The Matrix - Spoon-fed Symbolism

[fuzzy_nolan]

One of the features that, according to many reviewers, makes The Matrix such an ‘epic’, are the religious overtones that lie parallel with much of the action. The story of Neo (or the ‘New’ in Latin; an anagram of ‘one’) is, quite obviously, synonymous with that of Christ (whose name, in Hebrew, means ‘Anointed One’). Neo dies, is resurrected and saves the world. Morpheus is a John the Baptist figure, clearing the way for the coming of Christ, just as Cypher reflects Judas’ betrayal. One source within The Matrix camp hinted recently that the third instalment should, instead of The Matrix Revolutions, be named The Matrix Resurrection.

The point is, all this blatant symbolism seems aimed at an audience unwilling to think about the implications of the film. Subsequently, while the film claims ‘there is no spoon’, it simultaneously uses one to spoon-feed the implications to the audience. Spoon-fed, in this case, by Morpheus, whose main role in the first film seems to be merely explaining the narrative and its complicated ‘rules’ (Leonard Maltin criticised the film for its ‘high mumbo jumbo quotient’ and I’m inclined to agree) and the Wachowskis who even name their characters with such brazen aplomb that their origin, function and ultimate fate can be guessed without even seeing the film e.g. Trinity, Niobe, Seraph and Persephone. In contrast, a film like Blade Runner explores recurrent philosophical themes, of what it means to be human, and yet doesn’t force them on the audience. In fact, it remains ambiguous whether the protagonist Deckard is, himself a ‘Replicant’. Thus the film allows multiple interpretations, something that The Matrix does not deign to do.

In a sense, The Matrix (and, presumably, its sequels) can be watched on two levels, both, unfortunately, intrinsically flawed. From a philosophical angle, The Matrix brings nothing new to the table, merely a bibliographic catalogue of references to superior works. Interestingly, these same themes, of false perceptions of the world and redemption from a Christ figure, have even been explored recently (and, for mine, much more satisfactorily) in Alex Proyas’ Dark City, which comes without any of the pretension of The Matrix. On another level, as an action movie, The Matrix succeeds admirably at times. Although it is, as a whole, compromised by its philosophical pretensions in a way that something like the Star Wars series (in spite of its mythological references, specifically Joseph Campbell) is not. It’s a lose-lose situation. The Wachowskis bit off more than they (and the audience) could chew. Hopefully with the further instalments of The Matrix trilogy, the Wachowskis offer a more palatable meal.

Any thoughts?

Brett Nolan (fuzzy_nolan@hotmail.com)

[oscar jubis]

I was actually engaged and amused for about an hour of Matrix, before it collapsed under the weight of the "mumbo jumbo" and unearned pretensions. I find your analysis quite perceptive. I don't intend to appear condescending when I say such well-thought-out opinions are rare in 18 year olds. It'd be fun to disagree so we can debate a bit.

[fuzzy_nolan]

More's the pity.

People that treat films like The Matrix as a sort of populist religion - 'Hey man, you reckon the world's really been taken over by robots? Whoa!' - tend to piss me off. Similarly, I noted a short-lived spate of occurrences stemming from the release of Fight Club a few years ago, before everyone came slinking back to their khakis and lattes.

I can't think of anything more stupid than a bunch of blokes sitting round and debating whether a representation of a spoon (itself created by the filmmakers) exists or not.

Still, I hope the Wachowskis find the right balance for the sequels. The franchise has a definite potential to reinvent certain conventions for the 'thoughtful' action movie in a way that the recent influx of comic book adaptations does not.

Cheers.

[oscar jubis]

"Fincher dresses up mainstream masochism and macho posturing in grungy designer duds. Influential? The horror!"(me)

"The most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie since Death Wish. It's macho porn." (Roger Ebert)

"What's most troubling is the realization that Fight Club thinks it's saying something significant" (L.A. Times)

[fuzzy_nolan]

I quite like the last one, 'what's most troubling is the realization that Fight Club thinks it's saying something significant'.

