What is the Matrix?

by Stephen Faller

===========================================

It was the year 1999. The Phantom Menace, laden with intergalactic expectations, was about to be released. As part of the Star Wars series, fans hoped that the new installment would continue to illuminate the cosmic and metaphysical mythology that George Lucas had introduced into their childhood. But the unexpected happened. Menace was targeted at the next generation of children rather than the fans who had grown up with the original trilogy. Menace played like a Disney flick, maybe a “Little Orphan Anakin,” and there didn’t seem to be much to stimulate the religious imagination except for a not-so-subtle reference to the Virgin Birth. Many of the religiously minded science fiction nuts walked out feeling something between bewildered and offended.

Just a few weeks earlier, Easter weekend in fact, the Wachowski Brothers’ original Matrix was released. The Matrix was a success — it was an intellectual and spiritual mythology for adults. Here was a movie of sufficient philosophical and religious depth — a virtual Wonderland for grown-ups, something with the proportional imaginative texture of Harry Potter. And even though it was no more violent than the “PG” Raiders of the Lost Ark, this movie and its sequels are all rated “R.” The Wachowskis clearly positioned the film to be adult-oriented.

Like the concept of the Matrix itself, the reality may be somewhat different. Somewhere between the toys and the comic books, between the cartoon Animatrix and the video game, one may begin to doubt the purported truth. Even still, there are thematic elements of the films beyond the most precocious teenagers; there are ideas well beyond the high school curriculum. Maybe it’s more plausible that the movies are targeted at adults who still read comic books. Maybe the movies are targeted at college kids and those who remain college kids at heart.

But whomever is under the Wachowskis’ crosshairs, the R-rated packaging poses an interesting question for religious viewers. Can films with religious themes honestly portray sex and violence in a cultural context already saturated with both? It’s not just a Christian question. Does the Buddha exist amidst violence? While the movies might echo of ancient truths, those ancient truths are vulnerable to being drowned out by technicolor explosions in Dolby Stereo. Some of the Matrix elements are artistically new and significantly different. The depiction of sexuality between Neo (Keanu Reeves) and Trinity (Carrie-Anne Moss) in Reloaded seems largely devoid of the voyeurism that so often caters to the male perspective. That should get some points. And the new approach of stopping time during action sequences which occurs throughout the trilogy should also get points for emphasizing the image over the action. But do these points outweigh the scenes which strike many viewers as unnecessary?

Can spirituality be cool? This is the “Jedi-conundrum.” How do you make an action movie which is supposedly built around a pacifist/spiritual philosophy? Yoda decries excitement and adventure, but these are the very reasons why the moviegoer is there. The issue for the Christian moviegoer is that action and excitement are extremely problematic in a culture with an overdeveloped bloodlust. It is a serious issue, even for the viewer who has made the concession that some principles can be bent and others broken for the sake of art. It is a serious issue because the original Matrix was criticized for inspiring the Columbine tragedy. It is a serious issue because in the Animatrix cartoon a lonely and alienated teen is pictured committing suicide in a high school setting.

Of course, the reality is that this is the way things are. Lonely and alienated teens are drawn to lonely and alienated characters because they themselves are already lonely and alienated. Or think of the way that Neo was bored and dissatisfied with his computer job in The Matrix. Thirtysomethings have been disenchanted with neat cuticles and space age cubicles for a while now. The question is, do movies like The Matrix introduce discontentment and increase violence, or are they simply expressing what is already present, albeit previously unacknowledged? Are these movies responsible for their impact on shaping culture, or are they so influential because they are tapping into the sentiments of the collective pop-consciousness?

Indeed, it is dangerous to tell parables. Because once the parable is released into the world there is no telling what effect it will have. Parables have the power to create and destroy worlds. Parables are our first encounter with virtual reality — a grammatical conjecture into the hypothetical ether. Parables are a type of narrative self-sacrifice where the narrator surrenders the control over interpretation.

The Matrix saga is such a parable. But don’t confuse it with a parable from the Matthean tradition. Matthew’s narratives are much more allegories that parables. With an allegory the interpretation remains under control of the storyteller, where every symbol has a one-to-one correlation to the real world. Matthew’s stories are thinly veiled fairytales designed to speak in code and smuggle in the subversive message. The Matrix myth is more like Mark whose spellbinding stories are deliberately confusing and open. Throughout the movie trilogy Bible verses appear in the background. The greatest number of them come from Mark.

While many of the scenes and concepts have a decidedly Christian valence, the Wachowskis are not trying to create a science fiction allegory for Christianity in the way that, for example, George Orwell’s Animal Farm so clearly illustrates Stalin’s Purges. This is because of the Wachowskis’ determination to weave many different traditions into their tapestry of myth. Philosophy and religion are the keys to understanding the film and the Brothers draw deeply from each. Every name is a footnote to philosophy and every image has religious overtones. Christianity is an obvious source — there are some direct allusions to the early cult of Gnosticism — but the ideas touching upon Hinduism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Philosophy is just as influential, with the core premise going back to Plato’s Cave, Descartes, and today’s Jean Baudrillard.

