The matrix was a metaphor for being trans

electriksmelon · 2021-09-13T16:02:02+00:00

I just think its funny that so many conservatives model their personality off of a trans film...

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 22 points23 points24 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Just like how Fight Club was about Chuck Palahniuk's own struggle with his identity as a gay man and the double life he was leading while in the closet. There's literally an epilogue he wrote for later editions where he said it could've been basket weaving club, that it was never about being macho or beating the shit out of each other. It was about feeling lost in our modern age of loniness and trying to reconcile all sorts of differing standards and opinions with regards to what manliness is and if we should even care about being "manly" as modern men at all.

The fact that so many cishet dudebros hail Tyler Durden, a literal symbol for the "gay side" of Palaniuk's double life at the time, as a bastion and role model for cishet manliness would be hilarious to me if the reality of what that has wrought wasn't so damn tragic and infuriating.

[–]Naus1987 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Wasn’t fight club a book first?

Yes, that's what I'm talking about. Chuck Palahniuk is the author of the book Fight Club. Which, hipster alert, I read multiple times and adored before I ever saw the movie, which is good for a book adaptation...but also left a LOT to be desired by trading substance for entertainment. That's why I mentioned the epilogue he added to later editions of his book. The movie ABSOLUTELY has the same themes, but also dialed up the action and the distrust of authority/capitalism aspects far more than the book. The book was definitely a critique of modern capitalism and how the advertising we're bombarded with impacts us and our mental health; but that wasn't the core theme in the least.

Did the author of that book intended it represent what you stated, or was it co-opted by the director of the movie?

The first one, 100%. Here's the VERY much leftist, gay author, Chuck Palahniuk talking about his confusion surrounding incels' fascination with his book, and ironically, The Matrix:

I tell Palahniuk that I’ve seen incels – “involuntary celibate” men angry at their lack of sexual partners – quoting Fight Club as an example of why one shouldn’t underestimate ordinary frustrated men. He is amused, saying that the book was previously quoted by adherents to The Game, Neil Strauss’s guide to picking up women for emotionally unattached sex.

“It’s fascinating that the group that can’t get laid is now adopting the same language. It shows how few options men have in terms of metaphors: a skimpy inventory of images. They have The Matrix – there’s a lot of red pill, blue pill stuff – and they have Fight Club. The only other thing is Dead Poets Society, where men go into a cavern and say poems to each other, and they’re not going to adopt that.” Women, he says, have more literature about female social structures, the likes of The Joy Luck Club or How to Make an American Quilt. “Those have a script and roles and determined ways of being, that women can adopt in order to be together long enough to share their lives.” Don’t men have sports or the pub, instead? “Those social groups don’t produce the memes and one-liners and metaphors.” Palahniuk doesn’t see Fight Club as particularly gendered anyway. “It was more about the terror that you were going to live or die without understanding anything important about yourself.”

That last sentence is key. Palahniuk is famously a bit reluctant to flat out state every intended theme of his writing; but the themes regarding coming to grips with one's own manliness, and how that intertwined with his and many other mens' journeys of understanding their sexuality, we core to the book AND the movie. That quick scene on the bus where Tyler points at an ad with a buff underwear model and says to The Narrator "Is this what a real man looks like" gets more than just a passing mention in the book and really drives home the core theme of how Chuck was confronting his own sexuality, and what that meant for him and his "manliness" in modern western society.

Then you add in the history that Fight Club was his first published novel, but the second one he wrote when his publisher told him that his first, FAR more explicitly queer novel, Invisible Monsters, was "too out there for an author's debut novel" and you realize that he's never been shy about weaving his experiences and journey with his sexuality into his writing...

The core theme of Fight Club, both book and movie, is about the stress and chaos of living a double life, burning the candle at both ends in a desperate attempt to find purpose/meaning/community in our cold, lonely, modern world while also reconciling countless, often contradictory, societal ideas surrounding the definition of manliness/what a modern man should be. If you can't see how an exploration of the definitions of modern manliness written by a gay man in a book about a main character living a double life between the life he hates and wants to leave behind (The Narrator) and the life he wishes he was leading (Tyler) then you're either blind or being willfully ignorant...and unless Chuck comes out and flat out says that this isn't what he intended in writing Fight Club, which would run counter to what he has said about the book since it was published, its gonna be hard for anyone to convince me the book isn't about what it is obviously about to anyone actually paying attention.

[–]Naus1987 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh man, you just sold me on that book, lol!!

I’m an asexual guy, so I can deeply relate to that double life thing. Trying to fit into a hyper sexualized society while just trying to be the guy who enjoys quality romance and musicals.

