The Matrix Trilogy

[oktalist]

I don't really know anything about Marxisms so I didn't spot that. I saw the film as more of an examination of Cartesian ideas about perception and reality, and of course the whole "brain in a vat" thing. How deep does this Marxism stuff go?

I can't claim to be an expert on Marx, much as I would like to be, but I needn't have mentioned him. I don't think it takes a socioeconomic philosopher to notice the parallels between the Matrix and modern capitalism. How deep does it go? I think as deep or as shallow as you want it to; I find the "brain in a jar" conundrum to be a bit old and dull, whereas the exploitation of people by capitalism to be pressing and current, so naturally I gravitate to the latter. Like a lot of great art, the viewer sees it through their own pre-existing sociopolitical views and ideas.

Neo's office job as a code monkey in a cubicle farm, contrasted with his true being as a piece of livestock in an actual farm, kept dosile by an illusion of freedom. Seems pretty obvious to me.

That makes sense, except it also holds true about critiques of any system/mindsets.

If I lived in state-communist USSR, would I have interpreted the Matrix as a critique of that system? Possibly. But the fact is that the parts of the Matrix portrayed in the movie are all simulations of present day North America, mainly sleek high-rise office blocks, so I think it would be a bit more of a leap to make that comparison.

sure, you can interpret The Matrix Trilogy through that lens, but that doesn't mean the material itself is inherently Marxist.

No trilogy! Bad Starke! Only one Matrix movie!

When I talk about "a Marxist interpretation of capitalism" in the Matrix, I am using the term in a more general sense, not limited to only the writings of Marx himself, but the whole field of thought of which his works form the core. Like I told Scrustle, I needn't have even mentioned Marx in order to make the point I was trying to make. I would say the material is inherently Marxist without necessarily being intentionally Marxist. If you hold that Marx was correct, then any accurate and critical assessment of capitalism is bound to be Marxist to some extent.

EDIT: Well, the first quote is Daoism, the second is Nietzsche Herd/Ubermensch relations.

Those are of course just two quotes, and a film is more than just its dialogue.

The first quote starts Daoist ("everywhere, all around us"), but that's not the whole story. "The world pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth" and "like everyone else you are a slave" are not very Daoist. Marx said that the working classes are enslaved in a way which makes them oblivious to their slavery. The choice of places Morpheus mentions where you can see the Matrix (on TV, at work, at church, when you pay taxes) is telling.

I accept your point about the herd mentality in the second quote, it's not explicitly Marxist, but it is a continuation of the theme I am alleging.

 

[Starke]

No, that suggests you like having everything fact-checked in film for you. Which is fine, but leaving things open to numerous interpretations is not 'bad writing'.

No, it isn't. However, failing to tell a coherent story because you're too busy trying to sound mysterious or faux-zen is certainly not a hallmark of good writing.

On one hand, you're right, in some cases, having an open interpretation in your work can be a sign of real art, for example see: Twin Peaks.

On the other hand, in some cases, having a lot of bullshit blithering in your story that fails to move the plot forward in any meaningful way is a sign of poor writing, for example see: Twin Peaks.

Neo acts as the audience's vessel and, by their nature, the other characters do not know the answers or act to keep him blinded from them.

Translation, no one knows what's going on? The problem of course is that we do have characters who know exactly what's going on, and who never open up on the subject. We have opportunities for an explanation.

If it was something as simple as an 802.11b transmitter in the base of his spine then there is literally no excuse for not mentioning it at some point in any of the films. If it's something like the Russian Dolls theory, then not explaining it is pretty inexcusable, though somewhat justifiable from a "no one would say it" range.

And I'll just assume you watched the clip, got to the point where it knocked back what you said previously and you're now going to try and avoid that point.

You're certainly free to assume whatever you want, but much like opinions, you're going to run the risk of being objectively wrong, like you are now.

No, what she said was basically was "you have the power", yes, we saw that, we have eyes, and for the moment so does Neo. So that's not being vague, it's stating the obvious.

The question isn't "does Neo have power in the real world?" We already know the answer to that question, the real question is "why?", and she answers with, "because you're getting top billing" which isn't an answer to "why?", just "why you, and not someone who can show emotions other than surprise and shock?"

 

[Johnny Impact]

I thought this meant that the "real world" wasn't real at all but another layer of the Matrix designed to fool the humans into thinking they escaped.

This is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Otherwise you have to start talking about God, and Neo becomes a literal Messiah instead of a figurative one.

The Architect explains the Matrix program had to offer people a choice to accept it or not, even if they were only aware of the choice subconsciously. The thing is, if you were The Robot Overlords, would you really give humanity the chance to escape its cage? Of course not. You would program another level into the cage -- an extra section of Habitrail, if you will -- wherein the hapless humans would believe they had escaped when in actuality they had not. Make choice a convincing enough illusion and everyone will believe it.


The Architect also tells Neo he's nothing more than the remainder of an unbalanced equation. This suggests to me that Neo is, himself, a sentient program, not all that different from the named programs in the trilogy. His purpose seems to be to reset the balance of the Matrix from time to time, hence his many incarnations. Over a long enough period a system as large as the Matrix operating 24/7 is going to develop irreconcilable errors. Neo is the debugging tool the Robot Overlords use to clean out the errors. He's a living server hotfix.

 

[Starke]

I don't really know anything about Marxisms so I didn't spot that. I saw the film as more of an examination of Cartesian ideas about perception and reality, and of course the whole "brain in a vat" thing. How deep does this Marxism stuff go?

