The Matrix: An Analysis In Film
Since its inception, film has been one of the most influential storytelling methods in society. What started as a series of experiments in optical illusion technology resulted in the creation of rudimentary devices like the phenakistoscope (c. 1832), the zoetrope (c. 1834), and the chronophotographic gun (c. 1882), all of which were predecessors to the first projection device--the kinetoscope (c. 1889) (Cook & Sklar, 1998). This technology led to the introduction of nickelodeons: little peep-hole theatres where the first motion pictures were made available for public viewing.
The Lumière brothers, inspired by this technology, went on to create the cinematographe (c. 1895), which eventually became the standard camera equipment in Europe, America, and other parts of the world (Cook & Sklar, 1998). In the 1900s, film became a “full-fledged economic art”, evolving from sideshow nickelodeons in the late 1800s to picture palaces in the early 1900s (Cook & Sklar, 1998). This shift was largely due to producers’ desire to attract different audiences; since movies shown in nickelodeons were “new, cheap, silent and set up no language difficulties”, according to film entrepreneur Adolph Zukor (Krebs, 1976), they appealed largely to working-class immigrants. But production houses wanted to capitalize on the artform, so they built large, elaborately-decorated movie theatres to appeal to the upper class, thus diversifying their viewers. This new hybrid audience would be the main influencer in future film developments; movies became longer, moving from a few seconds in length to an hour and more; producers implemented a “studio system” in which they introduced gimmicks that would result in highly profitable films--such as a big budget, a utopian/”feel good” formula, and a “star system” which helped capitalize on the industry by creating celebrities to promote films (Pickford, n. a. ).
As time went on, these preliminary innovations would lead to larger, more elaborate developments within the industry such as complex editing styles, special effects, and the introduction of cineplexes to enhance audiences’ viewing experiences. Even moreso, Hollywood’s studio and star systems impacted foreign cinema, leading to the development of Bollywood in India and subsequent epic releases like Mother India (1957).
While movies originally followed a set utopian formula, advancements in the industry brought forth a new crop of narratives through the development of more sophisticated equipment (e. g. celluloid film, digital cameras) and filming techniques. As such, today we have four main narrative structures: linear, i. e. events sequenced in chronological order (e. g. Citizen Kane - 1941); non-linear, where events occur disjointedly (e. g. Memento - 2000); interactive narration, where the narrative is driven by a user’s interaction--and mainly applies to video games (e. g. Bloodborne - 2015); and interactive narrative, where users influence the narrative through their choices (e. g. Black Mirror: Bandersnatch - 2018). The development of these narrative structures coincided with the innovation of film technology. Longer runtimes allowed producers to tell more in-depth stories than before, which subsequently facilitated the introduction of developments like Vladimir Propp’s character archetypes, and character arcs involving context, goal, conflict, and resolution. Editing styles also became more artistic, with different cuts (e. g. jump cuts, dissolves), shots (e. g. close ups), and angles (e. g. wide-angle), as well as framing and composition creating a more compelling narrative. Foreign influences--namely German expressionism, Lev Kuleshov and the Kuleshov effect, Russian montage, the French New Wave, and Italian neo-realism--were largely responsible for the development of different genres as well, leading to film in the U. S. becoming the main medium through which filmmakers could experiment with artistic expression.
As movies grew in complexity, so did the methods used to analyze them. Scholars developed theories through which a film’s cinematic elements could be studied. However, as James Halloran rightly points out, research and ideas are “always in a state of flux” (Hamelink & Linne, 1994)--i. e. constantly changing and evolving in terms of relevancy and credibility--so film analysis should take an interdisciplinary approach in order to avoid one-dimensionality and eliminate bias. A strong analysis uses triangulation via a theoretical framework to create a single analysis by synthesizing multiple relevant theoretical approaches. This ensures criticality in one’s analysis and makes it less susceptible to academic scrutiny. For example, with the 1990 film Goodfellas, a critic could apply narrative theory, the “magic bullet”/”hypodermic needle” theory, and feminist film theory to their analysis. Narrative theory would highlight the protagonist’s character development throughout the film, showing his goal of becoming a successful gangster in the Italian mafia; the various conflicts he faces on his journey to achieve this goal; and his ultimate downfall and resolution at the end of the film. The “magic bullet” theory would serve to show the film’s impact on society; according to BBC journalist Tom Brook (2015), Goodfellas “remains the greatest depiction of mobster life on-screen”, compared to the gangster films preceding it.
The film also influenced future movies and TV series within the genre, from The Usual Suspects to The Sopranos (Brook, 2015). Finally, feminist film theory breaks down the role of women within the film, as they are mainly either objects used for the mafia members’ sexual gratification, or abused and mistreated--as in the case of the protagonist’s wife, who is cheated on and beaten multiple times throughout the film.