I appreciate that you took the time to explain it. And I’ll absolutely be checking it out.

I haven’t seen the movie in a long time, but one of my favorite lines was

“It's only after we've lost everything that we’re free to do anything.”

I like to think it spins with positive nihilism. That nothing in the world matters, so we’re free to create our own purpose.

So many people come into life expecting to be told what to do, and have meaning and purpose handed to them. As if having shackles makes it more meaningful.

But I’ve always liked the concept that nothing mattered. There’s no grand design. No epic plan. No destiny.

So we have the freedom to write our own story. Be the people we want to be. We are slaves to no one but our own free will.

Thanks again! You made my day :D

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

“It's only after we've lost everything that we’re free to do anything.” I like to think it spins with positive nihilism. That nothing in the world matters, so we’re free to create our own purpose.

This is so true, and ties in so deeply to a lot of my feelings about Bo Burnham's Inside that I could probably make a whole explainer video just about that lol.

And for me, part of that line is about letting go of our preconcieved notions. About capitalism/labor/money/materialism/societal norms, sure...but also about letting go of our preconceived notions of ourselves. So many closeted folks, ESPECIALLY men, have wrapped their personal identity up so much in their perception of themselves as cishet that even if they KNOW they aren't cishet, it's really hard to let go of that notion without being afraid that your entire sense of self will come crumbling down around it.

Also, as far as:

So many people come into life expecting to be told what to do, and have meaning and purpose handed to them. As if having shackles makes it more meaningful.

But I’ve always liked the concept that nothing mattered. There’s no grand design. No epic plan. No destiny.

For the longest time in my life I thought everything happened for a reason. Then I heard Stephen Fry's argument for atheism, which is basically "if everything happens for a reason that only God knows, then when I die I'm gonna storm up there and ask the motherfucker why kids get cancer. What's the reason for all that suffering".

As Patton Oswalt used to say back and forth with his late wife, "Life is chaos, be kind". The moment I realized that things don't happen for any higher purpose is the moment I decided to be as much a source of good and positivity in the world as I can.

As you can tell, I could talk about Fight Club and Chuck's books in general for enough pages to fill a book of my own. I won't go on for pages and pages; but I HIGHLY recommend not only Fight Club but ABSOLUTELY also:

Invisible Monsters - genuinely one of the queerest and most amazing novels I've ever read. Can't say too much without spoiling, but maybe start here since this was the first novel Chuck wrote, and reading it after I knew that and the fact that he wrote Fight Club after writing IM definitely changed how I read the book.

Rant - Oh. My. God. This thing is an insane roller coaster from start to end, but completely enthralling the whole way. I own two copies because I kept lending it out to people and then instantly wanting to read it again. "My" copy has basically every margin filled in with my own handwritten notes. It's also a very unique narrative/writing style which I really appreciate. I've read it literally dozens of times, and I'm really not a person who often reads the same book twice, much less many times over.

Choke - Solid novel, haven't seen the movie version. I love Sam Rockwell but I haven't heard good things about the film and can't bring myself to have my perception of him as an actor who does no wrong shattered in front of me just to watch a late and lazy milquetoast attempt at cashing in on the popularity of Chuck's work after Fight Club. But as a queer man with a fairly high sex drive, it was an enlightening and entertaining read to say the least.

Survivor - if not for Rant this would probably be my favorite of Chuck's novels. Didn't change my life persay, was really more an affirmation that a life decision I had made in the years prior to me reading it regarding my religiousness was the right one; but a really well written and enjoyable novel and hits a lot of relevant themes even today.

Lullaby - Kinda similar to Survivor and Choke in that the themes weren't exactly lifechanging for me in the way that Rant and Fight Club or even Invisible Monsters were; but still a really enjoyable read with some good, dry, dark humor sprinkled throughout.

EDIT: Also, if you like Chuck's writing and humor, try reading some of David Sedaris' stuff. The whole Sedaris family is pretty funny and talented, but David's writing as a gay man, especially a story about a trip he took to Europe as a young boy where he started to understand he wasn't straight was really powerful for me when I came out. And also higly recommend the aforementioned Inside by Bo Burnham. It is technically considered a comedy special, but that sells is SO, SO short even though it is hilarious.

[–]AmiablePenguin 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GarudOne 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]SimianFriday 13 points14 points15 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 11 points12 points13 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There's also the fact, as I mentioned in my comment, that Lilly herself has come out and said that this is exactly why she wrote the movie the way she did:

The Matrix films are about being transgender, the trilogy's co-director says.