Seems to be perfectly exemplified by the shot within the film of Tyler Durden preaching to an unseen audience, 'You are not your job...etc', with a vibrating camera (possibly the work of the evil brother of Steadicam?). Atmospheric? Perhaps. Unnecessary? Definitely.

[Johann]

I agree whole-heartedly with the "spoon-fed" analogy of the Matrix movies.

I immediately started to disregard the religious undertones in the first film when Neo was in the white room- "What is real?". It was nothing I hadn't heard or read before, and I just grinned to myself that these brothers were calling on some heavy juju with their Christ references. Imagine my surprise when no backlash occurred..No one raised a fuss, no one condemned the film (at least from the church-I haven't heard of any) & I seem to recall a devout Christian friend not being too upset either.. So, is it because it was such rousing entertainment that the "blasphemy" was ignored?- (no, I'm not religious-I'm spiritual ;)
In my case, YOU BET YOUR ASS! - I got my advance ticket for RELOADED already!

[fuzzy_nolan]

I'm hardly surprised there wasn't any backlash from the holy rollers. It's not as if the film was deliberately inflammatory in the way that something like Monty Python's Life Of Brian, from what I hear the Christians went on a rampage after the release of that one.

Anyway the Christ analogy is an archetypal one that pops up a lot in films, or you might say it's one that is easily applicable to many films. Not only The Matrix and other 'epic' films but One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest springs to mind as another example.

I've got my ticket for Reloaded as well. My sister and I were in Sydney the day they were filming the big helicopter scene for (I think) The Matrix Revolutions and it should be amazing.

[tabuno]

I just enjoy the movie as an experience and the more basic idea of machine, man, and mind thriller. I don't care about the intellectual religious symbolism. I just go to watch the action and believe that it has more substance than most sci fi action movies.

[fuzzy_nolan]

As a pure action movie, in a similar vein of Speed or something, The Matrix would have worked far better than it did, being compromised by the bullshit.

It's too fucking long. Admittedly it kicks off, sheds the pretensions and just goes for it towards the end but getting to the final denouement is an exercise in patience and mind-boggling boredom. Personally, having to sit and listen to Morpheus' guff about the 'real' and the 'created', slavery and redemption, was a trying experience.

The Terminator, for example, gets all that out of the way as swiftly as possible - 'Sarah Connor? I've come from the future to save you so you can give birth to the saviour of humanity! Let's go!' Speed is similarly streamlined with the death of Jack's partner done away with almost as swiftly as it is introduced.

I'm not saying that The Matrix didn't, in turn,reward the audience for sitting through the entire movie, merely that it could have been a lot better (and shorter).

[tabuno]

I didn't mind Matrix trying to high road to philosophy, whether intentional or not, whether realistic based and researched or not, the audience gets to enjoy watching a sci-fi action thriller while at the same time either pretending or even intellectualizing with the sophisticated sounding dialogue and supposedly deeper meanings of the movie - however, I just go with the flow, believing that this movie is superior to the plain action stuff. Thus as an academic, I can pretend to have my cake and it too. I can have the action but as the same time believe that I'm above the mundane, simple, brainless movies (true or not) by watching a movie such as "Matrix."

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Johann
I just grinned to myself that these brothers were calling on some heavy juju with their Christ references. Imagine my surprise when no backlash occurred. No one raised a fuss, no one condemned the film. So, is it because it was such rousing entertainment that the "blasphemy" was ignored?
I am sure that applies to a percentage of Christians. Others objected to the violence and language. I read comments from a few uneasy about Christian symbols and references cohabitating with "Eastern" doctrine. But you are right, the response was mild, with no backlash from religious institutions. There is a new film from Peter Mullan(Orphans) called The Magdalene Sisters. It sounds like the kind of film the Catholic church makes popular by condemning it. The bishops don't seem to be in the mood though.

