MATRIX RELOADED - now that we've all seen it

[hazard]

surely by now veryone has seen it, right? as communists it is OUR DUTY to see this movie if you haven't already.

STOP READING HERE IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET

I do have a question about one aspect of the movie I couldn't quite make sense of. towards the end of morpheus's speech to the citizens of zion, he shown motioning towards the crowd with his hand extended. the movement of his arm is a slow sweep, so it is not a stationary salute. however, the camera sweeps across him in an oppositte direction which gives the impression, for less than a second, that he is saluting the people of zion in the same manner as the nazi's saluted before and during the second world war.

anybody have an opinion on this? I mean, intentional, unintentional? if intentional, why? what is it supposed to mean? what is the comment?

I think we can all agree that the directors don't want the viewers tothink morpheus is akin to a nazi leader of some kind. that would contradict EVERY OTHER aspect of the movie. I have some ideas, but want to know if anybody else noticed this and want they think it means.

[Anonymous]

Haven't seen it yet. :smile:

[synthesis]

The sequel just does not compare to the original. Of course, it had some awesome action scenes, but that orgy in Zion was just stupid.

Anyone else notice that disgusting strand of spittle between Trinity and Neo? I laughed out loud.

that he is saluting the people of zion in the same manner as the nazi's saluted before and during the second world war.

Looked to me like the 'black-power-fist-in-the-air" gesture, but oh well.

[hazard]

well, the citizens of zion were using the "fist in the air " salute at the same time morpheus was giving his speech

I was refering to a different thing altogether, although perhaps there is an attempted connection between the two

as for the movie in general, the first one was great and so was the second

I didn't expect quite as much expansion in the matrix world to take place, but it was welcome

what orgy? you mean the tribal dance segment? I thought that was allright. sorta like a display of raw human passion, as opposed to the machines who are simply incapabale of any emotion whatsoever

[DENNIS MILLER]

I prefer a more novel film, which tend often not to comply with classical Hollywood cinema’s studio system’s avocation of the dominate capitalist/fascist ideology. Classical Hollywood films are worthless, this film is no exception. For those of you communist enough to not condone a capitalist system by mortaging your house in order to afford some clamy box office tickets, fret not. Just brose through your introduction to philosophy notes from junior high school, the ones that this film completely and blatantly Plagiarizes ...the two are more or less indistinguishable.






(Edited by DENNIS MILLER at 8:39 am on May 19, 2003)


(Edited by DENNIS MILLER at 9:05 am on May 19, 2003)

[hazard]

dm:

I dont see any blatant capitalist ideology in this movie at all. on the contrary, I see nothing BUT communist, socialist, revolutionary ideology throughout it. please elaborate.

the stance that communists should not see movies because it "feeds" the system is foolish. as such, communists should not buy food, or clothes or shelter neither. ridiculous notions that are completely idiotic.

and, for the matter, dm, which philosophy do YOU think this film blatantly plagiarizes? if anything it uses many different philosophies, the most obvious of which is MARX's criticism of capitalism as developed within the communist manifesto.

[DENNIS MILLER]

1.All films are political. Remember to critically assess content as well as style. The film’s style follows the generic classical Hollywood studio system format which advocates the “dominate ideology.” As opposed to something like “Un Chien Andalou.” Style is just as important as content. The style of this film is “capitalist.”

2.Food, clothing and shelter are “necessities.” Films are not. ( reference Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.)

3.Nihilism: Specifically Jean Baudrillard, the progressive French literary theorist...

and many more.

[CubanFox]

I am still waiting for Marx Reloaded to hit the cinemas.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Was that a deliberate accidental typo of yours? :)

[truthaddict11]

the movie was shit

[truthaddict11]

Denis Miller i got news for you
ALL FILMS IMITATE PAST FILMS

[Hampton]

Why was Cornell West in that movie?

[DENNIS MILLER]

Thanks for the update. I never asserted that this film imitates other films, which it also does…
I asserted that this film asks pretty generic introduction to philosophy questions (freewill vs. hard determinism, what is truth, reality vs illusion, is my brain really just plugged into a vat? metaphysics…blah blah…) and often gets false credit for being profound and thought provoking as though such simple questions have not been raised long, long ago in the past. The same with “Fight Club.” Fight club, however, manages to mingle somewhat of an original plot-line amid the recycled junk. Fight club also breaks away from conventional continuity editing , at times. The unoriginal, boring and lack-lustre Matrix anthology highjacks the ideas of everyone from Lewis Carroll to Aristotle and claims them as their own. It's unimaginative, degenerate and wrong.

[Pete]

A question from earlier in the thread: How do you plagarize an ideology?

[DENNIS MILLER]

No one said it plagiarizes an ideology. Merely, that is supports or advocates it.
This film does however plagiarize Jean Baudrillard, Lewis Carroll, the Bible, and many others...making it that much more of a capitalist, classical hollywood film.

[Charlie]

i quite enjoyed Reloaded, but it really didn't compare to the first. Although the action scenes in Reloaded were exceptional, it lacked the memorable dialougue that made the first Matrix a classic. i liked it, but i'd be lying if i said i wasn't a bit dissapointed.

[Umoja]

Yeah, Hampton I was shocked to. I was like "Oh snap! Cornell West! A real Socialist!" Maybe they were trying to say something their and have yet another main character be black.

I mean, damn, most movies don't have that many dark skinned black people and considering Zion was like the home of the mole people, I think the creators were really trying to say something.

Besides, the Matrix is religious not political.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I think this far-fetched but curiously realistic (in the eyes of some of my idiot capie friends) philosophy of the matrix undermines the reality of human suffering (due to capitalism) to a simple 'simulation' or 'dream' that we have while our body heat is taken form us to produce...

My thoughts anyway

[Urban Rubble]

Just so you guys know, Dennis Miller is that fuck T_Blair.

The Matrix was an alright movie, I hate the fact that Keaneu Reeves, of Bill and Ted fame, is in usch a "deep" philosophical movie.

[Pete]

My question was more 'How is it possible to plagarize an ideal in any situation?' then 'How does Matrix plagarize an ideal'

[Blibblob]

WARNING!! SPOILER!!

Alright people. The first movie was basically a remake of Allegory of the Cave. I find it disgusting how so many people watch it for the action when the movie takes so many philosophical ideals and throws them into one movie. I saw the first one, and then all the analysis' on it. Then I went and saw the second one, and took notes :D. I'll post my short analysis on it, because I have nothing else to do. The longer one will come later:D.