"That was the original intention but the world wasn't quite ready," says Lilly Wachowski, who came out as trans along with her sister Lana after the films came out.

Fans have speculated about potential meanings behind the iconic films and Lilly confirmed the theory to Netflix.

"I'm glad that it has gotten out," she said.

The Matrix first hit screens in 1999, when Lilly says "the corporate world wasn't ready" for an allegory - a story that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning - about transgender people.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53692435

This isn't a "death of the author" situation where the film took on a different, more powerful meaning than the writer/director intended. This was ALWAYS the intended meaning of the film. The fact that it was so subtle and not hamfisted about it is actually a testament to the effectiveness with which they told that story.

[–]SimianFriday 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadylikeElectricland 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

The fact that the trans screenwriters and directors of The Matrix have literally come out and said it is a trans metaphor?

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53692435

The Matrix films are about being transgender, the trilogy's co-director says.

"That was the original intention but the world wasn't quite ready," says Lilly Wachowski, who came out as trans along with her sister Lana after the films came out.

Fans have speculated about potential meanings behind the iconic films and Lilly confirmed the theory to Netflix.

"I'm glad that it has gotten out," she said.

The Matrix first hit screens in 1999, when Lilly says "the corporate world wasn't ready" for an allegory - a story that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning - about transgender people.

The entire red pill/blue pill thing is about the internal dilemma most trans people, and many queer people in general, go through after "coming out" to themselves: do I want to try to ignore the truth I now know about myself and go back to my "blissful" ignorance thinking I'm cishet...or do I want to accept the truth I now know about myself and see "how deep that rabbit hole goes"?

[–]DissonanceBadger -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

This is the part of what you wrote that is objectively within the movie:

The entire red pill/blue pill thing is about the internal dilemma ____ _____ ______, ___ ____ _____ ______ __ _______, __ _______ _____ "______ ___" __ ________: do I want to try to ignore the truth I now know _____ ______ and go back to my "blissful" ignorance ________ ___ ______... or do I want to accept the truth _ ___ ____ _____ ______ ___ ___ "___ ____ ____ ______ ____ ____"?

Now you can go ahead and project that on being trans if you want to, but there's nothing in the movie that specifically relates this to being trans. Their attempt to retroactively reinterpret it now that it's convenient for them doesn't change the fact that there's literally nothing about sexuality in the story arc.

The Occam's Razor way of looking at that film is that it explores the nature of reality, and is rooted in the idea that there's something about truth that we value as a higher principal, so much so that a fully immersive illusion is not good enough, no matter how well it substitutes for reality.

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadylikeElectricland 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger -5 points-4 points-3 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]absolutebeginners 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi3 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

There's a concept called "the death of the author" which I advise you to look into.

Your condescension here is hilarious. Here, let me link you to the other comment in this thread where I literally discuss the concept of death of the author.

https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/pniear/the_matrix_was_a_metaphor_for_being_trans/hcq6hu0?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

This isn't a "death of the author" situation where the film took on a different, more powerful meaning than the writer/director intended. This was ALWAYS the intended meaning of the film. The fact that it was so subtle and not hamfisted about it is actually a testament to the effectiveness with which they told that story.

Also, this is laughable:

If they wanted the movie to be about being trans, it would've been prudent of them to actually refer to being trans in the content of the

I'm gonna quote Futurama and the Robot Devil here:

Your lyrics lack subtility! You can't just have your characters announce how they feel! That makes me angry!

The writers used subtlety and metaphor. Not only so they wouldn't be accused of "forcing the LGBT agenda down moviegoers' throats" but also because it was 19 fucking 99 and there was NO WAY a major studio was going to greenlight a blatant, and written the way you apparently would've wanted: hamfisted, allegory for transgender identity summer blockbuster. Snowball's chance in hell of getting that movie made in 1999. Shit, many screenwriters and directors would still struggle today to get it greenlit as a high budget action blockbuster in 2021.

As it stands, sexual orientation is not discussed in any meaningful way in the movie, making their intentions, if they indeed had such intentions, irrelevant.

At this point, I'm just going to give you the definitions of metaphor and allegory, since you clearly haven't the slightest what either of those are:

met·a·phor /ˈmedəˌfôr,ˈmedəˌfər/ noun noun: metaphor; plural noun: metaphors

a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

al·le·go·ry /ˈaləˌɡôrē/ noun noun: allegory; plural noun: allegories

a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

[–]DissonanceBadger -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The fact that it was so subtle and not hamfisted about it is actually a testament to the effectiveness with which they told that story.

