On cyberdash, Clancy asked if I had seen Matrix Revolutions and if I would post something.
Well, I just got back from the movie. Clancy, despite the many disappointed reviews, I liked it. And I liked it better than the last one. And I do think that reviews such as Slate's The Matrix: Regurgitated miss the point completely. Unfortunately, you'll have to wait until after you see the movie to read the rest of my initial thoughts on the movie.
Major spoiler follows:
It's not hard to understand why the movie has gotten unfavorable views. I think
that for many fans, the spectacle is one of the key components of the trilogy.
However, the novelty of the setting and special effects cannot sustain those viewers over three films. Aristotle pointed out that Spectacle is the least artistic part of an epic. We should not depend on it for continued aesthetic pleaure. How we teach that to movie fans drawn mostly to eye candy and action sequences, I don't know.
More important, many viewers will be uncomfortable with the deaths of
Neo and Trinity. This is not your typical Hollywood ending. But their deaths
are important for conflict resolution. The problem is that most viewers will miss--because they identify with Neo and Trinity most of all--that the major conflict is
not focused on Neo and Trinity.
Matrix Reoloaded's main purpose is to develop further and resolve the conflict between the Oracle and the
Architect/Neo and Smith, a philosophical fight within the machine world. What we see
are two elements: choice and purpose/predestination. The Oracle's reiteration
throughout the trilogy of the right to choose acknowledges the value of human
emotions and of humanity itself for something more than just an energy generator.
Meanwhile, both the Architect and the machine world revolve around purpose.
Since they destroy machines without purpose, the Oracle's fight for choice is
not just for humanity, but for a machines as well.
Consider also the plurality of Neo as the one. For the Oracle, he is the One,
her champion. The One who can choose, whose ultimate destiny she cannot see
because of that right to choose. The One in opposition to the Many of Smith,
the embodiment of purpose. Note that this is why Smith ultimately fails, because
by defeating Neo, his purpose is finally complete and the machine world, by
their own rules, can retrieve him through Neo.
This plurality is further complicated by the notion of the One as the savior
of Zion. However, only to focus on this is to render a human-centric reading
of the text. Realize that Neo's primary role as savior is to the machines. When
he encounters the family in the train station, Neo is exposed to the lesson
that machines, too, can feel, that love and karma are only words in themselves;
it is through desire and action by an individual that they take on meaning. The love demonstrated
by the parents for the little girl--that machines can be compassionate--I think finally
leads Neo to trust himself and the Oracle's intentions.
The value of the little girl, a program without purpose, is further emphasized
in the ending moments. Her existence, owed to love, results in a program which
makes the sunrise more beautiful and spectacular than normal out of tribute
to Neo, her savior. A program which can create beauty only has value through
feeling. And the final proof that the AI's are individuals, too.
Meanwhile, Neo forced the machine world to go against it's programming and
make a choice, to liberate Zion even though the Architect called for the destruction
of Zion as part of the cycle. They chose life over obliteration by Smith. We see his importance to them in the final imagery as the machines bear
him away, laid out with his arms outstretched as with Christ on the Cross. His death, his willingness to sacrifice himself for the machines makes him their savior more so than that of Zion's. His actions have a significant
impact on the primary beliefs of the machine world; at the end, the machine world
no longer destroys programs without purpose.
So there is peace at the end between humanity and machines, and a recognition
by both sides that mutual existence is necessary, that each has much to offer
the other, and that ulitimately, individuality occurs through the ability to
choose.
correction and expansion
Corrected a silly gaffe above where I typed "Revisited" instead of "Reloaded."
Meanwhile, now that I've thought about it some more, I think that this reading does work. Those were first thoughts, 1 1/2 hours after the movie. Consider some other ways to impose this reading:
At some point, I need to go back and watch the other movies to see if this works. So, can someone poke holes in this reading for me? Or even extend it? From my perspective, it's certainly more satisfying than all of the reviews which merely position the movie as leaving little explained.
Matrix
I went to see the matrix revolutions last night, but first I went to some blogs to see what other people said about it. Many people did not like it, while others thought it was quite good. I went into the movie with little expectations other than an end to the trilogy.
