I'm not sure if this is what the directors were trying to communicate with the ending of Revolutions, but I have this notion about the whole trilogy.
Contrary to what some may believe, the Oracle is not the "intuitive program" that helped the Architect create the Matrix. Instead, the Oracle is another one of the first AI ever created by man (like the Architect). However for one reason or another, the Oracle was benevolent and the Architect malevolent. Throughout the multiple iterations of the Matrix, the Oracle tries to help the humans by getting them to summon "the One." Once the One (Neo as we know him) is found, the Oracle tries to get him to fight against the Architect to overthrow the Matrix. However, at the same time, the Architect is using programs like the Merovingian to decieve Neo and his party in attempt to confuse them and perpetuate the Matrix/Zion cycle. So, in effect, the whole story of the Matrix is actually about two AI's who've trully taken complete control of the world away from the humans and are using the humans as a kind of chess game. At the end of Revolutions, the cycle will simply start again. The only reason it will start differently than what is said in the Matrix Original/Reloaded is because this time the Oracle won the chess match and all the other times the Architect won. However, the Oracle's victory will only last a limited amount of time. Then the next game will begin. Another thing that is different about this Matrix iteration is the Neo vs Smith fight. This fight, I believe, is the Architect using Agent Smith to make a last attempt at winning the game against the Oracle. The Oracle thought ahead of the Architect though, and she used the Architect's weapon (Agent Smith) against him (the Architect).
or so it seems from what the Oracle tells Neo. What I'm saying is that the Oracle and the Architect have both manipulated characters in using them against the other AI's minions. By manipulated, I mean misled, lied to etc. The two AI didn't care so much about peace as they did winning the game against the other. Everything else (including Truth) are secondary to the AI characters.
I'm sorry. I should've clarified this in my first post (and in my second):
Although the Oracle has Neo attempt to overthrow the Matrix, she knows he won't (or can't). That's not why she uses him in that way. The reason she tries to have Neo overthrow the Matrix is to convince the humans that she's on their side. When in actuality, she's not really on any 'side' but her own.
Again, her purpose is not to overthrow the Matrix, or to bring about Peace, she just wants to win. And again, she is benevolent to humans (she doesn't want to hurt or kill them), it's just that she has her own perogative beyond what the humans want.
Okay, I understand what Sanders is saying in the first post about the Architect using Smith and the Oracle using Neo in this game...however...in the end of Revolutions, when Neo travels to machine city, who - or which side - does the face of the machines represent? Is he on the side of the Architect, and what relation does he have to him? Or is he on the side of the Oracle, as he realizes that Smith must be stopped? Or is this face a different entity altogether? I just saw it last night, and am still processing....I can't quite understand exactly where this face character comes into play as far as who is in control of what.
Here's my take on things. Everything flows from the machine world, even the creation of the Matrix. That face was simply a representation of the entire machine world. The Architect would be completely unncessary if the Matrix did not exist, therefore, the Architect was created by the machine world to run the Matrix, their tool for keeping humans under control. I'm not sure whether the Oracle was created by the Architect or the machine world, but I'm pretty certain that's she's yet another program created to balance the equation within the Matrix. If I had to guess, I'd say she was created by the Architect.
I also don't believe the Oracle is the intuitive program the Architect speaks off. The Oracle may have orginally been an agent of the Matrix, but somewhere along the way she made a choice to side with the humans. As far as I'm concerned, the Oracle, Agent Smith, Sati's parents, the Merovingian, and every other program in the Matrix had the power to choose sides, the power to work within or outside the system. Look at Agent Smith. Could the Architect have planned for this anomaly, this variable? Apparently not. That's why the Oracle tells Neo that the Architect is unable to "see". All of these unseen variables gave Neo the power to bargain in the machine world because the machines knew they had an "uncontrollable" problem (Agent Smith) that threatened the entire machine world.
