Cecil says it is toward the end of his column on Heidigger.
I think it is one, too. Others think it’s just another action movie. But I do know it’s the only action movie where most of the conversations I’ve had about it focus on the plot and the subject matter rather than cool action scenes (which the film also has in spades).
But, to be a philosophical work, doesn’t that have to be what it was designed as? Can a philosophical work be accidental? Or were the Wachowski Bros. actually meaning it to be something that deep and thought-provoking?
The “philosophical content” of “The Matrix” is fairly thin – its subject matter is Nietzsche’s overman, and it doesn’t add much of anything to Ouspensky’s discussion circa 1932. However, what it does superlatively IMO is to give us an artistic image, a philosophical hammer with which WE can philosophize.
Certainly there are novels that make fairly profoud philosophical statements – Crime and Punishment, say. And there are movies that ditto – if you want to put THE MATRIX in that category, that’s fine, although I personally might select something like THE SEVENTH SEAL pehaps, or THE STUNTMAN.
I can’t believe that so many links to myth and legend are coincidental; do a search for a MATRIX FAQ and you’ll find tons of parallels to Christian, Greek, and other mythologies. Just a couple I remember:
Cypher - Short for Lucifer
The Oracle - takes a deep breath of Cookie smells before talking to Neo = Oracle at Delphi inhaled volcanic fumes before prophecy
Bible verse listed on plate in the Nebuchadnezzar
Plus a ton of others. I’ve rarely seen anything that packed so much symbolism into a compelling story.
Of course it is a philosphical work. I prefer comparing it to Decartes’ dreaming argument in the Meditations on First Philososphy, rather than Plato’s cave.
It does not introduce new ideas to the intellectual world in the way that Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment or Sartre’s The Plague do, but it certainly presents tham to a new audience.
Nor does it explore the ideas it presents in a very deep or intellectual manner. Instead, it goes for the gut instead of the head, portraying complex philosophicla problems in a visceral way: the mind/body problem, the nature of reality, the relationship of thoughts and language. It takes difficult and philosophically challenging stands on al fo these issues. Just instead of thinking about them in a distanced intellectual manner, it grabs them (and the viewer) by the gut and considers theri consequences.
Sure, Cecil was joking. But one can joke with a truth as well as an untruth. Of course The Matrix was a philosophical work, and intended as such. It’s debateable whether it was a good philosophical work, or an original one, but it was certainly philosophical.
The irony is that the film was marketed only on its special effects, not its plot. I really had no idea what The Matrix was about until I saw it. I guess the marketing people went with what they thought would draw the audience in. Telling people the plot might have actually discouraged the average American moviegoer.
It certainly did deal with a lot of philisophical issues. Mainly, the Cartesian Demon: how do you know some entity isn’t presenting you with a false reality? Personally, I think it raised some important moral issues too. The AI actually seemed like the good guys to me, although I suppose this would be a minority view.
Well, it’s the old Saint-Saens “Happy Slave” thing, innit?
Like in The Truman Show as well - who’s the real villain of the piece? The one who’s determined to keep you in a comfortable, happy facade or the one who by exposing you to reality condemns you to a life of suffering?
They’re both versions of the old chestnut - if a slave is happy in his slavery, is well-kept and cared-for, is it better that he be free and miserable?
Errr… given the fact that he quoted the movie and didn’t seem to be speaking with much sarcasm ,which Cecil usually makes abundantly obvious, I don’t think he was joking.
Perhaps the Perfect Master himself would care to grace this thread and tell us for sure?
This thread makes me wonder what constitutes a philosophical work (within the limits of ‘movie’). Is it a movie that explores a philosophy or just one that mentions it?
BladeRunner explores some questions about slavery and the definition of ‘person’. Mr. Magoo cartoons explore the issue of vanity and the price we are willing to pay not to be seen wearing glasses. Are they philosophical works?
re: the discussion about what makes a philosophical work…
it needn’t be intended as such and, in fact, many “philosphical works” were not. confessions comes to mind, as does much ancient roman literature about war–though intended to be a guide on the batllefield, such texts tend to take on deeper meaning regarding the rights (or lack thereof) of men. heck, there’s a good “philosophical work” cicero wrote to his son telling him not to slack off at school!
the point being, i find philosophy is often defined after it has been composed.
I wish that they didn’t have to trim it down. There was so much potential to this idea to make a good drama/discussion of human life.
As it stands, the characters are shallow except for Morpheus and the Oracle. Neo doesn’t seem to have any reason for his change. And why should we believe that Trinity falls in love? The sentient programs were appropriately horrifying, but I would have loved to understand their individuality - they certainly weren’t hive creatures, but the secondary bad guys don’t seem to ever say anything important.
If you made a six hour movie, you could do justice to the philosophical idea - is this the real world? There woudl have been five hours of discussion, though - and most people would have been bored out orf their skulls.
My H.S. philosophy professor (who also gave me ethics, epistemology and logic) always said that to fully undestand the class, we should sit at home and think about it or discuss it. The Matrix is philosophical work, since it gives you something to think about, searching for some truth. It makes you want to know more, (pardon if this sounds funny in english) through self- exploration. Philosophy is, by one definition, love of wisdom…
I just recently watched The Matrix, and thought it pretty cartoonish, but was intrigued enough to search about a bit for more info. I waded into this, until my hip boots bled. Yeah, I can see it, but Keanu Reeves as the Messiah??? Prolly old hat to Matrix fans, but I was amazed at how much time this guy spent analyzing it.
Occasionally, during this movie, you can find pop-Buddhist references, such as the notion that reality is an illusion or “bardo”.
But the thinker that sees to inform the philosophical themes of the movie is French theorist Jean Baudrillard. At one point, they actually lift a line directly form one of his texts–
Morpheus’ “Welcome to the desert of the real.” You can find this line in one of the essays in Baudrillard’s book “Simulations.”
Essentially, Baudrillard’s theory, best articulated in “Simulations” and “America” is that modern capitalist sociey has moved into a phase of “hyperreality” in which media-controlled images have not only replaced traditional articles of trade, but replaced reality itself. This is what he means when, in his famous book on America, he says that American television is actually the real America, whereas America itself is unreal or “simulacrum masking the absence of the real”. You can see how the idea of reality as media-simulacrum links up with ideas in The Matrix. Baudrillard isn’t taken seriously by academia but is widely read by artists and critics. He knows how to turn a phrase and is often very entertaining but I wouldn’t take his apocalyptic theories too seriously.
