home | search | poll | current columns
Reloading a Centuries-Old Debate
By Thomas Bean | It's got you now, the Matrix
does. You are caught in its logarithms, its pretext, its code. And if
you have now seen Matrix Reloaded, you are probably very much
spinning around inside wondering how deep this code really goes.
Before tackling the truly deep
philosophical and theological bearings and direction of
Reloaded, we should get the more mundane, normal film review
business out of the way.
First, I don't want to ever
see Keanu Reeves naked, EVER. Is that so much to ask? The orgy-fest
was unnecessary and distracted from the essence of the film. I understand
what the Wachowski brothers were trying to do: show the difference between
the cold, emotionless computer and the vibrant, emotional humans. But
it was unnecessary and a white rabbit trail used to fill time more than
substance.
Second, now that Reeves' nakedness
issue is out of the way, Reloaded is nowhere near as deep, mind-twisting
or innovative as its predecessor. To be fair,
Reloaded does have depth, which we will get to shortly, and has
tons of eye-candy. But it also has many kitschy parts to it (Superman
in flight, for instance, and that's just a start) and plot flaws, or
rather, Matrix flaws (we'll get to those later too).
Now granted, this is the second
of the three. Many unresolved aspects should be addressed in the third
film (The Matrix Revolutions, which also looks fabulous). No
doubt about it, Reloaded will be revered as the best of the three
by many loyal followers, just like how many feel
Empire Strikes Back is the best of the original
Star Wars trilogy. Yet for my money and time, the original broke
barriers, the second expounded on a handful of the philosophical issues
raised in the first.
That brings us to the crux
of the film. For all of its exceptional and ground-breaking special
effects, the reason this trilogy has its devoted following is for these
two reasons: 1) computers and hackers galore and 2) truly deep religious
and philosophical issues.
Starting with the computer
imagery, it is a brilliant maneuver of the plot to so intimately wed
itself to computer language. Why? Because it makes sense. Or at least
it does for most people under 30. The trilogy's focus is the theological
and philosophical argument between free will and predestination. Thus,
whether a computer follows the code written for it or develops "a mind
of its own" is part of the films' debate.
The religious imagery is obvious,
and not just Christian. (Quick example, Neo, the film's Christ figure,
walks into a room and sees a man who looks like a sitting Buddha). The
overt focus on Christ themes helps lure viewers in, but it is ultimately
a distraction. Many people do not understand the difference between
allegory and a retelling of the Christ story. An allegory is the representation
of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in
narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form. In this sense, the Matrix movies
are chock full of allegorical references, many to the Bible and Christianity.
However, be wary of drawing strict parallels between Jesus and Neo.
While they certainly share some traits, they are not the same. Similar
to how Agent Smith shares traits with Satan. That doesn't mean he IS
Satan.
It is also important to realize
the difference because otherwise viewers are not going to be thrilled
with "God" or Neo's longing for Trinity's, ahem, affection. The film
never says this is how your life is, only that it COULD be like this.
Again, while the religious
overtones add depth to the story and an element of substance, they can
distract from the films' primary discussion: the balance between predestination
and free will. Or Fate and choice, if you rather. And the films, for
the most part, do a great job with the arguments. Thus far, it looks
like the predestination argument is winning, though in the third film
we shall whether free will prevails. But is it free will after all?
Ah, now the real discussion and debate begins.
This is a centuries-old debate
and it is unlikely that a film, even three of them, will suddenly resolve
it. But like any good, thought-provoking movie,
The Matrix trilogy capitalizes on this philosophical quandary,
and discusses it in various layers throughout the plot.
Reloaded digs the hole deeper. By doing so, it changes perceptions
held in the first film. While a simpler film than the first, it intentionally
furthers this particular discussion.
So, what is it? Predestination?
Are we predestined to do everything that we do? Free will? Do we have
a real choice in what we do? A lot depends on your view of divine sovereignty
versus human freedom. One way to put it is are you Calvinist or Armenian?