To the first post. As far as the movie had shown me so far, it appeared as though Morpheus was made as a representation of MLK Jr. The overwelming amount of coloured people helped support that. There was fist pumping, usually associated with Revolution and even more into the Socialist/communist revolution. The orgy. It reminded me of the Dune series even more. The Fremen ceremony when they drink the poision and fall into a frenzy, held before a great battle or on a specific day of the year. More into the Dune comparison, the movie represented Machines as being in control, an idea seen through a lot of literature, but mostly the Dune series.



Besides, the Matrix is religious not political.
I beleive it denounces it. Morpheus' blind following of the prophesies and his devotion to do whatever in his power to try and follow the Oracle. As Neo said, the prophesies were wrong. The entire city was destroyed, posibly because Morpheus followed the Oracle. As the maker of the Matix said, there had been 5 before Neo. Meaning there had been 5 others like Morpheus. Obviously stating that such a hopeful beleif could be wrong.

It incorporated choice. Exactly how to state that, I don't know. It showed freedom. Covering of it, it had to do with outcasts and their place. There was the enemy's enemy, which is not always your friend(Agent Smith, the French Dude). Reality within reality. In the end of the movie when Neo shot out the electricity at the sentinals. What did you think of that? That possibly it is a Matrix within a Matrix? I saw some ideas of 1984. The best way to hide the truth is to put it right in front of their faces. There was a need of disaray, the use of "The One" to fix the Matrix again. That you need a destructive force within a society to save it. That what appears to be not always is. And control, how there is none. Over your life, over others.

Heh, ran out of time... I'm tired... :)ZzZzZ

(Edited by Blibblob at 8:18 pm on May 19, 2003)

[man in the red suit]

what a dissapointment.....I wanna se the third one just fo the dominatrix guy. :)

[Palmares]

I thought was Matrix Reloaded was good, but in very much a different way to the first. It is obvious that any sequel will find it difficult to match or even better the first. Since the first has already given the basis of the entire series, the ideas have already been established any cannot be simply given again in the same may. The only thing to do is to continue the ideas and add to it (duh!). The second focused alot on action, but the good thing was it had some sort of change in the prophecy being wrong. But I did not see it as a surprise, which disappointed me in my viewing of the film. I do not think either film can be really compared to the other, they are completely different in structure.

A question which has been everywhere for me is whether it is a matrix within a matrix. How did Neo stop those robot thingys towards the end?

Talking about themes, I believe it is vey much existentialist. The emphasis on choices demonstrates this explicitly. I do agree with the revolutionary, socialist/communist themes somewhat though. A teacher of mine said the theme was derived from the thoughts of a Chinese philosopher, "I am a butterfly thinking I am a man, or a man thinking I am a butterfly?". Though already mentioned, I wish to reiterate that Descartes 'demon possibility' of the 'brain in a vat' theory is paramount.

I think the third should be good, but don't expect it to be anything like the first, or second. That, would be plagerism.

[hazard]

excellent posts comrades

there really isn't a right or wrong answer on an interpretation of a movie anyway. except for miller, who was dead wrong

there is a lot of descartes in there, thats for sure. and with the oracle as a program, now more than ever. descartes idea that God could be an "evil genius" who is deceiving our senses comes to mind.

I see the Matrix and its sequel as having many communist and socialist ideas all throughout it. basically, morpheus and his combatants are a guerrilla squad fighting to start a revolution. zion represents "the underground", as it literally is underground. the machines represent capitalism, which is a really old sci-fi standby ( think terminater, robocop, etc. ). as for the "slaves", the people plugged into the matrix, they are the proletariates within a capitalist regime.

[DENNIS MILLER]

Escaping the Matrix
by
Richard K. Moore
Copyright © 2000 Richard K. Moore

Are you ready for the red pill?

The defining dramatic moment in the film The Matrix occurs just after Morpheus invites Neo to choose between a red pill and a blue pill. The red pill promises "the truth, nothing more." Neo takes the red pill and awakes to reality--something utterly different from anything Neo, or the audience, could have expected. What Neo had assumed to be reality turned out to be only a collective illusion, fabricated by the Matrix and fed to a population that is asleep, cocooned in grotesque embryonic pods. In Plato's famous arable about the shadows on the walls of the cave, true reality is at least reflected in perceived reality. In the Matrix world, true reality and perceived reality exist on entirely different planes.



The story is intended as metaphor, and the parallels that drew my attention had to do with political reality. This article offers a particular perspective on what's going on in the world--and how things got to be that way--in this era of globalization. From that red-pill perspective, everyday media-consensus reality--like the Matrix in the film--is seen to be a fabricated collective illusion. Like Neo, I didn't know what I was looking for when my investigation began, but I knew that what I was being told didn't make sense. I read scores of histories and biographies, observing connections between them, and began to develop my own theories about roots of various historical events. I found myself largely in agreement with writers like Noam Chomsky and Michael Parenti, but I also perceived important patterns that others seem to have missed.



When I started tracing historical forces, and began to interpret present-day events from a historical perspective. I could see the same old dynamics at work and found a meaning in unfolding events far different from what official pronouncements proclaimed. Such pronouncements are, after all, public relations fare, given out by politicians who want to look good to the voters. Most of us expect rhetoric from politicians, and take what they say with a grain of salt. But as my own picture of present reality came into focus, "grain of salt" no longer worked as a metaphor. I began to see that consensus reality--as generated by official rhetoric and amplified by mass media--bears very little relationship to actual reality.



"The matrix" was a metaphor I was ready for.



In consensus reality (the blue-pill perspective) "left" and "right" are the two ends of the political spectrum. Politics is a tug-of-war between competing factions, carried out by political parties and elected representatives. Society gets pulled this way and that within the political spectrum, reflecting the interests of whichever party won the last election. The left and right are therefore political enemies. Each side is convinced that it knows how to make society better; each believes the other enjoys undue influence; and each blames the other for the political stalemate that apparently prevents society from dealing effectively with its problems.