Yes, all effective communication is defined by being so subtle that your intended meaning flies under everybody's radar.

it was 19 fucking 99 and there was NO WAY a major studio was going to greenlight a blatant, and written the way you apparently would've wanted: hamfisted, allegory for transgender identity summer blockbuster.

Great, I'm glad that we're in agreement that it clearly wasn't written in a way that would make people think it's about being trans. That's my whole point. If you really wanted to make a movie about being trans, but were too afraid to be clear about it to the audience, and instead made it look like something else, then tough shit, it's about something else now.

At this point, I'm just going to give you the definitions of metaphor and allegory, since you clearly haven't the slightest what either of those are

Now who's being condescending?

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Yes, all effective communication is defined by being so subtle that your intended meaning flies under everybody's radar.

Not everyone's. Maybe it flew under your cishet radar; but to us queer folks, the allegory was pretty fucking clear. Queer and trans people have been talking about this allegoric theme of The Matrix for literal decades. The fact that you're only hearing about it now says more about you than the truth of the history of why they wrote the movie how they did.

Great, I'm glad that we're in agreement that it clearly wasn't written in a way that would make people think it's about being trans.

Not remotely what I said, but it's clear you have no sense of subtlety whatsoever, so this entire discussion is pointless. There's a HUGE metaphorical gulf between being so overt and hamfisted in telling a trans story that you shove it down peoples' throats...and using metaphor and allegory to tell one story to the people paying close attention, and another, still enjoyable story, to those who aren't watching that close.

and instead made it look like something else, then tough shit, it's about something else now.

Oh the irony that you reference death of the author while clearly not even understanding on a basic level what it actually means or how it works.

Now who's being condescending?

Still you bro.

[–]DissonanceBadger-1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There's a HUGE metaphorical gulf between being so overt and hamfisted in telling a trans story that you shove it down peoples' throats...and using metaphor and allegory to tell one story to the people paying close attention, and another, still enjoyable story, to those who aren't watching that close.

Nobody's asking for things to be hamfisted. When you're using metaphors and allegories you're substituting a concrete message for an abstract one, so that the viewer could project their own interpretation upon it. If you then want to nudge the viewer towards adopting a particular interpretation, out of the multitude of possible interpretations, then you need to give people some clues. It doesn't have to be hamfisted, just enough to let the viewer know that it's really meant to be looked at that way, and not another, and what I'm saying is that the movie lacks such hints. But feel free to make the case for that if you think otherwise.

Oh the irony that you reference death of the author while clearly not even understanding on a basic level what it actually means or how it works.

I don't see a lot of arguments in this statement.

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Nobody's asking for things to be hamfisted.

Yes, you literally are.

When you're using metaphors and allegories you're substituting a concrete message for an abstract one, so that the viewer could project their own interpretation upon it

Yep. I didn't say that the other interpretations people have implied are invalid. Not in the least. All I'm saying is that the meaning some/most people take away from a piece of media/art doesn't change what the artist/author intended. You're attempting to use it as proof that The Matrix was never an allegory for trans identity but there's no basis in logic for your argument.

If you then want to nudge the viewer towards adopting a particular interpretation, out of the multitude of possible interpretations, then you need to give people some clues.

To most viewers, Full Metal Jacket is clearly a critique/indictment of the military industrial complex in the post-Vietnam USA. Didn't stop a generation of misguided meatheads from missing the point and signing up for the Marines, citing the film as their inspiration:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/18/magazine/full-metal-jacket-ermey-marine-corps.html

It's amazing how you yourself cited the concept of "Death of the Author" and then prove, over and over again, that you don't have a clue what it even means.

It doesn't have to be hamfisted, just enough to let the viewer know that it's really meant to be looked at that way, and not another, and what I'm saying is that the movie lacks such hints.

And to anyone actually paying attention, it was obvious. Hence how trans folks and queer folks picked up on it long before Lana and Lilly came out or transitioned.

I know it hurts to realize that you aren't as insightful as you thought and a deeper meaning of a film you love went right over your head. Doesn't mean that it wasn't obviously there in the eyes of MANY people the whole damn time.

Oh the irony that you reference death of the author while clearly not even understanding on a basic level what it actually means or how it works.

I don't see a lot of arguments in this statement.

Why would there be "a lot"? Only one argument necessary there. You've proven not to understand Death of the Author in the slightest. The fact that you yourself cited it as some sort of condescending "gotcha" attempt at me makes it pretty ironic that you've proven you don't know the first thing about Death of the Author beyond maybe a cursory dictionary definition.