The result of these highbrow allusions is stunning. Critics quickly note the pitfalls of religious pluralism as pop metaphor, but what the Wachowskis achieve is a contextual reference point that is nothing short of the nexus of Western Civilization. Such a complex device allows the movies to address some of our most complicated systemic evils. For example, it has been said that the greatest failure of American Christianity is that Sunday morning remains the most racially segregated hour. By paying careful attention to the races of different characters, the Wachowskis are able to critique white privilege and systemic oppression without heavy-handed moralism.

But the films aren’t about racism. Racial philosophy is just one of the many motifs that runs in the background, just as it runs in the background of our society. Primarily the movies are about choice and the kinds of choices we have to make as human beings. In The Matrix we are drawn into the future-world like Neo. Like Neo we find ourselves confronting the choice to re-evaluate our faith. The Matrix is revealed as a false dreamworld that enables evil computers imbued with artificial intelligence to control humanity. The premise echoes of the Judeo-Christian Fall. We are living in a fundamentally flawed world, and the moviegoer is left to decide if that refers to original sin or perhaps the material excesses of modern life. By the end of the film the viewer begins to see how easily we are trapped in this arbitrary and artificial society and how we can become Agents of the system. Some fans were ultimately disappointed that the Matrix is not destroyed, but metaphorically speaking, we will always inhabit a post-Edenic reality.

In Reloaded we learn that the entire Matrix has been reloaded and reset. Neo’s trio is not the first band of people to try to awaken and escape. The prophecy pointing to Neo as “the One” apparently had some holes. Neo is once again forced to re-examine his beliefs and so were we as we overhear several different perspectives about purpose, destiny, and choice. We also see Neo’s enemy, Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), assume his role as Neo’s nemesis. Smith becomes increasingly demonic. Like the Garasene demoniac, we encounter Smith as Legion; the evil computer program has discovered a way to duplicate himself. He becomes a sea of narcissism, ego, and evil. The movie ends with a cliffhanger and we are confronted with a philosophical dialectic: either the good guys will win and Neo will vindicate the prophecy, or the machines will invade and destroy the last human city of Zion.

The wheel turns and the scene is set for Revolutions. Most of the characters go through their final transformations. Neo’s mentor Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) has to reconcile his childlike faith with a greater understanding of what the prophecy does and does not mean. Trinity must let go of what she loves most. Neo is injured and blinded in a fight, and like King Lear, he is able to see most clearly thereafter. With his clarity of vision he is able to connect and barter with the enemy machines for peace.

One of the most important developments is with Smith. Back in The Matrix he begins to articulate an evolutionary philosophy. Life is a battle of limited resources between the weak and strong. Progress is the result of one replacing the other. Either/or — much like the dialectic we are left with after Reloaded. By Revolutions his philosophy has developed into full-blown nihilism. Even the fittest are mortal and mortality undercuts the meaning of everything. “The purpose of life is to end,” he says. His is a philosophy of death. He has become so deadly that he threatens everyone in the Matrix and even the machines who
created the Matrix.

Consequently, Smith doesn’t understand why Neo continues to fight. For that matter, neither do the critics who seem to think that the film fails to offer an adequate response to its philosophical core. The only answer to speculative nihilism is a decisive commitment to life and action. “Because I choose to,” Neo explains. He could have just as well said, “Because I am infinitely alive.” Because of this infinite affinity and choice for life, Neo chooses to face his mortality and sacrifice himself. And the sacrifice is complete; he is in every way overpowered by his enemy and is forced to be absorbed by the evil of the world. Morpheus, and many fans, seems to have expected Neo to be victorious by might alone. But he is thoroughly defeated. And then, through this defeat, the machines are able to destroy Smith through their connection to Neo.

The result of this “crucifixion” is a way out of Reloaded’s evolutionary dialectic. A third alternative to one side destroying the other is possible — the alternative of peace. Of course peace is always vulnerable and risky, but it just may be the only way out of the paradigm of mutual annihilation. Peace is revolutionary.

A footnote. One of the unexpected dimensions of the Matrix phenomena has been the critics’ largely negative response to Revolutions even though it has earned hundreds of millions worldwide. Revolutions is a stumbling block to Hollywood and foolishness to the critics. Hollywood can’t fathom killing off two major characters which seems as bleak an ending as Mark’s empty tomb. And despite the overt nature of Neo’s self-sacrifice, the critics don’t get what it means. Perhaps they recognize Neo as a Christ-figure but they seem unable to realize that the infinite affirmation of life and living is a fair response to nihilism and despair. They don’t grasp that Neo’s response to Smith is religious and not conceptual. And so reviews come out saying that there are too many special effects and not enough substance, although many critics admit that they are unsure of why they don’t appreciate it. Once again, last week’s superstar becomes this week’s scourge. The Wachowskis presented myth and mystery, but it seems as though many critics prefer to feel clever instead of awe. Apparently a parable portraying the Christ event today is just as offensive as it was 2000 years ago.