Then I watched "Hacker 2" and I was very disappointed, because 2 subverted the setting of the complete world that I admired, and I didn't give an explanation (because it is not over). I thought the director was going to bone and sell this film based on philosophical thinking for money, with stylized pictures, gorgeous movements, and compact and perfect rhythms...Fortunately, I watched "Hacker 3".
Just watching "The Hacker 1" is also an amazing movie, which can also trigger thoughts on things like reality and dreams, freedom and slavery, self-knowledge and choice, etc. However, after watching the entire 3 movies, I find that the director is thinking more deeply. What you fight for, choose, and maintain is still not true, and freedom is not freedom. What you desperately fight against is something you cannot fight, because "If my devil leaves me, I am worried that my angel will also leave me. "(For example, pain is contained in ecstasy, such as laying out is part of the climax).
By the third part, it is more obvious that what the director holds is not a dualistic confrontation of the world. Of course, the world he creates will not be justice and evil, reality and dreams, freedom and slavery, humans and machines, life and death. ......Can spell a world of victory and defeat. For example, the mutual needs of humans and machines, Smith is part of Neo, the feelings and revolutions of programs, the upgrading of the system requires the resistance to the revolution of the system, the purpose of human existence is death, and the end is the beginning (here you can use It can be understood from the Buddhism point of view, and it can also be understood by the theory of evolution or other theories) and so on...
Therefore, the solution cannot be defeated or defeated like ordinary movies, but acceptance, integration, balance... and what you will gain later is not "From now on...forever", but "I really want to know how long this peace will last" and "until the peace is over"...
Looking at the three films together, the director's Eastern world view is more obvious. Man is not the ruler of this world. In the film, the rule of mankind has long ended. What mankind is not fighting for is the right to control the world. What Neo has won for us is that we can "continue to survive" (no matter whether the world is virtual or not, you will always suffer Control), human beings are only a part of the world (accidents are also a part), as long as they play the role they should play (for oneself is for the world)...Of course, acceptance, integration and balance are not giving up, let alone being muddled. Rather, you know yourself and the world from a higher and farther level in your mind, knowing that what you can do is limited in action, but try your best to do what you should do. Nietzsche said: "Even if life is a dream, it must be done in a tasteful way."
About "The Matrix" only so many can be seen first, and when we can see the second, third, and n levels, let's talk about it.
ps is not completely unrelated. When I was young, I often wondered, if the current effort (painful effort) is for future rewards (happy rewards), and there is no guarantee of rewards (because of sudden death or other accidents), then whether the effort should be done Choice? Recently I think "yes". Because first effort is based on life, and not effort is based on death. Although the "I" will eventually die, the "I" is alive at this moment, and, in a narrow sense, only the "I" at this moment (of course is alive) is the "I", neither the past nor the future, so "I" "There is no need to face death, no need to be afraid of death, because the one who died is not "me". Secondly, since "human understanding of reality is suffering, the so-called perfect world is a nightmare, and human beings constantly want to wake up from it", not working hard is just as painful or even more painful.
View more about The Matrix Revolutions reviews
