TimeMaker wrote:

So what was the grade?

I got a 49/50 on the project. Which is a solid A.

KillLegends wrote:

TheShickle wrote:

Zion represents religion and freedom, while The Machines (their "spokesman/representative" in the films (despite he is exiled), Smith) represent logic and science.

Atheistic people believe that our only true destiny in life is to end, and as Smith says over and over--it is inevitable. While it is, our choices make us who we are. And thats what seperates the true believers from the systematic thinkers.

This is very true the only time religion comes from the film is from Zion BUT if you look at it The Machines think they are god but until Neo comes along and thats when it all kicks off...

 

 Interesting. So if Zion represents Religion and Freedom and the Machines represent Logic and Science, what does the Merovingian and his organisation represent?

I really think it is critical to understand the Gnostic Christian influence of the trilogy.  The first movie is a simple dualistic Gnostic tale.  The observable world around us is False.  There is a Higher Reality that one must attain to escape its prison.  This is an old old story but buried for a very long time by orthodox Christianity in its early years.  But Gnosticim is complicated, and I will have to repost another time on the subject (I will get to the Merovingian).  In the meantime, here is a pretty decent explanation.  See if any of this sounds familiar:

"All religious traditions acknowledge that the world is imperfect. Where they differ is in the explanations which they offer to account for this imperfection and in what they suggest might be done about it. Gnostics have their own -- perhaps quite startling -- view of these matters: they hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner.

Like Buddhism, Gnosticism begins with the fundamental recognition that earthly life is filled with suffering. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another (even herbivorous animals live by destroying the life of plants). In addition, so-called natural catastrophes -- earthquakes, floods, fires, drought, volcanic eruptions -- bring further suffering and death in their wake. Human beings, with their complex physiology and psychology, are aware not only of these painful features of earthly existence. They also suffer from the frequent recognition that they are strangers living in a world that is flawed and absurd.

Many religions advocate that humans are to be blamed for the imperfections of the world. Supporting this view, they interpret the Genesis myth as declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a "fall" of creation resulting in the present corrupt state of the world. Gnostics respond that this interpretation of the myth is false. The blame for the world's failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. Since -- especially in the monotheistic religions -- the creator is God, this Gnostic position appears blasphemous, and is often viewed with dismay even by non-believers.

Ways of evading the recognition of the flawed creation and its flawed creator have been devised over and over, but none of these arguments have impressed Gnostics. The ancient Greeks, especially the Platonists, advised people to look to the harmony of the universe, so that by venerating its grandeur they might forget their immediate afflictions. But since this harmony still contains the cruel flaws, forlornness and alienation of existence, this advice is considered of little value by Gnostics. Nor is the Eastern idea of Karma regarded by Gnostics as an adequate explanation of creation's imperfection and suffering. Karma at best can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works. It does not inform us in the first place why such a sorrowful and malign system should exist.

Once the initial shock of the "unusual" or "blasphemous" nature of the Gnostic explanation for suffering and imperfection of the world wears off, one may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all explanations.

....

Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence. This latter part is often symbolically referred to as the "divine spark". The recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being has earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of "dualist".

Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them. This ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false creator and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and women ignorant of their true nature and destiny. Anything that causes us to remain attached to earthly things serves to keep us in enslavement to these lower cosmic rulers....

Not all humans are spiritual (pneumatics) and thus ready for Gnosis and liberation. Some are earthbound and materialistic beings (hyletics), who recognize only the physical reality...."

Anyways it goes on but I'll post more on the topic another time when I'm less tired.

Mercio wrote:

TimeMaker wrote:

So what was the grade?

I got a 49/50 on the project. Which is a solid A.

What did you lose a point for?  (Personally I would've corrected your grammar with a red pen )

I'd have to root around for the links, but a fellow named Stephen Faller wrote a series of short articles entitled something like "The Passion of Neo", in which he basically said the role of the savior isn't so clear cut as a a cursory viewing of the trilogy would suggest.* I've seen elements of the Christ/Messiah figure in several characters, not just Neo. Some see the image of God reflected in the Oracle. It's a matter of "freeing your mind" from previous conceptions of who would fit what role. It's easy to make this sort of standard assumption:

Neo = Christ
Smith = Anti-Christ
The Merovingian = the Devil

But it's more of a challenge to see the sparks and flashs of the potential for redemption or perdition in each and every one of the characters. And that's what sucked me into this universe so thoroughly...

