Movies as Metaphors, and what makes them weak

[Felix]

This thread is a spur off of the ever popular "Stupidest Move Ever " thread and as Mallus suggests on page 5, it is worthy of a new thread.

So, to familiarize you with the meat of what I'd like this thread to talk about this is what I had to say about the metaphor found in the Matrix, if you don't want to read the whole thing.

But when you have a huge hole in the story that isn't explained, then the point the metaphor is trying to make is weakened. Just as in a symbolic logic mapping of an argument, if the premisies are weak or flawed, then the conclusion will be as well. That's the problem with robot sentience in the Matrix sequels.

I, Robot did robot sentience better; there was a progression of thought in the mainframe AI that led it to the decision to take over the world, and I think that's what Rackhir wants from the Matrix stuff. Humans won't give away sentience on purpose, at least not without building failsafes.

There's more, and I think the other stuff is worthy, but I don't want to quote myself too much.

And so Mallus responds:

Metaphors don't have premises and they don't operate like logical arguments. They don't prove anything.

So does what I say have merit? That a metaphor must stand up to the rigors of careful examination and found sound? Or does Mallus have the proper view that because metaphors don't set out to "prove" anything, they should not be examined in the same what that a premises-premises-conclusion type argument is?

---

Broadly, my contention is that the world presented in the Matrix sequels falls short because the background presented does not flow. That the metaphor presented is flawed because there lacks in that world a logical progression from the human world of today to that world. The choices made by humanity and cyberity do not make sense. And it is because of the problem with the world that the message presented by the moves fails. Humanity need not fear reaching that point because it does not make sense that we would ever come to that point.

The Matrix suceeded because it didn't bother explaining the world, it merely showed it how it was. Reloaded and Revolutions failed because they tried to explain it, and fell short.

---

Opinions?

 

[JimAde]

I think you've got a point as far as the entertainment value of the films goes. I find it harder to enjoy a movie if I have to actively suspend disbelief instead of it happening naturally.

Metaphor, however, is a whole different subject. Metaphor is not analogy (though some people use the words interchangably). To my mind, if a metaphor engenders the desired identification and reaction, then it is successful, even if its logic is bogus. Dreams and myths don't have to make sense to teach lessons, for example.

Not that I'm saying the Matrix movies rise to the level of functioning myth, but I think that's what they were going for.

 

[Storm Raven]

Metaphor, however, is a whole different subject. Metaphor is not analogy (though some people use the words interchangably). To my mind, if a metaphor engenders the desired identification and reaction, then it is successful, even if its logic is bogus. Dreams and myths don't have to make sense to teach lessons, for example.

But if a metaphor clearly doesn't make sense, then it loses its power as a metaphor. A metaphor draws its power from its ability to draw parallels between the story or situation being represented, and reality. If the story or situation makes no sense, then its parallels to reality will be weak and unconvincing.

 

[JimAde]

But if a metaphor clearly doesn't make sense, then it loses its power as a metaphor. A metaphor draws its power from its ability to draw parallels between the story or situation being represented, and reality. If the story or situation makes no sense, then its parallels to reality will be weak and unconvincing.

I don't want to argue semantics (since I'm incompetent at it ) but to me metaphor can be effective even in the absence of normal logic. Dreams, for example, sometimes express subconscious concerns or insights with "stories" that are complete nonsense. But the message can still come across.

Maybe I'm getting the definitions wrong, but I think what you're describing is more like analogy or parable. Both are perfectly sound things to build an effective movie or other artwork around, but I think metaphor is more about gut-level symbols and the relationships between those symbols.

 

[Mallus]

So does what I say have merit? That a metaphor must stand up to the rigors of careful examination and found sound?

Sure it has merit. Metaphors should stand up to "careful examination". That was never in question.

Or does Mallus have the proper view that because metaphors don't set out to "prove" anything, they should not be examined in the same what that a premises-premises-conclusion type argument is?

Now we're talking about something different. How do we examine metaphors?

I don't see how you can employ 'premise-conclusion' analysis when dealing with metaphoric constructs. Not to harp on this, but there's no 'premise' in a metaphor.

With metaphor, something is used to carry another kind meaning that's external to it. So 'robots' (which have meaning in there own right) might be made to stand-in for 'the Victorian working-class poor'. How the robots got built in the first place has nothing to do with usefulness of the metaphor. What matters in terms of the metaphor is 'can you draw a reasonable parallel between the two items'. Robots traditionally have no rights and are used as cheap labor. Ditto with the Victorian poor. Parallel drawn. How plausible the robots are is a different issue.

Another example: the color red is being used in a film to signify a daughters fear of her mother. Now in this case, 'red' has no real meaning, but its being related to an emotional world of the daughter. This connection is just imposed by the filmmaker. There's no need to to show scenes of the daughter being beaten by the mother in red dress. There's no rationale involved at all, no need to explain the choice of a red motif in terms of the characters interior world or history. Its just a techique used to convey meaning to the audience in a non-literal way...

Broadly, my contention is that the world presented in the Matrix sequels falls short because the background presented does not flow.

I'm not sure what you mean by flow, but I'll give you that its pretty silly.

That the metaphor presented is flawed because there lacks in that world a logical progression from the human world of today to that world.

The metaphor is fine. The backstory isn't. There not the same thing.

Look at 1950's giant bug movies. The central metaphor 'giant bug' = 'nuclear holocust' works fine. Just about everything else is goofy mess. But that doesn't invalidate the aptness of the initial metaphoric conceit...

 

[Felix]

The metaphor is fine. The backstory isn't. There not the same thing.