For comments about The Matrix from Christians go to: www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/movies/pre2000/i-thematrix.html

[fuzzy_nolan]

Well Tabuno, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I still believe The Matrix fails on both levels, as action and as philosophy, each failing because of the attempted presence of the other. When the sermonising rears its head, the action falls flat on its face. Conversely, when the action picks itself up again, the sermonising slinks off.

At best, the two are uneasy bedfellows.

[fuzzy_nolan]

I had a quick look at the Christian website, that was good for a giggle or two.

Anyway, in spite of the fact that I've been using Christian analogies for The Matrix, I don't believe by any stretch of the imagination that the parallels are exclusively Christian, or that of any other denonination for that matter.

It might, just as relevantly, be the prerogative of Buddhists or Hindis to get offended. It's only some of the names and stories that specifically relate to Christianity (Seraph, Trinity) while others (Morpheus, Niobe, Persephone) most definitely do not.

As I remember one of my lecturers once noting, 'there's only seven great stories of literature' and, presumably, other narrative art (including films). It's important to note that 'literature' includes The Bible, in spite of what most Christians think. The themes of The Matrix are hardly unique.

[Ilker81x]

Here's a scenario that actually happened. The original climax to "Blade Runner" was scripted as a Bruce Lee style fight between Rutger Hauer and Harrison Ford. Here we have a movie with some intense visuals and some equally intense philosophical points, with a fair bit of action that actually served the purpose of the plot. When Harrison Ford is chasing down Joanna Cassidy through the city streets, or when he is taking a beating while being mocked by Brion James, it's action, but it doesn't overshadow the story...it helps to advance the story. Now they want to have an elaborate action-oriented standoff more suited to "Bloodsport" or "Enter the Dragon"? The thought doesn't exactly work does it? It was Rutger Hauer who said, "No matter how much I train, I will NOT be Bruce Lee. Let's make it more like the game of life." In this suggestion, they ended up filming a climax that was thrilling AND poetic. The point was made more poignant by the vision of the android not as a fighting machine as he was created to be, but as a man taking in every ounce of life he could. Martial arts movies can be fun, and the action is great, but to me there's always the sense of the characters getting busy dying as opposed to enjoying their life. In the fight, I hardly ever get the sense that they truly feel alive (which I think was one of the few ideas "Fight Club" tried but failed to portray). In "Blade Runner," you can tell that Rutger's character felt more alive than he ever had, and he was going to squeeze as much life out as was possible, even so far as to driving a nail into his hand to get that extra burst of adrenaline. And then he saved Harrison Ford, because in those last moments of his life, he also recognized the beauty of life in general. He didn't want to kill Harrison Ford...he wanted to make him see how beautiful a thing life is while simultaneously reaffirming his own. And this climax was just as thrilling as any fight scene could have been.

In "Blade Runner," it is not an action scene pretending to have a point. It is a point made stronger by a good action sequence, one in which the action is less about violence and more about the heightening of tension and suspense. When dealing with violence, it's easy to get lured into the idea that it must have a point. I think it speaks volumes that the director's cut of "Blade Runner" omits the extra bits of violence that the international version includes. We don't have to see the blood shooting out of the man's head when Rutger Hauer crushes his skull to understand what is going on. We need only see Rutger's reaction and to hear the sound. Maybe it's Hitchcockian in that regard, but it proves to be more effective because it's more powerful. Through suggestion, the audience fills in their own blanks, and in doing so instills more thought into the point that is being conveyed. It's hard to think about that point when you're busy being grossed out and shrivelling in your seat. I think this is why many gore flicks do not often attempt to have a deeper story than it actually does. This is why I think "Fight Club" fails. It had a good idea in theory, but there was too much emphasis on the violence. I didn't need to see Jared Leto's face getting beaten to death (at all...nevermind that the version in the final film is different from what they originally had planned as the DVD shows...it should've been cut even more) to get the point...but seeing it just made me resist what he was trying to say. Yes the story can be advanced by the violence since its premise is based on it, but did we need to see so much of it? I don't think so.