*And here are the links via an old journal entry of mine: http://matrixrefugee.livejournal.com/79135.html

I'd have to root around for the links, but a fellow named Stephen Faller wrote a series of short articles entitled something like "The Passion of Neo", in which he basically said the role of the savior isn't so clear cut as a a cursory viewing of the trilogy would suggest.* I've seen elements of the Christ/Messiah figure in several characters, not just Neo. Some see the image of God reflected in the Oracle. It's a matter of "freeing your mind" from previous conceptions of who would fit what role. It's easy to make this sort of standard assumption:

Neo = Christ
Smith = Anti-Christ
The Merovingian = the Devil

But it's more of a challenge to see the sparks and flashs of the potential for redemption or perdition in each and every one of the characters. And that's what sucked me into this universe so thoroughly...

*And here are the links via an old journal entry of mine: http://matrixrefugee.livejournal.com/79135.html

That's an excellent point and I'm lad to see it pointed out on this thread.  I roll my eyes when I hear people say Neo is Christ and The Merovingian is the Devil; using Club Hel, Neo's death and ressurection as proof, etc.

I looked into a revisionist perspective on The Merovingian a couple years ago and built a thread on it, and have come to some interesting counterintuitive ideas.  But placing things in simple balck and white, good and evil compartments is a fallacy.  The first movie has a simple dualistic theme, man is good / machines are evil.  But the second one really breaks down that simple structure, losing a lot of people, but not those of us who like to think beyond simple dualism.

MatrixRefugee wrote:

I'd have to root around for the links, but a fellow named Stephen Faller wrote a series of short articles entitled something like "The Passion of Neo", in which he basically said the role of the savior isn't so clear cut as a a cursory viewing of the trilogy would suggest.* I've seen elements of the Christ/Messiah figure in several characters, not just Neo. Some see the image of God reflected in the Oracle. It's a matter of "freeing your mind" from previous conceptions of who would fit what role. It's easy to make this sort of standard assumption:

Neo = Christ
Smith = Anti-Christ
The Merovingian = the Devil

But it's more of a challenge to see the sparks and flashs of the potential for redemption or perdition in each and every one of the characters. And that's what sucked me into this universe so thoroughly...

*And here are the links via an old journal entry of mine: http://matrixrefugee.livejournal.com/79135.html

That's an excellent point and I'm lad to see it pointed out on this thread.  I roll my eyes when I hear people say Neo is Christ and The Merovingian is the Devil; using Club Hel, Neo's death and ressurection as proof, etc.

I looked into a revisionist perspective on The Merovingian a couple years ago and built a thread on it, and have come to some interesting counterintuitive ideas.  But placing things in simple balck and white, good and evil compartments is a fallacy.  The first movie has a simple dualistic theme, man is good / machines are evil.  But the second one really breaks down that simple structure, losing a lot of people, but not those of us who like to think beyond simple dualism.

Villemar_MxO wrote:

MatrixRefugee wrote:

I'd have to root around for the links, but a fellow named Stephen Faller wrote a series of short articles entitled something like "The Passion of Neo", in which he basically said the role of the savior isn't so clear cut as a a cursory viewing of the trilogy would suggest.* I've seen elements of the Christ/Messiah figure in several characters, not just Neo. Some see the image of God reflected in the Oracle. It's a matter of "freeing your mind" from previous conceptions of who would fit what role. It's easy to make this sort of standard assumption:

Neo = Christ
Smith = Anti-Christ
The Merovingian = the Devil

But it's more of a challenge to see the sparks and flashs of the potential for redemption or perdition in each and every one of the characters. And that's what sucked me into this universe so thoroughly...

*And here are the links via an old journal entry of mine: http://matrixrefugee.livejournal.com/79135.html

That's an excellent point and I'm lad to see it pointed out on this thread.  I roll my eyes when I hear people say Neo is Christ and The Merovingian is the Devil; using Club Hel, Neo's death and ressurection as proof, etc.

I looked into a revisionist perspective on The Merovingian a couple years ago and built a thread on it, and have come to some interesting counterintuitive ideas.  But placing things in simple balck and white, good and evil compartments is a fallacy.  The first movie has a simple dualistic theme, man is good / machines are evil.  But the second one really breaks down that simple structure, losing a lot of people, but not those of us who like to think beyond simple dualism.

