Excellent post. To the Wachowskis, the story is more about their journey in embracing who they are. That doesn't mean it has to be interpreted the same way by everyone else. To the creators, it was a trans allegory. To the viewer, it can be many other things. Great artwork does that.MW03 said:
One person's "trans" story is another person's story about "change." There's no one way to view The Matrix. For some, it's a religious movie. For others, a meditation on Descartes' "I think therefore I am" axiom. It's classical philosophy, too. The story of Socrates visiting the Oracle in Delphi is retold almost exactly. The whole first 2 acts of the original is essentially Plato's Cave from The Republic.
Anyway, there's a million things to read into those movies, and no "right" way. That's why it's such an incredible work. The Wachowskis can have what they intended to create, and the message they wanted to send, but the meaning in a work of art - and movies can most definitely be works of art - will always belong to the person appreciating it, not the one who created it.
And if you don't care about any of that, it's still a badass movie.
Confirmed: The Matrix is a trans allegory
6,354 Views |
59 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by Brian Earl Spilner
The Matrix can be whatever the hell you want it to be. Nothing about it is in your face. If you don't like the trans angle, just turn your brain off and watch the damn movie.
Truly insane to say an artist is wrong about the intent of their own work.Bretton Gekko said:
Lol. No it wasn't. Nice woke revisionist history. Don't care if the creator says it was. It wasn't.
This forum never ceases to amaze me.
So I agree with your general idea here but I think your comments on message aren't entirely fair.DanHo2010 said:
Why are 'Christian' movies so bad? Because they have a predetermined moral that they're determined to beat into your skull, with no room for debate. The purpose of art is NOT to reinforce your moral preconceptions, therefore movies that try to do so are bad art. The poster above mentioned that some folks in Hollywood feel compelled to use their platform to spread a particular message, and more power to them, regardless of whether I like the message or not. But once you do it, you have changed jobs from artist to missionary. This to me is one of the proofs that the Hollywood crowd has adopted certain political beliefs as their religion. Tolkien was unashamedly Catholic, but he still understood the laziness of adding his faith to his work through allegory by fiat. Bluntly and ham-fistedly spreading a political message, whether on the right or the left, does not make a movie deep, or thoughtful, or praiseworthy. It is bad art, and the people who do it are bad artists.
Every artist in every medium has intent and perspective in their work, that's what makes for good art. Having a message doesn't suddenly change them from "artist to missionary" as you put it, anything worth watching has some kind of message to it. Some may be more blunt or preachy than others (which may result in a bad movie and is really a different topic) but anything worth watching has some sort of intent.
Exactly. "Theme" is the movie's message on which the narrative hinges - it's the thesis statement the writer is choosing to explore - and nearly every worthy movie explores a theme in some form or fashion. Some more overtly than others, but either way, it's screenwriting 101. Screenwriters are literally TAUGHT to argue a perspective. The skill comes in how effectively the writer is able to explore that perspective, and sure, the less heavy-handed the better, and sometimes ambiguity is best. But the entire point of storytelling is to enact some kind of change or awareness in either your characters or your audience, and that can only be accomplished via theme, i.e. a "message." In other words, a screenwriter is, more often than not, quite literally, a missionary. They call this the "writer god," seeing as the writer's job, as the "god" of the story, is, again, to either get their characters or their audience from point A to point B in terms of their arc/mindset. But like any good missionary/god, their effectiveness lies in how well they're able to argue and often camouflage their intent.
Like you said, there's intent and execution. The intent might be really specific, but if it is conveyed via general themes that apply to humans rather than specific topics that apply to 48% of people living in 2020 America it might be more intrinsically appealing.
Oh of course. It's impossible to not have an agenda or a message, and you SHOULD have one. And there's nothing wrong with coming right out and preaching your message. But preaching isn't art.
I miss the good old days when an agenda was something for the city council or the school board.
A good "sermon" can absolutely be art.
I'm fascinated as to how you came to have the authority to deem what isn't.
I'm fascinated as to how you came to have the authority to deem what isn't.
Just because I've had Kubrick on the brain lately...
One of my favorite things about his filmography is how seemingly straightforward some of his movies can be on the surface, ie The Shining or Eyes Wide Shut.
They both appear to be pretty simple horror / erotic thrillers, and can certainly be enjoyed as such without thinking about them further.
But there is a massive rabbit hole of underlying themes than can be peeled like an onion if you so choose.
Like I was saying earlier, you "get what you take with you". In other words, you can take the art however you choose to take it, and neither approach is wrong.
You can take a million different things from The Matrix, aside from the trans thing. (Which to be honest, I never thought about before this thread.)
One of my favorite things about his filmography is how seemingly straightforward some of his movies can be on the surface, ie The Shining or Eyes Wide Shut.
They both appear to be pretty simple horror / erotic thrillers, and can certainly be enjoyed as such without thinking about them further.
But there is a massive rabbit hole of underlying themes than can be peeled like an onion if you so choose.
Like I was saying earlier, you "get what you take with you". In other words, you can take the art however you choose to take it, and neither approach is wrong.
