Adapting philosophy

Jean Baudrillard and *The Matrix Trilogy*

Catherine Constable

• Publisher: Manchester University Press
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781847798039
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Literature
• Subtopic: English Literary Criticism
• Index: Literature

Adapting Philosophy looks at the ways in which The Matrix Trilogy adapts Jean Baudrillard's Simulacra and Simulation, and in doing so creates its own distinctive philosophical position. Where previous work in the field has presented the trilogy as a simple 'beginner's guide' to philosophy, this study offers a new methodology for inter-relating philosophy and film texts, focusing on the conceptual role played by imagery in both types of text. This focus on the figurative enables a new-found appreciation of the liveliness of philosophical writing and the multiple philosophical dimensions of Hollywood films. The book opens with a critical overview of existing philosophical writing on The Matrix Trilogy and goes on to draw on adaptation theory and feminist philosophy in order to create a new methodology for interlinking philosophical and filmic texts. Three chapters are devoted to detailed textual analyses of the films, tracing the ways in which the imagery that dominates Baudrillard's writing is adapted and transformed by the trilogy's complex visuals and soundtrack. The conclusion situates the methodology developed throughout the book in relation to other approaches currently emerging in the new field of Film-Philosophy. The book's multi-disciplinary approach encompasses Philosophy, Film Studies and Adaptation Theory and will be of interest to undergraduates and postgraduates studying these subjects. It also forms part of the developing interdisciplinary field of Film-Philosophy. The detailed textual analyses of The Matrix Trilogy will also be of interest to anyone wishing to deepen their understanding of the multi-faceted nature of this seminal work.

1
Good example, bad philosophy

The first part of this chapter will offer a meta-critical analysis of the extensive literature on the philosophical aspects of The Matrix Trilogy, exploring the theoretical assumptions that underpin general conceptions of the ways philosophical and filmic texts can be inter-related. The majority of the writing on the trilogy presents the films as introductions to philosophy, setting out a two-tier model in which the films are compared and contrasted with their more eminent primary sources. Importantly, this chapter will demonstrate that these general conceptions of the inter-relation between the trilogy and its philosophical sources unwittingly replicate well-worn arguments from adaptation theory, specifically the criterion of fidelity to the original work. Much of the writing on the trilogy offers the films one of two options: to be celebrated as accurate albeit derivative, or castigated for misrepresenting the original sources: good example or bad philosophy.

Discussions of the ways in which the trilogy takes up Jean Baudrillard’s work have been dominated by the question of fidelity to the ‘original’ source, usually Simulacra and Simulation. This situation is further complicated and, from a film theorist’s perspective, considerably worsened by Baudrillard’s own contribution to the debate in an interview with Le Nouvel Observateur.¹ The interview has had a profoundly negative impact on later assessments of the trilogy’s use of his work. However, Baudrillard’s rather surprising use of the fidelity model highlights a number of its problems. The final part of the chapter will address the work of two key theorists: Thomas Wartenberg and Christopher Falzon, whose exchanges offer a detailed discussion of the ways in which philosophical and filmic texts might be inter-related.² However, the ostensibly positive roles they offer the films will be shown to be intrinsically limited. This chapter will demonstrate that none of the current approaches provides the means to answer a simple question, namely ‘what is the philosophical project of the films themselves?’

The dominant model for inter-relating philosophical and filmic texts offered by work on the trilogy presents the films as introductions to great works of philosophy. The value of the trilogy thus lies in its ‘assimilation to a higher educative goal’.³ William Irwin’s introduction to his second edited volume, More Matrix and Philosophy, makes this clear: ‘the aim of this book is the same as the original … to bring the reader from popular culture to philosophy.’⁴ The first essay in the volume by Lou Marinoff offers a key metaphor: ‘The Matrix … is a bridge to philosophical culture. Insofar as it motivates students to read Plato and Descartes (among many other philosophers) it serves a worthwhile educational purpose.’⁵ The same pedagogic premise clearly underpins Chris Grau’s Philosophers Explore The Matrix, a collection of essays drawn from the official website.⁶ The structure of the book makes the transition to reading great works of philosophy even easier, the final section consists of key extracts from classic texts including: Plato’s Republic, Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy and Berkeley’s Of the Principles of Human Knowledge.

The use of the trilogy as a means of promoting philosophy parallels arguments praising novel to film adaptations as study aids or advertisements for the ‘original’ works, whose key pedagogic function is to ‘send viewers to the book’.⁷ In both cases the films act as a bridge to/from a philosophical/literary original that is simultaneously positioned as final goal and formative source. Sarah Cardwell notes that within adaptation theory such arguments protect the status of the literary original through a return to the criterion of fidelity. ‘The educational usefulness of classic-novel adaptations depends upon the adaptations’ fidelity to their source novels (upon “advertising standards”) and upon the role of adaptations in conveying the story, ideas, themes and opinions of the author’.⁸ In the case of philosophical texts, the films are judged in terms of key metaphors, stories and themes that are crucial to the construction of the philosopher’s overall position, for example Plato’s myth of the cave from the Republic. The films are either praised for presenting the philosophy accurately or castigated for daring to depart from the source material thereby distorting the original.