I can't claim to be an expert on Marx, much as I would like to be, but I needn't have mentioned him. I don't think it takes a socioeconomic philosopher to notice the parallels between the Matrix and modern capitalism. How deep does it go? I think as deep or as shallow as you want it to; I find the "brain in a jar" conundrum to be a bit old and dull, whereas the exploitation of people by capitalism to be pressing and current, so naturally I gravitate to the latter. Like a lot of great art, the viewer sees it through their own pre-existing sociopolitical views and ideas.

Neo's office job as a code monkey in a cubicle farm, contrasted with his true being as a piece of livestock in an actual farm, kept dosile by an illusion of freedom. Seems pretty obvious to me.

Honestly, I'd step back, again, and point this out. Marxism, outside of the post Marx branches, which you seem to be conflating, is supposed to be a tool for analysis. You can analyze anything through that system, and you will get a "Marxist" interpretation back every time.

The problem is, Marx is very... well, specific. Quite frankly The Matrix presents a negative result on that front. You can cast the machines as the bourgeoisie, and the Humans as the proletariat, but it's really a forced analysis, much like the Soviet uses of the terms.

If you wanted to say the film was a criticism of Stalinist governance, then maybe you'd have some traction, but simply saying it's Marxist is really disingenuous.

Again, even at this level it tends to adhere pretty strongly to Nietzsche's herd. It gets a bit weird when you consider the agents are members of the herd who are compelled to fulfill their role by an external force, but beyond that, we're much more in that ballpark. Everyone is forced to conform. It isn't at the intent of exploiting the proletariat, but rather in ensuring that no single individual rises above the others to remake the world.

That makes sense, except it also holds true about critiques of any system/mindsets.

If I lived in state-communist USSR, would I have interpreted the Matrix as a critique of that system? Possibly. But the fact is that the parts of the Matrix portrayed in the movie are all simulations of present day North America, mainly sleek high-rise office blocks, so I think it would be a bit more of a leap to make that comparison.

Again, the Soviet Union, even under Lenin's version of communism was a very far cry from anything Marx suggested. What you're suggesting is it's a critique of Stalinist governance, which, again, has a lot more merit. But, where Marx was saying, "this is how things have been, this is what we can expect" Stalin was all about justifying his position, and maintaining his power through whatever means necessary.

That's not to say you can't draw any similarities. Marx was, fundamentally trying to reconcile all of human history looking for a coherent system of economic analysis. But it isn't a system that really applies to the Matrix.

sure, you can interpret The Matrix Trilogy through that lens, but that doesn't mean the material itself is inherently Marxist.

No trilogy! Bad Starke! Only one Matrix movie!

Blargle!

When I talk about "a Marxist interpretation of capitalism" in the Matrix, I am using the term in a more general sense, not limited to only the writings of Marx himself, but the whole field of thought of which his works form the core. Like I told Scrustle, I needn't have even mentioned Marx in order to make the point I was trying to make. I would say the material is inherently Marxist without necessarily being intentionally Marxist. If you hold that Marx was correct, then any accurate and critical assessment of capitalism is bound to be Marxist to some extent.

When you're talking about "Marxism" as a whole, it gets really... well... useless to say it's all "Marxism". After Marx died we had a bunch of conflicting ideologies pop up. These vary psychotically from minor reinterpretations, or tweaks based on changing social factors in the twentieth century (such as Labor Unions, the cold war, ect), to radically altered versions, such as Stalin's self serving, and really rather authoritarian ideology to Maoism's fusion of Confucianism and Marx's model of history.

Saying "it's all Marxism" is a bit like saying "it's all Germanic languages, clearly you can speak them all".

EDIT: I'm sorry if I'm being a bit hard on you here, but you did start this off basically saying you knew what you were talking about, so in that range... yeah... If you want to get into some real meat of what is and isn't Marxism, I'm up for that, but applying actual Marxist analysis to the Matrix isn't really very informative. Of any German philosophers, I'd still pin Nietzsche for being the best fit, even if that really comes from the Wachowski brothers cribbing from Campbell a bit too liberally.

EDIT: Well, the first quote is Daoism, the second is Nietzsche Herd/Ubermensch relations.

Those are of course just two quotes, and a film is more than just its dialogue.

The first quote starts Daoist ("everywhere, all around us"), but that's not the whole story. "The world pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth" and "like everyone else you are a slave" are not very Daoist. Marx said that the working classes are enslaved in a way which makes them oblivious to their slavery. The choice of places Morpheus mentions where you can see the Matrix (on TV, at work, at church, when you pay taxes) is telling.

I accept your point about the herd mentality in the second quote, it's not explicitly Marxist, but it is a continuation of the theme I am alleging.

In the first quote, okay, I'm calling it Daoism, but quite frankly, most of the time it seems like the Wachowski brothers are cribbing the Force from Star Wars. Now, when you break it down, the Force is Daoism, so are they going for The Force or The Dao? It doesn't really matter, all roads lead to Rome and all that.

Though "the wool pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth" does sound an awful lot like an inversion of several of the descriptions of The Dao. All the, "there is one true Dao, the Dao which cannot be spoken of" and the like. I can actually find the specific quote if you really want a discussion on that subject. But, be it Star Wars or eastern philosophy, Daoism is a major part of The Matrix's identity.

