Posting my review of the first two installations of “The Matrix Trilogy.”
best regards,
ian
—
The Matrix, Overloaded
by Michael Ian Lomongo, May 26, 2003
I
Why isn’t “The Matrix: Reloaded” as captivating as “The Matrix”?
I don’t think it’s because the novelty of the original movie’s winning combination of stunning visual effects and intriguing philosophical premise has faded. (We know now what “the Matrix” is. We no longer are as curious when we first watched “The Matrix.”) Neither is it simply because most sequels really do fail to come up to expectations. (Consider the “X-men 2″ which is, to me, infinitely better than the first “X-men” movie.)
I loved “The Matrix” mainly because I thought it was pop-philosophy (metaphysics) in film. The only other sci-fi/superhero film that approximates this achievement in recent times was “Spiderman,” a sort of pop-ethics with Kantian/Dostoyevskian/Nietzschean overtones. (Intrigued by a friend’s blurb that “Existenz” was the thinking man’s “Matrix,” I went out of my way to see it. I didn’t like it.)
In “The Matrix,” we journey with the doubting Thomas Anderson (“son of man”?), a computer hacker that goes by the name of Neo, as he slowly wakes up from the “maya”/illusion of “the matrix,” and through the guidance of Morpheus, discovers his virtual “divinity/superhumanity” (at least, within the matrix) and begins to believe in his being the (chosen) “One.”
In the story of Neo, we find the archetype of the hero finding his vocation and awakening to his powers, a theme which resonates deeply with every culture and individual. Thus, it is very easy to link the figure of Neo with either Christ (the “Anointed” One) or the Buddha (The “Awakened” One). In “Reloaded,” Neo almost looks like a priest with his black cassock-like overcoat.
But more important than this is the question raised by the film: What if our life is one big dream from which we haven’t woken up yet?
I remember that anecdote about a chinese philosopher who, upon waking from a dream, wondered whether he dreamt of being a butterfly, or whether he was a butterfly dreaming of being human.
“Row your boat gently down the stream, merrily… life is but a dream.”
Of course, meditations on the relationship between illusion and reality is perhaps as old as civilization itself. But what makes “The Matrix” special is that, probably for the first time in human civilization (what with the advances being made in artificial intelligence and virtual reality), we scientific-minded modern humans realize its imminent possibility, without resorting to the “supernatural or the superstitious.” Really, what if we are already in “the matrix” and we just don’t know it?
How do we wake up from the dream? How do we become “buddhas”?
In the movie, it’s kind of a cross between fate and freedom, choice and destiny. Neo and others who have been unplugged from the matrix have been seeking for answers, and it is this seeking (perhaps more than mere curiosity) which enables the others (Morpheus et al.) to find them.
But deliverance is not without a price. One has to make that choice between a comfortable illusion (Cypher: “Ignorance is bliss.”) and a harsh, unglamorous reality.
And we come to a major paradox in the movie: Do we really have a choice? Or is this just one of our most cherished illusions?
Crucial to Neo’s awakening is his encounter with the Oracle. The reason for wanting to be unplugged from the matrix is the desire to be free, to be in control of one’s life. Neo is reluctant to believe in the Oracle because, philosopher that he is, it would mean that his future was already predetermined. If the Oracle knew what was in the future, how can there be “freedom” and “choice”? It would mean that, with or without “the matrix,” Neo, the One, is not in control, not “free.”
On the other hand, the doubting Thomas in Neo also wanted to believe because belief would mean that he wouldn’t have to make that choice/decision for himself. For decisions, like all cuttings, are (almost) always unpleasant.
So, rather than an answer, the Oracle gives him a “choice”: the sacrifice of life, his or Morpheus’s.
A choice which ultimately proves the difference between “knowing the path” (metaphysics and epistemology) and “walking the path” (ethics). Neo’s pragmatic belief in his capability to save Morpheus’s life becomes the means towards his awakening as the One. To hell with the fate-freedom enigma. To hell with the problem of the “one and the many.” In Neo’s mind, one thing is clear: he can save the life of Morpheus, even if he himself dies.
The path to becoming the “buddha,” the awakened one, is the dissolution of the ego and (yes, I know it’s kind of cheesy) love. For Neo does die, but is resurrected by Trinity’s love.
And then Neo sees the matrix for what it is. And overcomes the agents.
One of the remarkable things about the world of the Matrix movies is that, in it, everything seems to hang together. How is it possible for psychics to violate the laws of physics (e.g., “bend spoons”)? Because, in the first place, “There is no spoon.” (Which is, by the way, borne out by quantum physics, yes, even in our real world.) Why is there an experience of “deja vu”? Because of a glitch in the matrix. Why does chicken taste like everything else? Etc., etc.
II
But why does “The Matrix Reloaded,” unlike Neo, fail to fly?
I think it’s because it tries too hard to surpass the achievement of the previous installment. The fight scenes are far too long, and so are the philosophical discourses. There is even this rather protracted (and I’d say extraneous) rave party scene. The matrix wasn’t just reloaded. It was overloaded.