This perspective on the political process, and on the roles of left and right, is very far from reality. It is a fabricated collective illusion. Morpheus tells Neo that the Matrix is "the world that was pulled over your eyes to hide you from the truth....As long as the Matrix exists, humanity cannot be free." Consensus political reality is precisely such a matrix. Later we will take a fresh look at the role of left and right, and at national politics. But first we must develop our red-pill historical perspective. I've had to condense the arguments to bare essentials; please see the annotated sources at the end for more thorough treatments of particular topics.



Imperialism and the matrix From the time of Columbus to 1945, world affairs were largely dominated by competition among Western nations (1) seeking to stake out spheres of influence, control sea lanes, and exploit colonial empires. Each Western power became the core of an imperialist economy whose periphery was managed for the benefit of the core nation. Military might determined the scope of an empire; wars were initiated when a core nation felt it had sufficient power to expand its periphery at the expense of a competitor. Economies and societies in the periphery were kept backward--to keep their populations under control, to provide cheap labor, and to guarantee markets for goods manufactured in the core. Imperialism robbed the periphery not only of wealth but also of its ability to develop its own societies, cultures, and economies in a natural way for local benefit.



The driving force behind Western imperialism has always been the pursuit of economic gain, ever since Isabella commissioned Columbus on his first entrepreneurial voyage. The rhetoric of empire concerning wars, however, has typically been about other things—the White Man's Burden, bringing true religion to the heathens, Manifest Destiny, defeating the Yellow Peril or the Hun, seeking lebensraum, or making the world safe for democracy. Any fabricated motivation for war or empire would do, as long as it appealed to the collective consciousness of the population at the time. The propaganda lies of yesterday were recorded and became consensus history--the fabric of the matrix.



While the costs of territorial empire (fleets, colonial administrations, etc.) were borne by Western taxpayers generally, the profits of imperialism were enjoyed primarily by private corporations and investors. Government and corporate elites were partners in the business of imperialism: empires gave government leaders power and prestige, and gave corporate leaders power and wealth. Corporations ran the real business of empire while government leaders fabricated noble excuses for the wars that were required to keep that business going. Matrix reality was about patriotism, national honor, and heroic causes; true reality was on another plane altogether: that of economics.



Industrialization, beginning in the late 1700s, created a demand for new markets and increased raw materials; both demands spurred accelerated expansion of empire. Wealthy investors amassed fortunes by setting up large-scale industrial and trading operations, leading to the emergence of an influential capitalist elite. Like any other elite, capitalists used their wealth and influence to further their own interests however they could. And the interests of capitalism always come down to economic growth; investors must reap more than they sow or the whole system comes to a grinding halt.



Thus capitalism, industrialization, nationalism, warfare, imperialism--and the matrix--coevolved. Industrialized weapon production provided the muscle of modern warfare, and capitalism provided the appetite to use that muscle. Government leaders pursued the policies necessary to expand empire while creating a rhetorical matrix, around nationalism, to justify those policies. Capitalist growth depended on empire, which in turn depended on a strong and stable core nation to defend it. National interests and capitalist interests were inextricably linked--or so it seemed for more than two centuries. World War II and Pax Americana 1945 will be remembered as the year World War II ended and the bond of the atomic nucleus was broken. But 1945 also marked another momentous fission--breaking of the bond between national and capitalist interests. After every previous war, and in many cases after severe devastation, European nations had always picked themselves back up and resumed their competition over empire. But after World War II, a Pax Americana was established. The US began to manage all the Western peripheries on behalf of capitalism generally, while preventing the communist powers from interfering in the game. Capitalist powers no longer needed to fight over investment realms, and competitive imperialism was replaced by collective imperialism (see sidebar). Opportunities for capital growth were no longer linked to the military power of nations, apart from the power of America. In his Killing Hope, U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (see access), William Blum chronicles hundreds of significant covert and overt interventions, showing exactly how the US carried out its imperial management role.

Sidebar
Elite planning for postwar neo-imperialism... Recommendation P-B23 (July, 1941) stated that worldwide financial institutions were necessary for the purpose of "stabilizing currencies and facilitating programs of capital investment for constructive undertakings in backward and underdeveloped regions." During the last half of 1941 and in the first months of 1942, the Council developed this idea for the integration of the world.... Isaiah Bowman first suggested a way to solve the problem of maintaining effective control over weaker territories while avoiding overt imperial conquest. At a Council meeting in May 1942, he stated that the United States had to exercise the strength needed to assure "security," and at the same time "avoid conventional forms of imperialism." The way to do this, he argued, was to make the exercise of that power international in character through a United Nations body.



- Laurence Shoup & William Minter, in Holly Sklar's Trilateralism (see access), writing about strategic recommendations developed during World War II by the Council on Foreign Relations.



In the postwar years matrix reality diverged ever further from actual reality. In the postwar matrix world, imperialism had been abandoned and the world was being "democratized"; in the real world, imperialism had become better organized and more efficient. In the matrix world the US "restored order," or "came to the assistance" of nations which were being "undermined by Soviet influence"; in the real world, the periphery was being systematically suppressed and exploited. In the matrix world, the benefit was going to the periphery in the form of countless aid programs; in the real world, immense wealth was being extracted from the periphery. Growing glitches in the matrix weren't noticed by most people in the West, because the postwar years brought unprecedented levels of Western prosperity and social progress. The rhetoric claimed progress would come to all, and Westerners could see it being realized in their own towns and cities. The West became the collective core of a global empire, and exploitative development led to prosperity for Western populations, while generating immense riches for corporations, banks, and wealthy capital investors.



Glitches in the matrix, popular rebellion, and neoliberalism The parallel agenda of Third-World exploitation and Western prosperity worked effectively for the first two postwar decades. But in the 1960s large numbers of Westerners, particularly the young and well educated, began to notice glitches in the matrix. In Vietnam imperialism was too naked to be successfully masked as something else. A major split in American public consciousness occurred, as millions of anti-war protestors and civil-rights activists punctured the fabricated consensus of the 1950s and declared the reality of exploitation and suppression both at home and abroad. The environmental movement arose, challenging even the exploitation of the natural world. In Europe, 1968 joined 1848 as a landmark year of popular protest.



These developments disturbed elite planners. The postwar regime's stability was being challenged from within the core--and the formula of Western prosperity no longer guaranteed public passivity. A report published in 1975, the Report of the Trilateral Task Force on Governability of Democracies, provides a glimpse into the thinking of elite circles. Alan Wolfe discusses this report in Holly Sklar's eye-opening Trilateralism (see access). Wolfe focuses especially on the analysis Harvard professor Samuel P. Huntington presented in a section of the report entitled "The Crisis of Democracy." Huntington is an articulate promoter of elite policy shifts, and contributes
pivotal articles to publications such as the Council on Foreign Relations's Foreign Affairs (access).



