Just saw the movie; rather liked it. It’s much more openly mythological than the first.
What I found most interesting wasn’t the movie itself, but the discussion of the movie (and its precursor) in the media. Several reviews and editorials I’ve read about it suggest that the philosophy is deeply flawed and that the effects are the only reason to see it.
Granted, the philosophy is somewhat lacking, but the problem is that the philosophy is trivially elementary, not that it’s wrong.
One motif I noticed in the reviews was the phrase/concept of “dorm-room philosophy”; another was a recurring reference to recreational drug use.
How precisely can these reviewers determine what actually is “faux-Zen” and what isn’t? What do they know about Zen in the first place?
Is the general public trained to dismiss philosophical questioning?
The general public dismisses philosophical questioning when it’s an incoherent mess whipped up to kill time between fight scenes, yes. I wouldn’t try to say if it was right or wrong, because the joke would be on me for even trying to evaluate the truth value of Christmas decorations.
Zen Buddhism does have a thing about dualism, but surely toying with the same concepts that Zen is concerned with doesn’t make what you are doing Zen. You need a much better mapping than that.
Philosophy often gets a bad rap. When it’s easily understood, some people say, “That’s it? That’s not deep at all! Everyone thinks that.” If it’s complicated, the same people often say, “Riiight. Just because you put some gibberish together into sentences doesn’t mean it makes any sense.”
(Of course, sometimes they’re right. But sometimes they’re not.)
If you read Larry Mudd’s posts in the long Matrix Reloaded thread in Cafe Society, I think it’s clear that much of the philosophy upon which the movies appear to be based is not something which most people would or could discuss in their dorm rooms while under the influence of recreational drugs.
I think what many of the reviewers really don’t like about the philosophy is that it’s not subtle. At least, much of it certainly isn’t. It’s pretty much laid bare in little monologues that take place between fight scenes. In short, I think some reviewers are saying “the philosophy is wrong / silly” when what they mean is “the philosophy isn’t handled as interestingly as it could have been.”
That very lack of subtlety combined with its simplistic philosophy is exactly the problem, IMO.
It doesn’t delve into anything deep; the philosophy is blatantly obvious. YET it completely ignores this fact and tries to pass itself off as a deep, thoughtful movie! (can you say pretentious?)
If you’re going to make it obvious, at least make it something that will retain my interest!
“Dorm-room philosophy?” Interesting way to put it. I agree, really. I enjoy the movies (the first one in particular, but that’s been discussed), but I see nothing deep about them. They take a lot of references to philosophy, toss them in a blender, and throw them in. Viola, you get the illusion of depth. They do have some discussions of “is it better to face the truth or live a pleasant lie,” but they’re 1) brief, 2) say nothing novel, and 3) they give an obvious answer. It serves well as a background for a sci-fi/action movie, but I think it’s just window-dressing.
I don’t really see anything Zen-related in the movie. What Eastern stuff IS in there is mostly just to explain the martial arts.
This is true. One of Reloaded’s problems, to me, was these monologues were anything but ‘little.’
I was impressed by the way the Brothers managed an allegory on multiple levels. They’re quite good at creating true twists in the story, making it necessary to reinterpret everything that came before.
Didn’t anyone else notice that the obvious symbolism is just a cover for the deeper symbolism?
When I first saw the film (and the second time…), I was impressed with the effects and action but thought that the philosophy was pretty obvious and pseudo-intellectual. I had a conversation with my brother about my disappointment and he pointed out to me something interesting. Like TVAA implied, there seems to be two levels of thinking going on in the movie. It makes sense if you think about it - why spend time and money confusing people? Why not give the pseudo-intellectuals and hacks of the world something to think about? This is where the Descartes stuff and causality comes in.
The true philosophical value of the film is in what is implied, I think. This movie says much about power and control that’s beneath the surface. My main beef with the first movie was that it reinforced our non-secular messianic worldview; the one that holds that salvation/liberation comes from without, i.e., not from ourselves. In Reloaded, this idea is re-evaluated. Neo’s comments to the boy who tries to thank him for “freeing” him; his conclusions (?) at the end where he postulates that messianism is “another form of control”; - all are things that we can do well to think about. I think. I’m trying to give the Wachowski brothers some credit.
By the way, by “messianism” I am not referring necessarily to religion necessarily. To me, it’s the idea that to be free, someone else must do it for us. This is a dangerous idea, one that I think is shattered in Reloaded, and I hope that it is taken up in the conclusion to the Matrix Trilogy.
I was kind of typing as I was thinking, so if I’m not clear (which is often the case), ask me to clarify.