PS10N recently posted this on his myspace blog.  (He's been watching the philosophers' commentary on the Ultimate Matrix DVD Collection again.)  I think it's very insightful.  Comments anyone?

http://www.myspace.com/ps10n

"[The Matrix is] a historic effort to fuse the philosophical, the mythic, the religious and the political in a new kind of cinematic form of expression. That kind of fusion has a synoptic vision and an analysis of so many levels of lived experience and contemporary market-driven life and yet at the same time still [has] a preoccupation with the old big questions: why is there something rather than nothing?  What is the meaning of life?  How do we talk about hope?  How ought we to treat each other?  These are the perennial questions that every human being who makes the move from womb to tomb has to come to terms with.  In the end, it comes down fundamentally to the choices we human beings can make, whatever circumstances we find ourselves in." - Dr. Cornel West http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Cornel_West

"The Sixth Zen Patriarch, thought to be the real originator of Zen, and we don't have a lot sayings from him, but one of the first things that we have is when he was asked – somebody was watching a flag in the courtyard waving – and they said, "what is it that waves?  The wind, or the flag." And he said, "neither the wind nor the flag but your mind is waving."  And again that whole notion is that mind, consciousness can create entire worlds and when you master your mind, you have mastered the entire universe in that very special sense. The awakening that has to occur is an awakening in your own mind, in your own spirit, in your own interiority.  It's not that when you master your mind you can make spoons bend (that's sort of a gross oversimplification) but it's when you master your mind you are one with everything that is arising, so that you are the spoon, you are the sun, you are the entire universe in the deepest part of your own being, which is spirit itself.  Zen has always been one of the many ways of awakening where you realize a supreme identity with spirit and therefore with the entire world moment to moment as it is arising." - Ken Wilber http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Wilber

I was recently reminded what can be accomplished when body, mind and spirit work together, and this led to insight on why so many human endeavors fail.  Alone or even dually, those parts of the soul are lacking in efficacy for the same reason that someone needs two juxtapositions to triangulate location.  Polar dualism can be a blind if one stubbornly sticks to one diametric point of view or the other, but those extreme poles are necessary landmarks if one is to find their own position somewhere between them.  Being able to turn one's thoughts first one way and then the other, perhaps back again, like before crossing the street, gives us the information we need to proceed with success.  Ignore your body at the peril of your life; ignore your spirit at the cost of your success.  When the mind considers both, thoughts become dynamic and inspired and need not be limited by conventional dogma or commonly accepted boundaries of the possible.  Barkley said, "to be is to be perceived."  Reality is a cooperative construct of external forces & forms AND the mind which perceives them, a projection we can edit with every choice made, merely by changing the focus of our thoughts.  Emerson said, "to find the miraculous in the common is the invariable mark of wisdom."  Wisdom is one pole, understanding is the other, and considered together, they yield the knowledge to overcome any situation.

Within Christianity, the concept of a Trinity is a doctrinal and dogmatic one, having no direct scriptural reference, but rather it was conceived to explain elements of scripture.  Within Buddism, the Trinity lies within the realized individual, who has become Brahma in the sense of his mastery.  The Trinity in this meaning is Mind, Body and Spirit, which, when acting as One, make all things possible.  Read that again: every realized master is a Trinity unto him or herself.  How does this point of view change the symbolism of Neo crying, "Trinity, help!" when faced with a dire situation?  Remember to consider that symbolically throughout the films, the bond between the characters Trinity and Neo shows again and again that they are parts of the same being, externalized so that they may seek to become one.  When faced with a situation that puts you in danger or need, remember that this trinity of powerful forces lies within, that it can be called upon and that it is the true source of efficacy of word and action, the essential tool set which we are all born with but so few put forth the belief and effort necessary to master them.

Memento mori et carpe diem,
Gregory

Mmm, which makes it even more telling at the end of Revs when Trinity dies in the crash/attack on the Logos, and Neo has to make the last leg of his journey to the Machine City alone, without his in-more-ways-than-one better half...