While that question is grossly simplistic, it at least gives a good
starting point. A Calvinist typically emphasizes God's divine sovereignty,
while an Armenian usually stresses the role of human free will.
In terms of
Reloaded, does Neo truly have free will? Or is this all preordained.
While Neo fiercely holds to his independent free will, he also abides
by what the Oracle says, since her words seem too accurate to be simply
coincidental. So he binds himself by her words, and Morpheus' words.
Like Merovingian said, action and reaction, cause and effect. Their
words cause Neo to effect. Or do they? It depends again on how you view
human freedom. Are we bound by circumstances? Are we bound by design?
Or are we bound by human free will? But free will creates causes which
of course create effects.
One aspect of the argument
that tends to get lost in the shuffle, but is expounded on constantly
by the films, is purpose. What is the purpose of life, anyone's life?
For the Keymaker, his purpose is to make keys and, more specifically,
get Neo into a particular room. That is his life's purpose and he is
satisfied with that. Purpose adds so much weight to the debate. It is
what most people are asking and for which most are searching. Under
the determinism argument, everyone and everything has a purpose to fulfill.
But if everything revolves around individual free will, what is the
purpose of each?
In film, purpose is different
than in real life. Each character has a purpose to fulfill and to fulfill
it at particular points in the film. For instance,
Reloaded failed to have any agents between the first few scenes
and the freeway chase scenes. While there should have been more agents
(if abiding true to precedent), they would not have been appropriate
for what the movie was trying to do. Thus, they had no purpose reappearing
until the freeway scene. What if life is like a movie? What if people
come into our lives at particular times for particular purposes and
then when that purpose is finished, they are out of our lives again?
Obviously these are issues
too rich to delve deeply into at this point. And many books have been
written on this subject. Few films, though, have been able to handle
this topic fairly and well. No matter whether one is an open theologian,
believes in libertarian free will, or is a determinist, one has to appreciate
The Matrix trilogy for its scope and depth with such a deep,
difficult issue.
SPOILER:
The most convoluted philosophical
mess comes toward the end of the film when Neo enters through the door
of light, into a room full of TVs with his face on them and "God" sitting
in a chair. It's like some weird off-take of
2001: A Space Odyssey, except with dialogue.
Here are some of the problems
that come out of that scene, at least at this point in the trilogy.
If there have already been five previous versions and they all ended
relatively the same way, why does "God" keep reloading a newer version?
Why does he want to destroy Zion every time? Would there be another
upgrade after this one, and if so, why? If "God" is such a great architect
of the Matrix, why can't he get it right by the sixth time?
This is, again, why the Matrix
is an allegory, not a parallel. Also, while we know that man screwed
up (thanks a lot, Adam), God created us anyhow and chose to continue
the world's existence through great trauma and grief (wars upon wars,
sin upon sin). However, the redemption comes through the blood of the
Lamb, that is Jesus. While Neo died and was resurrected in the first
film, his blood wasn't shed for any salvation purpose.
Back to pondering
Reloaded, is the Matrix inside another Matrix? And if so, did
"God" insert himself into the Matrix within the Matrix like Neo and
the others do? If Neo is the sixth of his kind and Zion has already
fallen five times previous, that means the "real" is not really real.
In other words, Zion must be part of another Matrix.
One is free to add other potential
twists to the idea. For instance, how long has this really been going
on? Was history all programmed so that there isn't thousands of years
but only 100 or so?
Or is "God" really a program,
too. After all, he said if he is the father of the Matrix, then the
Oracle, who we know is a program, would be the mother. Doesn't sound
much like God. Is he lying? Perhaps. If he isn't lying, then these questions
show some of the serious flaws that have suddenly emerged in the plot
(regardless of the upcoming third film).