Having said all of that, I also agree with Sanders. The irony of this whole story is that the Architect and the Oracle control the Matrix. Even though the illusion of choice is there, and the variables can vary greatly, the end result is ultimately the same. The Matrix still exists and the cycle repeats itself over and over again. Is this story telling us that we have the power of choice, but only within a controlled equation? And should that even be considered true choice?
I am also a little puzzled by the face of the machines (the big machine creature that Neo talks to). I have two notions to describe him. I'm not sure which one fits best (if either one does at all).
First: the "face of the machines" is the Architect. Just as humans are plugged into the Matrix, so are some machines. Since Neo can't talk with the Architect inside the Matrix -for multiple reasons, Neo must find him outside the Matrix. And, since in the second movie, the Architect thought he could still use agent Smith to his own ends, he never brought it up in conversation to Neo. However, once Neo (and agent Smith) have progress beyond what the Architect expected, he knew the game was lost for him. That's why Neo could bargain with him without offering the possibility that he might fail. The Architect knows that what Neo if fighting for is going to eventually end up the way it did in the movie. Whether Neo "fails" or not, they will both be destroyed. Besides, the sentinels already killed off tons of humans and obliterated Zion. The Architect needs little more satisfaction.
Second: the "face of the machines" is the governor (ruler) of the entire machine world. He can't be touched from inside the Matrix. All he knows is that if Smith wants to destroy the entire Matrix and the human minds within it, he can. And if he does, all the humans will die. This would kill the ruler's power supply -thus killing the ruler himself. Thus, if whether Neo wins or loses, it's in the ruler's best interests to let Neo try. So, he gives him a chance and when the time is right, the ruler helps the combination of the two (Neo + Smith) by giving Neo the little jolt of life that allows the equation to balance at zero. This of course, saves the face of the machines from destruction.
I have no idea how this ruler plays the part in symbolism or philosophy though.
Yes, I agree with your explanation. I was just wondering if this being in the real world could be the original creator of the Matrix, and also the original leader of the machines against the humans. It is actually not clear exactly what he is since he can only be seen through the gathering of machines. When the sentinels scatter he is gone, and then seen again when the come together. Maybe the machines are able to think as one. but there must be a leader. Maybe he is the physical being of the architect.
sanders, i agree with your second explanation. it explains a lot that i was confused about and a bit more of the movie is making sense to me now. thnx.
what everyone is saying here is very interesting, but what I'm confused about is this question: if the earth is controlled by machines to harnass human energy this suggestd that at some point there were real humans who built machines who became more powerful than them and took them over and created the matrix, but who created the humans in the first place and was the original world just another matrix...in short when and how did everything begin according to this flick?
While it's now long after Nov 2003 when all the posts above have been sent, I can't help but lend my own interpretation of the Matrix since I think some much needed imagination is drastically missing from these interpretations and I'm sure that SOMEONE is going to read this and benefit from it monthes from now, just as I've read the above messages only in Apr 2004.
Here goes...
The Matrix is based on the concepts of "simulation" and "simulacrum". A book of this title is associated with the movie and shown somewhere in the first movie, I think. It's a book about wonderful and depressing concepts of what it means to exist.
Now, the Matrix is an attempt at retelling the story of Buddha or Jesus in a more nihilistic sort of way by using a dystopic, machine-driven, human-enslaved universe as a soul-squashing backdrop. While the movie is absolutely brilliant and complex beyond belief, it's probably worth checking up on the suicide rates in your city and compare the rise to the date of the release of these movies. There should be three spikes, one for each episode of the trilogy <
At any rate, the interpretation I want to give is based on this concept of simulacra or rather, universes within universes within universes ad nauseum forever. In Matrix, we directly observe two universes -- a smaller universe set in and around the onset of the 21st century (our time) and a superset future universe supposedly "closer to 2199", as Morpheus puts it, where it turns out that the 21st century as we know is merely a simulated figment of computer animation designed to enslave human beings so that machines can exploit them as an energy source. We later learn by the Architect in the last movie that the Matrix has iterated some six times.