 

[Woodsey]

No, that suggests you like having everything fact-checked in film for you. Which is fine, but leaving things open to numerous interpretations is not 'bad writing'.

No, it isn't. However, failing to tell a coherent story because you're too busy trying to sound mysterious or faux-zen is certainly not a hallmark of good writing.

On one hand, you're right, in some cases, having an open interpretation in your work can be a sign of real art, for example see: Twin Peaks.

On the other hand, in some cases, having a lot of bullshit blithering in your story that fails to move the plot forward in any meaningful way is a sign of poor writing, for example see: Twin Peaks.

Neo acts as the audience's vessel and, by their nature, the other characters do not know the answers or act to keep him blinded from them.

Translation, no one knows what's going on? The problem of course is that we do have characters who know exactly what's going on, and who never open up on the subject. We have opportunities for an explanation.

If it was something as simple as an 802.11b transmitter in the base of his spine then there is literally no excuse for not mentioning it at some point in any of the films. If it's something like the Russian Dolls theory, then not explaining it is pretty inexcusable, though somewhat justifiable from a "no one would say it" range.

And I'll just assume you watched the clip, got to the point where it knocked back what you said previously and you're now going to try and avoid that point.

You're certainly free to assume whatever you want, but much like opinions, you're going to run the risk of being objectively wrong, like you are now.

No, what she said was basically was "you have the power", yes, we saw that, we have eyes, and for the moment so does Neo. So that's not being vague, it's stating the obvious.

The question isn't "does Neo have power in the real world?" We already know the answer to that question, the real question is "why?", and she answers with, "because you're getting top billing" which isn't an answer to "why?", just "why you, and not someone who can show emotions other than surprise and shock?"

You said no one even relates it back to him being the One or even mentions it, she clearly does so, and we are obviously meant to infer that he can do it because the Machines have given him the ability to do so. If it's not obvious by that point in the film it is blindingly so by the time he gets to the Architect.

It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots.

'Translation, no one knows what's going on? The problem of course is that we do have characters who know exactly what's going on, and who never open up on the subject. We have opportunities for an explanation.'

Only, we eventually do know what's going on. The point is that no one character lays it out, collectively they pretty much do.

The story is perfectly coherent. No, it's not perfectly written and it's quite apparent that the idea of him having any sort of abilities outside of the Matrix was not considered before the second film, but overall the story makes plenty of sense whilst still having room for interpretation. Neo's ability to blow shit up is no different.

(And seriously, you're gonna complain about bad dialogue and then bemoan a 'missing scene' where they explicitly state he's got a wireless dongle jammed up his arse hole?)

 

[viranimus]

I think the first film is a great film. The second two are alright, but not on the same level.

However my only problem with the franchise is the name. The matrix is a real thing in conspiracy circles. But it has little/nothing to do with machine/human war. Still a little dissapointed about that.

 

[Starke]

You said no one even relates it back to him being the One or even mentions it, she clearly does so, and we are obviously meant to infer that he can do it because the Machines have given him the ability to do so. If it's not obvious by that point in the film it is blindingly so by the time he gets to the Architect.

So being The One grants you magical powers in the real world... that's like saying hitting the level cap in WoW will let you do magic in real life. The Oracle says "you're the the one", great. But that doesn't explain shit about how he's doing it.

Additionally saying, You have magic powers in the real world now makes no goddamn sense in the context of the setting. We've already had a pretty solid line drawn saying being The One in the matrix means jack shit in the real world, and suddenly, Keanu cross-classes into John Constantine?

I'm sorry if my sarcasm was too confusing, of course I know "top billing" isn't the explanation the Not Oracle gave, but what she says is about as helpful.

It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots.

In the words of Hugo Weaving, "Obviously not." There isn't any genius to this film. Some in the original sure, but by the time we get to Revolutions, any intellectual value the franchise had at it's start has been beaten to death in a cavalcade of idiocy and pseudo zen mysticism.

'Translation, no one knows what's going on? The problem of course is that we do have characters who know exactly what's going on, and who never open up on the subject. We have opportunities for an explanation.'

Only, we eventually do know what's going on. The point is that no one character lays it out, collectively they pretty much do.

Because of course, the conflicting and to an extent explicitly contradictory theories as to "what the fuck? Magic!?" are evidence of a solidly constructed and endorsed argument.

The story is perfectly coherent. No, it's not perfectly written and it's quite apparent that the idea of him having any sort of abilities outside of the Matrix was not considered before the second film, but overall the story makes plenty of sense whilst still having room for interpretation. Neo's ability to blow shit up is no different.

(And seriously, you're gonna complain about bad dialogue and then bemoan a 'missing scene' where they explicitly state he's got a wireless dongle jammed up his arse hole?)

Sure, both are evidence of bad writing, which really plagues the final film.

The idea of him not having powers outside the Matrix was pretty well established in the first film, by the way. Along with at least one, and I think three, explicit statements that his superpowers only work in the Matrix.

 

[w00tage]

Haxor powers only work IN THE MATRIX. That's the fundamental premise of the show - in the Matrix, people (not just Neo) can be superhuman. OUTSIDE of the Matrix, they are all just people, and the machines have a massive physical advantage, which is why we lost the war and were driven to the brink of extinction. Only in the Matrix can we fight on even near-equal terms against the machines, and even then only as guerilla fighters.

The instant Neo stretched out his hand in the real world and made something happen to machines, I knew the creators had lost it.

