great philosophy primer, but sloppy

Rating: 8/10 (11 August 2010)

This is a review of some of the philosophical elements of the film. If that aspect didn't interest you, stop here. If you are the brainy type who is interested in quibbling, though, or are simply curious, then read on.
Before I start ranting, I just want to say that I enjoy this film enormously, unrealistic dialogue and not very deep characterization notwithstanding. Great fx/action sequences, good acting, exciting plot, and it's a the best vehicle for introducing philosophy ideas and themes to the uninitiated that Hollywood has ever produced (Malick's 'Thin Red Line' that came out at about this time is also very philosophical, but not at such an overt level).
That said, there is a hopeless hodgepodge of schools of thought here that either just don't necessarily mix well or are blatantly conflicting.
I was also a bit disappointed with the audio commentary track (on the blu-ray edition) by philosophers Cornel West and Ken Wilbur – though, again, the uninitiated would benefit enormously from it. West and Wilbur (but especially West) spend way too much time talking about(and revisiting) certain themes and not even mentioning certain other things that I thought were central.
As an example of the former, West overly discusses the theme that is the most obvious and really does not need the amount of commentary that it gets: that of multicultural/racial/gender-equality; since he is primarily known for his writings on race, this is perhaps forgivable since this is what he knows and is interested in, but in some cases he reads his own interpretation into the film that almost certainly was not the Wachowski brothers' intent. To paraphrase a case in point: at one point he says that (echoing feminist schools of thought that are popular in Academia these days) since Neo, the One, needs help from Trinity in order to fully realize his potential, and thus he is not completely 'one' without her, this film is really about the breakdown of gender identity. West's point about Neo and Trinity being 'one' is credible, as in Christian theology the father, son and holy spirit are all one and the same being; but in line with the allegorical Christian parallels in the film, its far more likely a unity based in the romantic connection at the end, like a man and a woman becoming one through marriage, rather than any notions of gender breakdown (while it is true that, for survival purposes, the women fight and aren't particularly feminine, the reverse is not true – the males are never unmasculine, and there are no Lady Macbeth types).
As far as skipping over material, in the very beginning there is a direct allusion to the contemporary social theorist Baudrillard (when Neo is making the exchange at his apartment, he is shown to be hiding his discs in a book entitled 'Simulacra and Simulation') . Neither West nor Wilbur even mentions this point, which I think is a significant one, as it is the only direct reference to any philosophical figure, past or present, in the trilogy. Moreover, it is an allusion that comes into conflict with the clear-cut reality vs. illusion dichotomy that (West and Wilbur DO mention) runs throughout the film (the inconsistency is that Baudrillard thinks that modern technology has created a simulation of reality in which we are all living, but there is no deeper reality behind it – the illusion is all there is).
Another problem with the film itself is the lack of resolution between the main theme of the film (good, real humans vs. evil, illusion-producing machines) and Agent Smith's monologue about humans being parasites and machines being the more efficient 'cure' to which good and evil don't apply – evolution is not only an amoral process, but morality itself is a human social construction of which machines have no concept, and no need. Smith makes a good point that not only isn't satisfactorily answered, but it's the last bit of extended speech in the movie (save Trinity's confession of love and Neo's closing proclamation, neither of which is relevant to Smith's view), and is then dismissed to make way for a final half-hour of continuous, nearly wordless (though thrilling) action sequences.
Wilbur mentions one specific inaccuracy: the famous 'there is no spoon'line; it was inspired by a Zen Koan (a sort of logically paradoxical parable) in which three monks are observing a flag waving in the wind. The first says the flag is moving; the second says it is not the flag that is moving, but the wind; the third says that neither the flag nor the wind is moving, but only your mind. It's not exactly right to say the spoon does not exist, merely that the spoon is not separable from the mind.
This is typical of the film: throwing a lot of not-well-understood ideas together in a sloppy fashion. Wilbur himself is all about synthesizing ideas, but here it is done very haphazardly. That's not to say that a clever enough person can't spot holes in any argument, but here it's like glancing up at a clear night sky. In a good story (whether character-driven or action-driven) there's only enough time to suggest ideas if it isn't to lag (as opposed to developing them), but that doesn't mean those ideas should be on-the-surface inconsistent.
Having gotten this off my chest, I realize that I am being overly critical. This is a (very good) Hollywood film, a classic of its genre, so to get as much as we did was a blessing.