Well, for one thing, the "sixth iteration" is very evocative of Mayan views of the universe and reality. They believed that the universe was predetermined to be created and destroyed in regular intervals and that the universe had been created many times before. Currently, according to the Mayan calendar, we live in the fifth iteration or "fifth sun". If we interpret the Architect's sixth iteration in such a Mayanesque manner, we get some interesting and brain-blowing ideas.
The fifth sun is calculated to have started in 3114 BC. This doesn't mean that the calendar started then, but rather that the Mayans would have calculated it to that date which is the start of a single long cycle of the calendar. There are cycles within cycles in this calendar: days within monthes, monthes within years, years with "katun" (20 yrs), "katun" within "baktun" (400 yrs) and so on. The largest cycle is quite large indeed. If the complete cycle starts in 3114 BC and is set to end in 2012, it shows us that one "iteration" is 5126 years long.
So if we've reached the end of the sixth iteration according to the Architect, it may imply that the "real world" has elapsed much longer than we're shown in the movie... that the time is closer to 7138 AD if we go by the Mayan calendar!
You're probably going "What?????!!" at this point but think about this for a moment. We see two worlds (well three if you count the "coma world" where we meet Sati and her parents that Neo was temporarily trapped in). We see that the world that we know is trapped in a future world ruled by machines in 2199... but the question is whether this world is in turn controlled by an even larger and more far-future world.
This interpretation is suggested by many, many things throughout the movie, not only just the reference to a book on simulacra as I mention above.
For one thing, the powers that Neo apparently seems to be gaining towards the very end of the movie are indicative enough. How does a blind man see as he does? How does a normal man explode the sentinels by simply willing it?? Are these special magical powers given by God or are these new powers that he gains just arcade tricks in yet another simulated computer world?
Second, we see that he becomes blind by the madman who is almost too eerily like Agent Smith's double in the so-called "real world". The madman even drops hints that he is in fact Agent Smith or that Agent Smith is somehow patterned on him! How can this be?
Further, the Oracle may not just be an "intuitive program". In fact, she may not even be a program. The Architect may also not be a program. How is this possible you ask? Doesn't the Oracle suggest that she is a program that was in danger of being deleted? Not necessarily. A "program" may simply be an analogy to the concept of someone being divorced from their system as they pursue a purpose that is in conflict with the larger world. Hell, anybody who collects social assistance just to escape the psychotic ratrace knows how that feels. So in a metaphorical sense, Neo is a program slated for deletion as well. We don't know what the Oracle intended to mean by these words and it can be interpretted both ways. However, she shows (by asking about Neo's dreams that she shouldn't possibly know) that she is more than an intuitive program. She's practically _pyschic_ if we allow ourselves to believe such a thing. If she were merely a program, this would be impossible unless....
Unless the Oracle (as well as the opposing Architect) are not only playing their chess game, but that their chess game may be lasting 5126 years and that they are ancient programs that exist in a higher world that transcends even the machine world that we see!
With that crazy revelation then, did Neo really "die"? Or did Neo transcend one computer simulation to enter a higher level? Or did Neo transcend the "real world" and enter into the metaphysical world that only Buddhists can know and love? As we can see, reality is not only brought into question, but even the distinction between humans and programs. Perhaps Neo is a program too in this larger simulation. We don't know. However, it's interesting that Neo just "gives up" in the end after a relentless struggle. The Architect is trying to wear him down, we see, but at his encounter with him, he's not in any way ready to give up. So why does he suddenly give up before the final showdown with Agent Smith?
Simple. Neo, after attaining strange unexplainable powers in the "real world" is starting to realize the unreality of even THAT world. He "gives up" only in the sense that he gives up _believing_. He gives up believing in this world. He gives up believing that Morpheus has the Truth. He gives up the cause. He gives up the struggle. He finds a new Truth. A truth of an outside universe that he now yearns to rise to. Perhaps Agent Smith sees this when he yells out "No! No!" as he appears to be winning. Or perhaps he is tormented by the fact that his purpose is now finally coming to an end and thus, so is his existence.