As far as "The Matrix" having religious undertones...I'm not surprised nobody raised a fuss, but at the same time I find that a bit insulting. I'm not a Christian...far from it...but I admire anybody who tries to defend their belief system, no matter how flawed it might be. There is no belief system without flaws, no faith without contradiction. The Christ-like references in "The Matrix" are pretentious because of the inherently violent nature of the film. Leaving aside the fact that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than any other cause, the idea of Christ was that of nonviolence. Do you fight injustice by killing a tyrant? It's almost the same argument that ensues in police dramas...is it better to catch the criminal by breaking the law, or is it better to obey the law and let the criminal go free? Christ, as best as I understand it, fought injustice not by killing the Roman emperor, but by preaching the word to others...fight injustice and violence...by being just and nonviolent. He didn't scorn those who crucified him...he said, "Forgive them lord, for they know not what they do." "The Matrix" on the other hand is loaded with violence, all surrounding a central Christ-like figure who fights tyranny...with more weaponry in his coat than an army can carry a whole brigade. When he is resurrected...he destroys the evil figure, blows him up from the inside out. Not that I want to accuse the filmmakers of blasphemy, but it seems like a pretentious way to make your point. Same thing with "The Phantom Menace." All the Christ references were there...and already it was a practice in blasphemy because Christ, though flawed and still human (as Scorcese's film and Kazantzakis' book tried to convey, not as blasphemy, but as a dualistic interpretation of how a divine figure touches us as humans), was never evil. He may have succumbed to temptation, but the idea of Christ is that as a divine figure, he is representative of all that is good and divine in both god and man. In "The Phantom Menace," the Christ figure is destined to become a servant of evil. It doesn't matter that in the end he finds his way and returns to good before dying, he still became evil. You don't get more blasphemous than that. Did anybody raise a fuss? If they did, please tell me. It's not uncommon for these things to happen in films pretending to have some deeper truth or meaning. In the end, it becomes just a muddled mess. You can pretend all you want that it had something significant to say, but if you don't say it in a good way, it becomes pointless. It's like trying to demonstrate the horrors of war to people by starting one yourself. Do people see your point? No...they see you as a warmonger, and they punish you. Your point is lost.

[fuzzy_nolan]

You make an interesting point about the association of Christ - essentially 'a historical personage, a harmless country wise man of the semi-oriental past, who preached a benign doctrine of 'do as you would be done by'' - with the ultra violence of today's blockbuster.

Perhaps it's blasphemy, but I daresay it's also infinitely more relevant to today's youth than the Christ of the modern progressive Church. The thought of a Christ who went and flykicked some Romans is also more appealing than someone who was executed as a criminal, whose death we are supposed to view as a 'splendid lesson in integrity and fortitude.'

I think it - to some extent - a good thing that the teachings (not that I know what these are) are still being reinvigorated through popular art. I don't think there's any militant Christians patrolling this site, so I'll quote a bit from Joseph Cambell:

Whenever the poetry of myth is interpreted as biography, history or science, it is killed. Such a blight has certainly descended on the Bible and on a great part of the Christian cult.
Don't get me wrong, I do have a lot of the problems with the supposedly 'mythic' nature of The Matrix but I do find it inspiring that someone's willing to attempt to bring the myth back to life, if not the religion.

[tabuno]

I never got caught up in religion while watching "Matrix: Reloaded." I understand that there is prophecy, but that doesn't necessarily mean god or Catholicism at all. I looked at the movie as the tension between determinism (technological electronic, machines operating on cause and effect) and free-will and freedom (human creative thought and imagination). I also saw the battle between the multitude of diverse, dynamic capacity of the human and machine mind to undertake war and to fight in cyberspace as well as in physical reality. Each action seen promotes the idea of the the possibilities of virtual reality - something that is in sci fi terms - not fantasy - but feasible someday in the future. It is fascinating to see how fighting might occur, even as today, battles are being fought on the basis of cruise missiles, guided radar systems, soldiers are now possessed of advance communication and laser pointers. No, the Matrix: Reloaded captures both in spirit and vision the action and the principles that grip today's society and globle between humanity and technology, blending the uneasy blend together because just like oil and water they really must and do exist in our world and we must somehow come to appreciate it, adapt to it, or it may control us.