[–]DissonanceBadger-1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm getting pretty curious about what you think "Death of the Author" means, because we clearly aren't talking about the same article. Barthes's point was that the author is not the authority on what the art means, the reader is. So you stressing the importance of what the director meant flies in the face of that.

You're attempting to use it as proof that The Matrix was never an allegory for trans identity but there's no basis in logic for your argument.

And I suppose that this is where we get to the heart of the matter. They claim that the story was really an allegory about being trans? Alright. Let's look at the movie and see if that theory holds up. As far as I can tell, the only way it holds out is if you cherry pick which parts of the movie you're going to pay attention to, and I'm not a fan of that type of analysis.

An interpretation needs to be coherent whilst taking into account all the elements of the movie, not just the ones that fit the way you want to look at it. If you take all the elements of the movie into account, it's best conceptualized as a story exploring the nature of reality, and what reality means to us as humans. If you want to take a conceptual slice of the movie and relate to it in your own way, you're entitled to, but you won't convince me that it's a more coherent interpretation than one that takes into account everything the movie has to offer, and your appeals to authority aren't going to impress me either. The creator isn't the full authority on how their art is best interpreted.

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Barthes's point was that the author is not the authority on what the art means, the reader is.

And my point is that I agree with that...but that doesn't change the historical fact of why the author wrote the story how they did. Whether or not "most" veiwers of The Matrix got the allegory Lilly and Lana were telling doesn't have any bearing on what they intended or why they wrote it. And this is being discussed because people are using the fact that many people missed her intended meaning to claim she's only saying it was a trans allegory now so she can sell more movie tickets. That's revisionist historical bullshit. Whether or not you, or other viewers got the message, the allegory was there the whole time because Lilly and Lana put it there intentionally.

That historical fact doesn't invalidate the other meanings viewers took away from the film any more than their misunderstanding of the film invalidates the fact that it is, and always was, a trans allegory.

Let's look at the movie and see if that theory holds up.

Yep, does perfectly. So much so that queer and trans people, and even some cishet film buffs, have been aware of the allegory for more than two decades. Whether or not you personally think it holds up is irrelevant. TONS of people caught the allegory before Lilly and Lana were out as trans. The allegory wasn't hard to find in the least, you just missed it.

As far as I can tell, the only way it holds out is if you cherry pick which parts of the movie you're going to pay attention to, and I'm not a fan of that type of analysis.

Or, you know, if you listen to the literal person who wrote the fucking thing explain why she wrote it...and then also look at the two decades of other queer and trans people completely getting the allegory she now admits was always there, intentionally.

An interpretation needs to be coherent whilst taking into account all the elements of the movie, not just the ones that fit the way you want to look at it.

It is. You didn't get it. It went over your head. Sorry you can't fathom that fact, but you missed it even though it was there the whole time, and you've not voiced one valid or coherent argument to the contrary other than "I didn't get that from it" and "that's not how the studio marketed the movie over 20 years ago when trans people were orders of magnitude less accepted than the piss poor acceptance they get today in 2021".

If you want to take a conceptual slice of the movie and relate to it in your own way, you're entitled to

Not what anyone is doing,but you.

but you won't convince me that it's a more coherent interpretation than one that takes into account everything the movie has to offer, and your appeals to authority aren't going to impress me either.

Show me were I called it a "more coherent interpretation than one that takes into account everything the movie has to offer"? In fact, show me where I said that Lilly's statement about the trans allegory always being there invalidates other interpretations of the film.

Oh right, I've done neither. Because neither of those is my point. Shocking that my point, much like the intended meaning of The Matrix, went right over your oblivious head.

Congrats on beating up your own strawman though.

[–]DissonanceBadger-1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

and you've not voiced one valid or coherent argument to the contrary other than "I didn't get that from it"

Well your arguments amount to "that's how the director intended it" and "tons of people got it", so that's not a particularly higher ground, and frankly, interpreting things through an LGBTQ+ lens is a popular past time of the community, so that doesn't imply to me that the interpretation was obvious and not a product of world view bias.

In fact, show me where I said that Lilly's statement about the trans allegory always being there invalidates other interpretations of the film.

So let me expand on that. I have no quarrel with the statement that The Matrix could be interpreted as an allegory about being trans. I object to the idea that it's best viewed as a story about being trans, because that ignores the philosophical themes that are embedded in the setting, and since the philosophical themes in the settings are way more "hamfisted" as you like to call it than the subtle allegory of Neo, it implies to me that there was a creative decision to give them primacy.

Frankly, I think that the most interesting parts of the movie are in the setting, not in Neo's story. I'm not saying that he doesn't play a key role, just that the most interesting ideas to me are in the setting, not the characters.