Huntington tells us that democratic societies "cannot work" unless the citizenry is "passive." The "democratic surge of the 1960s" represented an "excess of democracy," which must be reduced if governments are to carry out their traditional domestic and foreign policies. Huntington's notion of "traditional policies" is expressed in a passage from the report:



"To the extent that the United States was governed by anyone during the decades after World War II, it was governed by the President acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the executive office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations, and media, which constitute the private sector's 'Establishment'." In these few words Huntington spells out the reality that electoral democracy has little to do with how America is run, and summarizes the kind of people who are included within the elite planning community. Who needs conspiracy theories when elite machinations are clearly described in public documents like these?



Besides failing to deliver popular passivity, the policy of prosperity for Western populations had another downside, having to do with Japan's economic success. Under the Pax Americana umbrella, Japan had been able to industrialize and become an imperial player--the prohibition on Japanese rearmament had become irrelevant. With Japan's then-lower living standards, Japanese producers could undercut prevailing prices and steal market share from Western producers. Western capital needed to find a way to become more competitive on world markets, and Western prosperity was standing in the way. Elite strategists, as Huntington showed, were fully capable of understanding these considerations, and the requirements of corporate growth created a strong motivation to make the needed adjustments--in both reality and rhetoric.



If popular prosperity could be sacrificed, there were many obvious ways Western capital could be made more competitive. Production could be moved overseas to low-wage areas, allowing domestic unemployment to rise. Unions could be attacked and wages forced down, and people could be pushed into temporary and part-time jobs without benefits. Regulations governing corporate behavior could be removed, corporate and capital-gains taxes could be reduced, and the revenue losses could be taken out of public-service budgets. Public infrastructures could be privatized, the services reduced to cut costs, and then they could be milked for easy profits while they
deteriorated from neglect.



These are the very policies and programs launched during the Reagan-Thatcher years in the US and Britain. They represent a systematic project of increasing corporate growth at the expense of popular prosperity and welfare. Such a real agenda would have been unpopular, and a corresponding matrix reality was fabricated for public consumption. The matrix reality used real terms like "deregulation," "reduced taxes," and "privatization," but around them was woven an economic mythology. The old, failed laissez-faire doctrine of the 1800s was reintroduced with the help of Milton Friedman's Chicago School of economics, and "less government" became the proud "modern" theme in America and Britain. Sensible regulations had restored financial stability after the Great Depression, and had broken up anti-competitive monopolies such as the Rockefeller trust and AT&T. But in the new matrix reality, all regulations were considered bureaucratic interference. Reagan and Thatcher preached the virtues of individualism, and promised to "get government off people's backs." The implication was that everyday individuals were to get more money and freedom, but in reality the primary benefits would go to corporations and wealthy investors.



The academic term for laissez-faire economics is "economic liberalism," and hence the Reagan-Thatcher revolution has come to be known as the "neoliberal revolution." It brought a radical change in actual reality by returning to the economic philosophy that led to sweatshops, corruption, and robber-baron monopolies in the nineteenth century. It brought an equally radical change in matrix reality--a complete reversal in the attitude that was projected regarding government. Government policies had always been criticized in the media, but the institution of government had always been respected--reflecting the traditional bond between capitalism and nationalism. With Reagan, we had a sitting president telling us that government itself was a bad thing. Many of us may have agreed with him, but such a sentiment had never before found official favor. Soon, British and American populations were beginning to applaud the destruction of the very democratic institutions that provided their only hope of participation in the political process.

Globalization and world government
The essential bond between capitalism and nationalism was broken in 1945, but it took some time for elite planners to recognize this new condition and to begin bringing the world system into alignment with it. The strong Western nation state had been the bulwark of capitalism for centuries, and initial postwar policies were based on the assumption that this would continue indefinitely. The Bretton Woods financial system (the IMF, World Bank, and a system of fixed exchange rates among major currencies) was set up to stabilize national economies, and popular prosperity was encouraged to provide political stability. Neoliberalism in the US and Britain represented the first serious break with this policy framework--and brought the first visible signs of the fission of the nation-capital bond.



The neoliberal project was economically profitable in the US and Britain, and the public accepted the matrix economic mythology. Meanwhile, the integrated global economy gave rise to a new generation of transnational corporations, and corporate leaders began to realize that corporate growth was not dependent on strong core nation-states. Indeed, Western nations--with their environmental laws, consumer-protection measures, and other forms of regulatory "interference"--were a burden on corporate growth. Having been successfully field tested in the two oldest "democracies," the neoliberal project moved onto the global stage. The Bretton Woods system of fixed rates of currency exchange was weakened, and the international financial system became destabilizing, instead of stabilizing, for national economies. The radical free-trade project was launched, leading eventually to the World Trade Organization. The fission that had begun in 1945 was finally manifesting as an explosive change in the world system.



The objective of neoliberal free-trade treaties is to remove all political controls over domestic and international trade and commerce. Corporations have free rein to maximize profits, heedless of environmental consequences and safety risks. Instead of governments regulating corporations, the WTO now sets rules for governments, telling them what kind of beef they must import, whether or not they can ban asbestos, and what additives they must permit in petroleum products. So far, in every case where the WTO has been asked to review a health, safety, or environmental regulation, the regulation has been overturned.



Most of the world has been turned into a periphery; the imperial core has been boiled down to the capitalist elite themselves, represented by their bureaucratic, unrepresentative, WTO world government. The burden of accelerated imperialism falls hardest outside the West, where loans are used as a lever by the IMF to compel debtor nations such as Rwanda and South Korea to accept suicidal "reform" packages. In the 1800s, genocide was employed to clear North America and Australia of their native populations, creating room for growth. Today, a similar program of genocide has apparently been unleashed against sub-Saharan Africa. The IMF destroys the economies, the CIA trains militias and stirs up tribal conflicts, and the West sells weapons to all sides. Famine and genocidal civil wars are the predictable and inevitable result. Meanwhile, AIDS runs rampant while the WTO and the US government use trade laws to prevent medicines from reaching the victims.