That's funny, I was just watching Reloaded and Revolutions with the philosophers' commentary track on just the other day. I always enjoy it when I get to talk to people about these movies on that level.

MatrixRefugee wrote:

Mmm, which makes it even more telling at the end of Revs when Trinity dies in the crash/attack on the Logos, and Neo has to make the last leg of his journey to the Machine City alone, without his in-more-ways-than-one better half...

I'm posting for PS10N, as he is saving his post #777 for something epic.  (Yes, I'm his "GFIRL" - lol)

PS10N writes:

Thank you, Asna, for your insightful reply.  Yes, the color schemes in the three worlds do most certainly represent body, mind and spirit through blue, green and gold.  (Also, red represents authority, power, choice in all three realms - the red shirts worn by the captains and Cipher, the Red Pill, the red Oracle candy, the red eyes of the Sentinels.)  The red, green and blue are obvious in all three films.  The gold is obvious in Reloaded and Revolutions.  But where is the gold in the first film?  It is there, though it took several dozen viewings of the movie for me to notice it.  One of the great things about these movies is, there is an incredible depth of meaning that yields new insights no matter how many times they are watched.  Sure, you can see them as chop-sockeye kung-fu fighting films or sci-fi cyber fantasy and enjoy them on that level, but the philosophical and religious symbolism permeates them so thoroughly, and symbols are multivalent, philosophy open to so many interpretations, that they can yield a deep, almost mystical experience and insight if one has the eyes to see and the ears to hear.  I give major props to the Wachowski brothers, first for their scholarship into these subjects and second for putting so much historical and contemporary philosophy into the films, without sacrificing the action, chills and thrills.  Hollywood would do well to take note that action films don't have to be dumb and thoughtful movies don't have to be dull.

Kudos to any of you reading this who post the location of the color gold in the original film.

Gold in the first film:

- The sunlight lighting the dojo construct is gold.

- The elevator button Morpheus presses to reach the Oracle's floor lights gold.

- The Oracle strikes a match to light her cigarette; the flame burns gold.

- The flames pouring through the Government Building lobby are gold.

- Muzzle flashes from various weapons, including the Vulcan on the helicopter, are gold.

- The helicopter explosion is gold.

- The liner of Smith's suit coat is gold (it flies open when he lands on the ground after being kicked by Neo).

- The light that emerges from within Smith's body, and creates an aura around him just before he explodes, is gold.

Not sure any of these are particularly significant except for the last one.

One thing though that I particularly enjoy is, when Neo takes the red pill in the first film and sits in the chair, he touches the mirror and the silvery gelatinous substance overtakes him, starting with his fingers and spreading to envelop his entire body. At the end of Revolutions, Smith plunges his fingers into Neo and a similar substance, this time black, overtakes him in much the same way. Each time this happens, Neo transcends the plane of existence he is on .. in the first film, he transcends the Matrix (as does Smith, who is filled with Neo's light and bursts). In the third film he transcends the Matrix as well as the world of the Real, again with Smith, only this time BOTH are filled with light and are consumed by it. 

It's my belief that Neo and Smith have not destroyed each other, they've reunified, like the Skeksis and the urRu at the end of the Dark Crystal, and transcended this plane of existence to whatever lies beyond .. in the language of the film this might mean they now inhabit the golden realm of the Machine City; perhaps they are now Ghosts in the Machines, not dissimilar to the merging of Major Kusanagi and the Puppet Master in Ghost in the Shell.

So Neo may actually have the ability to reconstitute his presence within the Matrix if he so chooses. He'd be far more powerful because not only would he exist as pure consciouness in whatever form he saw fit, he wouldn't be tied back to a body in the Real so he couldn't be disconnected, and doesn't have to be subject to any restrictions therefrom (broadcast depth, etc.). He'd be a god in any conceivable definition of the term. In fact it could be argued that when he and Smith annihilated each other at the end of Revolutions and the Matrix rebooted (Sati: "Good morning") he and Smith (and Trinity) in essence *became* the new Matrix.