You can take a million different things from The Matrix, aside from the trans thing. (Which to be honest, I never thought about before this thread.)
I agree with Tolkein.
Brian Earl Spilner said:
Hottest woman that ever lived.
PacifistAg said:
It's not a matter of "might be true". This isn't a theory put out by Vanity Fair. It's coming from the writers of the story.
You have to admit that it's funny how the alt-right nutters latched onto "red pill" imagery that was created as a trans allegory.
Considering how many words, terms, concepts the left has co-opted the right was due something.
If you're giving a lecture, and that lecture is left to interpretation, then there's argument to be made that the lecture was ineffective. That depends on the topic of course, and whether the intent of the lecture is to educate. Really, anything can be art, and that includes a powerful sermon or an eloquent speech. Especially when those are designed to be persuasive, and they succeed in bringing about change, or even opening the conversation in earnest about whether a thing should change.
Your audience will always have their own experiences by which to judge what's being said, be it directly or indirect. The different is that a message delivered via an art form like a book or a movie is left to the interpretation of that audience, regardless what you wanted to convey. That's what I mean when I say the interpretation is owned by the receiver, not the sender. You can own what you intend to imply or say outright, but how that's received and inferred by the audience is something that occurs in the space between that individual's ears.
Take the Matrix we've been talking about. If you are a trans person, or if you know a trans person, the trans story in a narrative like the Matrix might be especially poignant to you, and I'm sure it was to the Watchowskis. However, because they created something beautiful and complex, the created something that could be interpreted differently by a person receiving that story through a completely different lens of life experiences.
So what the Watchowskis intended to tell me with their story is definitely important. But I would argue that what their audience took from their story is also important, regardless whether they intended to tell it or not. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's why it's art. Sure, if you want to get the correct answer on a test about what the Watchowskis intended the Matrix to be about, then there is only one answer. But if the question is simply a short form "what is the Matrix about", then the answer is what is it about to you, the watcher. The answer to that question is yours, and no more right or wrong than his or hers or anyone else.
It's like the Sistine Chapel and the Creation of Adam. Do you see the story of Genesis? Do you see a brain hidden in the painting? Was Michaelangelo telling us that consciousness comes from our creator? Was he telling us that religion is a figment of our imaginations? Do you just see a masterpiece that makes you reflect on your own relationship with your creator? Are you simply wowed by its beauty, or are you awed by the undertaking of the Chapel itself? Do you think it's a piece of crap?
There's no right answer. It's art. How someone else might see it might change how you interpret it, but how you interpret is valuable too because it's based on who you are.
Your audience will always have their own experiences by which to judge what's being said, be it directly or indirect. The different is that a message delivered via an art form like a book or a movie is left to the interpretation of that audience, regardless what you wanted to convey. That's what I mean when I say the interpretation is owned by the receiver, not the sender. You can own what you intend to imply or say outright, but how that's received and inferred by the audience is something that occurs in the space between that individual's ears.
Take the Matrix we've been talking about. If you are a trans person, or if you know a trans person, the trans story in a narrative like the Matrix might be especially poignant to you, and I'm sure it was to the Watchowskis. However, because they created something beautiful and complex, the created something that could be interpreted differently by a person receiving that story through a completely different lens of life experiences.
So what the Watchowskis intended to tell me with their story is definitely important. But I would argue that what their audience took from their story is also important, regardless whether they intended to tell it or not. I don't know if that makes sense, but that's why it's art. Sure, if you want to get the correct answer on a test about what the Watchowskis intended the Matrix to be about, then there is only one answer. But if the question is simply a short form "what is the Matrix about", then the answer is what is it about to you, the watcher. The answer to that question is yours, and no more right or wrong than his or hers or anyone else.
It's like the Sistine Chapel and the Creation of Adam. Do you see the story of Genesis? Do you see a brain hidden in the painting? Was Michaelangelo telling us that consciousness comes from our creator? Was he telling us that religion is a figment of our imaginations? Do you just see a masterpiece that makes you reflect on your own relationship with your creator? Are you simply wowed by its beauty, or are you awed by the undertaking of the Chapel itself? Do you think it's a piece of crap?
There's no right answer. It's art. How someone else might see it might change how you interpret it, but how you interpret is valuable too because it's based on who you are.
This made me laugh at myself. A year after discovering Rage and buying their entire catalog I realized my beliefs did not exactly line up with their politics. Who the hell cares? Their music is awesome!boy09 said:This comment reminds me so much of all the people that just recently realized Rage Against the Machine's music is political.Average Joe said:
I remember when Hollywood put out movies that you could take at face value and enjoy. Now everything has to have some secret woke meaning.
I just want a movie about machines versus humans, Keanu Reeves kicking a bunch of ass, and a hot chick in leather. Don't take that away from me.
Goat Man said:This made me laugh at myself. A year after discovering Rage and buying their entire catalog I realized my beliefs did not exactly line up with their politics. Who the hell cares? Their music is awesome!boy09 said:This comment reminds me so much of all the people that just recently realized Rage Against the Machine's music is political.Average Joe said:
I remember when Hollywood put out movies that you could take at face value and enjoy. Now everything has to have some secret woke meaning.
