The Philosophy (and Review) of The Matrix Resurrections

The Matrix Resurrections will certainly go down as the weakest entry in the franchise, probably, for several reasons: There isn’t much philosophy (no wtf mindbenders), too much time is spent on Neo’s life dealing with suppressed memories, too much nostalgia, action sequences that are lacking and when they aren’t it’s actually too much, some rather large plot holes, and Agent Smith’s ultimately trivial role in Neo, Trinity, and Smith’s, um, trinity.

 

To make a long story short, the story revolves around Neo regaining his memories after having them suppressed after the machines resurrect him and Trinity (following the events of The Matrix Revolutions) in order to harvest the unique energy the two have together. Once Neo is free of the Matrix, he must re-enter the program to save Trinity. Lots of kung fu and gunfire ensues.

 

What does the movie get right? Neil Patrick Harris’ role is a delight and the fight between Neo and Smith in the basement is actual pretty good once Smith starts spewing the details. What the movie also gets right is in casting cynicism on the modern age. Whereas the previous movies took it as a given that a good percentage of enslaved human beings would rather subject themselves to the truth than live a comfortable lie, Resurrections does an about face, acknowledging the comfort our digital distractions have provided to make our enslaved live more tolerable. Whereas the previous iteration of Morpheus championed freedom of choice (which was acknowledged as a problem by the Architect), the new Morpheus highlights time and again that choice is an illusion. Interestingly, no one seems to mind. The movie doesn’t run with this theme though and chooses (!) to focus on the power of love in overcoming the powers-that-be. Thus, the spirit of the original trilogy is found wanting.

 

The Matrix Resurrection still makes a good point here, one that can been seen quite readily in American culture, from politics to entertainment. As the Analyst says in the new movie, “[People] don’t want freedom or empowerment. They want to be controlled. They crave the comfort of certainty.” He also says to Neo, “Do you know that hope and despair are nearly identical is code?” implying that a little bit of hope mixed with a little bit of despair is perfect for controlling people’s illusions. This is exactly the state of the U.S. right now as the furthest Left fringes of American culture battle the furthest elements of the Right. This culture war in the U.S. is all or nothing, fully binary, ones and zeros just like in the Matrix.

 

Neither side will admit to being controlled, though, as both fringes operate solely on emotion and cannot be reasoned with. When this is the case it is easy – with tools such as the internet – to trap people in an echo chamber from which they don’t want to escape because to do otherwise would be psychologically uncomfortable. Confirmation bias is a tool of control.

 

Another point made be Resurrections which goes hand-in-hand with the other message: So what if the Matrix isn’t real? Our realities are fictions we’ve created out of (faulty) memories. It doesn’t matter if we’re trapped in a fiction because we’re trapped in a fiction no matter what. Our minds are not capable of capturing all of reality. Nor are memories reliable, which is troubling since our behaviors are as largely derived from our history as our biology. In fact, every time we recall a memory it becomes destabilized within our wet-work and becomes prone to error. It should be alarming that eyewitness testimony is allowed in court knowing what we know about how memories work and how prone they are to influence. Being that we can’t trust our memories, we’re forced to make up narratives that provide the illusion of mental stability, because to admit you’re insane typically gets you physically restrained in some manner or at least cast out of society. So, you might as well choose a fiction that is most comforting to you so long as your basic freedom and social needs are met.

 

Even knowing all this, too many people insist on championing ‘the truth.’ Anyone peddling ‘the truth’ is either an egomaniac or trying to get something from you. Why did Neo want to know the truth? To quench his desire for special knowledge. Why did Morpheus need to point out the truth to Neo? Because Morpheus thought Neo could save humanity. Why are religious zealots always trying to convert you? Because they seek power and control. No religious zealot knocks on your door or flies planes into buildings for the sake of the truth. People pay a great deal of lip service to the truth but this often seems to be another tool of manipulation. It has to be because unless we’re talking mathematics there is no truth. All we have are interpretations of perceptions. Seriously ask yourself why the truth matters. It might matter whereas our actual survival is at stake (man-eating lion = dangerous) but how often is our literal survival threatened on a daily basis?