You say that you never explicitly stated that the allegory should invalidate other interpretations, and that's true, and maybe that is even a view you truly hold, but look at the nature of thread you're in. This thread wasn't engineered as an offering of a new perspective, but rather as a way for people to assert their sexual identity and incite an argument by yelling "but this is what the director said" at anyone who didn't immediately jump to agreeing with you. So maybe you haven't said that in words, but that is what I read in your actions.

Anyway, I have to go to sleep now. Feel free to have the final word.

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi2 points 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadylikeElectricland 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadylikeElectricland 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadylikeElectricland 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadylikeElectricland 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LadylikeElectricland1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger1 point 4 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chaosdemonhu 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ImprovementEven 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GarudOne 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]DissonanceBadger 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]GarudOne 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkestTimeline24 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LadylikeElectricland 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pertante 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bapeepab 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ICQME 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZacKaizen -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This was what the Wachowski Sisters pushed almost 20 years after the movie was released.

It was true 20 years ago, they just didn't feel safe talking about it. Lilly has said so in interviews. Maybe you took it as a metaphor for control, but that doesn't change the intent the trans author/director had for the film.

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53692435

The Matrix films are about being transgender, the trilogy's co-director says.

"That was the original intention but the world wasn't quite ready," says Lilly Wachowski, who came out as trans along with her sister Lana after the films came out.

Fans have speculated about potential meanings behind the iconic films and Lilly confirmed the theory to Netflix.

"I'm glad that it has gotten out," she said.

*The Matrix first hit screens in 1999, when Lilly says "the corporate world wasn't ready" for an allegory - a story that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning - about transgender people. *

Fight Club is about Chuck Palahniuk's internal struggle with his own sexuality and the double life he was leading. The whole "if you wake up in a different time zone on a different day, can you wake up as a different person" is a direct reference to the duality of identities he was trying to navigate.

Doesn't change the fact that a bunch of incel dudebros completely missed the point in a way so ridiculous it would be funny if it wasn't so tragically harmful to society.

[–]ZacKaizen -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

It was true 20 years ago, they just didn't feel safe talking about it. Lilly has said so in interviews. Maybe

you

took it as a metaphor for control, but that doesn't change the intent the trans author/director had for the film.

Agree to disagree.

22 years ago, they pushed the movie as an resisting control. Flash forward 20 years when transgenderism is a hot topic, and suddenly their biggest movie was really an allegory about that?

Could it have been? Sure. Do I think it was? Not a chance due to what they said at the time, the projects they did right after it. In fact, it is closer to a Christian allegory than a trans allegory (and the imagery is pretty overt with that - which was a big complaint for many viewers in 2003 when Matrix Revolutions was released): humans trapped in "sin", with a prophesized savior coming to set them free, and said savior sacrifices himself to save mankind.

Additionally, when you look at the supplemental materials (i.e. the Animatrix), the notion that the story was a trans allegory falls apart quickly.

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Agree to disagree.

You don't get to. The person who wrote the story said that's why they wrote it when they wrote it. You don't get to "disagree" with the literal history of the movie and why it was written.

22 years ago, they pushed the movie as an resisting control. Flash forward 20 years when transgenderism is a hot topic, and suddenly their biggest movie was really an allegory about that?

This is such an illogical and disingenuous attempt at a point it doesn't even warrant a genuine response explaining how nonsense it is.

Could it have been? Sure. Do I think it was? Not a chance due to what they said at the time, the projects they did right after it.

It's almost as if, as Lilly herself said:

"That was the original intention but the world wasn't quite ready," says Lilly Wachowski, who came out as trans along with her sister Lana after the films came out.

The Matrix first hit screens in 1999, when Lilly says "the corporate world wasn't ready" for an allegory - a story that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning - about transgender people.

In fact, it is closer to a Christian allegory than a trans allegory (and the imagery is pretty overt with that - which was a big complaint for many viewers in 2003 when Matrix Revolutions was released): humans trapped in "sin", with a prophesized savior coming to set them free, and said savior sacrifices himself to save mankind.

Until you listen to what the person who wrote the fucking thing says about the allegory they were making. You don't just get to ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Also, this shows your complete lack of understanding of what living in the closet is like:

Additionally, when you look at the supplemental materials (i.e. the Animatrix), the notion that the story was a trans allegory falls apart quickly.

Newsflash: queer people often are forced to lie to protect themselves and their status in the closet. You don't get to choose to continue to belief the lies were actually the truth after a queer person comes out and said "That wasn't true but I said it at the time to protect my place in the closet". That's not how any of this works.