I just want a movie about machines versus humans, Keanu Reeves kicking a bunch of ass, and a hot chick in leather. Don't take that away from me.
Difference is, Rage was always extremely loud and straight forward with their politics, not having to correct the record 20 years later under an excuse of "they can finally admit it" despite woke culture fully supporting the same message every year for the last 5 years.
Similar note- what are y'all's opinion on Semisonic's hit song Closing Time? It seems obvious about what the song was about then years later, they say the song is about time for childbirth.
I feel like there isn't enough in the song to support it and it's just odd.
I feel like there isn't enough in the song to support it and it's just odd.
So are you saying they should have come out and explained this on a timeline that was acceptable to you?mazag08 said:Goat Man said:This made me laugh at myself. A year after discovering Rage and buying their entire catalog I realized my beliefs did not exactly line up with their politics. Who the hell cares? Their music is awesome!boy09 said:This comment reminds me so much of all the people that just recently realized Rage Against the Machine's music is political.Average Joe said:
I remember when Hollywood put out movies that you could take at face value and enjoy. Now everything has to have some secret woke meaning.
I just want a movie about machines versus humans, Keanu Reeves kicking a bunch of ass, and a hot chick in leather. Don't take that away from me.
Difference is, Rage was always extremely loud and straight forward with their politics, not having to correct the record 20 years later under an excuse of "they can finally admit it" despite woke culture fully supporting the same message every year for the last 5 years.
Or are you saying they are lying?
I just don't have the energy to go through this thread and catch-up. I can see where its been / going at an initial glance.
It's such a weird gripe. Is he saying they should have come out about their intended meaning when the movie was released, when they were still closeted and society had not progressed to the point of even considering acceptance of trans people? Or were they supposed to come out about their intended meaning 5 years ago when they were heavily focused on their new show, Sense8?Aggie4242 said:So are you saying they should have come out and explained this on a timeline that was acceptable to you?mazag08 said:Goat Man said:This made me laugh at myself. A year after discovering Rage and buying their entire catalog I realized my beliefs did not exactly line up with their politics. Who the hell cares? Their music is awesome!boy09 said:This comment reminds me so much of all the people that just recently realized Rage Against the Machine's music is political.Average Joe said:
I remember when Hollywood put out movies that you could take at face value and enjoy. Now everything has to have some secret woke meaning.
I just want a movie about machines versus humans, Keanu Reeves kicking a bunch of ass, and a hot chick in leather. Don't take that away from me.
Difference is, Rage was always extremely loud and straight forward with their politics, not having to correct the record 20 years later under an excuse of "they can finally admit it" despite woke culture fully supporting the same message every year for the last 5 years.
Or are you saying they are lying?
I agree. Plus, as many folks have mentioned, the matrix triology was always an onion and did have direct discussions about sexual orientation when it came out. Not sure if this article has been posted, but this came out in 2019:
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/3/30/18286436/the-matrix-wachowskis-trans-experience-redpill
This came out in 2003:
https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/sex-change-for-larry-wachowski
People should feel free to come out when they feel most comfortable and they shouldn't be penalized for that. There are of mindless sci-fi movies that have no underlying messages, like Transformers.
https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/3/30/18286436/the-matrix-wachowskis-trans-experience-redpill
This came out in 2003:
https://gothamist.com/arts-entertainment/sex-change-for-larry-wachowski
People should feel free to come out when they feel most comfortable and they shouldn't be penalized for that. There are of mindless sci-fi movies that have no underlying messages, like Transformers.
I love the way this thread has turned into a debate about art and theme.
This movie is not about some trans fantasy.
It's a money grab. Anyone that can't see that is more messed up in the head than a trans...lucent thing that can't decide if it wants to be clear or opaque.
It's a money grab. Anyone that can't see that is more messed up in the head than a trans...lucent thing that can't decide if it wants to be clear or opaque.
Ocean Of Funk said:
This movie is not about some trans fantasy.
It's a money grab. Anyone that can't see that is more messed up in the head than a trans...lucent thing that can't decide if it wants to be clear or opaque.
Money grab? Lol
TCTTS said:
God, this gif is such perfection.
Featured Stories
See All
Wednesday sports discussions and the friendship forged
by Olin Buchanan
Sdao's struggles persist as pitching falters in 14-8 defeat
by Richard Zane
11:14
1h ago
538
Sauni's RBI double propels No. 15 A&M past No. 11 Georgia, 3-2
by Emily Dreger
Belief in God helped Formby land at Texas A&M
by Olin Buchanan
18:42
12h ago
2.1k
tjack16
If you are AD for a day, how would you define baseball success?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
51
sprinklerguy12
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: Vanderbilt 14, No. 20 Texas A&M 8 (Thursday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
42
Thurman Merman
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: Vanderbilt 14, No. 20 Texas A&M 8 (Thursday)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
31