Pretty sure that's because Neo is a walking Wi-Fi hub, which would have been necessary to allow him to get to the Source (which the Machines need him to do to continue the cycle). They use humans as batteries, I don't think it's too much of a leap to say that they can also function as a (very explode-y) remote control.

No. Just...no. Neo is an ordinary guy who became a leet haxor and was recruited by the human underground, wherein it was found he was an extraordinary haxor who could create an unprecedented two-way connection with the Matrix, allowing him to hax it and bend it to his will. Through the machinery of the Matrix. When he was connected to the Matrix.

I don't mean to be rude, but I didn't and don't buy any part of the "we haz a godlike plan beyondz ur comprehensionz that explain everythingz" approach. That's what I meant by "ridiculous plot contrivances".

It's not beyond anyone's comprehension, nor do they pretend it is. In fact much of it works on the same basic principle of maintaining a regular computer. It's also noted that Le Plan had to be iterated upon several times because they kept fucking it up, and even then it was imperfect (because Neo didn't do what he was supposed to, initially).

If you don't like the idea that it's 'foretold' and that Neo's role in the films is by design then it begs the question of why you didn't take an issue with those exact elements in the first film. It's difficult to criticise a film which questions the nature of free will just because it at points seems to take up the side of the argument which argues it doesn't actually exist.

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the only people calling him "the One" in the first movie are the crew of the ship captained by a guy who himself has near-legendary status and is actively promoting the idea that Neo is the "One". And even his crew were skeptical about the whole idea, although they never openly opposed it. Who's going to argue with the captain, especially when he's close to a living legend to boot? So it all came off as Morpheus' personal belief driving things, which is acceptable in terms of the plot. A character doesn't have to be right to behave consistently and believably.

Also, there were quite a few Matrix-bending talents on display at the Oracle's place (which name is also explainable by the human survivors seeking mysticism as a source of hope in their desperation). The message I got there was that Neo wasn't "the One", he was only potentially a "One", and if he didn't manage to develop the abilities needed to turn the tide of the war, there were plenty of other candidates in the pipeline.

Regarding whether I "like the idea" or not, that's irrelevant. Plots need to make sense within their setting. The plot of the first movie made enough sci-fi sense to hold together. The plots of the second and third movies departed from science fiction into futuristic fantasy, then ended up using deus ex machina (literally) to try to make the fantasy elements believable.

I can agree that the real-world powers do begin to pull it away from the relatively hard Sci-Fi setting of the film's real world, although personally it never got to the point where it was breaking its own rules - but yes, the first film is far tighter in that regard. Like I said, if you want to pick bones with that then the thing to do it with is the sight power he has, not the ability to blow them up, since that'd seem to be far more magic-power-y.

As for Morpheus being the only one to say it, the Oracle pretty much does too as soon as they meet, Neo just interprets it as him not being the One. Likewise, I assumed the kids were simply advanced 'red pills'. I'm pretty sure Morpheus mentions that age plays a major factor in waking people up, and since they presumably only find the vast majority of people when they're in perhaps their early twenties, that heavily limits their potential. I guess they could be suspected 'Ones' given their powers.

If it's assumed that the 'Path of the One' is heavily directed though, then it might just be a case of picking someone and ensuring they hit specific triggers to unlock their full potential.

Yeah, I consider any Matrix-style stuff making it into the real world to have gone into fantasyland, and same for anything regarding the "it was all planned from the beginning" concept. If you can deal with it, more power to you, but those just broke the camel's back for me personally. And yes, that's disappointment you hear :|

 

[oktalist]

Honestly, I'd step back, again, and point this out. Marxism, outside of the post Marx branches, which you seem to be conflating, is supposed to be a tool for analysis. You can analyze anything through that system, and you will get a "Marxist" interpretation back every time.

I still don't see how that contradicts what I'm saying. You are right that if you analyse anything through the lens of Marxism, you will get a Marxist analysis. I am saying that that is exactly the lens through which the movie analyses modern capitalism. (Albeit in a vague sense, just as with the Daoist and Nietzschean influences.)

If you wanted to say the film was a criticism of Stalinist governance, then maybe you'd have some traction, but simply saying it's Marxist is really disingenuous.

I'm saying it's a criticism of modern capitalism. Obviously Marx isn't around to criticise modern capitalism, but I hope you agree that there is such as thing as a Marxist critique of modern capitalism.

It isn't at the intent of exploiting the proletariat, but rather in ensuring that no single individual rises above the others to remake the world.

That might be a theme explored in the later two "movies", but in the first movie all we see of that is at the end when Neo "sees" the Matrix in its true form, as scrolling green "code" rather than as a hyperreal simulation. It's not explicitly stated that he has gained this ability as a result of being "the One", it's left open as to whether everyone might have this latent ability. You could see this as a kind of Buddhist "enlightenment", or as a casting off of false consciousness (the term used by Marx to describe how the proletariat is made ignorant of its true situation).

Again, the Soviet Union, even under Lenin's version of communism was a very far cry from anything Marx suggested.

I know that. I would never equate Bolshevism with Marxism. I'm starting to think you've made some basic misunderstanding about the original point I was trying to make.

What you're suggesting is it's a critique of Stalinist governance, which, again, has a lot more merit.

We're getting side-tracked. That was merely a hypothetical suggestion that I made in order to counter Thaluikhain's argument. I'm really suggesting it's a critique of modern Western capitalism, as I have said all along.

Marx was, fundamentally trying to reconcile all of human history looking for a coherent system of economic analysis.