In the lengthy conversation between Neo and the elder of the council, we find a reflection on the meaning of power and control. Why is the possession of power and control almost always conceived negatively, that is, in terms of destruction? (The one who has power, the one in control, is the one who’s able to turn off, stop, destroy, the other.) When the elder rues this all-too-human tendency, Neo asks “What’s your point?” To which the elder replies, “There is no point.” (In tagalog: “Wala lang.”) Is this an attempt on the part of the filmmakers to make a pointed commentary on deconstruction?
In Neo’s scene with the Oracle, you have basically a repetition of their banter about the Oracle’s knowing the future. What is intriguing (given the later revelation on the “true” color of the Oracle) is her remark to Neo: “Thank you for making a believer out of me.” Does this indicate her possible conversion/defection later in the story? Or does it simply express her admiration for the courage of Neo’s choice/decision?
Finally, in the scene with the Architect and his abstruse discourse, we have a presentation of the many-possible worlds theory in quantum physics. As Neo says, it really is a question of choice. The reality we live is ultimately shaped and determined by the choices that we make. To save or not to save… to betray or not to betray… variations on a theme from Hamlet. (Question: Why do they always save the girl first? Between saving the world and saving the girl, superheroes in film, including Spiderman, always prioritize the girl. Superman saved the world first, but reversed time to bring back Lois Lane to life.)
More questions: What does it mean for an artificial intelligence (Agent Smith) to inhabit a human body? When Neo stops the sentinels, does it mean that he has actually developed superpowers in the real world? Or does the matrix go deeper than we know?
All in all, “The Matrix: Reloaded,” despite being overloaded, doesn’t crash or sink. But neither does it, in Link’s words, “do the superman thing.”
III
“The Matrix has you.”
Or is it more fitting to call it “the Patrix”?
About two years ago I read one contemporary Japanese Play (“Lullaby: 100 Years of Songs”). It’s a play about a theater group in crisis because the lead actor has gone AWOL. They search for someone who can do it and ultimately find one. In the process, and interspersed with rehearsals of the play they’re mounting, issues within the members of the group are raised. The play that they’re mounting touches on the paranormal, but also raises questions regarding mothers and motherhood. One of the characters in the play, exasperated by the suffocating love of his mother, wanted to escape to “a land without mothers.”
The love of a mother, when excessive, can be dangerous not only to the child but to the world at large. Precisely because unconditional, it can either make the child a weakling (overly dependent) or a tyrant (overly aggressive). Of course, the shadow side of a mother’s love is when it becomes manipulative.
Tradition has associated femininity with motherhood. Our minds, used to metaphors, have tied up the idea of “receptacle, vessel, sheath” with the “feminine” (the vagina, the womb). Not only that, the feminine has also been associated with the negative side of our bipolar valuations. Connect the dots: feminine… the vagina… the womb… the vessel… the passive… the weak… the tomb… death… darkness… waters… emotions… fluidity… unreliability… etc. On the other hand, the positive has been appropriated by the masculine: the penis… the mighty… the sword… the active… fire… sky… mountains… light… reason… law…
The trinity is almost a triumvirate: the father, the son, and while the holy spirit is presumed to be neither male nor female, “spiritus” (Latin) is masculine. “Animus” (masc.) is spirit; “anima” (fem.) is soul. In traditional philosophy, the ambition has always been to separate the pure mind (masc.) from the impure body (fem.). Even the word “matter” (the principle of individuation and a source of scandal for many a theologian and philosopher) comes from “materia,” which in turn comes from “mater” (“mother,” the same word from which the word “matrix” comes).
Thus, the fear for being imbedded in “the matrix” can be interpreted as a deeply imbedded fear of the womb/tomb, cradle/grave… the mother? The feminine other?
In our fixation not to be controlled, to be in control, to have power, we forget that society, with all its so-called mechanisms of control, is to a great extent largely patriarchal (what the feminists call the patriarchy). It is the “patrix” whis has us.
Women’s liberation, gay liberation, liberation from racism, etc. are directed against this “patrix.” Any victory for them is a victory for humanity. But as they say, the ultimate bondage is the bondage of the spirit. Thus, the need for us “to free the mind” from its prejudices… (Foucault says “It is not that everything is evil, but that everything is dangerous.” We need, therefore, to take care… of ourselves… of other people… of our world.)
I’m not sure whether the elevation of the spirit and denigration of the body (and all the dirty, inconvenient things the idealists are ashamed of, like urinating, fucking, defecating, etc.) have as their consequence the marginalization of the feminine and the others (other forms of difference), or it’s the other way around. But they are definitely connected. And much more insidious because they are to a great extent, undetected. Or taken for granted.
Tags: Ethics, Gender Issues, Illusion, Love, Maternity, Matrix, Metaphysics, Power, Reality
[...] the matrix overloaded [?] Share This [...]
[...] also Gerontophobia and The Matrix, Overloaded Filipinos, Life, Philosophy, Psychology, [...]