Joseph W Singley
There is one (maybe minor) problem I had with the viewer. When talking
about Calvinism and it's opposite, the correct spelling for that is Arminian. This
is because it comes from James Arminius. While this may seem minor. It can
give the impression that the writer is not familiar enough with historical
theology to be credible enough to discuss it. But like I said, it was one of the
best reviews other than that. And I look forward to reading more by this writer.
Joost de Heus
there is only one thing, why can't neo see it. this would mean that the matrix
can influence him in some way.
the last but least possible thing could be that neo is a program himself, but
het doesn't know that. he took control of a body to hide from the matix and gave
that skill to good old smithy.
we'll see if I'm right or not
Jak
Now in Reloaded, Neo believes that the real world is in fact the real world and
has no idea he is still within the matrix, therefore he is blind of the truth
(christianity?)
However, his conversation with the Oracle and the Architect has lead him to
once again doubt everything he knows. When they escape their ship, he feels
something strange because he has ideas running through his mind and is openly
seeking answers again.
He has newfound abilities which he cannot fully control yet
OR the Architect is still controlling everything in a preordained atmosphere.
Which supports the bits you pick up on where Neo contains code or knows
something that nobody else does. He is the one sole anomoly with such powers. By
stepping through the other door he chose not to hand over that code which is
necessary in order to restart the matrix. Think of Neo as a key to the lock.
The reason the Architect rebuilds Zion frequently is because he is not even
representative of "God". Fact 1) The Oracle came up with most of the processes
for The Matrix. Fact 2) The Architect is a perfectionist seeking perfection but
can't find it. Assumption 1) The Architect is representative of a "Bill Gates
Figure" designing Operation Systems which are the best on the market but still
stink. (sorry it's so long)
Ian
In '78, EEC Chief Computer Analyst, Dr Hanrick Eldeman, said BEAST - (Belgian
Electronic Accounting Surveillance Terminal) - had already given everyone on
Earth an 18-digit ID, begun 666, exactly as per Apocalypse/Revelation 13:16/18
In '74, Washington Uni Prof R Keith Farrell had developed a laser gun that
tattooed an 18-digit ID by putting a soft plastic under the skin, that gives off 1
watt, 2 be sxcanned by cash till lasers, 4 the "cashless, chequeless society, 2
stop robbery & mugging by doing away with cash"
The Global Big Brother angle is that signal can be pinpointed, anywhere on
Earth, even on a plane
Thank God 4 the instant airlift of all who love Jesus, B4 the worst time comes,
per Matthew 24 etc
Richard
Although a great fan of the first film, I see danger in this trilogy. ZION
(named after the Bible's holy city and a place I couldn't wait to see in the movie)
is portrayed more like Babylon.
As soon as I saw the MTVish Orgy scene, that was it for me. I immediately felt
sorry for all the pastor's who had actually integrated the first Matrix movie
into their sermons. Now they really have some explaining to do to congregation
members who have accepted this film as a retelling of Christ's story.
Hollywood is Hollywood. They want to make money--via entertainment--not save
souls.
Brian Prewitt
I disagree, however, with the author's identification of the movie's concepts
with the Christian dialogue of free will and predestination. It strikes me that
the Wachowski's seem much more entrenched in the fatalism debate than in a
concept of predestination. They do not have a sense of a personal God that I have
seen (the Architect, after all, is only the Architect of the Matrix, at least
as far as we know). Therefore, it seems important to emphasize how different
their view of "determinism" is from the Christian concept/dialogue of
predestination.
My hope is that this movie might help provoke dialogue on the
Calvinist/Arminian debate that shows the contrast between the Christian dialogue and the secular conversation. I appreciate the author for starting us out in a helpful
direction.