/as

badkiity wrote:

Sure, you can see them as chop-sockeye kung-fu fighting films or sci-fi cyber fantasy and enjoy them on that level, but the philosophical and religious symbolism permeates them so thoroughly, and symbols are multivalent, philosophy open to so many interpretations, that they can yield a deep, almost mystical experience and insight if one has the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

I think the reason the second two films got so many bad reviews is because the majority of the movie-watching public isn't prepared to appreciate complex literature in their sci-fi kung-fu summer blockbusters. The trilogy is truly, imo, one of the greatest examples of what modern cinema can achieve in terms of visual spectacle, technical achievement and depth of multilayered significances woven through exceptionally intelligent ORIGINAL writing. And we won't see anything like it for some time. It's stunningly disappointing to me then, that the modern public which was so ready and willing to be entertained philosophically with the first film grew so jaded and blase with the release of Reloaded and Revolutions, even to the point of turning up their noses at the JAW-DROPPING car chase sequence in Reloaded and just plain knock-you-on-your-A$S dock battle sequence in Revolutions.

Speaking personally, one thing I did not like about the second two films, something I think I might share with many others, is the lack of true resolution. I understand what the Wachowskis were doing in making the Machines sympathetic characters, endowing them with things like love, karma and children. But to me, this is preposterous. Part of what made the first film stand apart from the second and third is that in the first film, the Machines were the BAD GUYS. There was no mistaking this. Neo came into his own not by making nice with them, but by DESTROYING Smith UTTERLY. For the war to be over, one side has to WIN, as the storyline in MxO bears out. The resolution of Revolutions was not the end of the war: that was obvious. But it was treated and celebrated as such by the Kid, Link, Niobe and Morpheus and the rest of Zion. The language changed from the first movie to the sequels: in the first, Morpheus was about the destruction of the Matrix and bringing freedom to humanity. That was how he defined victory: defeat of the Machines. In the sequels, this was subtly changed to "the end of the war" and "the war is supposed to be over." I went into the third film wanting to see the Machines DEFEATED. I was not willing to accept Rama-Kandra and his cute little kid and their convenient redefinitions of "love" and "karma" .. those words already have definitions that cannot be co-opted by machines. I think that's where a lot of people jumped off the Wachowskis' boat.

/as

Good Points there Asna, but i think that tha crucial point is that Morpheus was a believer, a dreamer, whose dreams were just that. As the rest of the Zion population and Neo himself, he did not know of the Cycle, he did not know what the Prophecy really was untill certain events revealed pieces of it. The Oracle probably never told him that finding the one would equal the defeat of the machines, he seemed to have jumped to that conclusion himself. He believed in what he wanted to happen.

It is quite possible to come to this conclusion after having watched the 3 movies alone, without any supplementary information. The problem is however, that first time people see the movies, most buy the misleading trails and covers and get confused just as well as the characters in the movie. Example is just that bad guys vs good guys thought, or "Wth are theese guys!?" when the Merv comes into play, which most of us had at our first time watching them. Therefore it is much easier to scrap the sequels off rather than rewatching them and getting the pieces to fit in their mind.

Asna wrote:

I think the reason the second two films got so many bad reviews is because the majority of the movie-watching public isn't prepared to appreciate complex literature in their sci-fi kung-fu summer blockbusters.

Agreed.  The vast majority of the moviegoing public wants clear-cut good guys and bad guys, with no ambiguity -- and no need to think.

Asna wrote:

Speaking personally, one thing I did not like about the second two films, something I think I might share with many others, is the lack of true resolution. I understand what the Wachowskis were doing in making the Machines sympathetic characters, endowing them with things like love, karma and children. But to me, this is preposterous. Part of what made the first film stand apart from the second and third is that in the first film, the Machines were the BAD GUYS. There was no mistaking this. Neo came into his own not by making nice with them, but by DESTROYING Smith UTTERLY.

This reflects back on what I said in the beginning of this post -- for the most part, the public wants good guys and bad guys, with no gray areas.  "We" are good, "the enemy" is bad, and we must destroy them.  Anyone who is not "us" is something less than human and we do not have to have any concern or sympathy for them.  They are The Other, and they are beneath us.  They do not deserve the same compassion we would demonstrate for one of Us.

