The Matrix

[Hans Deventer]

I am tired of people telling me how bad the Matrix sequels were. I think the Matrix trilogy is the best ever. The thought that streams through is flawless. The only legitimate argument is that few expected the sequels when watching the first one. All three were in the original blueprints and should not be seen as separate.

Mike, I have to admit I'm somewhere in between. I very much liked part 1. Perhaps my expectations were too high, I don't know, but I did feel part 2 and 3 could not live up to them. I watched part 2 in the theatre, but only saw part 3 on my TV screen, because of the disappointment of part 2. Felt that "Zion" was a huge disco rather than a society worth saving.

[Dale Cozby]

I think I was disappointed with the ending of the trilogy because they posed a big question: Does man have true freewill or is he just predestined?

In the end they didn't clearly answer it, they almost forgot they posed the question in the first place with the last movie.

The first movie is great stand alone. Even the second is taking a good aim at answering the question, but the third definately drops the ball.

[Billy Cox]

I saw both Matrix sequels in the theater. While the philosophical themes were interesting, I think that the first movie ended with the hero being nearly invincible...which greatly complicates construction of a believable conflict in later chapters. I also thought that the whole thing with Neo flying was stupid.

The freeway chase scene in Matrix Reloaded was stupid. If someone emptied a sub-machine gun clip into a car, sheet metal and upholstery would not protect the occupants of the car.

The original Matrix is a good movie that stands on its own. The sequels were really a disappointment.

[Mike McVey]

There are many good points brought up here. The Matrix was designed as an action movie for people who like to think. To lightly address the three things mentioned - the Zion rave, freewill, and the flying ability of Neo - as well as whether the first movie can stand alone - though not in that order.

The Matrix was never intended to stand alone. It did make plenty of sense on its own, but that is part of the illusion that the Wachowski brothers were creating. In the first movie it is Man vs. Machine in a Manichean type of good vs. evil fashion. We are to see in the sequels that it is not Man vs. Machine but Man needs Machine and Machine needs Man. Drawing from Buddhism of the non-Zen sort, to be one (or the One) requires harmony of the two in both the real world and in the matrix.
u
Neo's flying ability - straight out of Nietzsche's Ubermensch (Eng. trans. Superman). It also is significantly important concerning the whole "God is Dead" mentality with the Matrix playing the role of God. This is just to say that Neo flying was more for philosophical reasons than entertainment purposes. And Billy, if you remember at the end of the first movie, Neo did fly.

The Zion rave - I'll be the first to admit that I did not understand the reason for the rave the first time I saw it... or the second or third time. But I have enough faith in the WB philosophical thinking, that I was careful to scrutinize it. The best I've come up with so far is love. Throughout the trilogy, Neo has eros for Trinity, never agape. Time and time again, we see that Neo chooses agape over philia. He always chooses the best for Trinity over the best for the people of Zion. Too many instances to list right now. The rave scene is a great example of how Neo and Trinity are breaking tradition with their eros for each other, while Zion is showing their philia (possibly could substitute patriotism) in a tribal kind of way. The way that the two sneak out right before the rave shows that they are thinking only about themselves. The rave scene also suggests that this is a regular celebration for them (maybe like Eucharist :p or the various Jewish festivals).

Now the biggie - true freewill vs. predestination. First of all, both of these terms are theologically charged and the movie is not theological. It is philosophical. Freewill means something different theologically than philosophically as does predestination. I also don't like the modifier "true" because at best that is a tautology.

Next, the ability to make choices is different than freewill. I'm curious if you're asking more about the claims of causality than freewill vs. predestination, which is yet another conversation. Causality states that x causes y which causes z which causes, etc. The question is whether a choice is the same thing as the cause part of cause/effect or if everything is already determined. That is what the movie grapples with more than freewill predestination. Despite the theological overtones, we Christians (even us freewill thinkers) do believe in predestination in its purest forms, but we do not all hold to predetermination. Sometimes we mix these two terms up. Determinism has to do with logical causality - nothing can change; everything is set from the beginning.

Throughout the movies, the oracle reminds us that the path of the One relies on the action of the many. At the end of the third movie, the girl asked the oracle if she knew how the end would turn out. The oracle responds that no she didn't, that there were too many factors to predetermine. Also we are told that the various people have made their choice, now they have to understand the choice that was made.

The Merovingian would say that there is never any choice. He is the embodiment of causal thinking. The Architect allows for choice in his plans, but uses logic to make his choices, hence his frustrated manner when Neo chooses Trinity over the human race. The Oracle believes that choice comes with freewill attached to it. But the freedom of freewill is not an individually, but collectively. Neo represents through the three movies pure freewill.

I believe the movies completely solve their problem, but it is symbolic storytelling. You have to do research to understand the symbols and philosophies attached. But you also have to understand them detached to understand them attached. I will not tell you directly, Dale, how your question is resolved except to say that everything in the movies represents some form of philosophy. Whenever two things look similar, they are actually variants of one strand in philosophy. For instance, the various fight scenes. Each fight scene (including the car chase) is a battle between competing philosophies.

Well, I'm sure few are reading this on the day after Christmas... :)

[Roland Hearn]

I loved the original. I watched it again this week. I loved the questions it asked and the construct is peerless in that it gives you a context in which basically anything can happen. I liked the second movie because it pushed the envelope even further and set up some big questions. I didn't mind how they set Zion up, everything depended on the answers that were to come in movie three. I came away from the second movie going "wow, they could go anywhere with this." In the end the third movie was the real disappointment because I didn't think they tried to answer the questions they posed. They created whole characters that just remained an add on when they seemed to be essential. I haven't watched two or three a second time. I could have missed a heap and it may be my ignorance but I came away thinking I had been duded for the enjoyment of the writers, they wanted to see how high they could take someone before they dropped them. I have never come away from a movie with quite that level of frustration before.

[Billy Cox]

The Matrix seemed like an action movie with a philosophical subtext. Matrix 2 and 3 seemed to be philosophy movie with an action subtext duct taped on.

As for Neo flying, I thought that was the dumbest part of the original Matrix movie too, regardless of what the philosophical back-story might have been.

[Mike McVey]

As for Neo flying, I thought that was the dumbest part of the original Matrix movie too, regardless of what the philosophical back-story might have been.

Tell me how you really feel, Billy. :p