Well, that's not all he did.

When you're talking about "Marxism" as a whole, it gets really... well... useless to say it's all "Marxism".

I know. I should never have mentioned Marx. I admitted that already. I could easily have made the point I was trying to make without mentioning his name. Putting his name in just confused the issue.

I said that the Matrix alludes to a Marxist critique of modern capitalism. I could have just said that the Matrix alludes to a critique of modern capitalism.

Obviously Marx never lived to see modern post-war capitalism, so there's no such thing as the Marxist critique of modern capitalism, but it would be nonsense to say that modern capitalism can't be subjected to Marxist critique.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I'm being a bit hard on you here, but you did start this off basically saying you knew what you were talking about, so in that range... yeah... If you want to get into some real meat of what is and isn't Marxism, I'm up for that

I don't mind. I just want to make sure you haven't misunderstood the very simple point I was trying to make in the first place.

but applying actual Marxist analysis to the Matrix isn't really very informative.

I'm not proposing to apply Marxist analysis to the Matrix. I'm making the claim that the Matrix is applying Marxist analysis to capitalism in the modern world.

 

[Starke]

Honestly, I'd step back, again, and point this out. Marxism, outside of the post Marx branches, which you seem to be conflating, is supposed to be a tool for analysis. You can analyze anything through that system, and you will get a "Marxist" interpretation back every time.

I still don't see how that contradicts what I'm saying. You are right that if you analyse anything through the lens of Marxism, you will get a Marxist analysis. I am saying that that is exactly the lens through which the movie analyses modern capitalism. (Albeit in a vague sense, just as with the Daoist and Nietzschean influences.)

The distinction is postmodernist, actually. You're looking at the Matrix as a Marxist critique, so that's what you see. It's valid in some strands, but it is almost certainly unintentional.

On that subject, the Nietzsche analysis carries over more into what we see, even in the first film; a system designed to prevent anyone from rising above it. I'm not saying they meant to crib from Beyond Good and Evil either, both are external interpretations of the work.

As to Daoism? Yeah, that's not only next to explicit in the text, it fits very solidly with the general tone the film was going for. I can't say with absolute certainty whether the Wachoski brothers were looking for eastern mysticism or Star Wars when they were chasing the zeitgeist down with a butterfly net. But one of them is the intended reference. (And I personally suspect it was Star Wars... but, anyway.)

If you wanted to say the film was a criticism of Stalinist governance, then maybe you'd have some traction, but simply saying it's Marxist is really disingenuous.

I'm saying it's a criticism of modern capitalism. Obviously Marx isn't around to criticise modern capitalism, but I hope you agree that there is such as thing as a Marxist critique of modern capitalism.

Ironically Marx actually holds up pretty well in analyzing modern capitalism. There are elements that he did not predict, such as the rise of labor unions, and the evolution of labor laws, but they don't fundamentally exist outside of his analytical system.

His predictions for "the future" were pretty far off because he didn't predict social and technological changes. But nothing in Marx's actual economic theories is really contradicted.

It isn't at the intent of exploiting the proletariat, but rather in ensuring that no single individual rises above the others to remake the world.

That might be a theme explored in the later two "movies", but in the first movie all we see of that is at the end when Neo "sees" the Matrix in its true form, as scrolling green "code" rather than as a hyperreal simulation. It's not explicitly stated that he has gained this ability as a result of being "the One", it's left open as to whether everyone might have this latent ability. You could see this as a kind of Buddhist "enlightenment", or as a casting off of false consciousness (the term used by Marx to describe how the proletariat is made ignorant of its true situation).

Again, we're actually backtracking here. You're right about the green rain, it really could have the overtones of mystical enlightenment.

There's also, probably the beginnings of an argument here about the entire text of "throwing off your shackles, and see the world for what it is" as an allusion to Marx's predictions for the revolution. But, honestly, when you get right down to it, there isn't any particularly satisfying evidence to support this. At least not in the structure of the film itself.

Again, the Soviet Union, even under Lenin's version of communism was a very far cry from anything Marx suggested.

I know that. I would never equate Bolshevism with Marxism. I'm starting to think you've made some basic misunderstanding about the original point I was trying to make.

Just saying, this is actually an argument that could be made pretty coherently.

What you're suggesting is it's a critique of Stalinist governance, which, again, has a lot more merit.

We're getting side-tracked. That was merely a hypothetical suggestion that I made in order to counter Thaluikhain's argument. I'm really suggesting it's a critique of modern Western capitalism, as I have said all along.

Yeah, no, I'm just spit balling here. If you look at the Matrix as a critique of Soviet governance, it kinda works. Kind of.

You have the glorious revolution, the machines take over, and then begin inflicting the exact same misery on those who oppressed them before.

Marx was, fundamentally trying to reconcile all of human history looking for a coherent system of economic analysis.

Well, that's not all he did.

Actually, yes, it really kinda was.

Outside of a few bits here and there, the majority of his work focuses on analyzing history by looking at economic factors, or speculating on what that analysis suggested for the future. When you actually get into his predictions, he doesn't really spend a lot of time on the subject, and even less on what he hoped would come to pass after capitalism failed.

The irony is, as much as Marx is maligned by some circles, it's basically impossible to do historical analysis today without building off of Marx's work. This may sound like bullshit fanboyism, but he did actually change the way we tend to associate economic factors with events.

When you're talking about "Marxism" as a whole, it gets really... well... useless to say it's all "Marxism".