Asna wrote:

 For the war to be over, one side has to WIN, as the storyline in MxO bears out.

I do not believe this, any more than I would believe that for a modern-day war to be over, one side would have to completely and utterly obliterate the population of the other side.  That is the primitive's way to look at conflict.  Instead, I believe that in any modern conflict -- as well as in the storyline of MxO -- the way for a war to be over is the *resolution* of the conflict.  Not by the wholesale slaughter of the opposing side. 

Illyria

Illyria22 wrote:

Asna wrote:

 For the war to be over, one side has to WIN, as the storyline in MxO bears out.

 

I do not believe this, any more than I would believe that for a modern-day war to be over, one side would have to completely and utterly obliterate the population of the other side.  That is the primitive's way to look at conflict.  Instead, I believe that in any modern conflict -- as well as in the storyline of MxO -- the way for a war to be over is the *resolution* of the conflict.  Not by the wholesale slaughter of the opposing side. 

 

Illyria

Careful not to be too objective here. There are still people in the "modern" (or post-modern for some) world that define "winning" a war as obliteration of the opponent(s). And at the same time, to ancient and sometimes "primitive" people, winning a war could be mere infiltration or assimilation of the other group, depending on the situation. The philosophy of conflict hasn't changed much, I think; more so the tools and tactics used. Remember, the Matrix Trilogy ended the way it did to show the bigger picture, but it almost did end with the nihilation of one side of the argument. Granted MxO is a different vessel, guided by a different captain, and is more likely to be resolved with something much closer to an agreement, but the option isn't necessarily off the table. Besides, if the desperation of trying to avoid the inevitability of total nihilation is gone, MxO(and the Matrix franchise) loses it's broader appeal and significance.

Illyria22 wrote:

Asna wrote:

I think the reason the second two films got so many bad reviews is because the majority of the movie-watching public isn't prepared to appreciate complex literature in their sci-fi kung-fu summer blockbusters.

Agreed.  The vast majority of the moviegoing public wants clear-cut good guys and bad guys, with no ambiguity -- and no need to think.

 

Asna wrote:

Speaking personally, one thing I did not like about the second two films, something I think I might share with many others, is the lack of true resolution. I understand what the Wachowskis were doing in making the Machines sympathetic characters, endowing them with things like love, karma and children. But to me, this is preposterous. Part of what made the first film stand apart from the second and third is that in the first film, the Machines were the BAD GUYS. There was no mistaking this. Neo came into his own not by making nice with them, but by DESTROYING Smith UTTERLY.

 

This reflects back on what I said in the beginning of this post -- for the most part, the public wants good guys and bad guys, with no gray areas.  "We" are good, "the enemy" is bad, and we must destroy them.  Anyone who is not "us" is something less than human and we do not have to have any concern or sympathy for them.  They are The Other, and they are beneath us.  They do not deserve the same compassion we would demonstrate for one of Us.

I for one am pleased that the Machines weren't depicted as straight up evil bad guys all the way through, you are right about it probably being the cause of the change in attitude of most of the public to the franchise. Giving the 'evil' Machines some actual depth allowed more issues to be addressed, philisophical issues to be debated a lot more to be done in general. Also, to be honest, considering they were born from AI, love and karma, and other emotions even in their own definition doesn't seem that preposterous to me even in a straight Good Vs Evil film.

Imo, the depth of the Machines was great for fleshing out the actual story but cost a lot for the franchise as a whole. Most people wanted a kickass movie with little to think about (I know I do most of the time, Jumper and The One being two examples for me) but unless they really get drawn into it, they don't want to have to think too much into it.

Illyria22 wrote:

Asna wrote:

 For the war to be over, one side has to WIN, as the storyline in MxO bears out.

I do not believe this, any more than I would believe that for a modern-day war to be over, one side would have to completely and utterly obliterate the population of the other side.  That is the primitive's way to look at conflict.  Instead, I believe that in any modern conflict -- as well as in the storyline of MxO -- the way for a war to be over is the *resolution* of the conflict.  Not by the wholesale slaughter of the opposing side. 