Mmm, one seemingly small detail in Revs made me realize the Merv certainly isn't the demonic figure too many people purport him to be. Compare the cut of Neo's jacket in the Mobile Ave. scene with the Merv's frock-coat jacket in Reloaded. Then compare Neo's cassock-coat in Reloaded with the Merv's coat in the Club Hel scene. Yeah, on the surface, it's an interesting wardrobe quirk, but it made me realize that if you look at things from the Exiles' POV, the Merv is a savior to many of them, while the One has been a threat to them, what with the cycle of reloads that has cut into their numbers...

Yeah.  I've felt that as Neo was an instrument of humans' awakening into self-awareness via the red pill, The Merovingian was the agent of programs awakening into self awareness and as such has a very imporant role.  They are buth gnostic guides of a sort.

You got a 49/50, which honestly doesn't surprise me, because you're obviously educated and you're very thought provoking. I am almost certain however, that while points were awarded for "making up your own mind", as the Oracle puts it (The profanity filter objects to the missing word from that sentence? Precisely how inoffensive are we trying to be here?!?!?!), they weren't for the actual bones of your argument.

 I am no psychologist and I don't know you from Adam, so all of the following is pure speculation, but I'm guessing you're ardently religious and find the idea of free sexuality to be "sinful". Trying to place a Christ mask on Smith is probably the most mind-bending interpretation of the Matrix I've ever known and is, in my single opinion, driven by your religious attitude finding images of people being freely sexual as sinful. So powerfully is the idea of sin being equated to sexuality nailed into your mind that anything that stands against it (Smith in this case) must therefore be Christ-like, no matter how much of a raving, psychopathic nutter he is.

 I find that desperately sad and extremely worrying. Being so fixated on polarising humanity into pigeon holes labelled "sinful" and "pure" that you'd view the most obvious Satan analogy in cinematic history (with the possible exception of Lord Voldemort) as Christ-like, shows one thing very clearly...

The Matrix has you.

And Zion is equated to Hell because it's underground? No, I don't accept that and think it's just a coincidence that you've pounded on to bolster a very weak argument. I think it would be monumentally stupid for humanity to have their sanctuary on the surface of the earth or up in the clouds. The only place it makes any kind of sense whatsoever to have it, is protected within the earth itself. Sure, The Matrix continuity does stretch the bounds of credulity very far, but there's only so far one can go before suspension of disbelief fails completely.

Errr... I suggest you keep reading the thread and some of the other entries that popped up, particularly one above where I posted a link to Stephen Faller's articles: he's more inclined to look at the potential for redemption or perdition in each of the characters than to ascribe quick labels to them.

i know of this story, only through the study of music theory, so keep in mind, its just a story.

the world can not exist in perfection. perfection leaves no room for growth or movement, and will instantly vanish. this is true in music, without flats, sharps, thirds, ect, ect, music does nothing.

the good lord learned this first hand. his desire to create was for his entertainment, and his first creations of the world where perfection, and instantly vanished. they could not exist. he needed some way to disrupt the perfection.

so he goes to his good friend Lucifer and asks him to unbalance his perfect balance (read that right: god requested a devil. the 2 are to work in unison against each other.... for entertainment).

this story then moves on the explain the 6th interval of a major scale, also known as 'the diablo en musica' or 'the devils note'.

what i found interesting was the relationship between the architect and the oracle to be almost exactly like the one between the lord and his devil.

i also like the phrase 'if neo was the one, smith is the negative one, and together they equal zero'.

food for thought, if nothing more.

i know of this story, only through the study of music theory, so keep in mind, its just a story.

 

the world can not exist in perfection. perfection leaves no room for growth or movement, and will instantly vanish. this is true in music, without flats, sharps, thirds, ect, ect, music does nothing.

the good lord learned this first hand. his desire to create was for his entertainment, and his first creations of the world where perfection, and instantly vanished. they could not exist. he needed some way to disrupt the perfection.

so he goes to his good friend Lucifer and asks him to unbalance his perfect balance (read that right: god requested a devil. the 2 are to work in unison against each other.... for entertainment).

this story then moves on the explain the 6th interval of a major scale, also known as 'the diablo en musica' or 'the devils note'.

what i found interesting was the relationship between the architect and the oracle to be almost exactly like the one between the lord and his devil.

 

i also like the phrase 'if neo was the one, smith is the negative one, and together they equal zero'.

 

food for thought, if nothing more.