As in the past, Western military force will be required to control the non-Western periphery and make adjustments to local political arrangements when considered necessary by elite planners. The Pentagon continues to provide the primary policing power, with NATO playing an ever-increasing role. Resentment against the West and against neoliberalism is growing in the Third World, and the frequency of military interventions is bound to increase. All of this needs to be made acceptable to Western minds, adding a new dimension to the matrix.



In the latest matrix reality, the West is called the "international community," whose goal is to serve "humanitarian" causes. Bill Clinton made it explicit with his "Clinton Doctrine," in which (as quoted in the Washington Post) he solemnly promised, "If somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them en masse because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion and it is within our power stop it, we will stop it." This matrix fabrication is very effective indeed; who opposes prevention of genocide? Only outside the matrix does one see that genocide is caused by the West in the first place, that the worst cases of genocide are continuing, that "assistance" usually makes things worse (as in the Balkans), and that Clinton's handy doctrine enables him to intervene when and where he chooses. Since dictators and the stirring of ethnic rivalries are standard tools used in managing the periphery, a US president can always find "innocent civilians" wherever elite plans call for an intervention.



In matrix reality, globalization is not a project but rather the inevitable result of beneficial market forces. Genocide in Africa is no fault of the West, but is due to ancient tribal rivalries. Every measure demanded by globalization is referred to as "reform," (the word is never used with irony). "Democracy" and "reform" are frequently used together, always leaving the subtle impression that one has something to do with the other. The illusion is presented that all economic boats are rising, and if yours isn't, it must be your own fault: you aren't "competitive" enough. Economic failures are explained away as "temporary adjustments," or else the victim (as in South Korea or Russia) is blamed for not being sufficiently neoliberal. "Investor confidence" is referred to with the same awe and reverence that earlier societies might have expressed toward the "will of the gods."



Western quality of life continues to decline, while the WTO establishes legal precedents ensuring that its authority will not be challenged when its decisions become more draconian. Things will get much worse in the West; this was anticipated in elite circles when the neoliberal project was still on the drawing board, as is illustrated in Samuel Huntington's "The Crisis of Democracy" report discussed earlier.

The management of discontented societies
The postwar years, especially in the United States, were characterized by consensus politics. Most people shared a common understanding of how society worked, and generally approved of how things were going. Prosperity was real and the matrix version of reality was reassuring. Most people believed in it. Those beliefs became a shared consensus, and the government could then carry out its plans as it intended, "responding" to the programmed public will. The "excess democracy" of the 1960s and 1970s attacked this shared consensus from below, and neoliberal planners decided from above that ongoing consensus wasn't worth paying for. They accepted that segments of society would persist in disbelieving various parts of the matrix. Activism and protest were to be expected. New means of social control would be needed to deal with activist movements and with growing discontent, as neoliberalism gradually tightened the economic screws. Such means of control were identified and have since been largely implemented, particularly in the United States. In many ways America sets the pace of globalization; innovations can often be observed there before they occur elsewhere. This is particularly true in the case of social-control techniques.



The most obvious means of social control, in a discontented society, is a strong, semi-militarized police force. Most of the periphery has been managed by such means for centuries. This was obvious to elite planners in the West, was adopted as policy, and has now been largely implemented. Urban and suburban ghettos--where the adverse consequences of neoliberalism are currently most concentrated--have literally become occupied territories, where police beatings and unjustified shootings are commonplace.



So that the beefed-up police force could maintain control in conditions of mass unrest, elite planners also realized that much of the Bill of Rights would need to be neutralized. (This is not surprising, given that the Bill's authors had just lived through a revolution and were seeking to ensure that future generations would have the means to organize and overthrow any oppressive future government.) The rights-neutralization project has been largely implemented, as exemplified by armed midnight raids, outrageous search-and-seizure practices, overly broad conspiracy laws, wholesale invasion of privacy, massive incarceration, and the rise of prison slave labor (2) . The Rubicon has been crossed--the techniques of oppression long common in the empire's periphery are being imported to the core.



In the matrix, the genre of the TV or movie police drama has served to create a reality in which "rights" are a joke, the accused are despicable sociopaths, and no criminal is ever brought to justice until some noble cop or prosecutor bends the rules a bit. Government officials bolster the construct by declaring "wars" on crime and drugs; the noble cops are fighting a war out there in the streets--and you can't win a war without using your enemy's dirty tricks. The CIA plays its role by managing the international drug trade and making sure that ghetto drug dealers are well supplied. In this way, the American public has been led to accept the means of its own suppression.



The mechanisms of the police state are in place. They will be used when necessary--as we see in ghettos and skyrocketing prison populations, as we saw on the streets of Seattle and Washington D.C. during recent anti-WTO demonstrations, and as is suggested by executive orders that enable the president to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law whenever he deems it necessary. But raw force is only the last line of defense for the elite regime. Neoliberal planners introduced more subtle defenses into the matrix; looking at these will bring us back to our discussion of the left and right.



Divide and rule is one of the oldest means of mass control--standard practice since at least the Roman Empire. This is applied at the level of modern imperialism, where each small nation competes with others for capital investments. Within societies it works this way: If each social group can be convinced that some other group is the source of its discontent, then the population's energy will be spent in inter-group struggles. The regime can sit on the sidelines, intervening covertly to stir things up or to guide them in desired directions. In this way most discontent can be neutralized, and force can be reserved for exceptional cases. In the prosperous postwar years, consensus politics served to manage the population. Under neoliberalism, programmed factionalism has become the front-line defense--the matrix version of divide and rule.



The covert guiding of various social movements has proven to be one of the most effective means of programming factions and stirring them against one another. Fundamentalist religious movements have been particularly useful. They have been used not only within the US, but also to maximize divisiveness in the Middle East and for other purposes throughout the empire. The collective energy and dedication of "true believers" makes them a potent political weapon that movement leaders can readily aim where needed. In the US that weapon has been used to promote censorship on the Internet, to attack the women's movement, to support repressive legislation, and generally to bolster the ranks of what is called in the matrix the "right wing."