Ah. Well there we are. Sure, for a metaphor to be made in the first place, there needs be no "premises", or backstory. Red = Psycological state is a good example of that. But my contention is that when you have an metaphor like you have in the Matrix sequels, the backstory will either enhance or detract from the aptness of the metaphor.

"Red" as a metaphor has no backstory, and so it stands alone, for good or ill. But the world of the Matrix could not escape a backstory, and when that backstory turned out to be drek, the effacasy of the metaphor lessens. The metaphor might still be apt, there might still be paralells, but the worse the backstory support is, the less merit I'm going to give to the thrust of the movie.

That's why I applied a logic premise-conclusion structure to the Matrix; sure, the metaphor does not spring directly from the backstory, but the backstory must support the world in which the metaphor takes place. If the backstory falls, the world falls. If the world falls, then the metaphor is left alone, naked in the dark as it were.

Look at 1950's giant bug movies.

These guys have their backstory made easy... it's set in Earth in the present. So everything there is ready-made. The W-Brothers had 200-some odd years or whatever to fill in, and that's where they blew it.

---

I guess I just don't want to see a metaphor in a vaccum; it should be judged by what surrounds it and supports it as well, because all the elements that surround the metaphor are chosen by the artist, and he'd better bloody well choose wisely. If the metaphor is the point the artist is trying to make, then like in any argument, that point should be supported well.

Maybe we just differ on wether or not the metaphor should stand alone. I don't think it should.

 

[Templetroll]

The Matrix suceeded because it didn't bother explaining the world, it merely showed it how it was. Reloaded and Revolutions failed because they tried to explain it, and fell short.

I agree. the first Star Wars trilogy did the same with the Force. You saw the Light and Dark sides of the force in those movies. In the new movies he tried to explain the Force with that medichloran [censored for Eric's grandmother].

 

[Kelleris]

It looks to me as though there's a basic confusion here between a metaphor and an argument from analogy.

A metaphor is a sort of illustrative gloss that overlays something else, in an effort to help you understand the thing being looked at. So you need two terms, and they have to be related in some significant way. Importantly, they can be completely different in every other significant way. A metaphor like "my love is like a red, red rose" works (erm, kinda) because the rose element illustrates some one feature of love. This does not change the fact that love is not a plant, not colored, not a physical thing, and so forth. So the terms of a metaphor can be pretty dissimilar - it's more of an aid to our intuitions about a thing than an argument per se.

On this view, the Matrix as an element of a metaphor with (I gather, haven't read the stupid movie thread) the real world works as long as it lends some of its intelligibility to the real world. If you come out of the theater wondering if reality isn't something deeper, beyond mere appearances, then the Matrix has metaphored properly (and you need to read some Plato). If you don't then it didn't work for you. It is possible that the craptacular backstory is the reason it didn't work for you; maybe you just demand more overlay in your metaphors.

An argument from analogy, on the other hand, uses the Matrix and the real world as sorts of premises - "the real world and the Matrix world are similar in X significant ways, ergo we can assume that the real world may also be similar to the Matrix world in Y way." This is like a metaphor, but it's less of a "gloss" or "way of seeing" and more of an argument. If you don't think that the Matrix world and the real world are similar in X significant ways, the whole thing just doesn't work. This sort of thinking is much more likely to be bothered by craptacular backstory, I think.

Another aspect is that the historical progression to the Matrix world doesn't need to be a significant factor in some arguments from analogy. Maybe you think the humans of the movies are very well characterized, and can tell you something about real-world humans. This is the sense in which we can learn about people via an argument from analogy out of Tolkien, or what have you. In this case, the backstory of the Matrix world is not terribly significant.

So, Felix, my answer is that we need to know whether you find the metaphor faulty (i.e., it doesn't illuminate your intuitions about the subject it is paired with in the metaphor, the real world in this case), or the argument from analogy poor (i.e., the Matrix movies are too dissimilar to be good subjects for the argument from analogy). If, as I suspect, it's the latter, you should tell us what conclusion you think the movies wanted us to draw before we can properly evaluate whether or not they have a good case.

 

[Thanee]

The Matrix suceeded because it didn't bother explaining the world, it merely showed it how it was. Reloaded and Revolutions failed because they tried to explain it, and fell short.

The Matrix succeeded, because it was cool and had a very interesting plot and story.

These other movies that are in no way related to The Matrix failed horribly, because there was no intent to continue what The Matrix had started. It was never planned to tell the story of The Matrix. The grand scheme was to let it look like a cool story (in the first part) and then go on with exciting and interesting philosophy (in the other two) hidden behind the expectations from the first. Only that this philosophy is not exciting or interesting in the slightest.

What a waste!

Bye
Thanee

P.S. CLICK

 

[Tanager]

The Matrix succeeded, because it was cool and had a very interesting plot and story.

These other movies that are in no way related to The Matrix failed horribly, because there was no intent to continue what The Matrix had started. It was never planned to tell the story of The Matrix. The grand scheme was to let it look like a cool story (in the first part) and then go on with exciting and interesting philosophy (in the other two) hidden behind the expectations from the first. Only that this philosophy is not exciting or interesting in the slightest.

What a waste!

Bye
Thanee

P.S. CLICK

I'd have to disagree in part with your point about the failure of the second and third movies, although I do see them as failures.

For me the problem was that they set up the potential to really go into some interesting examinations of the morals of a few people believing they have "a just cause" as well as the perception of heroism. But then they just dropped all that and stayed with a nice safe and predictable messiah story. But that's just me.