[Ilker81x]

Well said tabuno, and I won't say you're wrong.

But when dealing with the word "prophecy," there is indeed a religious connotation that becomes associated. I'll agree that I didn't see the religious angle as much in the sequel as there was in the original, but even in the issue of free will vs. determinism, there CAN be a religious parallel. Blasphemous as some may see it, I think the book by Kazantzakis (the movie by Scorcese, "The Last Temptation of Christ") address this issue of Christ as a man and as a divine figure, whether or not he truly had free will or if his fate was already determined. He was constantly doubting his place, and even many times tried to go against God, constantly contradicted his own arguments as time went on...while it's not completely religious since it's a work of fiction based on one person's interpretation of a religious event, the point can still be made that Christ may have dealt with the same problem. Is he free to make his own decision? Or is everything he does ordained? Does he have a choice? Does Neo have a choice?

I'll agree, however, that the sequel has less to do with religion than the first one did and that it did seem to address more issues towards technology's grip on humanity. That is definitely a good defense of the sequel as its own movie.

[stevetseitz]

>>The Christ-like references in "The Matrix" are pretentious because of the inherently violent nature of the film.<<

While I won't defend the meager philosophizing in either Matrix movie, I disagree with this assessment. Most of the violence committed by Neo and his gang took place in a "virtual reality" therefore it wasn't truly violence. Destroying a nasty program named Agent Smith isn't violating any of the 10 Commandments especially when the program was doing evil things to humans.

>> Leaving aside the fact that more wars have been fought in the name of religion than any other cause<<

I would disagree with you there. Most wars, including the Crusades, were fought for various economic and political reasons
with religion oft used as a scapegoat. The biggest killer of all is Democide: A government killing it's own citizens. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Kmer Rouge are examples of tyrants who killed millions.


>>"The Matrix" on the other hand is loaded with violence, all surrounding a central Christ-like figure who fights tyranny...with more weaponry in his coat than an army can carry a whole brigade.<<

Neo does have and use weaponry but, again, it takes place in the virtual world. Thus far, Neo, Morpheus, Trinity and the gang have simply fled at any sign of their machine enemies in the "real world" all while living deep underground like the Christians under Roman rule.

[Ilker81x]

I don't mean to be insulting, but at this point I have to say that to me, that was a pretty weak argument in defense of violence in a film. Just because it takes place in a virtual world doesn't mean it wasn't real. Maybe it wasn't real in the literal sense, but it still happened. First of all, the effects are the same...everytime a person is hurt or killed in the Matrix, they die in the real world. As explained in the first movie, the Matrix is a projection of the mind, and the body can't exist without the mind. Everytime a person dies in the Matrix, the machines lose one more person to control. And besides, from the standpoint of it being a film, we as the audience SEE violence. It doesn't matter if it's something taking place in the mind or in a dream, the message is still being delivered through violence. It would be equally blasphemous to claim that Jesus fantasized about murdering hundreds of Romans even though he didn't. Secondly, just because the agents are evil towards humans doesn't make it right for Neo to destroy them...evil begets evil. Did Jesus go and slaughter the Roman emperor or his soldiers for their injustice against the Jews? No...that was part of Jesus' message as I understand it. Violence was not the answer.

As for religion being the scapegoat in war...it doesn't matter whether or not it was the explicit reason...to do something "in the name" of something is to make the claim that that something is the reason, whether it really is or not. "In the name of humanity, you must die." It doesn't matter if that person is really killing someone because humanity deemed it necessary, it's what he says. You can say you're killing someone in the name of the king, but that's not necessarily the real reason you're killing that person. So what I said is true, wars have been fought in the name of religion, even if the real reasons were political and economical. As for government killing its own citizens, that's the case in "The Matrix" as well...the machines govern the planet (or rule, whichever term you want to use, it's all the same these days) and they use and abuse their human citizens.