While these theories are relevant to the film they aim to analyze, it is important to note that such application may not always be possible. As Halloran further argues, these theories are often biased in their perspectives, better suited to American and European films as opposed to those made by foreign directors (Hamelink & Linne, 1994). Furthermore, different theoretical frameworks may offer different interpretations of a film because each theory examines a particular context rather than the film as a whole--e. g. queer film theory vs. apparatus theory vs. narrative theory, which all occur in realms far removed from one another. Additionally, certain theories may be regarded as obsolete where critiques are concerned; the “magic bullet” theory, for example, has been deemed irrelevant in analyzing modern films, due to the fact that it is rooted in 1930s behaviorism and therefore no longer reflects the current state of the world (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955). Regardless of this, theoretical frameworks allow viewers and critics to understand the codes and conventions of filmmaking, and subsequently interpret the message the director wants to relay to the audience.
A more in-depth application of a theoretical framework can be seen in the analysis of the popular sci-fi action film, The Matrix (1999). Culture theory, semiotics, and feminist film theory are all relevant approaches to use in studying this film, as they analyze some of the film’s key elements, codes, and conventions. In the film, Thomas Anderson (aka Neo) fights against a computer hivemind that has constructed his entire reality through a titular system--the Matrix. This directly correlates with culture theory, in that Thomas’ fight against the Matrix reflects our own fight within modern society. As a concept, the computer hivemind and the Matrix are very much like our current society; we are largely technologically-driven, to the point where the technology we use shapes the choices we make, the things we see, and the experiences we have. This is the main point of the film: that we have been brainwashed into believing that “reality” as we know it is real and truly our own to shape, when, in fact, it has been carefully crafted by outside factors that continue to have direct control over our opinions, perceptions, and the paths we take in life. As Brian Eggert puts it, “by forcing us to consider the horrors of an imaginary world, it. . . allows us to realise the horrors of our own” (Eggert, 2015). While many consider this aspect of The Matrix to be akin to a conspiracy theory, it is far from it; in the film, the Matrix keeps humanity distracted from the true horrors of its reality--that humans are being harvested as an energy source for the computer hivemind that has overrun the planet. This brings about the theme of exploitation within our own society, in that, similar to the hivemind’s exploitation of humans to fuel their existence, the media and governing bodies of the world exploit our inner desires and distract us by promoting a false sense of fulfilment through mass consumerism in order to commodify our existence and ultimately get us to fuel the progression of capitalism.
This notion is supported in the realm of sociology as well; social critic and philosopher, Theodore Adorno, muses that “men are still dominated by the means of the economic process” (Adorno, 1987, p. 6). Even in the film itself, Morpheus, Neo’s mentor, reveals the “truth” of life: that we are all slaves, imprisoned within our own minds by the world around us. This further raises the theme of ideology, which Adorno posits is a means of preserving oppression through a form of false consciousness (Adorno, 1987, p. 6). Conversely, Neo’s existence within the Matrix represents and reflects the ultimate choice to take control over our lives. His journey to dismantle the hivemind and free humanity from the Matrix conveys the theme of free will, a theme which is blatantly displayed to the audience throughout the movie. The most notable scene involving this is where Neo is presented with a red pill--symbolizing the realization of the truth--and a blue pill--symbolizing the acceptance of oblivion. Neo’s decision to take the red pill directly relates to our ability to open our minds and question the way we see the world around us, which will ultimately free us from the shackles of our own self-created “matrix”.
Similar to the ideological aspect brought forth in culture theory, semiotics makes the intricacies of The Matrix significantly more impactful. This theory functions on the basis of how signs and symbols convey meaning (de Reeper, 2013). Semiotics also functions closely with culture theory, in that the symbolism an audience interprets within a film correlates directly with pre-established meanings placed upon certain symbols and signs within their own culture--this is why symbolism in Western culture may differ to that of Eastern culture. In any case, symbolism is rampant in The Matrix. One of the major symbols early on in the film comes in the form of a white rabbit, which is first mentioned by Trinity when she approaches Thomas and tells him to “follow the white rabbit”. The rabbit in question appears in the form of a tattoo on a partygoer’s shoulder, and when Thomas follows them, his journey within the Matrix begins. This is a reference to Lewis Carroll’s novel, “Alice in Wonderland”, in which the titular protagonist finds herself transported to Wonderland after following a strange white rabbit. This allusion is mentioned again later in the film, in the aforementioned red pill/blue pill scene, where Morpheus says: “. . . take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland. And I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes. ” Morpheus also likens Thomas--now called Neo--to Alice, stating that “[he is] feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole. ” The symbolism of the white rabbit and Alice in Wonderland is obvious--the rabbit is more than a tattoo; it represents following one’s curiosity to an impossible land, just like Alice. However, what makes this metaphor truly interesting is that, unlike Alice who finds herself going from reality to a world of whimsy, Neo is already in Wonderland. The world that he knows is made up, and he is about to emerge from the “rabbit hole” to face his true reality.
