It’s deep in the heart of autumn, the year 2003.  Take a look around.  Better yet, take a snapshot and preserve it.

Let’s put them in the album and return to them next year in the deep of autumn.  Will things have changed much, besides the leaves on the trees?

Yours truly is this edition’s co-editor.  Mark Hoback, as always, provides the cover, publication and final editing touches.

9:01:21 PM    comment []

I managed to squeeze The Matrix Revolutions this week; hubby had promised back in May after seeing The Matrix Reloaded that we would see Revolutions on opening day.  Unfortunately, he ended up traveling much of last week so his promise went unfulfilled.  He was guilt-tripping about deer hunting, I’m sure; he made a point of taking me to the first show of the day BEFORE he left to go hunting.  I would have told him to reschedule for another week but I know from experience to go along with hubby’s guilt-trip wherever it leads…

It wasn’t enough and yet it was too much.  The special effects are spectacular to the point of overwhelming.  The major story line resolves itself, yet leaves a lot of wiggle room.  I’m left feeling satisfied yet not satiated.

[Possible Spoiler Ahead]

After seeing all three movies, I believe the entirety of the Matrix trilogy wrestles with the question of agency.

What is it and do humans truly possess it?  Many really don't, based on predefined parameters set by the bounds of environment and genetics.

It was apparent in Revolutions there were three parties at war -- there were machines, platform independent programs, and humans.  This was not as clearly evident in the first two films as it appeared that software programs were at the command of either humans or machines.  In Revolutions, software slips the bounds of control and becomes an entity in its own right, not merely a personality.  Each of these entities – human, software, machine -- operate within limits.  It is only through chaos (represented by Oracle's power to provide unbalance) that agency becomes necessary -- in this case, agency is "born" by the mother of chaos to become the iteration yielding Neo.

I was puzzled by the use of the word "karma" in Revolutions, since at the time it was used by the Oracle it was really "dharma" that was implied. (Dharma being one's destiny, or path for which they were designed/destined.)

It came together for me at the end of the movie: karma really means choice, not fate.  We get what we choose, hence the common misperception that karma means fate.  Karmic exercise, or choice, explains why the Oracle said we cannot see beyond a choice -- there is no fate beyond one's exercise of free agency.

My understanding is that Neo, unlike the previous five iterations of the One, actually exercised agency by choosing something other than the predefined doors 1 or 2.  Choosing door 1 or 2 would not have been agency since it was limited in nature, bounded.

There are myriad opportunities along the trilogy to revel in the exercise of agency: the blue pill versus the red pill, Cypher's wish to reject the ugliness that comes with having to choose, door 1 or 2, even choosing to take time to gather one's thoughts instead of doing what is expected.  Choice, karma, agency at work.

The Wachowski brothers managed to pull from multiple cultures and religions to explore the issue of agency for the first two movies; Revolutions is no different.  Where in the first movie, Matrix, there is a strong parallel between Judeo-Christian faiths and the themes of prophecy and Messiah, the second and third movies pull more strongly from Buddhist and Hindu religions.  (There are possible ties to other religions, but Buddhist and Hindu tenets appear to have an increased influence as the trilogy ends.)

Great stuff, in spite of the beautiful excesses of Revolutions; when do we ever have a chance to talk about the intrinsic nature of humanity across multiple cultures and religions?

1:31:17 PM    comment []