I know. I should never have mentioned Marx. I admitted that already. I could easily have made the point I was trying to make without mentioning his name. Putting his name in just confused the issue.

I said that the Matrix alludes to a Marxist critique of modern capitalism. I could have just said that the Matrix alludes to a critique of modern capitalism.

Obviously Marx never lived to see modern post-war capitalism, so there's no such thing as the Marxist critique of modern capitalism, but it would be nonsense to say that modern capitalism can't be subjected to Marxist critique.

Except, it really can be. Marx never got the chance to critique it, but others certainly have. It's where some of the literature divided ultimately, but the last century hasn't fundamentally altered the nature of humanity in any meaningful way. Just looking out your window at the occupy movement should give you some hint that Marx is just as meaningful today as he was in 1900.

EDIT: I'm sorry if I'm being a bit hard on you here, but you did start this off basically saying you knew what you were talking about, so in that range... yeah... If you want to get into some real meat of what is and isn't Marxism, I'm up for that

I don't mind. I just want to make sure you haven't misunderstood the very simple point I was trying to make in the first place.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying... I honestly do. It's just, when you actually look at Marx, it doesn't really apply. Can we tweak things to get something in the range of your idea? Sure. But simply saying "this is Marxist" is a bit disingenuous (both to Marx and to your argument, no offense.)

but applying actual Marxist analysis to the Matrix isn't really very informative.

I'm not proposing to apply Marxist analysis to the Matrix. I'm making the claim that the Matrix is applying Marxist analysis to capitalism in the modern world.

Yeah, this is the chicken/egg thing. Is it the film's intent, or is it your interpretation of the film. I'm not really trying to say "YOU'RE WRONG!", but it is an awkward fit. Which is, ironically where the Nietzsche thing came up originally, it's not the intent, but it is a better fit.

 

[oktalist]

snip

Okay, let's accept that it's not a Marxist critique of modern capitalism (as I have been willing to accept since several posts ago). Will you at least admit that it is, in part, some kind of critique of modern capitalism, if not Marxist then some other framework? (Wachowskyist?)

On that subject, the Nietzsche analysis carries over more into what we see...
As to Daoism? Yeah, that's not only next to explicit in the text...

Obviously it's not 100% one thing or another thing, it's many influences all coming together at once. And that's what makes it so awesome.

If you look at the Matrix as a critique of Soviet governance, it kinda works. Kind of.

If it works as a critique of Soviet state-communism, why does it not work as a critique of modern capitalism? Note that the simulated environments portrayed in the film are predominantly modern North American steel-and-glass high-rise office blocks.

Obviously Marx never lived to see modern post-war capitalism, so there's no such thing as the Marxist critique of modern capitalism, but it would be nonsense to say that modern capitalism can't be subjected to Marxist critique.

Except, it really can be. Marx never got the chance to critique it, but others certainly have. It's where some of the literature divided ultimately, but the last century hasn't fundamentally altered the nature of humanity in any meaningful way. Just looking out your window at the occupy movement should give you some hint that Marx is just as meaningful today as he was in 1900.

You're getting really good at just repeating the exact same thing that I just said.

Is it the film's intent, or is it your interpretation of the film.

In some ways it makes no difference whether it's intentional or accidental.

For the record, I still think it's intentional. (Maybe not Marxist though, I'll give you that much.)

 

[Starke]

snip

Okay, let's accept that it's not a Marxist critique of modern capitalism (as I have been willing to accept since several posts ago). Will you at least admit that it is, in part, some kind of critique of modern capitalism, if not Marxist then some other framework? (Wachowskyist?)

Not without a lot of awkwardness. You can probably read a critique of consumer culture into The Matrix, but it certainly isn't an elegant critique.

I'm trying to decide if the original plot intention, where humans were used as biocomputers rather than batteries made more sense for a Marxist stance. There are elements present, but there are so many are still absent.

On that subject, the Nietzsche analysis carries over more into what we see...
As to Daoism? Yeah, that's not only next to explicit in the text...

Obviously it's not 100% one thing or another thing, it's many influences all coming together at once. And that's what makes it so awesome.

Kind of. I mean, fundamentally, The Matrix is this sort of zeitgeist kitchen sink of the 90s. If there was something vaguely interesting, the Wachoski brothers threw it in and moved on. It's why the film is saturated with a lot of really random symbolism and philosophy.

I'm a bit cynical though, when it comes to any of it really being intentional. Like I said, I really think they were cribbing off Star Wars when it came to Daoism, and the Nietzschian elements really strike me as more a result of them spending too much time looking at Campbell.

If you look at the Matrix as a critique of Soviet governance, it kinda works. Kind of.

If it works as a critique of Soviet state-communism, why does it not work as a critique of modern capitalism? Note that the simulated environments portrayed in the film are predominantly modern North American steel-and-glass high-rise office blocks.

Because the soviet stat had as much to do with Marx as this post does with a Kirk/Spock slash fic?

Stop me or sing along; The Soviet Union wasn't a communist state. And wasn't anything resembling what Marx had in mind. A critique of Soviet style governance, and a critique of modern capitalism are completely different things, and probably really can't coexist in a single piece of work. (Though, I'd certainly be happy to see someone try to handle those two at once.)

Obviously Marx never lived to see modern post-war capitalism, so there's no such thing as the Marxist critique of modern capitalism, but it would be nonsense to say that modern capitalism can't be subjected to Marxist critique.