Again, I don't mean to be insulting, but I find your argument to be less than convincing.

[stevetseitz]

>>I don't mean to be insulting, but at this point I have to say that to me, that was a pretty weak argument in defense of violence in a film. Just because it takes place in a virtual world doesn't mean it wasn't real.<<

That is exactly what it means.

>> Maybe it wasn't real in the literal sense, but it still happened. First of all, the effects are the same...everytime a person is hurt or killed in the Matrix, they die in the real world. As explained in the first movie, the Matrix is a projection of the mind, and the body can't exist without the mind.<<

The people that get killed in the Matrix yes, but the real enemy is the machines. There wasn't a lot of violence by Neo and the gang against other humans within the matrix. Trinity took out a few cops in the early scenes, Neo and Trinity shot up some security guards in the finale, but mostly they were trying to free other humans who were trapped within the matrix.

>>Everytime a person dies in the Matrix, the machines lose one more person to control. And besides, from the standpoint of it being a film, we as the audience SEE violence. It doesn't matter if it's something taking place in the mind or in a dream, the message is still being delivered through violence.<<

I'm not denying the violence. In fact, seeing Neo and Trinity dressed in black overcoats gunning down security guards gave me chills thinking of the murders at Columbine High school.

>> It would be equally blasphemous to claim that Jesus fantasized about murdering hundreds of Romans even though he didn't.<<

Maybe but that's not what the movie claims either.

>> Secondly, just because the agents are evil towards humans doesn't make it right for Neo to destroy them...evil begets evil.<<

You are talking about soul-less machines having moral equivalence with humans? That's preposterous. That's like saying it's evil to throw out a toaster because it burns your bread because "evil begets evil".

>> Did Jesus go and slaughter the Roman emperor or his soldiers for their injustice against the Jews? No...that was part of Jesus' message as I understand it. Violence was not the answer.<<

If you look at The Matrix in terms of "Tron" which has similarities, the violence within the matrix is a sort of contest of wills between the humans and machines. The machines set up the system so any blame is theirs.

>>Again, I don't mean to be insulting, but I find your argument to be less than convincing.<<

I don't take your difference of opinion to be an insult and I'm probably just being pedantic, but eastern and western religious symbolism is present in the "Matrix" movies. I just thought it wasn't very well done. A good film for christ symbolism is Sagal's "The Omega Man".

[Ilker81x]

I don't feel it was very well done either, I'll agree with that. But yes, it is definitely present, and I think it's poorly approached. Yes, it is chilling to see Neo and Trinity in those coats shooting away, but I think you're underplaying it. "A few" security guards? It seemed more like a small brigade really, there was plenty of competition. I can understand the intention of freeing more people, but still they are killing quite a few people to do it. There's also the case that the machines are soul-less...maybe in the human sense, but the more I listen to Agent Smith's rhetoric and his speeches, as coldly logical and mechanical they may seem, there's always the implication in movies such as "The Matrix" that this overdeveloped sense of logic is a force of evil. Yes, look at "Tron." The Master Control Program was a program, appropriating programs, gathering data and input, constantly growing...because that's what he's supposed to do, that's his function...but he's protrayed as this tyrannical ruler of the computer world. Also the toaster analogy...toasters are not given the level of control that the machines in "The Matrix" are given. It's like Skynet in "The Terminator." Skynet was plugged into every military computer with the function of controlling all military operations, planes, missiles etc...a toaster...just toasts. It's a matter of function...give the computer the capacity to control, and that control will go overboard because a computer has a very strict sense of logic. It's not evil in the sense that logic is evil, but that is the problem with logic...humans by nature are not very logical, and so when we assign power to a computer whose nature is the opposite of humans, it will seem evil, especially when the logical thing to do would be to remove that which is illogical. It's the implication of evil, as opposed to a literal sense of it like Satan or the Devil might seem to be.
Anyway...that's my view, and that's that. :)

[tabuno]