Is your head fried yet? There's more.
Another interpretation alternative to that one but along the same vein is that the Oracle and Architect are in fact _human_ and living in a larger universe (perhaps set in 7138 AD too, why not) where _humans_ are found to be in control of machines again. Note the oscillation back and forth between different levels of reality regarding the control of humans versus machines and that in the end, we don't know whether either is really in control. I believe it is even suggested in the movie that humans and machines in the end need each other just as Neo and Trinity need each other. Perhaps, in this higher level beyond the Matrix movie, the purpose is to accomplish a higher form of learning beyond anything we can possibly imagine today.
Afterall, notice how the Oracle is teaching children in her home how to transcend the world they live in by bending spoons and such. Is she part of a very large and complex training program of the future that uses these various levels of simulations as tests to serve a higher purpose that is beyond what the Matrix even shows us? Is Neo being tested by these simulations, to train him thoroughly before he can jump to the next level of reasoning?
Think about that too and we get interesting interpretations. Afterall, we see that Neo is constantly being questioned about why he made a choice that he has already made. It is said in the movie that they are living in a "world without time". Is this all part of Neo's education by this higher level world to learn all he can about reality and time? Maybe also it is a "world without time" in the sense that the world is in a neverending cycle of beginning and end just like the Mayan calendar, or that _we_ are in this timeless neverending cycle.
Well, I hope I've blown as many brains as I can. I want to see lots of cerebellum splattered on the ground before I leave you with these thoughts. Tata for now and don't forget to follow the white rabbit.
First of all Enlil, allow me to commend you on your efforts, as you have composed a provocative and intelligent essay based on your analysis of the Matrix films, although it isn’t necessarily more ‘imaginative’ than the thoughts and observations that have been presented in this forum – those that you seem so ready to criticise in such a regrettably condescending fashion. As compelling as it was, your reflections and interpretations are drawn from sources which are abstract and subjective, such that no single interpretation can be regarded as definitive nor authoritative.
The following represents my attempt at addressing some of the interesting points raised in your essay :
1) “The Matrix is based on the concepts of "simulation" and "simulacrum". A book of this title is associated with the movie and shown somewhere in the first movie, I think. It's a book about wonderful and depressing concepts of what it means to exist”.
Although the Matrix films do indeed draw hugely from the influence of Jean Baudrillard’s ‘Simulacra et Simulation’, inspiration from other often contradictory sources are apparent throughout the films (for instance, overt religious imagery and concepts are rejected by Baudrillard). More importantly, your assertion that ‘Simulacra’ equates with “universes within universes within universes ad nauseum forever” is erroneous, in my opinion. ‘Simulacra’ was Baudrillard’s attempt at developing a theory of contemporary culture that relies on displacing economic notions of cultural production with notions of cultural expenditure. A simulacrum – simplistically, the copy without an original - is what the virtual world of the Matrix is symbolizing. Baudrillard argued that most simulations today have been converted into a simulacrum, which no longer represents a real entity, but instead forms and defines a reality of its own, a 'hyperreality'. What we see in it is no longer an image, but something more real than its original, something that doesn't bear any relevance anymore to its real counterpart, which it once simulated. His theories also bear relevance to The Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions (for a wonderful critique of this, read the thesis written by a philosophy graduate student here : http://artisanitorium.thehydden.com...film/matrix.htm). In spite of the fact that the films and ‘Simulacra’s’ influences are open to interpretation, the notion that Baudrillard’s work automatically leads to an acceptance of the ‘multiple Matrices’ theory is incorrect, at least in my mind. Interestingly, in an interview with the New York Times, Baudrillard stated that the first Matrix film proceeded upon a misunderstanding of his books (specifically, the films delve into ontological questions about reality and perception he disregarded for the sake of social analysis).