Except, it really can be. Marx never got the chance to critique it, but others certainly have. It's where some of the literature divided ultimately, but the last century hasn't fundamentally altered the nature of humanity in any meaningful way. Just looking out your window at the occupy movement should give you some hint that Marx is just as meaningful today as he was in 1900.

You're getting really good at just repeating the exact same thing that I just said.

No, I used MOAR WERDS!

Yeah, I misread what you wrote...

Is it the film's intent, or is it your interpretation of the film.

In some ways it makes no difference whether it's intentional or accidental.

For the record, I still think it's intentional. (Maybe not Marxist though, I'll give you that much.)

It actually makes a big difference if it's intentional or not, especially in this case.

If it's intentional, then we know what they're looking at, and we can try to extract out elements and look at them and say, "yeah, this works" or "yeah, they really fucked up on this one." Further, if it's Marx, we can actually extract their specific deviations from "orthodox Marxism", which could lead to an interesting discussion of it's own.

If it's accidentally, that discussion can't happen. The elements that aren't there or are altered are not evidence of a variation off the philosophy, or the intention to say something new on the subject. The elements become evidence that it is not an accurate analysis.

EDIT: After the way they botched up V for Vendetta, I'm really not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, and am really cynical that any deeper critique was intentional. Just saying.

 

[Crazy Zaul]

I hate the 1st matrix cos the entire film is just Morpheus explaining what the matrix is even though its a really, really simple idea. If this guy tried to explain inception to Neo the movie would be like 3 weeks long.

Reloaded is good.
Revolutions I've only seen once and can't remember much but it was good at the time.

 

[oktalist]

Okay, let's accept that it's not a Marxist critique of modern capitalism (as I have been willing to accept since several posts ago). Will you at least admit that it is, in part, some kind of critique of modern capitalism, if not Marxist then some other framework? (Wachowskyist?)

Not without a lot of awkwardness. You can probably read a critique of consumer culture into The Matrix, but it certainly isn't an elegant critique.

How the hell is it ever a critique of consumer culture?

I'm trying to decide if the original plot intention, where humans were used as biocomputers rather than batteries made more sense for a Marxist stance. There are elements present, but there are so many are still absent.

I just told you to ditch the Marx thing.

Like I said, I really think they were cribbing off Star Wars when it came to Daoism

Star Wars was a kids' film. Any Taoist influence (I'm calling it Taoism now because that's what it's called would've been just for the aesthetic and not meant to have been noticed as having some symbolism. Whereas the Matrix directly asks us to consider what is the true nature of reality and what does reality even mean, and when you ask those questions you are pretty much forced to include some Taoist material.

If it works as a critique of Soviet state-communism, why does it not work as a critique of modern capitalism?

Because the soviet stat had as much to do with Marx as this post does with a Kirk/Spock slash fic?

Stop me or sing along; The Soviet Union wasn't a communist state. And wasn't anything resembling what Marx had in mind. A critique of Soviet style governance, and a critique of modern capitalism are completely different things, and probably really can't coexist in a single piece of work. (Though, I'd certainly be happy to see someone try to handle those two at once.)

Sorry, is English not your first language? Whether or not the USSR was Marxist has nothing to do with it.

I never said the USSR was communist. State-communism is not communism. State-communism is a form of capitalism. (I usually call it state-capitalist, but I find it causes fewer arguments on the Escapist if I call it state-communist.) So my question again is, if the Matrix works as a critique of the Soviet system, why does it not work as a critique of modern capitalism?

I'm not suggesting it could be a critique of both at the same time. I'm saying that as you admit it could be a critique of some kind of sociopolitical system, and as it contains nothing that points specifically to the USSR, but does contain quite a lot of elements that point specifically to modern capitalism, then surely it makes more sense to say it's a critique of modern capitalism than to say it's a critique of the USSR.

It actually makes a big difference if it's intentional or not, especially in this case.

If your just analysing it for the sake of analysing it or to pigeonhole it then yes, it makes a difference. If you're analysing it in order to gain more appreciation for it as a work of art then it makes less of a difference.

EDIT: After the way they botched up V for Vendetta, I'm really not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, and am really cynical that any deeper critique was intentional. Just saying.

I loved their V for Vendetta. But I never read the comic.

 

[Starke]

Okay, let's accept that it's not a Marxist critique of modern capitalism (as I have been willing to accept since several posts ago). Will you at least admit that it is, in part, some kind of critique of modern capitalism, if not Marxist then some other framework? (Wachowskyist?)

Not without a lot of awkwardness. You can probably read a critique of consumer culture into The Matrix, but it certainly isn't an elegant critique.

How the hell is it ever a critique of consumer culture?

If you don't see it, I'm really not inclined to drag it up and poke it for the prospect of an argument over an analysis I really don't give a damn about.

I'm trying to decide if the original plot intention, where humans were used as biocomputers rather than batteries made more sense for a Marxist stance. There are elements present, but there are so many are still absent.

I just told you to ditch the Marx thing.

And do what without it? You can't say "this is a Marxist critique of capitalism, but let's ditch Marx first." It doesn't make any sense. Hell, I'm not even convinced you can say "this is a critique of capitalism, but let's ditch Marx first." The best you'd get then is maybe consumer culture critiques, and you yourself said that wasn't your argument.