Cardwell argues that much of the early work on novel to film adaptation was done within literature departments who naturally sought to ‘validate and valorise literary art over audio-visual arts’, thereby protecting the status of their subject area.⁹ In the same way, the presentation of The Matrix Trilogy as an introduction to philosophy keeps the traditional hierarchies firmly intact. The pedagogic value of the films lies in their assimilation to a properly intellectual subject area.¹⁰ Even though the trilogy is ostensibly lauded as exceptional and typically contrasted with ‘standard Hollywood fare’¹¹ it is only deemed worthy of a transitional role. Importantly, these attempts to justify the value of film via its assimilation to a higher pedagogic purpose actually downgrade the filmic in favour of the one truly educative medium, the written word, as exemplified by great works of literature and philosophy.

Grau argues that the essays in his volume are of two types: those that position the trilogy as a bridge, tracing the connections between the questions raised by the films and the works of great philosophers; and those that use the films ‘as a springboard for discussing their own original philosophical views.’¹² Both options present the films as a stepping-stone on the route to philosophy; however, they set up rather different conceptions of the final goal. In the first, philosophy is defined in the same way as literature, as a subject area constructed around a canon of great works, which sustains the introduction of the criterion of fidelity. In the second, philosophy is envisaged as a process, a way of addressing key issues that utilises the techniques of logical argument. Wartenberg notes the assumption that ‘argument is the central method of philosophic discourse’ has general acceptance within philosophy.¹³ From this perspective, any introduction to the subject area should function as a guide to the creation of logical critique.

Examples abound of the use of the trilogy as a springboard for issue-driven discussions, and popular topics include the nature of scepticism and the problems of free will and determinism. The majority of the articles contain few references to the films, which are simply cited at the beginning, forming a prologue for the coming debates.¹⁴ Gregory Bassham’s discussion of religious pluralism does at least begin with a detailed textual analysis of the many Christian references in The Matrix, reading Neo as ‘the one’, a Messianic figure who brings the hope of new life for himself and others.¹⁵ This is followed by a brief tracing of the ways in which the first film also adopts the Buddhist view of the empty/illusory nature of reality as well as the Hindu mythology of reincarnation.¹⁶ Bassham outlines four possible forms of religious pluralism arguing that The Matrix conforms to the third, ‘Cafeteria pluralism: the view that religious truth lies in a mix of beliefs drawn from many different religions’.¹⁷ Renaming this position ‘Neo-pluralism’ in honour of the film, Bassham immediately subjects it to critique arguing that it suffers from two key problems: firstly, the pick and mix approach to world religions results in an incoherent ‘collage of religious beliefs’¹⁸ and secondly, there is no clear way in which any of them could be verified as true.¹⁹

Incoherent and impossible to verify, Neo-pluralism is quite clearly designated as bad philosophy. Interestingly, positioning the films as an introduction to the process of philosophising creates new standards by which they can be judged to fail. Instead of being castigated for misrepresenting great works of philosophy, they can now be criticised for offering unconvincing forms of argument. Bassham goes further, setting out a series of oppositions in which the fashionable epitome of café culture, Neo-pluralism, is contrasted with the logical, commonsensical nature of true philosophy.²⁰ Superficial, nonsensical and logically indefensible, Neo-pluralism is firmly placed outside the boundaries of philosophy. Instead it is said to constitute ‘the religion of The Matrix’ ultimately acting as an example of ‘art or contemporary myth making’.²¹

The presentation of the films as a guide to the process of philosophising can take the more specific form of providing an introduction to the Socratic method of teaching philosophy via a process of question and answer. In Plato’s dialogues Socrates takes the role of an allegedly uninformed questioner, pursuing each line of enquiry until the interlocutor admits that they too do not know the answer, which is termed the point of aporia. Interestingly, the Wachowski brothers’ introduction to the 2004 DVD boxed set, The Ultimate Matrix Collection, references this conception of philosophising as a process of asking questions. ‘It was our sincerest hope that our movies might inspire or perhaps provoke a little Socratic interaction, something beyond, “Remember that one part? That was cool”.’²² Each film in the boxed set also has a philosophical commentary, featuring Ken Wilber and Dr Cornel West, the latter enumerating the moments that generate Socratic questioning. Moreover, the contrast between the positive philosophical commentary and the negative nature of the critical commentary is intended to provoke further thought. The presentation of conflicting views has a highly individualistic purpose: following the Oracle’s advice, the Wachowski brothers aim to inspire viewers to ‘“...