In the matrix, the various factions believe that their competition with each other is the process that determines society's political agenda. Politicians want votes, and hence the biggest and best-organized factions should have the most influence, and their agendas should get the most political attention. In reality there is only one significant political agenda these days: the maximization of capital growth through the dismantling of society, the continuing implementation of neoliberalism, and the management of empire. Clinton's liberal rhetoric and his playing around with health care and gay rights are not the result of liberal pressure. They are rather the means by which Clinton is sold to liberal voters, so that he can proceed with real business: getting NAFTA through Congress, promoting the WTO, giving away the public airwaves, justifying military interventions, and so forth. Issues of genuine importance are never raised in campaign politics--this is a major glitch in the matrix for those who have eyes to see it.

Escaping the matrix
The matrix cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Under the onslaught of globalization, the glitches are becoming ever more difficult to conceal--as earlier, with the Vietnam War. November's anti-establishment demonstrations in Seattle, the largest in decades, were aimed directly at globalization and the WTO. Even more important, Seattle saw the coming together of factions that the matrix had programmed to fight one another, such as left-leaning environmentalists and socially conservative union members.



Seattle represented the tip of an iceberg. A mass movement against globalization and elite rule is ready to ignite, like a brush fire on a dry, scorching day. The establishment has been expecting such a movement and has a variety of defenses at its command, including those used effectively against the movements of the 1960s and 1970s. In order to prevail against what seem like overwhelming odds, the movement must escape entirely from the matrix, and it must bring the rest of society with it. As long as the matrix exists, humanity cannot be free. The whole truth must be faced: Globalization is centralized tyranny; capitalism has outlasted its sell-by date; matrix "democracy" is elite rule; and "market forces" are imperialism. Left and right are enemies only in the matrix. In reality we are all in this together, and each of us has a
contribution to make toward a better world.



Marx may have failed as a social visionary, but he had capitalism figured out. It is based not on productivity or social benefit, but on the pursuit of capital growth through exploiting everything in its path. The job of elite planners is to create new spaces for capital to grow in. Competitive imperialism provided growth for centuries; collective imperialism was invented when still more growth was needed; and then neoliberalism took over. Like a cancer, capitalism consumes its host and is never satisfied. The capital pool must always grow, more and more, forever--until the host dies or capitalism is replaced.



The matrix equates capitalism with free enterprise, and defines centralized-state-planning socialism as the only alternative to capitalism. In reality, capitalism didn't amount to much of a force until the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution of the late 1700s-- and we certainly cannot characterize all prior societies as socialist. Free enterprise, private property, commerce, banking, international trade, economic specialization--all of these had existed for millennia before capitalism. Capitalism claims credit for modern prosperity, but credit would be better given to developments in science and technology.



Before capitalism, Western nations were generally run by aristocratic classes. The aristocratic attitude toward wealth focused on management and maintenance. With capitalism, the focus is always on growth and development; whatever one has is but the seeds to build a still greater fortune. In fact, there are infinite alternatives to capitalism, and different societies can choose different systems, once they are free to do so. As Morpheus put it: "Outside the matrix everything is possible, and there are no limits."



The matrix defines "democracy" as competitive party politics, because that is a game wealthy elites have long since learned to corrupt and manipulate. Even in the days of the Roman Republic the techniques were well understood. Real-world democracy is possible only if the people themselves participate in setting society's direction. An elected official can only truly represent a constituency after that constituency has worked out its positions--from the local to the global--on the issues of the day. For that to happen, the interests of different societal factions must be harmonized through interaction and discussion. Collaboration, not competition, is what leads to effective harmonization.



In order for the movement to end elite rule and establish livable societies to succeed, it will need to evolve a democratic process, and to use that process to develop a program of consensus reform that harmonizes the interests of its constituencies. In order to be politically victorious, it will need to reach out to all segments of society and become a majority movement. By such means, the democratic process of the movement can become the democratic process of a newly empowered civil society. There is no adequate theory of democracy at present, although there is much to be learned from history and from theory. The movement will need to develop a democratic process as it goes along, and that objective must be pursued as diligently as victory itself. Otherwise some new tyranny will eventually replace the old.



It ain't left or right. It's up and down. Here we all are down here struggling while the Corporate Elite are all up there having a nice day!..

[hazard]

I guess that novel was more or less correct in its connection of the movie the Matrix to a criticism of capitalism. If you take out the "t" and the "i" in matrix, wha does it spell? MARX

anyway, I think a more specific application to the movie would have been better. I'm not so interested in one person's analysis of history as being proof that Marx was accurate in his criticism. he clearly was WITHOUT this analysis.

if the point was to draw a connection between Marx and the Matrix, I think the detail was lost in the endless description the author used to connect capitalism as being a "real world" matrix

to me, the matrix is, specifically, the illusion of capitalism. that people believe they are free and independent when they are actually slaves.

anyway, the author did an interesting approach by focusing on how he perceived the creation of a real world matrix based on external factors. this is different from my stance that the factors that lead to the creation of a matrix are all based on internal thought control, propaganda, media influence and illusions such as "democracy", "freedom of choice", "freedom of expression" and so on.

[DENNIS MILLER]

The author forgot to add that the film itself was a matrix. You think you’re being enlightened, you're not. You think you're getting this intense critique on capitalism, you're not. You think you've become a born again socialist, quite the contrary. Again, the film "the Matrix" is a matrix in itself.



(Edited by DENNIS MILLER at 8:17 am on May 20, 2003)

[hazard]

dm:

there are moves being made to ban you under the assumption that you are t-blair. be careful

how can the film itself be a matrix? to me it is an illustration of HOW to combat the real world matrix, WHY it should be combatted and WHO should be doing the combat. just because truckloads of cattle watch and do not understand the movie don't mean it is serving the by product of opiation. eventually the cattle will figure it out for themselves and on that day REVOLUTION will have begun.

LONG LIVE THE REVOLUTION! DOWN WITH PIGS! DOWN WITH THE PIGDOGS!

[truthaddict11]

:sigh: the movie is not about communism one bit. I am sure thats why the brothers that made the triology are basicly capitalizing on everything for thier movies now. it is stupid to believe that all because you take out two letters in MATRIX you get MARX so then it is communist. Thats like saying if you can rearrange the letters in COMMUNION and take some out that religion and communism are linked.
the influence for the movies did not come from Marx but from anime, christianity, kun-Fo movies and comic books, amd to some extent techno music.
the film is pretty base in the end

[Urban Rubble]

I love how you people are talking about this movie like it's the deepest most meaningful thing ever. It's a stupid Hollywood movie, nothing more.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I still think that the movie undermines the reality of human suffering due to capitalism by demonstrating life as we know it as a machine-generated simulacrum.

