipline, however, let me reveal the title of the film previously referred to as '(name withheld)': ‘The Matrix’.
It won the concept discipline because, within the rules of its own universe, it simply made more sense. ‘Northwest’ was supposedly set in a realistic 1959, but, let’s be honest, how many professional spies and experienced henchman would have have gotten their target - a government agent - mixed up with an advertising executive? The arrogance and toxic slime excreting from the very pores of any advertising-man is a dead giveaway. The fact is that the entire plot-structure of ‘Northwest’ is supported by a rather flimsy foundation.
‘The Matrix’, on the other hand, can trace its origins back to a philosophical conclusion by the renowned French thinker Rene Descartes, who said (and I am paraphrasing) that the only think we can be certain of is that we exist - because to believe that, or doubt it, we must exist to form the thought in the first place. Everything else, however, could be a dream, a figment of our imaginations, a hallucination, or - as illustrated by ‘The Matrix’ - a deception of our senses by some malevolent force.
The first time I saw ‘The Matrix’ (which was not at a cinema, incidentally - the over-the-top action sequences shown in the trailer turned me off), I was floored by the logical explanation of why the protagonists were able to dodge bullets and perform various other superhuman feats. Within the movie’s universe, it simply made sense.
As the plot of ‘The Matrix’ unfolds, however, a few holes do appear. For example, surely the sentient machines could conjure up more efficient sources of energy than living beings. And if not, why not simply use animals, which would require a less complicated matrix?
To be fair, though, ‘Northwest’ has plenty of flaws, too, in this regard. In fact, it has more. Why send a crop-duster to kill a man waiting in the middle of nowhere? Why not simply drive up to him in a car and pop him? And going back further, why not pour enough alcohol into a man selected for suicide whilst operating heavy machinery to make sure that he won’t be capable of operating said heavy machinery? The list of “oversights”, sadly, goes on.
What does this mean? Well, ‘The Matrix’ has secured two categories out of three, so, mathematically, ‘North By Northwest’ cannot win this match-up.
And yet it does.
For the first time, I am left with no choice but to concede to the overwhelming appeal of a film’s X-factor. Yes, ‘The Matrix’ wins two categories, but only one of them by a significant margin. And the final category just appears to have so much more weight than the previous two. Perhaps, like a fine wine, ‘The Matrix’ will increase its already impressive appeal over time. Perhaps (due to the sequels that diluted the integrity of ‘The Matrix’, like the silly ‘Rocky’ sequels) it won’t. All I know is that, right this minute, the best way to gauge the truly superior of two movies is by asking this; which would you prefer to watch for the umpteenth time?
And the answer to that, in my case, ... is ‘North By Northwest’.
- Victor Figeczki
| 76 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add Comments