2) “While the movie is absolutely brilliant and complex beyond belief, it's probably worth checking up on the suicide rates in your city and compare the rise to the date of the release of these movies. There should be three spikes, one for each episode of the trilogy”.
This is a bold statement to make. Apart from anecdotal and arbitrary observations, do you have any proof of this, one which incorporates facts and figures? Millions of people have watched the films and the great majority are sensible enough not to let works of cinema or art adversely affect their lives. Those who do are individuals whose actions are susceptible to external influences in any case – who’s to say they wouldn’t have been affected by other non-Matrix related influences?
3) “…. the question is whether this world is in turn controlled by an even larger and more far-future world….this interpretation is suggested by many, many things throughout the movie, not only just the reference to a book on simulacra as I mention above…...”
I beg to differ. All your references have reasonable (albeit subjective) explanations revealed in the films :
“How does a blind man see as he does? How does a normal man explode the sentinels by simply willing it??”
Neo wasn’t able to see anything apart from things with Machine code in them. For instance, he was not able to fly the hovercraft; he was struggling to avoid obstructions within the ship as he was walking towards Bane; he couldn’t see Trinity after she had been impaled; and so on. If he had real ‘vision’, surely he would have seen everything apart from Machine code? His ability to control the Sentinels and anything Machine-related was explained by the Oracle and this has been discussed at length to the point of exhaustion in this forum that to do so again would be pointless. As a suggestion, do a search on this forum under the relevant headings and you will come to understand what has been discussed here.
“We see that he becomes blind by the madman who is almost too eerily like Agent Smith's double in the so-called "real world". The madman even drops hints that he is in fact Agent Smith or that Agent Smith is somehow patterned on him! How can this be?”
Again this was discussed in this forum to the point of death straight after Reloaded was released almost a year ago now. If it is possible for a man to interface directly with a computer through his brain, then based on a similar premise, it is eminently possible that his brain can be affected by a computer virus. This obviously requires a leap of faith and a liberal suspension of reality, but so does having a hole at the back of one’s head which allows a computer plug to be inserted, in turn allowing direct access to the computer environment. This is reality interpreted within the confines of science fiction.
”Further, the Oracle may not just be an "intuitive program"…. In fact, she may not even be a program..… She's practically _pyschic_ if we allow ourselves to believe such a thing. If she were merely a program, this would be impossible unless....”
The Oracle’s abilities to ‘see the future’ may merely reflect the ability of computer programs to predict patterns inherent in the computer environment, based purely on logic and predictive algorithms. An analogy is that one can predict weather patterns or the trajectory of a cannonball just as easily, within certain defined parameters. The fact that there were five previous incarnations of the One also helps. To the Oracle and the Architect, if events had occurred numerous times previously, then surely there must be a certain predictability to it all. The only exception was Neo’s decision to save Trinity rather than to reboot the Matrix (although even this was predicted by both the Oracle and the Architect after the former had set in motion events which would lead Neo to do just that).
The rest of your post in regard to the theory of the Oracle and the Architect being humans conducting an experiment or playing a game, and that there is an alternate reality outside of the supposed ‘real’ world of Zion have all been addressed before both in this forum and elsewhere. Granted, they’re speculations at best, which makes them no more or less valid than some theories that have been put forth (albeit they are less imaginative in your opinion, but that is arguable).
I hope you don't take my post the wrong way. I think you should be commended for attempting to arrive at your own conclusions based on your own interpretations. I belief they are neither right nor wrong - just as it is impossible to criticise one's appreciation of an abstract work of art. My post was written in the spirit of healthy discussion, and I hope it will be received in the same spirit.
The_Rebel
"The learning and knowledge that we have, is, at the most, but little compared with that of which we are ignorant" - Plato
11-08-2003 06:11 AM