 

It appears large swaths of human civilization don’t want freedom and don’t want reality. If they wanted freedom, they wouldn’t suffer the constant and often successful attempts to control them. Even couples wouldn’t marry if they wanted freedom as long-term marriages (in the modern world) require compromise to be successful. People don’t want reality either, as evidenced by the acceptance of outright lies and love of fantastical stories. There are so many ways in which we are not free and so many ways in which we ignore reality. Question yourself as to why you’ve accepted this and only then can you begin to grasp the fundamentals, they only truths to be had.

 

The Matrix Resurrections won’t go down in cinematic history as one of the greatest movies ever, or maybe it will. It depends on what we want to believe.  If it is what we want to believe, it doesn’t really matter if its actually true or not. No one’s survival depends on it. In the case of the Matrix, the people enslaved in it are arguably better off staying where they are.

Is The Universe A Simulation?

Human beings have longed to understand their origins. There are several theories as to why this is the case; maybe it is an attempt to nail down the disruptive thought that our identities are anything but static or that understanding our origins will clearly point out the purpose of our lives. At any rate, countless hypotheses have been advanced as to human origins. One of the newest (or at least the one that is getting a lot of press lately) is the hypothesis that the universe is a simulation run by an intelligence superior to our own. The details of this hypothesis are laid out here in this Discover magazine online article, though if you just want to go straight to the analysis of this poppycock idea, I provide snippets of the text below with a corresponding rebuttal.

The article starts with this gem, “To us, these programmers would be gods, able to twist reality on a whim…are the implications too disturbing?” Well, yes, the implications would be disturbing but not because we would discover these particular gods. In discovering these gods, we would still be inclined to ask who or what created these gods. So, discovering there are gods in this case doesn’t bring us closer to any ultimate truths. These so-called gods would still exist in some universe of their own and whose universe may be a simulation itself. (The article even acknowledges this possibility further on in the reading.) In uncovering these ‘gods of the simulation’ we would solve nothing other than to reveal our own slavery. Any ultimate truth would still be waiting to be discovered.

“Given the rapid technological advances we’ve witnessed over past decades — your cell phone has more processing power than NASA’s computers had during the moon landings — it’s not a huge leap to imagine that such simulations will eventually encompass intelligent life.” That’s a very humorous sentence since the definition of intelligent life is so contentious to say nothing of the fact that people often treat others unlike themselves as though they weren’t human. Do simulations qualify as intelligent life? I suppose we could ask Siri…

“Legislation and social mores could soon be all that keeps us from creating a universe of artificial, but still feeling, humans — but our tech-savvy descendants may find the power to play God too tempting to resist.” In other words, regardless of whether we are or are not simulations, we’d still be assholes. Great.

“John D. Barrow, professor of mathematical sciences at Cambridge University, suggested that an imperfect simulation of reality would contain detectable glitches. Just like your computer, the universe’s operating system would need updates to keep working.” This article began by mentioning the amount of computing power and intelligence that would be needed to create our simulation and it came off as sounding as if our simulators would be a whole lot smarter than the team that programmed Windows Vista. Barrow’s suggestion is pure speculation, aiming to suppose that our simulators would be as incompetent as we are. Well, I should hope not. After all, they kept blowjobs as part of the simulation. That implies vast intelligence.

“Most physicists assume that space is smooth and extends out infinitely. But physicists modeling the early universe cannot easily re-create a perfectly smooth background to house their atoms, stars and galaxies. Instead, they build up their simulated space from a lattice, or grid, just as television images are made up from multiple pixels.” Wow, this is exactly the same kind of reasoning that leads people to believe in miracles, events that supersede the laws of physics: If we cannot do it or explain it, then it must have been the Hand of God. Utter B.S.

“Unfortunately, our almighty simulators may instead have programmed us into a universe-size reality show — and are capable of manipulating the rules of the game, purely for their entertainment. In that case, maybe our best strategy is to lead lives that amuse our audience, in the hope that our simulator-gods will resurrect us in the afterlife of next-generation simulations.” First, a ‘universe-size reality show’ is still a smaller universe than the one our simulators are in, meaning, the size of our universe isn’t actually that impressive. Second, we have no idea what, exactly, amuses our supposed audience the most, since our simulators are eerily mum on that account. Much like (insert the name of your god here).