Will Caskey
Secondly, I think the film lent the impression that its philosophical issues
are more complicated than they actually are. While the film may receive acclaim
for being a diamond in the rough inasmuch as it pays any attention to
philosophy or thought, its "debates" are disjointed, even put on a pedestal as the
ridiculous fight scenes are. Attention-grabbing dialogue such as Smith's speech
about purpose quickly falls aside, while hot air such as the Merovingian's pompous
diatribes seems to drag on forever. One would think that "the issues" speak
for themselves if one only cares to consider them; the fact that the Wachowskis
try to hype them seems like another example of Hollywood spin rather than a
meaningful engagement.
Matt
"If Neo is the sixth of his kind and Zion has already fallen five times
previous, that means the "real" is not really real. In other words, Zion must be part
of another Matrix."
Not true. Again the reviewers supposition. Zion is destroyed in concurrence
with the Matrix to "reset" the entire system. The two events are referenced as
separate occurences. The Matrix is reloaded, then Zion is wiped clean and
restocked. The population of Zion is stocked with the restless 1% of that version of
the Matrix. To contain multiple generations would be unmanageable and most likely
dangerous to the machines.
On subsequent viewing you can see strings being pulled to fool the audience and
plunge them into doubt by destroying the basic tenants upon which the first
film is built. That is, Neo is not "the one", but in fact just the latest version
of "the one" and also, and more importantly, that the prophecy is false as The
Matrix is indeed not destroyed. I can see why Reloaded has received the
criticism it has garnered. It does appear to trash all the concept held in the first
film. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact of the matter is that by it's very nature there can be only one "One.
Neo is that one. The other "Ones" are not The One. The Prophecy is far greater
reaching than the mere bounds of The Matrix. In the real world Neo is
represented as just an "average joe". His ability is only manifested when he is in The
Matrix. Until of course we saw him destroy the Sentinels in the real world.
Morpheus' prophecy is far greater reaching then even he supposed. Neo possesses the
powers of the One whether he is either inside or outside the Matrix. Neo is the
saviour of mankind and it was his choice to sacrifice mankind for a single life
that sets out the course of events for the third film where he fulfils his true
potential of being The One and give us all a pretty mind-blowing happy ending.
dc
Kiki
Sex is an obsession in American life, but two scenes in a two hour movie is not
enough in my mind to discount an otherwise brilliant film. The Matrix does
parallel other serious matter, but in the end, it's just a movie. A ridiculously
interesting one that raises many theological and philosophical debates, but JUST
A MOVIE.
Mike
It is never mentioned that the architect is "God" and we know he is a code
writing program. "If Neo is the sixth of his kind and Zion has already fallen five
times previous, that means the "real" is not really real. In other words, Zion
must be part of another Matrix." Is also wrong to say for sure. It is
possible that this is where they are going with the next film, but what if they
aren't? If you stayed and watched the trailer for the third film, you see a lot of
Zion "real world" footage, and war scenes with the mech warrior type vehicles
getting ready to spray lead. I think the Wachowski brothers are better than having an ending akin to the old show Dallas (or was it Dynasty?) where somebody
wakes up and it was ALL a dream. It could happen, but it would be really lame if
they did not go further than that. What I think everyone is missing is the
link between Agent Smith and NEO coupled with the link between real world NEO and
the other guy that Agent Smith "hacked" in the real world. NEO tore apart Agent Smith's program in the first movie. In the second movie it is reveiled that it freed him, yet we see he functions as a virus. A virus with the purpose of killing NEO (goes back to what the first reviewer said, this movie is much about purpose.) But why wouldn't NEO then act as a virus in the real world to the machines and have the power to smoke squiddies and every other machine? If a link can cross over from the Matrix to a human taken over by Agent Smith, then NEO has the same link back to the machine world.
Or it is a matrix in a matrix, which they better script well or I will be
ticked off at the potential cheesyness.
Here are my biggest problems, how did an envelope from the Oracle containing
the Source Code NEO is supposed to "reload" back into the mainframe get from the
Matrix to NEO in the real world, then back into the Matrix with NEO? Either
they took the "knowledge" and put it on a data card, then when NEO went back in
they inputted it as a card he is carrying around again, or it is a Matrix in a
Matrix, or it was just a plot flaw.