[Blibblob]

If you take out the "t" and the "i" in matrix, wha does it spell? MARX
LOL!!! Leftist propaganda got you?


:sigh: the movie is not about communism one bit. I am sure thats why the brothers that made the triology are basicly capitalizing on everything for thier movies now. it is stupid to believe that all because you take out two letters in MATRIX you get MARX so then it is communist. Thats like saying if you can rearrange the letters in COMMUNION and take some out that religion and communism are linked.
the influence for the movies did not come from Marx but from anime, christianity, kun-Fo movies and comic books, amd to some extent techno music.
the film is pretty base in the end
The movie isn't about communism entirely. Part of that is shown how Zion is actually a republic, and works well in that situation. It is against modern capitalism though, and that is rather obvious. The general usage of machines as a symbol, is to use it to represent control and quite often a blind capitalist system. More on that, they played Rage Against The Machine during the first part of the credits. Influence from the movie did come from some anime, and kung-foo movies, and a few comic books. But not christianity. The thought that christianity was a key was smashed when the prophesy was wrong. AH, not techno music... blah!


I love how you people are talking about this movie like it's the deepest most meaningful thing ever. It's a stupid Hollywood movie, nothing more.
I only have one thing to say to such stupidity: NI, NI, NI... NI, NI, NI... NI, NI

[synthesis]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 8:02 pm on May 20, 2003
I love how you people are talking about this movie like it's the deepest most meaningful thing ever. It's a stupid Hollywood movie, nothing more.
I love how you people are talking about this book 1984 like it's the deepest most meaningful thing ever. It's a stupid British book, nothing more.

(If anyone takes me seriously, I'm going to be fucking pissed)

(Edited by DyerMaker at 11:06 pm on May 20, 2003)

[Blibblob]

:eek:

(Edited by Blibblob at 6:51 pm on May 20, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

Now you're comparing 1984 to the Matrix ? Jesus, someone has a high opinion of Keanu Reeves.

Just kidding, but seriously, this isn't Shakespeare we're talking, it's the Matrix.

[Palmares]

Quote: from DyerMaker on 8:54 am on May 21, 2003

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 8:02 pm on May 20, 2003
I love how you people are talking about this movie like it's the deepest most meaningful thing ever. It's a stupid Hollywood movie, nothing more.
I love how you people are talking about this book 1984 like it's the deepest most meaningful thing ever. It's a stupid British book, nothing more.

(If anyone takes me seriously, I'm going to be fucking pissed)

(Edited by DyerMaker at 11:06 pm on May 20, 2003)


I take everything (including my struggle for the Gerbal Nation against the oppressors of humans and hampsters) seriously.

But is 1984 really as good as people say? I remember I started a thread about Orwell a while ago and many people (I remember specifically Michael de Panama) saying it was the best book they had ever read.

:confused:

[synthesis]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 12:56 am on May 21, 2003
Now you're comparing 1984 to the Matrix ? Jesus, someone has a high opinion of Keanu Reeves.

Just kidding, but seriously, this isn't Shakespeare we're talking, it's the Matrix.
I know, but I was just running with the natural extension of your logic. Chaucer couldn't have been important because he "only" wrote poems, Mozart couldn't have been important because he "only" wrote compositions, and Orwell couldn't have been important because he "only" wrote books.

The fact that the medium chosen to represent the ideas of the creator of a piece of artwork is often utilized to entertain the masses does not diminish the importance of a good piece of art.

Not that I really think that the Matrix is all that important. I didn't even think the second one was that great, although I loved the first one. I just find it irritating when people readily dismiss the importance of something merely because of the form it is in. Dialectics, amico, look beyond the form to find the function ;)

P.S. I chose 1984 because the two do have similar themes.

[DENNIS MILLER]

Nope. Urban was right. Hollywood films, specifically films such as "The Matrix" which falls under the blockBuster/global category aren't art. They follow a stern studio formula designed to ensure, for the most part, mass revenue. The directors, writers, cinematographers..etc, have little artistic say over the end product. They are puppets acting in the interests of the studio which is acting in the interests of economic gain.

Was the Matrix in any way unpredictable?
NO! Because you have already seen a million other hollywood films that are more or less the same; filled with the same conventions, plot-line, charater types, ending...etc.

I repeat,
Urban Rubble was RIGHT.

It's just a stupid Hollywood film.




(Edited by DENNIS MILLER at 2:10 am on May 21, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

Holy shit, T_Bag said I was right, it's a breakthrough.

Dyer Maker, I like movies as much as the next guy, I dunno, maybe I just have a personal vendetta against Keanu Reeves (or however you spell his name).

I actually haven't even seen part 2, I'm sure it's good, but I usually go to the movies for entertainment, I read to books to get me thinking.

[Ghost Writer]

The Matrix Reloaded was an excellent film. This year's best, so far. It was a real thinking man's movie. Those who criticize it don't understand it. I would venture to guess that the dialogue was over their heads. Therefore, they took little away from the movie, aside from the great action sequences. Those who have criticized the biblical references lack the understanding necessary to recognize the importance it plays in the metaphorical context of the movie. Many times the references were used to introduce an important philosophical question relevant to the movie. Other times it is obvious that the writer is probably just a fan of theology.

[truthaddict11]

bliblob-The movie isn't about communism entirely. Part of that is shown how Zion is actually a republic, and works well in that situation. It is against modern capitalism though, and that is rather obvious. The general usage of machines as a symbol, is to use it to represent control and quite often a blind capitalist system. More on that, they played Rage Against The Machine during the first part of the credits. Influence from the movie did come from some anime, and kung-foo movies, and a few comic books. But not christianity. The thought that christianity was a key was smashed when the prophesy was wrong. AH, not techno music... blah! "

i never said it was based on Communism, i was saying that it wasnt.
It is stupid to believe that because RATM was used that shows any leftist stand in the movie.They were used in I highly doubt any member of the band will see a cent from that.

[Invader Zim]

it was agreat film not as good as the origional, but few films are. It did not have as much philosophical meaning as the first, but it was still damn good.

However i have seen some much better science fiction films, all people should watch them: -

1. Event horizon
2. The Terminator
3. Blade Runner

I think that quite a lot of the terminators ideas are actually taken from The Terminator, i shall explain: -

- Both take place in the future in parts. (not strictly true in the matrix as it is all in the future, but the program of the matrix is set in modern day)

- Both are about the detruction of the majority of the human race.

