05-19-2003, 06:13 AM
Hi,
I think of it from this point of view: When describing something new, the description has to be in terms of something already known. For example, if I tell you that rattlesnake tastes like chicken, that can be very informative -- unless you don't eat chicken (and, so, for me a better description is that chicken tastes like rattlesnake :) )
So, the set of interacting programs collectively known as the Matrix has parts that serve the function of virus checkers and detectors (the Agents). These use various methods to eliminate viri (Morpheus and the Zion gang). Those methods, to be intelligible to human consciousnesses, are represented by recognizable weapons. When a virus (Neo) spots and recognizes an anti-viral program (Smith) the "reality" is two pieces of code interacting. The image filtered through to Neo, however, is a stereotyped fibi complete with fibi shoes. It would make little sense to Neo (and none at all to the audience) if just waterfalls of code were displayed. Which is part of what makes the whole thing so interesting.
How much of the meaning in the film is created by the viewer? It is an allegory, and like all allegories, the author builds a framework upon which the viewer hangs his perceptions.
But when Neo was running from the Agents, and they "possessed" people he ran past, WHY did they take an Agent form? They'd do so much better in disguise.
Does an agent look like an agent? Or is what we're shown nothing more than what Neo "sees" when he sees an agent? So, maybe it is not so much that they take the form as that the form is put on them by the perception.
And that is a large part of what makes this a great movie. And the biggest mistake that can be made in part III is to try to "explain" it.
BTW, Total Recall? Real or implanted? In many ways, much like the Matrix. Or is it?
--Pete
I think of it from this point of view: When describing something new, the description has to be in terms of something already known. For example, if I tell you that rattlesnake tastes like chicken, that can be very informative -- unless you don't eat chicken (and, so, for me a better description is that chicken tastes like rattlesnake :) )
So, the set of interacting programs collectively known as the Matrix has parts that serve the function of virus checkers and detectors (the Agents). These use various methods to eliminate viri (Morpheus and the Zion gang). Those methods, to be intelligible to human consciousnesses, are represented by recognizable weapons. When a virus (Neo) spots and recognizes an anti-viral program (Smith) the "reality" is two pieces of code interacting. The image filtered through to Neo, however, is a stereotyped fibi complete with fibi shoes. It would make little sense to Neo (and none at all to the audience) if just waterfalls of code were displayed. Which is part of what makes the whole thing so interesting.
How much of the meaning in the film is created by the viewer? It is an allegory, and like all allegories, the author builds a framework upon which the viewer hangs his perceptions.
But when Neo was running from the Agents, and they "possessed" people he ran past, WHY did they take an Agent form? They'd do so much better in disguise.
Does an agent look like an agent? Or is what we're shown nothing more than what Neo "sees" when he sees an agent? So, maybe it is not so much that they take the form as that the form is put on them by the perception.
And that is a large part of what makes this a great movie. And the biggest mistake that can be made in part III is to try to "explain" it.
BTW, Total Recall? Real or implanted? In many ways, much like the Matrix. Or is it?
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?