My thoughts on the Matrix.

[mattbballman19]

1) The machines are God, lit. deus ex machina--I resent the implication that we made God but working from that frame is certainly necessary--they created a "perfect matrix" we rejected it. They created the world we live in. Most people are decieved by it, but some are aware of the true world of forms. They are the offended party at war with humanity who are appeased by a sacrifice from the Messiah figure (Neo). They were incapable of fighting death (Smith) in the matrix, as he as in fact a free creation of theirs (the opposite of Neo who endures because he chooses to). After the death of our hero instead of "It is finished" they say "It is done." Their home is beautiful "like light built on light." Neo is a Messiah figure--though in the wachowski's a little bit beyond Christ. They preserve much Christian imagery, but also have a unitarian universalist bent to them (Neo saves everyone, not just believers, Trinity dies i.e. orthodox Judeo-Chrisitianity). Even the name Neo, means new--their beleifs are a polyglot of Buddhism, Christianity and some Hinduism, with a heavy dose of Platonic thought. Morpheus is Plato. Smith is death. The opposite of Neo. Some see Christ/antichrist, I see more yin yang. (Rewatch Matrix 2, when neo and smith first fight there is an over head shot wherein a circle of smiths surround neo and it even looks like a yin yang. That should suffice to at least start a conversation.

[geebob]

I would read this, but I haven't seen the movie yet.

[Sheepdog]

good points, but try not to look so much at the religion-philosophy aspects of the movie, but also the technology-philosophy aspects. man is under control of the tech that we make / we are dependant on it: technological determinism. man tries to break free a la Emerson or perhaps Thorough. we realize that we need technology, and tech needs us, so we strike a compromise (Technology and the Tragic View; an essay i am reading that is pretty middle of the road in terms of technology being good/bad). and of course, let's not forget the post apochtalyptic cliche: technology grows out of our control and we are responsible for our own destruction (common theme since the A-bomb).

remember, the Wasiski(sp?) brothers intentionally meshed a whole bunch of philosophy together to make the storyline. so, we probably shouldn't be suprized that Christian philosophy gets mixed up with Eastern philosophy (although, i am impressed that they were able to make deterministic Calvinist philosophy mesh with the both-and nature of Eastern thought).

[geebob]

ooo! Good parallels. I'm not sure how morpheus is considered Plato though.

He is more likely the "elijah that was to come", the john the baptist figure "preparing the way of the Lord."

He could be a Plato, but the role of John the baptist is more emphasized.

[Jin-Roh]

Did anybody notice the earrings the oracle had on? They were nice little symbols when she was discussing agent smith with neo.

I'm also not surprised of the way Christianity got meshed together with probably a dozen other schools-of-thought.

[BohemianXQueen]

The Matrix definately has some Christian references in it, but it's just a movie...

[geebob]

but it's just a movie...

yeah? it's just a movie. and this is just a web forum where we discuss movies that are just movies. Your point?

[Harlequin Solit]

I think she means you're looking into it too deep...

If you're correct then it's nice that the humans beat the machines... :tongue: Makes a change. Anyway, if that means that God is just an illusion, then I'd rahter not live in an illusion.

[BohemianXQueen]

That's exactly what I meant, Harlequin.

[Patroclus]

If we are going to say that it is "just a movie" or that a book is "just a book," then we have no basis criticism at all. At its very basic level, a creative work is a means of communication. It implies a dialogue between creator and audience. This is so because nothing can be created without a creator (nothing, anyway, that we know of). Furthermore, because of the external nature of a creation, a creation implies an audience, whether it be another person, or the creator him/herself. Therefore, if we have an implied dialogue, we have an implied message, whether the message be profound or banal intentionally, or unintentionally.

If then, we are to dismiss from criticism one form of communication, why not dismiss all other forms of communication? Since I find dismissing all communication from criticism imprudent, I feel confident to make comments on at least some media of communication.

So, BoExQ and Harry S, considerring the very real possibility that people may be able to interpret names and symbols such as those outlined in the first interpretation, do you think that all those images are not as they are explained, but arbitrary? Why? Why not?

[BohemianXQueen]

I am not dismissing critcism. I'm saying that we shouldn't take it so seriously. Those are totally different things.

[geebob]

I think she means you're looking into it too deep...


nope, it is deep and the wachowski brothers are geniuses filling their movie with such richness and complexity.

Then again, they may not have intended a few of the observations made about the movie, and yet the parrallels are still incredible and not to be ignored.

These are post modern times and we are well within our rights for such an understanding even if the understanding was not interpretted.

But that is highly unlikely. The wachowski brothers come from the western tradition (like we all do, except unlike a few of us, they'd most likely be aware of the origens of their ideas).

The religious parrallels are just to present to ignore. There's a Judas figure who shares in the wine of the Christ figure, and even a kiss of betrayal. The names are barrowed from a tradition that the wachowski's are certainly not ignorant of. (trinity, the one who loves neo, which parallels that the triune God is the model upon which the male female pairbonding is based upon).

And of course their are parrallels to other relgions such as gnosticism and buddhism cannot be ignored. See some of Kenny's discussions in the other matrix thread for that.

This criticism that we are just looking too deep into it is very odd and shows gross ignorance of what most of the intellectual world is aware of about these movies. I'm sorry, but I just suspect that there's nothing more to it than that someone noticed christian parrallels and some who dislike the christian tradition don't want to recognize any creative richness coming from that. And such a bias would gloss over the fact that some christian's wouldn't even like the gnostic parts of the movie.



I'm saying that we shouldn't take it so seriously.

actually, I have no idea what this means.

[Ben Franklin]

To me, the "Matrix" represents what Immanuel Kant called the "phenomenal world". The "nomenal" world is what truly exists, but it can't be perceived. That's about as far as my analogy goes.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

BohemianXQueen:

I am not dismissing critcism. I'm saying that we shouldn't take it so seriously. Those are totally different things.

I disagree. I think movies have supplanted books as the medium for the transmission of ideas and so us arguing about the meaning of the movie is all and well.

I think it is inaccurate to say that the directors didn't have messages they wanted to convey with their movies.

dlw

[Ben Franklin]

11-29-2003 @ 07:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320315#post320315)
Love-Warrior:

I disagree. I think movies have supplanted books as the medium for the transmission of ideas and so us arguing about the meaning of the movie is all and well.

I think it is inaccurate to say that the directors didn't have messages they wanted to convey with their movies.

dlw

There are still many movies that are lifted from books. It just seems that movies are supplanting books: movies are more accessible, by far, but many movie ideas still come from books !

[Patroclus]

Well, whether or not the movies derive their inspiration from books, I still don't think that movies are supplanting books as a mode of communication, especially considerring that movie making is less prolific now than it was in the 30s and 40s. However, to say that visual communication is more the trend than is textual communication, I would agree. On that basis, I think we have grounds for criticism. It calls on us to look at the images in movies, since that is the point of a movie.