What's surpising in Matrix: Reloaded is the amount of sensuality and pure human flesh and pleasure is unloaded onto the audience in this movie. In some ways, I saw a dichotomy of both extremes...intellectual, rational, technical precision of emotionaless machines that create an image of humans virtual reality that is surprisingly real and normal with contemporary morality and stable, passionate existence (especially in the original movie and the pleasure of eating virtural food). And then in reality, reality the humans are depicted as a raw, primitive, orgy of human emotion and passion, an animal pack of almost sex-lust-craving, pulsating mass of energetic orgasms. Surprisingly I was almost rooting for the machines to win in their battle against the rising torrents of sexful bliss and mindless, irrationally lust.

[Ilker81x]

Interesting point tabuno. And it certain adds to the argument that the machines lean towards the side of logic and the rational, while humans are more lustful and irrational. I, however, cannot see this as a reason to root for the machines. Sure the scene was pretty steamy (I also think it was pretty tasteful considering the abundance of skin flicks and sexual extremity that goes on in a lot of movies these days), and some can argue that it's pretty animalistic...but y'know, human beings are animals, and oftentimes we are prone to animal action. A protective mother lifts a car to save her child...that's maternal instinct, but the key word is instinct...it's a primal response that is deeply rooted in the human condition. Sex is no different...sure there are levels of perversity, and in a symbolic sense one could perceive that scene as being equivalent to a bunch of wild dogs in heat that need to be broken up...but that's human nature. Everytime you go to a rave or a club, everytime you go to a party, there's a certain amount of sexual energy in the air. It's just more so in certain places and at certain times. It is symbolic, but I don't see it as something to make me think that the machines should win. But then again, Smith's argument to Morpheus near the end of the first movie could help your case too...we as humans are too hung up on pleasure and consumption...maybe so much so that we just need to be done away with. In the cycle of life, creatures do eventually become extinct...much of the time because another species ate them all for food...maybe that's our fate...the machines are just another addition to the Earth paradigm, and it's our role to slowly fade into existence at their hands. George Carlin once made this kind of argument that the Earth will heal itself as it has done for billions of years, and that we're arrogant to think that we're really a major threat since we're the ones who will die out long before the Earth does...maybe you're right tabuno. I don't really think so, but you could be.

[Prince Lazy I]

In the previous post:

"Don't get me wrong, I do have a lot of the problems with the supposedly 'mythic' nature of The Matrix but I do find it inspiring that someone's willing to attempt to bring the myth back to life, if not the religion."

That's about right, Brett: while I think the Wachowskis are doggypaddling furiously, way out of depth as they attempt to progress from the beginner's end of the mythpool, I'm still kind of glad they're trying something a little more ambitious than BAM BAM BAM JIGGY JIGGY BAM BAM. I mean, it's hardly DONNIE DARKO, but at least they're trying.

And I have to say - anyone who doesn't get just a bit slack-jawed during the freeway sequence has probably forgotten the concept of fun.

Steve

[Ilker81x]

Very true Prince Lazy I, that freeway scene is meant to just be some good fun action. And I'll say that you're right that at least somebody is trying to bring the concept of a "myth" back into movies and that it does at least try to be something more than a standard shoot-'em-up with cool special effects and music.

My whole problem with "The Matrix" is that it's too derivative of other mythologies from other movies and stories that it hardly seems like somebody trying to bring back "myth" in movies, but more like somebody retelling another person's story with his own characters and maybe changing a coupla little details along the way to make it his own.

Take "Waterworld"...please. Haha. Arguably one of Kevin Costner's worst movies, and not generally regarded as the greatest sci-fi epic of all time, but it had all the elements of a myth. This unknown place in the world where dry land still existed, these evil people who were trying to steal this secret, the seemingly uncaring nomad who becomes a hero, the little girl with the map tattooed on her; all of these make for a great mythical story...but it didn't work. "Waterworld" was good in the concept, but poor in its execution. I couldn't help but watch it and feel like they were trying to recreate "Dune," just in the opposite climate.