Other thoughts? As one commenter, Chris Pope wrote, “If we can conceive of any test that would prove that we are in a simulation then would not that possibility have already be conceived by the designers of our simulation? If the designers are able to respond to our actions and construct the simulation in such a way that we observe the results that they want us to, then how can we ever devise a test that can prove that we are in a simulation? Unless the designers want us to have that power they will be able to gimmick the results of any "test" such that the result returns to preserve the illusion of the simulation.” We don’t know how the simulators would react to us discovering we are a simulation. Do they want us to know? If we found out could they simply erase that knowledge from our memory? What if we rebelled against the program and would that even be possible? Moreover, theguy126 wrote, “Exactly what would define a real world as opposed to a simulation anyway? If we were to break free of our simulation and enter the real world what would be so distinctively different about that real world that makes it more "real" than a perfect simulation? The answer is nothing. There is nothing substantial about real matter because all that is just information that could have been simulated. There is no meaningful difference between a real world and a perfect simulation of the real world.”

It’s all speculation, folks. And if it turns out I’m not real, well, I’ll just move to California where it’s okay to be as fake as you want.

The utter nonsense of this hypothesis is relatable to solipsism, which I have defeated. Read about it here.   

I Watched It So You Don't Have To: The Congress

Movie Synopsis: An aging actress (Robin Wright, playing a version of herself) decides to take her final job: preserving her digital likeness for a future Hollywood. In return, she receives healthy compensation so she can care for her ailing son while her digitized character will stay forever young. Twenty years later, under the creative vision of the studio's head animator, Wright's digital double rises to immortal stardom. With her contract expiring, she is invited to take part in "The Congress" convention as she makes her comeback straight into the world of future fantasy cinema.

If there is any truth to the phrase, “Misery loves company,” then this is a movie best watched with friends. The Congress is an unfocused attempt to address what transpires on a personal level for those engaged in being movie celebrities as they try to create art AND THEN parlay that into a meditation on identity. The result winds up being the cinematic equivalent of diarrhea; you want to analyze it but what you’ve got it so muddied there’s no hope of making clear sense of it. You’re going to try anyway, though, since you’ve invested two hours in this movie having been suckered in by the false promise of the first 45 minutes. During that time, the movie does give us an interesting set-up, but as soon as we’re cast 20 years into the future (allegedly; the movie is quite clear that where we are in time is not clear) the movie swerves wildly into Being John Malcovich-Meets-Pink Floyd’s The Wall-Meets-Inception-Meets-The Matrix territory. (This abrupt swerve in the movie is barely hinted at in the movie’s trailer, probably for a good reason.) Beyond the 45 minute mark, the movie is mostly animated which would have been fine except that the movie begins to focus on how bizarre it’s trying to be without doing much to advance the plot. Like so many movies, we’re teased by some very deep and intriguing questions but are not given any input on what the writer or director think about those questions, leading to a superficial resolution for our lead character. Moreover, at the movie’s end there is a plot hole too large to ignore: What happened to the world over the course of 20 years Robin is “on vacation” is not explained in the least, a detail that could have been used to provide us with some context for the protagonist’s inner conflicts. While many artsy-fartsy viewers will find this movie delightfully eccentric, being eccentric should not be confused with being clever. Being clever requires knowing exactly what you’re doing. [Interesting fact: The movie was made on a budget of about $11 million and grossed less than a million at the box office. But maybe that was meant to be given that Robin Wright plays a version of herself that makes bad decisions. In real life, she is one of the movie’s producers.]

My Top 5 Favorite Movies

Not to piss on George Orwell or nothin’ since 1984 is one of my favorite books, but, screw Citizen Kane. It’s in black and white for shit’s sake; the cinematography is not exactly ahead of its time like much of Orwell’s visions. Sure, it’s a good movie, but great? Mmm, only if you think Orwell’s steely eyes make for good acting. No, I’ve got my own favorites you archaic ol’ movie critics.

It is an incredibly difficult task to ask me what my favorite Top 5 of anything is. Most of what constitutes my Top 5 for any given list depends on how many bills came in the mail yesterday, what time the cats want to be fed, and my wife’s horoscope. Or, maybe I’m just moody. But, there are some movies I can watch over and over again, these more than others, for particular reasons.