But I didn't say that. Germany was defeated in WWII not because the German people were slaughtered, but because its tyrannical government was dominated and stripped of its ability to make war. Nor was it necessary to eradicate the Japanese people for them to offer up unconditional surrender. The Civil War likewise was not decided by genocide, but it was only over when the South was STOMPED on to the point where it was unable and unwilling to continue to fight. In fact, I challenge you to find me one episode in history where an out-and-out war was successfully and decisively ended when both sides just ceased hostilities and agreed to peace. This simply doesn't happen because the nature of war is such that its industrial and political momentum can only be quenched by the stronger/wilier party's subjugation of the other. In the real world we know this to be true, and bringing those expectations to the Matrix films, many of us were disappointed -- not because we as moviegoers just didn't want to think. Because we wanted Zion/humanity (that's US, remember) to WIN the war .. not redefine their idea of victory to mean the Machines' continued domination of humanity in exchange for a tenuous ceasefire.

Say the events of the Matrix really did happen. Would you be content to be enslaved by a dominant race of Machines, just because some of those machines' AIs had advanced to the point of trying to appreciate the concepts of love and karma, or would you fight tooth and nail to be free? I know what I'd commit myself to.

As discussed elsewhere, the only true victory in this war is the full and complete emancipation of humanity from the Matrix and that means actually liberating the Matrix itself (servers, power source, programming imprimatur, etc.) from the Machines. Perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to eradicate the entire Machine population to accomplish this, but even if it did, it MUST be accomplished for humanity to be freed -- and that means all of humanity plugged into the Matrix, as Morpheus wanted. That's what he was fighting for and that's what we as an audience were hoping for. Neither of us were satisfied by the resolution of Revolutions.

Consider the dramatic possibilities of such a resolution. Play it out -- say the humans find the Machines' weakness and manage to wipe out ALL artificial intelligence operating in the Machine City (and elsewhere in the world). Humanity ascends from the deep, storms the now dead Machine City and seizes control, breaks down the Machines' programming language and learns to control the Matrix, and begin the process of acclimating those still trapped inside to the real world .. in essence terraforming the Matrix world to eventually be synchronous with the real so that all could be unplugged without as much trauma. Now look at what you have -- HUMANS in control of the Matrix rather than Machines. Imagine the possibilities of the wrong kind of people having that kind of control over the very reality of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of others! Who would not be tempted to play god with that kind of power? Who among us could truly see the "psychological terraforming" all the way through to the eventual obsolescence of the Matrix itself? Could we really let such power go, especially when the Matrix world was so much richer, colorful, flavorful and satisfying than the real?

/as

Many people = many different views on this war. In my humble opinion, resolution can be acheived through a well-balanced peace. Without killing the leader of one side or the other, as opposed to WWII. It is true that the Architect seems to be against it, but i'd take it out to the Source rather than bother with the egocentric program.

NeoExcidious wrote:

Many people = many different views on this war. In my humble opinion, resolution can be acheived through a well-balanced peace.

I agree. 

Asna wrote:

In the real world we know this to be true, and bringing those expectations to the Matrix films, many of us were disappointed -- not because we as moviegoers just didn't want to think. Because we wanted Zion/humanity (that's US, remember) to WIN the war .. not redefine their idea of victory to mean the Machines' continued domination of humanity in exchange for a tenuous ceasefire.

Not everyone wanted Zion to win.  I know I didn't, considering their callous disregard for the lives of the bluepills they claim they wanted to save.  But most people only see things as black or white -- without shades of gray, without the possibility of compromise. 

Illyria

You know, the more I read about the philosophy of the Matrix movies, the more I think the Wachowski's just got lucky with some kind of cosmic kismet that gave them a great story that just happened to be deeper than a well-digger's butt.

Even still, that's one incredible accident.

Yeah, I'm fairly sure this level of ingenuity wasns't put into the story, but I think it does accomplish the feat of getting the discussion going to make the "rabbit hole" deeper as time progresses. Almost like a form of fusion.

But yes, the best stories are always accidents.