Same thing with "The Matrix." All the elements of myths we already know. I can forgive the Wachowski brothers since they have made comments in the past that "The Matrix" is just meant to be a live-action Manga, so for it to resemble "Akira" or "Ghost in the Shell" may not really be accidental, but at the same time it makes it a little less enjoyable because it becomes a rehash or a parody instead of something of its own.

Yes, it is admirable that "The Matrix" tries to bring a sense of mythology to what could have been another boring action movie, but if the mythology does not become something of its own and separates itself from others, then it becomes weak and obsolete, and not worth paying attention to.

[Prince Lazy I]

"Very true Prince Lazy I, that freeway scene is meant to just be some good fun action. And I'll say that you're right that at least somebody is trying to bring the concept of a "myth" back into movies and that it does at least try to be something more than a standard shoot-'em-up with cool special effects and music.

My whole problem with "The Matrix" is that it's too derivative of other mythologies from other movies and stories that it hardly seems like somebody trying to bring back "myth" in movies, but more like somebody retelling another person's story with his own characters and maybe changing a coupla little details along the way to make it his own. "

Nailed it in one, Annapolis. About two minutes into the "Zion" sequence I stopped trying to count the borrowings, appropriations, hommages, rip-offs etc, and just kicked back, let it all wash over me. And that's the way to do it with "Reloaded"!

Speaking of bringing back the mythic into movies... isn't Spielberg resurrecting Indy in a coupla years time? What'll it be this time: the Spear of Destiny? OK, that would be uncomfortably close to the Grail, but it's a helluva myth-arc to tap into: Constantine, Charlemagne, Hitler... Professor Jones!

[Ilker81x]

Hasn't Spielberg been trying to bring back Indiana Jones for the past ten years? Kudos to him if he can do it successfully, but...I'm not holding my breath.

As for "The Matrix," I was one of the few in my dorm who didn't like the first one when it came out. I remember phrases like, "I liked it better when it was called 'Johnny Mnemonic,'" being thrown around until they all came back saying it was the best sci-fi movie ever. I saw it with them when they went the second or third time...almost got the crap beaten outta me 'cuz I dared go against the group consciousness and said, "It's not that good." Oh well...people love it, let 'em have it. I think it's just a good fun action movie, that's all I'll ever take it for, and in my mind any attempt to see it as something more (or at least trying to convince me of that) is a practice in futility.

[Prince Lazy I]

100% with you on this one, Ike. I hope (!) I know profundity when I see it, and I also know pretty well where to go look for it; and while it's always cool to find it where you don't expect it, seeing it where it isn't leaves one just ever-so-slightly open to embarrassment when popular opinion's had time to settle down. Not that embarrassment is the worst thing that can befall one - far from it! On the whole, it's probably better to be naively enthusiastic than a great grey post-ironic wet blanket. So I really don't mind the Matrix-hype in that respect... I just say, "yes, it is good fun, isn't it - have you seen Donnie Darko yet, by the way?"

[Ilker81x]

I haven't seen "Donnie Darko" yet, but it's been recommended to me enough times that it's on my list of movies to see.

[cinemabon]

For fans of The Matrix, I highly recommend the new animated DVD released last week, "Animatrix". There are nine short animated films that will blow you away. The opening one is as startling in its 3-D renderings as anything done in 3-D to date. Though I must admit, that when it comes to expression, people still resemble TV's MAX agent than say a "Gollum" from Lord of the Rings. Budget screams everything.

Still there is great imagination at work here along with very exciting soundtracks filled with all kinds of sound and music mixes that will delight many palates.

After watching the opening about a zillion times, (the other "samurai" anime is also excellent), it begins to make one wonder about the sensuality of the product. How close to detail will they go? They cut out the black guy in his underwear... I guess we aren't ready to see the male side of the equation yet... yes, we are all just too immature for that. However, the girls butt was perfect, with the red thong... now that's entertainment. I guess Snow White is a long way off right about now.

This DVD is state of the art animation at its finest for any subject in 2003. I can't wait to see what 2004 will bring.