5 – Saving Private Ryan (1998) – This one narrowly beat out Platoon as my favorite war movie. While Platoon was so gritty it was heartbreaking, Saving Private Ryan added a more specific human element by narrowing the focus of its wartime drama which resulted in me crying like a little bitch at the end. In the beginning of the movie, an aged veteran wonders “Was I good man?” before the movie launches into a heart-pounding D-Day sequence that makes you never want to go to war while making us think this movie is all about Tom Hank’s character. Oh, the swerve on that one. While these days I question the necessity of war – some of the characters in the movie do as well – I find it hard to spit on the humanitarian spirit of this movie (though some critics consider the movie’s plot to be a bit ham-fisted). By the time this one was over, I was also asking myself if I were a good man. I still ask myself if I’m a good man every time I see it. [As a bonus, the name of this film resulted in one of the more clever porn movie titles ever, Shaving Private Ryan.]

4 – Meatballs (1979) – Bill Murray as a camp counselor. That right there basically screams “instant classic.” What sets this comedy apart from other comedy of its time for me are all the nut-ball characters among the counselors and the kids they’re in charge of. In particular, as I was at the time something of a misfit myself, I identified with Chris ‘Who?’ Mackepiece’s character who wasn’t much liked by anyone but Murray’s character ‘Tripper.’ Not to rest solely on the strength of characterizations, the movie plots a conflict with a rival camp that results in one of the most inspiring rally speeches (by Murray) in cinematic history. I could recite the speech even now not having seen the movie since last year, but I suggest you watch it instead. While by now the cinematography sure seem dated (digital re-mastering in aisle five, please!), the movie’s themes – the power of friendships and determination – certainly are not.

3 – Rocky (1976) – Rocky defined then, now, and forever the cinematic underdog archetype. You couldn’t get more of a longshot than boxer Rocky Balboa at the start of this movie. Pit him against one charismatic asshole of a champion in Apollo Creed, and you can’t help but place all your money on the guy you know is going to lose. Only, by the time the fight enters the last round, after Rocky gets up after Micky is yelling at him to stay down, you think this meat bag can win. Shit, you still think Rocky can win after he gets back up and goads Apollo after you’ve seen the movie for the fifth time! [Partly the music’s fault; a flawlessly scored movie by Bill Conti.] I still recall seeing this movie in the theater with my father and everyone was literally cheering the screen for Rocky to win. You don’t forget stuff like that, ever (particularly the fact that Stallone acts in this one). Now, Rocky is the film by which all other underdog films are judged by.

2 – Pink Floyd’s The Wall (1982) – The sucker punch of emotions, wicked animation, and of course the music results in one of the greatest movies of all time and certainly the greatest movie musical of all time. (Chicago and Grease are also great but are nowhere near my Top 5.) The main character, Pink; this guy’s got issues. Not only does he have an abandonment issue with his father dying in WWII, that abandonment issue results in mommy issues as well. He has alienated himself so thoroughly that his wife takes up with another man, leaving Pink to construct a mental ‘wall’ to keep others out. (As Pink is a musician, his ‘wall’ also manifests itself through his art, providing biting social commentary.) Give Pink some drugs while he tries to break through all the madness and you’re left with one really f’ed up movie. Oh, and his teacher doesn’t like him, not one bit. Many people believe Roger Waters was insane when he wrote The Wall but that belief depends on where you think that fine line between madness and genius actually is.

1 – The Matrix (1999) – Forget the sequels for a moment and consider this movie on its own terms. When this movie came out I was just beginning to get deep into philosophy. While many philosophers deride The Matrix for superficially addressing its philosophical topics, the sheer number of philosophical conundrums raised by noir rebels and the guardians of the titular ‘matrix’ alike is mind-boggling (pun intended). Then there’s the matter of the special effects which were groundbreaking for its time, set a standard, and almost twenty years later have aged well. Throw in some awesomely choreographed kung fu and bullet riddled carnage, and this is a great movie for people who enjoy having their thoughts provoked while fists fly. I can recite this movie almost word for word much to the annoyance of basically everyone. I suspect you’re all Agents…