Last mind blower, why can't they just use their cell phones to get out of the
Matrix? Data is data whether broadcasted or landlined.
Nuff said.
Grace
What I see is that, Earth has already been through FIVE cycles of mass
extinctions (the last one being the reign of the Dinosours) whereby in each mass
extinction, a large number of species are killed off, and life starts all over again.
Note that not ALL life is killed off, only a large percentage, whereby there
are still a few left, to keep life on earth going.
Now, we are currently going through what scientists call the Sixth Mass
Extinction - The Holocene. Equivalent to this cycle of Mass Extinction, Neo is being
seen as the saviour to prevent Mankind's sixth mass extinction in the movie,
thus he being named the sixth one.
The brother's have deeper philosophical meaning in their movies, do not
restrict them to religious points of view.
Use the form below to give feedback on this movie, or to respond to this article. Remember, we want to hear what your opinions are, not just why other opinions are wrong. Comments will be posted within 48 hours.
READER RESPONSES
I think this review was very well written. The writer dealt well with
the issues. He pointed out a scene that was objectionable and then went on to
talk about the issues that the movies raised well. I do agree with the points
about flaws in the plot. Indeed there were flaws with the first one, but they
weren't as major as they are here. I think that the plot becomes convoluted at
the point that Neo is confronting the Architect.
I like to go a bit further on the matix in the matrix subject. in the
movie the say that the oracle found out that 99% accepts the matrix
programming. it would be natural to build a failsafe in the program to harbor these people
in. it would also be a good terrain to test your war machine.
Neo cannot see the code because he does not believe. As in part one,
Neo did not start seeing the matrix in code until he believed he was 'The One'
or atleast 'Someone'.
Interesting 2 consider likely inspiration 4 "machines take over" theme
Just a quick comment...
I appreciate the author's comments. He has captured the tension that
exists in The Matrix, simultaneously celebrating free will ("It all begins with
choice") and determinism (or fate). These first two movies have yet to take a
strong stand in rejecting or celebrating either side of the debate. Instead,
it has affirmed both free choice (in honoring decisions that fly in the face of
"prophecy") and yet held up prophetic visions and other elements of a
deterministic universe.
This is an interesting review. I would like to add two points.
First, I think that the orgy scene was an attempt to distinguish Zion as a Dionysian
society, as opposed to an Apollonian. This would serve the purpose of showing
them as life-affirming, ecstatic, mystical, et cetera, not to mention apart
from most mainstream Christian faiths. However, it was terribly done; while the
link between sex (life, creation, joy) and religion is not a bad idea, the scene
could have been trimmed to thirty seconds with the same ideas presented, and
less redundant rave music and Keanu flesh.
The reviewer keeps making reference to Neo meeting "God" at the end of
the film and the flaws inherent in the precept. To me, an example of how the
reviewer has fallen victim to his own arguement of being to literal with the
biblical references. At no point is The Architect ever referred to as "God". That
is the reviewers interpetation. Sure the are paralles, but within the context of
the film, The Architect is just a program. High functioning certainly, and
perhaps the core code for every function of The Matrix but a program none the less.
He is not a deity. He is code. His central flaw being that he seeks perfection
in a system that is inherently flawed, and has to be flawed in order to
function.
erm, cool car chase :)
Sex is a part of life. While seeing the input spots on Keanu Reeves
and Carrie Anne Moss was a bit repulsive, and the cake scene was explicit, it is
nothing to get our chastity belts in a bunch about.
Matt is right on with pointing out flaws in the first reviewer's
thinking.
I belive when the brothers concocted the idea of a Neo being the
"Sixth One", there was more to it than just religous connections. Basically, we do
not see Jesus appearing six times to save the earth, nor did the bible mention
that there were six "Noah's".