- Both have machines doing this.

- Machines created by people.

- Both have brave human freedom fighters

- Both have a chosen one: - John Connor and Neo.

There are a few others but im sure you get the idea off what im saying.

[Urban Rubble]

Hey Ghost Writer, if that comment was directed at me, read my post, I haven't even seen the movie so don't try to act like I'm so mentally inferior that I couldn't understand the movie.

Maybe you should go rent Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, it's got a deep philosophical meaning behind it, a real thinking mans movie.

[Blibblob]

i never said it was based on Communism, i was saying that it wasnt.
It is stupid to believe that because RATM was used that shows any leftist stand in the movie.They were used in I highly doubt any member of the band will see a cent from that.
I know I quoted you, but it was directed towards Hazard.
About RATM, I know that...

AK47. And Terminator got it's machines from loads of other Sci-fi stuff, mostly books. Such as Dune. Machines are not new, Lord Of The Rings was based on machinery also, though in a far different way.


Hey Ghost Writer, if that comment was directed at me, read my post, I haven't even seen the movie so don't try to act like I'm so mentally inferior that I couldn't understand the movie.
If you haven't fucking seen the movie yet, don't say anything about it!

[Urban Rubble]

"If you haven't fucking seen the movie yet, don't say anything about it!"

Fuck you.
1. I will say anything I want about it.
2. I didn't even really say anything about other than it is just a hollywood movie.
3. Fuck you.

[Blibblob]

lol. Okay, the ridicule will continue.

I didn't even really say anything about other than it is just a hollywood movie.
But you don't know if you haven't seen it. :D

Oh, fuck you too. ;)

(Edited by Blibblob at 6:14 pm on May 23, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

I didn't think I had to see it to know it was a movie.

[peaccenicked]

The movie is contradictory. The first movie cost 65 million
dollars and took in 540 million dollars. It is fair to say that the profit motive was behind the film and as such the film industry being good at what it does will ensure "Matrix Reloaded'' success.
It is difficult for a movie to have any real meaning under capitalism, capitalism itself continually undermines the progressive meaning of any film, anti war messages are underminned by war, anti racist messages are undermined by continuing institutionalised racism.
Stories have to produce heroes or characters who are icons of decency and bravery. In a world were decency and bravery are continually undermined.
The 'Matrix' is a highly technically well produced movie and the 'Matrix' reloaded' is in this sense no disappointment for the huge ammount of money invested.
The Matrix is unique in that it has pretensions to be what most critics define as ''mindblowing''. It certainly is thought provoking and rarely allows the viewers mind to rest on any of its themes. It tackles philosophy as a series of soundbites aimed at the low attention span of the modern audience. It would not be a thriller if it were not like this. The style can be seen in detective movies were the detective gives peices of armchair philosophy before and after he shots the villian.
However, The Story of the "Matrix" so far is unique. In addition to man against machine we have a film which tackles the nature of the ideology of the machine, Unlike 1984, unlike Blade Runner the resistence movement looks well organised and have a chance of winning. The Matrix draws parallels from Marx's criticism of alienated labour power in the Machine transformation of human life to battery form. The Matrix mirrors Marx's critique of fetishism and ideology as generators of false consciousness.
All this is didatic in a sense. This is the nature of the thriller in general. It seeks more to entertain than to inform. No one is expecting huge chunks from "Das Capital''. The Wachowsky bros, if thats the right spelling,
have like many others, one thinks of the Simpson's here
used many many culture references. Not so much to make specific comments but to expand the scope of the plot.
So far the Storyline is as good or as bad as the best of Sci fi material and as gripping as the best action movies but historically it will become a culture reference, in a trivial commercial culture whose ability to mock itself has become outstanding. Yet the Profit motive remains the holy cow of bourgeois satire untouched and celebrated as the real "one".
The development of the romance between Neo and Trinity is typically bourgeois. It is placed on a pedestal above everything else. The survival of the human race is tokenistic and the remaining characters are tools to pursuit of the sentimental interests of bourgeois marriage. This is the way of most bourgeios novels and films.
Hence the winning formula for a winning production is not departed from too much. Dangerous ideas are mildly explored but not examined. The Matrix and it sequel promote and undermine ideology.
The Imperialists have learned to co opt the antifascist feeling that dominates Hollywood movies. The Matrix in real life is the projection of decent values of most human beings onto the leading politicians who use these valuses to justify their colonialisation of the Third world.
The Matrix as comment on Imperialism is utterly useless,
It merely reifies the idea that Hollywood produces more than large profits and sanitises the ugly world of unemployment,starvation and disease, that the US sits in charge of.
Hollywood is largely uncritical and rarely deviates from a pro imperialist liberal critique, which tackles prejudice rather than class interests.
The Matrix is basically a bourgeois liberal fantasy, very cleverly done which copes with all the modern bourgeois liberal concerns. The main concern is the conquest of machine over man. Machine over human spirit. This is dystopic pessimism of the Sci fi genre.
It is almost inevitable that the story will end with the triumph of the human spirit over the machine. That is not a problem. It has never been a problem for Marxists.
Marxists have always seen technology as a means to free man from drudgery. Mankinds slavery is mental. That is the real "matrix". The real battle is the triumph of the human spirit over ideology.
The 'Matrix' and the sequel to its credit touches on this theme.
I am looking forward to the next one. Mainly because it works as light entertainment.

[Guerry]

Movie poster
(Aznar, Powell, GW Bush & Blair)

http://www.elcadillo.com.mx/portal/d/carte...a/5/madrix.html (http://www.elcadillo.com.mx/portal/d/cartelera/5/madrix.html)


Saludos!

[Zombie]

1. Event horizon
2. The Terminator
3. Blade Runner

I didn't like EH that much. Although it is good, but not that great.

T1 and T2 are great sci-fi flicks, but they are quite old, T2 being 10 years old+ now. T3 is coming out in june, but I doubt it will be any good. The TX or whatever, the bad cyborg female is just plain ridiculous, from the few shots I've been able to watch. Wait and see I guess.

Blade Runner is brilliant, very moody, very dark, and the backdrops are sublime. The characters can be a little frustrating, but I think they help create the overall dark futuristic feel very well.

[Urban Rubble]

I loved Event Horizon.