The Philosophy of the Matrix

**Some of my books are at http://www.lulu.com/abeautifulcow**

The Matrix trilogy is being shown in it's exhaustive, tedious entirity on Turner tonight. The first one was good, very ground-breaking in so many ways and also very philosophical, but not in a pretentious, solemn goofy way like the next two movies but in a kind of engrossing way. It reminded me very much of Plato's parable of the caves, where what we think is the real world is simply the shadows of the real world, wherever or whatever that is. In the case of the Matrix, the real world that Thomas Anderson (Neo) thinks is real is actually a computer construct of super-intelligent machines who create this illusion while keeping the humans in pods and sucking off the energy they create to power themselves.

It's very attractive because you can for sure enjoy imagining that you are not really you and your hopelessly ordinary life cannot in truth be your 'real' life. No, you must actually be a messianic hero, wouldn't you think? Just like Thomas Anderson actually is.

Well, I have problems with the computer world because if all they want from the human beings is the energy they create, why are they so nice to them? If I were the machines, I would put every last human on a tread mill and I would urge them on with well timed electrical shocks and I would not care one fig that they knew they were actually providing the energy to run us. But that's me. The actual matrix world is in like this dark fog which is never explained, but if the fog is always there, then where does the sunlight come from to grow the plants that are ultimately be used to feed the human batteries? And here's another thing: why not just solar cells? Even if there's a constant fog enveloping the planet, you'd think the machines could just float them or build tall towers or something.

Anyways, first movie I loved, maybe because they were purposely vague about all that stuff and really you shouldn't need to know so much. You should be able to let your own imagination fill in the blanks.

Here's where the Matrix sequels fail and why other sequels also fail. They make the mistake of trying to get you more into their world, which means that the plot has to be more complicated. And more into their world means more into their characters and more characters, so you not only have to keep track of all this extra complicated exposition, but also more about the old characters and then all of the new characters. In Science Fiction this is called an 'information dump' and is usually an awkward device.

When you read my book, Rexroi, see if you can spot where I've cleverly placed my 'information dump'. So far no one has come back to me and complained about that section of the text, so I think I did, in fact, do it rather adroitly. But let me know. (Link at the top of the post).

The Matrix sequels are still rather fun to watch just from the visual aspects. Usually with special effects there's a big drop off in the wow factor when newer and better special effects come out. I remember one of my brothers-in-law telling me that he wanted to see Close Encounters of the Third Kind for the special effects. Tell me if you don't laugh at those special effects now. Yes, Spielberg's a genius when he isn't being annoyingly sappy and sentimental, but Close Encounters of the Third Kind doesn't stand the test of time. The Matrix movie special effects do.

But, the sequels have a steep learning curve. I'm sorry, it's science fiction to start with then when you add dozens of characters with their own obscure sub-plots - I can't do it. I'm just not going to make notes for myself like I did when I read War and Peace. (I finished it in twenty four hours, too, by the way). You're watching a science fiction movie basically because you don't want to use your brain. You want to be entertained and diverted and you shouldn't have to study up for it like the SATs.