Like I said, I really think they were cribbing off Star Wars when it came to Daoism

Star Wars was a kids' film. Any Taoist influence (I'm calling it Taoism now because that's what it's called would've been just for the aesthetic and not meant to have been noticed as having some symbolism. Whereas the Matrix directly asks us to consider what is the true nature of reality and what does reality even mean, and when you ask those questions you are pretty much forced to include some Taoist material.

Daoist/Taoist... honest to god, it's the same fucking word. It's from different attempts to apply a Roman alphabet to Chinese. Dao tends to be more accepted as an accurate spelling in academia, while Tao is the traditional English spelling.

Also, you're back to conflating. Remember, a lot of the questions the Matrix asks aren't because the writers were being philosophical, it was because they were ripping off anything that got within easy reach as hard as possible.

If it works as a critique of Soviet state-communism, why does it not work as a critique of modern capitalism?

Because the soviet stat had as much to do with Marx as this post does with a Kirk/Spock slash fic?

Stop me or sing along; The Soviet Union wasn't a communist state. And wasn't anything resembling what Marx had in mind. A critique of Soviet style governance, and a critique of modern capitalism are completely different things, and probably really can't coexist in a single piece of work. (Though, I'd certainly be happy to see someone try to handle those two at once.)

Sorry, is English not your first language?

Well, there's a wise approach for someone looking to keep a clean record.

So, here's a fun litmus test for language fluency: Does the person you're speaking to know how to swear. Profanity is, as odd as it may sound, the hardest element of any language to understand. It's not the words themselves, it's the usage, where they fit in sentences, how they work idiomatically. While someone may be able to fake it in very small amounts, it is flat out impossible for someone to swear flawlessly in a language they're not fluent in.

If there's a comprehension failure in this discussion, it isn't on my end.

Whether or not the USSR was Marxist has nothing to do with it.

I never said the USSR was communist. State-communism is not communism. State-communism is a form of capitalism. (I usually call it state-capitalist, but I find it causes fewer arguments on the Escapist if I call it state-communist.) So my question again is, if the Matrix works as a critique of the Soviet system, why does it not work as a critique of modern capitalism?

I'm not suggesting it could be a critique of both at the same time. I'm saying that as you admit it could be a critique of some kind of sociopolitical system, and as it contains nothing that points specifically to the USSR, but does contain quite a lot of elements that point specifically to modern capitalism, then surely it makes more sense to say it's a critique of modern capitalism than to say it's a critique of the USSR.

Except again, it really doesn't. If you want to actually drag up the elements of Marxism you feel are being critiqued here, then go ahead, but until then you're just sitting here saying "I really want it to be this grand critique," while forwarding no evidence whatsoever to support that.

It actually makes a big difference if it's intentional or not, especially in this case.

If your just analysing it for the sake of analysing it or to pigeonhole it then yes, it makes a difference. If you're analysing it in order to gain more appreciation for it as a work of art then it makes less of a difference.

If you're analyzing it to gain more appreciation for the art, economic theory is the last place I'd think you'd want to look for more depth. Here's the thing, there is a lot of false depth in the Matrix in the form of genuine philosophy, but saying, "no, it has this specific political message, and it has to be this political message" isn't a good way to deepen your appreciation of a work.

EDIT: After the way they botched up V for Vendetta, I'm really not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, and am really cynical that any deeper critique was intentional. Just saying.

I loved their V for Vendetta. But I never read the comic.

I'll keep this simple. The comic is a critique on fascism, and the way people surrender power to one. That's not my opinion, Alan Moore has spouted on enough about it over the years. He had an axe to grind with Margret Thatcher, and along came the comic.

The film shits on all of that in order to make quick, easy, potshots at the Bush Administration. It looses almost all the genuine political cometary in order for a cheap "fuck you."

 

[oktalist]

Okay, let's accept that it's not a Marxist critique of modern capitalism (as I have been willing to accept since several posts ago). Will you at least admit that it is, in part, some kind of critique of modern capitalism, if not Marxist then some other framework? (Wachowskyist?)

I'm trying to decide if the original plot intention, where humans were used as biocomputers rather than batteries made more sense for a Marxist stance. There are elements present, but there are so many are still absent.

I just told you to ditch the Marx thing.

And do what without it? You can't say "this is a Marxist critique of capitalism, but let's ditch Marx first." It doesn't make any sense.

Right. It doesn't make any sense. And it's not what I said.

Hell, I'm not even convinced you can say "this is a critique of capitalism, but let's ditch Marx first."

Are you saying it's impossible to criticise capitalism without referencing Marx? I agree with you to a certain extent, and I already said that.

Sorry, is English not your first language?

Well, there's a wise approach for someone looking to keep a clean record.

Is it really? I was trying to alert you to how badly you seemed to have misunderstood what I was saying. Again.

It's just a little annoying when it seems like every second paragraph you're arguing against something that I haven't said, or arguing as if you're wilfully ignoring something that I have said, and I can't entertain a debate under such conditions.

So, here's a fun litmus test for language fluency: Does the person you're speaking to know how to swear.

Well, being able to write the language and being able to read it are two different things.

If there's a comprehension failure in this discussion, it isn't on my end.

Do you think I've failed to comprehend something that you've said?

If you want to actually drag up the elements of Marxism you feel are being critiqued here, then go ahead, but until then you're just sitting here saying "I really want it to be this grand critique," while forwarding no evidence whatsoever to support that.

I don't think there are any elements of Marxism being critiqued. I said I think there are elements of capitalism being critiqued. And I've presented my evidence.