It turns out that I liked it, I really did. After the movie, I heard people beside me, behind me and in front of me saying that 'it sucked' - not too many 'it was great' reactions. I drove home in a daze after the movie, analyzing it. I thought about the philosophical angles, and the biblical references. I still think it was clever and deep. Maybe too deep and philosophical for the regular viewer, I'm not sure. I am still putting the pieces together - and I think the comments here are quite interesting. Thanks!
lower your expectations and the movies are pretty good
When I saw the 2nd Matrix movie I hated it, except for the chase scene and the kung-fu. So I watched it again on video knowing what to expect and the whole movie was much more enjoyable.
In a similar way, reading all the negative reviews of the 3rd movie let me know what to expect again and made it much more enjoyable to watch. Unfortunately this doesn't have as much interesting action as the 2nd or 1st movies, just a lot of mechanical squids being shot up.
I wouldn't even try to fit all the different philosophical/religious themes from the movies together. It's just a grab-bag of everything from philosophy 101. The Oracle reminded me of Sartre for example:
"The only thing we are not free to do is not to choose."
We forget that the original premise of the movie is flawed - that people are just disembodied computers and can do things like learn kung-fu instantly by "downloading" a program into our brain.
Matrix = Thinking Movie--I think Not
I agree whole-heartedly with Dug's assessment of this dismal "philosophical" movie for those fascinated with phil 101 concepts. I mean, please. If someone has made it to movie-viewing age without ever pondering solipsism, they have bigger problems than poor taste in film.
A FAR, FAR better movie along the same lines as the Matrix is the seldom-discussed masterpiece Dark City. The movie is, whether consciously or not, an allegory of Lacanian and Freudian theory. The allusions to both critical and literary theory are plentiful--for instance, there's a scene where the three main characters are rowing in a boat while the psychiatrist explains that "life is but a dream." There's also a classic scene where the main character is staring at a dagger that looms before him--the look on his face says what a lesser movie would feel compelled to spell out for a braindead audience: "Is this a dagger I see before me? Or a dagger of the mind?" (The latter is the answer, of course!)
So, believe me when I say, leave Matrix on the shelf; grab Dark City. It's far more coherent, better directed, and leaves out all the Hollywood kungfu B.S. that offends the disciminating viewer.
That's my $2 million on the subject. :-)
re: Matrix = Thinking Movie--I think Not
I'll agree (well, except that I found Dark City less interesting than the Matrix). The Matrix trilogy is not philosophically heavy. But the three movies, coupled with the Animatrix, have an interesting rhetorical strategy which works toward conflict resolution.
Consider that Neo is the focus; that the conflicts within him about AI's is the tension that the viewer should feel. By the end of the first movie, Neo is left hating machines for what they have done to mankind. Animatrix then makes a case for how humans brought it on themselves. Still, we are not supposed to sympathize with the AI's yet.
When in Revisited Neo discovers that the Oracle is a program, Neo is left questioning the Oracle's motives. And in doing so, raises the possibility that all programs are not antagonistic toward man. The final movie, if you take my reading above, resolves that tension and makes clear that humans are damned for their conduct toward the AI's in the beginning. Mankind started the war. While many viewers are probably walking away from the Matrix thinking that we should be careful to treat AI's properly to avoid a war between humans and machine, the real point of the movie is that AI's may have consciousness, individuality, and it is on these grounds that humankind should accept them.
Certainly a different message than the Terminator series or the Borg in Star Trek which only builds fear of machines taking over. But not so far removed from what we see in Blade Runner.
Videogame Vs. Movie
I found this interesting comment from my favorite online movie critic, James Barardinelli:
In recent years, the line between special effects-focused blockbusters and computer games has been shrinking, and The Matrix Revolutions further narrows the gap. All that's missing is a joystick on the theater seat arm rest. The battle for Zion should be tense and suspenseful, but the obviousness of the computer generated animation during these sequences damages the ability to suspend disbelief. I didn't ever believe that I was watching humanity's last stand. Instead, I felt like I was watching a non-playable demo for a Matrix Revolutions videogame - shoot down as many sentinels as possible before being overwhelmed. The human element is limited to a few familiar faces rather than legitimate characters we actually care about.
That's a fascinating insight--movies as "non-playable demos." I wonder how long that attitude will take to catch-on among special-effect fans.