»Wachowski brothers, and the meaning of the Matrix«

Are there any videos of the Wachowski brothers on the internet discussing The Matrix? I would like to see and hear them for myself.

psikeyhackr

intell wrote:

And there is an inherent danger of viewing the films through the lens of whatever myth(s) one is looking through. The problem with that as some of the above posts show is that you sometimes only see what you're looking for and miss the whole picture that the op was addressing. But this isn't the first time it has happened and it won't be the last.

I agree; and I have to admit that I am - as you may have noticed- far from being free from this problem myself.
But I don't really consider it a problem.
Esp. the Matrix is a work of such complexity, that you have to be either spiritually/philosophically/scientifically.... extremly well informed to grasp the whole picture at once....
Or you can do it step by step, and your picture will grow towards wholeness.

I've had Wagner's Ring-cycle as a "companion" ever since I was a kid, and I am still not done interpreting it. And I propabely will never be, because age/experiences/Zeitgeist etc. have an influence on an interpretation.

intell wrote:

"Stating your differing opinion on my posts has become a preoccupation with you lately, Tozy."

Take it as a compliment...

psikeyhackr wrote:

Are there any videos of the Wachowski brothers on the internet discussing The Matrix? I would like to see and hear them for myself.

If you want to see them discussing the Matrix, you'll have to get the "Matrix Revisited"-DVD.
But you can hear Larry (kind of) discussing the Matrix here:
integralnaked.org...

Quote:

intell wrote: "Stating your differing opinion on my posts has become a preoccupation with you lately, Tozy." Take it as a compliment...

I thought it was one. hehe.

btw. I didn't even have a problem with captpostmod until he built a straw man of me and went all Neo wire-fu on it. lol.

Nice interview, too.

intell wrote:

btw. I didn't even have a problem with captpostmod until he built a straw man of me and went all Neo wire-fu on it. lol.

You know,... I've merely scanned over these posts, so I don't really know what was going on between you.
But I believe there are always two "guilty" sides to a conflict. "Guilt" must not necessarily be a conscious thing; I believe, in a situation like that between the two of you, it more often than not involves misunderstanding.

Capt. and myself didn't have the best of all starts when we met here. Upon reading some of his replies to me, I was wondering if he had really READ my posts. But, in retrospect, I've come to realize that I had misunderstood him quite a lot, too; and that, accordingly, some of what I said in my replies may have sounded rude or ignorant to him, even if not intended that way.

But, even during our more...er..."troubled phase",.... I enjoyed talking to him a lot, because - to me - his thoughts are a good mixture of enrichment and challenge to mine.
-> my conversations with Capt. have certainly grown my understanding of (not only...) the Matrix

I just look at it as one of those things that happen from time to time. It's all in the game, so to speak.

"...it is not unexpected thus not beyond a measure of control."

Going back to the subject of the films and different perspectives for a moment...

a friend wrote:

Humour me for a second people. Does anyone here believe that the matrix trilogy should be taken literally (in reference to its explicit references)? For example, if we're looking for the answer to Neo's code (Arch. Speech), does someone believe there should be a reference to a bunch of zeros and ones somewhere in the story. If the answer is completely within the subtext of the story, would it do anyone any good to answer this question? Because if you understand the subtext, then you wouldn't ask the question. And, with all the fan fiction and media hoopla out there, how many trust themselves to know what parts were truth or fiction? Or, does none of this matter, and any answer is as good as the any other?

Quote:

I would have said that the story's truth is hidden within the subtext. And, until you understand the subtext there's no way in hell or otherwise, you'd understand the story...esp. the sequel's story. ...Why would anyone write a movie with 0 meaning that is also a movie with multiple meanings in the story? If it is for the sake of taking the art in a new direction, what direction would that be?

Quote:

Listen, the brothers want you to keep your mind open so when the correct theory comes along you may hear it and listen, and maybe even do something about it.

Thanks for the link Tozy.

It sounds like he's being non-commital.

All interpretations are valid. Don't alienate the customer.

psikey

a friend wrote:

Does anyone here believe that the matrix trilogy should be taken literally

Hell no!

Quote:

If the answer is completely within the subtext of the story, would it do anyone any good to answer this question? Because if you understand the subtext, then you wouldn't ask the question.

Well,.... if the answer were THE TRUTH, or - as mentioned in the third quote - the "correct concept", it wouldn't hurt to know it. Knowing the truth, I wouldn't have to ask any more questions...

But,... if so it happens that,...the deeper you dig, the subtler the questions,.... I wouldn't know where to stop digging.

Take the Merovingian, for example:
You can either understand him as a power-hungry (and, so it seems, quite powerful) force within our society with all its side-effects.
This is a very valid interpretation, an important aspect in deciphering our society.
But it is also a mere pointing one's finger at others.

If you take an additional approach to the movies, along the line of what Larry has suggested (-> "the Matrix is an exploration of consciousness"), Merv - as any other character in the movies - can become one of the many forces battling for predominance within you (and, accordingly, in society): The undeniable, and more... or less distinct, striving for personal power within each of us.
Now the finger does point at yourself.

We wonder about Merv's past and origin. Why should we bother?
Because it could head us towards a question that could get us even further in finding out about ourselves and, accordingly, mankind:
How come,.... the Merv in ourselves?

And so on...

psikeyhackr wrote:

It sounds like he's being non-commital. All interpretations are valid. Don't alienate the customer.

Hm,.... it is my understanding that he does alienate the customer more than anything by refraining from talking about the movies.
But, I think, he has given away quite a lot in this talk (plus his "appearance" in PON...)