-----Original Message----- From: frances bolton <fbolton at chuma.cas.usf.edu> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com>
>Same old same old
>gender thing going on, though. I was real hopeful at the beginning, when
>Trinity (oh those names!!) comes on looking tough and haggard and pale,
>kicking butt. But it became a boys game real fast, and by the end Trinity
is
>saying her essential role in life is standing by her man and loving him.
>Only through her love for her man will she be able to fully become herself.
>And it seems to me (although I am admittedly a newbie to the genre) that
the
>AIs are always male, or at least male-presenting. It's that
rationality=male
>thing again, isn't it? And the AIs are all white as well.
While I agree that the Trinity "love will save him" twist at the end was somewhat lame, I am not sure what the political objection to the white male AI is exactly. I actually thought the writers/directors were being overly politically correct to make a point: multiracial rebels fight against white male homogenous regime. I don't think the line is male equals rationality, just male equals oppression and homogeneity.
My real disappointment with the film was the somewhat soft and unexplained mysticism of the Oracle's pronouncements, which clashed with the rather unusually detailed science fiction details of the situation of the world of the Matrix. Most movie sci-fi has rather sketchy set-ups with little in the story really depending on the background story. The Matrix was unusual in that it was real science fiction where the conflicts in the story stemmed directly from that set-up (TOTAL RECALL was actually decent science fiction on that score, if not as good a movie.)
Maybe rumoured sequels will explain the Oracle and make it less cheesy. But overall, I did think the politics of the film was pretty good, from the multiracialism to the undercurrent of self-satisfied workers-consumers living each day without recognizing their oppression.
--Nathan Newman