Another striking instance of symbolism occurs in the film’s use of zoom-in transitions. In the opening sequence, we zoom in through the Matrix code, then through a series of phone numbers being traced on a monochrome monitor, finally to a ball of light which reveals itself as the flashlight of a policeman. Although we may not know it yet, this is our introduction to the actual Matrix; we have stepped out of reality by zooming through a computer containing the code, all the way to the computer-simulated world. This transition occurs again during Neo’s interrogation scene, where we see him from a security camera angle behind a wall of screens. The screens disappear when we zoom in to the actual scene containing Neo, however it is done in such a way that the image of Neo never changes. The fact that there is no difference between the digital image and the “real” image of Neo is symbolic, in that it hints at the fact that the Neo we see is still virtual, and isn’t actually genuine.
Furthermore, elements within the film’s mise-en-scène tie together the overall symbolism of the narrative. The characters’ costuming is one significant and noticeable element; before Neo became aware of the Matrix’s existence, he dressed in a way that would be considered “normal”. Once he learned the truth and joined forces with Trinity and Morpheus though, his clothing changed to an all-black suit with an iconic leather trench coat and sunglasses. This change is symbolic as it not only sets Neo and his group apart from the placated population of the Matrix, but it also represents a sense of non-conformity, which is key to the characters’ survival in the film. Costuming is also symbolic where the Agents are concerned; as the film’s main villains, they embody authority and power through the sharp business suits they wear. Their well-presented aesthetic connotes them to fit the stereotype of the 'ruling class’ in our own society--the mega-corporations and the “one-percenters” who lord over us and get us to feed into their capitalistic desires. Even moreso, the fact that he seemingly blends in with the rest of the Matrix’s oblivious population adds even more meaning; he is able to conceal himself in plain sight so we don’t recognize him as the villain at first, similar to the way in which capitalism operates in our reality.
Costuming also comes into play where feminist film theory is concerned. As Kristin Hole (2017) points out, while “[this theory] has been foundational to the development and establishment of film as a discipline”, it often gets reduced to a psychoanalytic, outdated analysis from the 1970s and 1980s. But to say that feminist film theory is outdated in today’s social climate would be a lie, and the use of costuming in The Matrix is a glaring exhibition of this argument.
Trinity, the female lead, is primarily seen sporting a skin-tight PVC catsuit throughout the film, which could be called sexist when compared to her partners’ more practical outfits. While she is a well-written female lead in terms of her mental and physical capabilities, her costume causes the viewer to focus on her aesthetic as opposed to her abilities. When paired with the types of shots that are used when she is on-screen--close ups of her curves--the objectification of her physical femininity becomes apparent. This directly appeals to and raises the point of the “male gaze”, a term coined by feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey. She posits that “mainstream film coded the erotic into the language of the dominant patriarchal order” (Mulvey, 1997, p. 59), meaning that eroticism in media is linked and largely due to the fulfilment and enjoyment of the patriarchy--i. e. men. On a psychological level, reasoning for this exists. Freud brings up scopophilia, which he explains is a pleasure with taking other people as objects and subjecting them to a controlled and curious gaze (Mulvey, 1997, p. 59), similar to what is done to Trinity in The Matrix. Her choice of costume surrenders her to the controlling gaze of the audience--mainly the male audience--whereby she is stripped of her humanity and becomes nothing more than a sex symbol for the duration of the film.
While one could argue that, similar to the Agents, Trinity’s costume implies power as well, the main difference would be that her “power” comes from her sexuality. Despite the fact that she is a skilled fighter, her physical appearance belies this truth, leading many of the Agents to underestimate her in battle. In this sense, her provocative image works in her favour, however the trope of female leads being primarily sexually appealing is one that still feeds into the male gaze, regardless of the character’s actual capabilities in the film. Still, this does not detract from the fact that her role is integral to the progression of the plot, meaning that The Matrix passes what is known as the “Sexy Lamp Test”. While it isn’t an official gauge for the relevancy of a female character in a piece of media, it has become popular among many feminist film theorists. First coined by Kelly Sue DeConnick in 2013, it argues that a film isn’t a good representation of women if a viewer can replace a female character with a sexy lamp and have the plot remain the same (Berrett, 2015). The Matrix passes this test within the first 10 minutes; without Trinity to incite Neo’s curiosity at the start of the film, his journey would have never begun, and he would have remained another cog in the machine of the Matrix.
To conclude, film is a highly impactful artform that shapes and is shaped by the society we live in. What started as a series of experiments in the 1800s has grown into a multi billion-dollar industry that influences how we see the world around us, all while providing a source of entertainment. Through the introduction and implementation of various analytical theories, however, we can now delve into the deeper meanings behind the films that we enjoy, in order to get a better understanding of why we enjoy/dislike the things we do, and how these films appeal to them.