[–]ZacKaizen -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You don't get to. The person who wrote the story said that's why they wrote it when they wrote it. You don't get to "disagree" with the literal history of the movie and why it was written.

Oh? So you never question the motives of someone who is taking advantage of a political movement? So, I suppose you think JK Rowling always intended Dumbledore to be gay as well? Are you that naive?

This is such an illogical and disingenuous attempt at a point it doesn't even warrant a genuine response explaining how nonsense it is.

It is illogical to point out that she makes the claim that a movie she made 21 years prior, and stated it was about various things (corporatism, oppression, religious fundamentalism, etc) is suddenly about transgenderism when transgenderism is in the news? Yep, my skepticism on it is completely illogical.

It's almost as if, as Lilly herself said:

"That was the original intention but the world wasn't quite ready," says Lilly Wachowski, who came out as trans along with her sister Lana after the films came out.

The Matrix first hit screens in 1999, when Lilly says "the corporate world wasn't ready" for an allegory - a story that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning - about transgender people.

Yep, and the author would never stretch the truth for personal gain. Nope, never.

Until you listen to what the person who wrote the fucking thing says about the allegory they were making. You don't just get to ignore that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Ah yes, ignore what is actually in the movies in favor of what the author claims it is about 20 years later.

Also, this shows your complete lack of understanding of what living in the closet is like:

Newsflash: queer people often are forced to lie to protect themselves and their status in the closet. You don't get to choose to continue to belief the lies were actually the truth after a queer person comes out and said "That wasn't true but I said it at the time to protect my place in the closet". That's not how any of this works.

I'm going to make a wild guess here: you were not old enough to watch the Matrix when it came out, have not watched the Animatrix movies, nor read the comics, nor recall any of the promotional material for those movies, and are solely going on what Lily said in a live stream roughly 18 months ago as she was announcing a 4th Matrix movie after their last couple movies did not do so well. Lana has not been "in the closet" for over 14 years. Lily has been "out" for almost 10 (and really, it could be argued that everyone knew when Lana came out, but we'll ignore that). So, 20 years after the movie, 14 years after her sister transitions, and almost a decade after she announced she was starting her transition, the movie is finally about transgenderism conveniently when the hot topic in the US is transgenderism? I have oceanfront property in Arizona that I will give you for a great price!

You say it yourself: either they lied back then, or they are lying now. You want to believe they lied back then, yet the convenience factor pushes me towards the fact that Lily is lying now.

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm going to make a wild guess here: you were not old enough to watch the Matrix when it came out, have not watched the Animatrix movies, nor read the comics, nor recall any of the promotional material for those movies

And you'd be horribly wrong.
As if the people who write the movie decide how it is marketed and not the studio? Are you actually serious with this utter nonsense?

Also:

So, I suppose you think JK Rowling always intended Dumbledore to be gay as well? Are you that naive?

Except that JK isn't gay. That's why that move REEKS of pandering bullshit. It wasn't a situation of JK, as a queer person, writing a cleverly disguised queer allegory that just went over most folks' heads and then admitting that that allegory was the point the whole time. There was little to nothing to suggest that Dumbledore was gay, nor would JK even have the slightest clue how to write a gay male story as a cishet woman. You really don't see the massive gulf of difference here?

yet the convenience factor pushes me towards the fact that Lily is lying now.

No, you've just decided that because she's trans and a woman, you hate her, and you'll believe anything that fits that narrative. You're being as painfully obvious about it as The Matrix was about being a trans allegory to anyone actually paying attention.

[–]ZacKaizen -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And you'd be horribly wrong.As if the people who write the movie decide how it is marketed and not the studio? Are you actually serious with this utter nonsense?

Marketed, story design, supplemental material. Like I said, it is obvious you haven't looked at the details.

Except that JK isn't gay. That's why that move REEKS of pandering bullshit. It wasn't a situation of JK, as a queer person, writing a cleverly disguised queer allegory that just went over most folks' heads and then admitting that that allegory was the point the whole time. There was little to nothing to suggest that Dumbledore was gay, nor would JK even have the slightest clue how to write a gay male story as a cishet woman. You really don't see the massive gulf of difference here?

So, in your mind, an author who tells you a character is gay after the fact (with no direct evidence in the story to suggest it at that point in time) is lying because she isn't gay, but an author who makes a claim about a story she wrote 21 years prior being about a hot political topic at the moment (where the evidence to support it is a stretch, at best) is telling the truth because she is trans? Interesting ...

No, you've just decided that because she's trans and a woman, you hate her, and you'll believe anything that fits that narrative. You're being as painfully obvious about it as The Matrix was about being a trans allegory to anyone actually paying attention.

Projection much? Hate her? Not even close. I loved those movies. V for Vendetta is one of my favorites. And frankly, Jupiter Ascending is entirely underrated in my opinion. Yet, you want to assume that I hate someone because I find it convenient that they are claiming a work of fiction they wrote 21 years earlier is really about a hot political topic of today? Funny how the people paying attention in 2003 were complaining that it was obviously a Christian allegory and that it was too overt with it. I guess all those critics and film reviewers just weren't paying attention, though.

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Marketed, story design, supplemental material. Like I said, it is obvious you haven't looked at the details.

Just gonna ignore the massive amount of control the studio exercises with regards to all of this? Lana and Lilly didn't have full control over supplemental materials OR how the film/franchise was marketed. And Lilly isn't saying that the entire franchise is solely a trans allegory. She's saying that the core theme of the original film The Matrix is and always was.

So, in your mind, an author who tells you a character is gay after the fact (with no direct evidence in the story to suggest it at that point in time) is lying because she isn't gay, but an author who makes a claim about a story she wrote 21 years prior being about a hot political topic at the moment (where the evidence to support it is a stretch, at best) is telling the truth because she is trans?

No, you're oversimplifying to the point of obfuscation. Someone who isn't gay trying to retcon one of their characters as gay, despite NOTHING about the character or story to that point suggesting that character was gay, reeks FAR more of a cynical, marketing, PR move than a trans screenwriter and director of a film saying "those rumblings that have existed since the movie came out about it being an allegory for the experience of trans people, namely myself since I was still in the closet back then? Those rumblings are true. Always have been. I couldn't say it in years past, but as society has become more accepting of trans folks, and since I've come out publicly myself, it has become easier for me to confirm those rumors were always true.

Projection much? Hate her? Not even close. I loved those movies. V for Vendetta is one of my favorites.

LOL, as if you can't enjoy someone's art if you hate them as a person? TF kind of nonsense logic is that? I can't stand Kanye West or 90% of the shit he says or does. I still have Black Skinhead and Ni--as in Paris on my workout playlists because those tracks are hype as fuck.

And what would I be projecting here? Hate for who? Lilly? TF sense does that make?

Funny how the people paying attention in 2003 were complaining that it was obviously a Christian allegory and that it was too overt with it. I guess all those critics and film reviewers just weren't paying attention, though.

Considering that the vast majority of them were either cishet themselves or their content went through cishet editors...yeah...either they missed it because it was speaking to folks with identities they couldn't possibly relate to as a cishet person....or the were told, like you are here, that they were "reading too much into it" and to "tone it down, it's just an action movie".

Any queer person with a pulse, trans or not, could see the allegory in the red pill/blue pill scene, even 20 years ago.

Trans people have been talking about the obvious allegory in The Matrix since it came out. The fact that you're only hearing about it now shows you haven't bothered to listen to what they're saying and just take the cishet media at their word without question.

[–]Justice_is_a_scam -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BlackVsilver 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

No it's not about that. I get Zac's kaizen perspective. I also respect lily's perspective of it. You can't blame zac's perspective of it. I also watched animatrix and loved V for vendetta. The religous allegory of it was too prominent, words like "zion", "the one", "the prophet", etc..

You can't blame the people for receiving mixed signals of allegory. I myself didn't get the "trans allegory" as I'm not a trans. So I don't have that perspective. But I respect that allegory as the writer herself explained the reason why and it's her movie. And it seemed justified. So giving the benefit of the doubt. I don't have idea what trans go through everyday. Specially decades ago where the society wasn't so open about the lgbt perspective. If the writer herself said that allegory. So be it. Everyone can interpret an art film of their own.

[+]ImprovementEven-6 points 4 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

Lmao you all bought to this publicity stunt, noice

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]juliuspepperwoodchi 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]dynamiteddm1 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Temporary-Fail-2535 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bmcapers 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MarinRndNumHere 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lil_Kingpin -8 points-7 points-6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Naus1987 -3 points-2 points-1 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]PlayfulLawyer -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	The matrix was a metaphor for being trans
Author	electriksmelon
Upvotes	36
Comments	82
Date	September 13, 2021 4:02 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/ExRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/pniear/the_matrix_was_a_metaphor_for_being_trans/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/ExRedPill/the-matrix-was-a-metaphor-for-being-trans.1070627 https://theredarchive.com/post/1070627

Comments