Matrix Gets Egyptian Ban For Explicit Religion

pajor writes "BBC News is reporting that that The Matrix Reloaded has been banned in Egypt. The country's censorship board cited violence which might 'harm social peace', but also said the 'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'. A statement said: 'Despite the high technology and fabulous effects of the movie, it explicitly handles the issue of existence and creation, which are related to the three divine religions, which we all respect and believe in.'"

Comments

So?

[ConsumedByTV]

Are they actually saying that someone inducing thought into their culture from the west might cause an uproar?

*Gasp*

That questioning the truth is a bad thing?

Re:So?

[mirko]

Please, don't call "The Truth" whatever is discussed in the Matrix : you've got your perception of the reality whereas Egyptians may have theirs.

They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).

For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.

Cocnerning the many religious aspects of the movie, I'd rather describe these as some uninspired mysticism.

As I am not trolling (I hate these times when one must explicitely say he's not trolling) I now expect anybody who doesn't agree with these points to discuss these with me, instead of modbombing me to oblivion.

Re:So?

[TomV]

Are they actually saying that someone inducing thought into their culture from the west might cause an uproar

I suspect they're saying that, in a country with a history of Islamist resistance, multiple assassination attempts on President Mubarak, semi-regular spates of suicide bombings which have killed hundreds of people over the last 20 years, a country which has long been a fertile recruiting ground for the various armed Islamist groups, from Ayman al-Zawahiri down, in a country which has been struggling to maintain a secular state while its leaders are condemned as apostates and traitors, puppets of a purported US agenda to corrupt the beliefs of devout muslims, religion matters.

It's a fine piece of entertainment, it's a thought-provoking piece of art maybe. But is it worth risking yet another islamist onslaught on the people of Egypt just to get this film shown? Because certainly past performance shows that introducing some thoughts from the west has caused the sort of uproar in which people get killed.

TomV

Re:So?

[realnowhereman]

I think "the truth" referred to by the parent is the encumbant religions in egypt. Nobody would seriously suggest that the Matrix is some sort of basis for new world order. However, I (and I believe the parent) would suggest that questioning "the truth" over the last 1000 years of human society has led to our continued advancement (and in some cases regression) as a species and should not be so lightly brushed aside.

Your point about Joe-6-amphorae not wanting to see the movie may well be true. It may well be that every egypitian would despise the movie. But we'll never know that will we because a small subset of the population has decreed that they are incapable of viewing it without destroying society. (I notice that the censor hasn't instantly gone on an all out looting spree).

I think you are concentrating too much on the content of the movie - good/bad/accurate/theistic/philosophic/whatever - none of these is the point. It could be a film about mutant peanuts from the planet foobar, the point is - it is a work of fiction that has been unilaterally edited out of a nation. The level of condecension and disrespect to the population that is needed to do such a thing is staggering.

Similar things (though not so extreme) are happening in many western societies as well at the momemnt. As an example; the UK government is considering an unhealthy food tax. Leaving aside the economic unfairness (to poorer families) of this, it is an example of the state forcing its view of good and bad on a population; if not removing the choice then certainly limiting it serverely.

Phew. I think I'll stop now before I bust a vein or something....

Re:So?

[I(rispee_I(reme]

One of the definitions of civilized is refined and sophisticated. Since the Catholic church only recognized that the earth orbits the sun (instead of vice-versa) within my lifetime, and it is a more sophisticated and refined description of our solar system, that is an example of uncivilized behavior from Christianity within our time (especially considering that people were put to death for claiming the Earth orbited the sun...)

Re:So?

[realnowhereman]

But is it worth risking yet another islamist onslaught on the people of Egypt just to get this film shown?

Yes.

I was told a story by my Mum, who works in a children's nursery. She suggested to the playgroup leader that they get one of those boards with the kids names on and give them gold stars for doing something good. The idea was rejected; the reason being that the playgroup leader once worked as a missionary in Africa, teaching children. They introduced just such a board. When a child was given a gold star, some of the others would pick on them. Their solution was to stop giving out stars. Did this make better children? The result - the children who would have gotten stars no longer did, perhaps leaving them unrewarded and unfulfilled; the children who thought bullying was acceptable were never corrected and were left to continue on in life to who knows what; the teachers are left feeling impotent - there job has become to tip-toe around children, not causing trouble.

I would argue that not facing up to problems like this very rarely makes them better.

Re:So?

[MosesJones]

I would argue that not facing up to problems like this very rarely makes them better

Umm this rings a bit hollow given the Matrix Reloaded is a movie created by Hollywood, a set of companies that rarely portray reality and often produced badly twisted and potentially offensive characterisations.

Lets put it this way, Al Jazerra is pilloried in the US and yet represents the view of the US from the Arab nations. Isn't this abuse of the channel exactly the same as what Egypt is doing here ? Except that what the US aims to do to Al Jazeera is dealing at a much less superficial level than banning a movie.

Maybe, just maybe, for Egypt this film would be considered offensive and this censoring is indicative of the failure of Hollywood to look outside its borders.

Re:So?

[Surak]

Please, don't call "The Truth" whatever is discussed in the Matrix : you've got your perception of the reality whereas Egyptians may have theirs.

They are living not far from Israel who did take some of their territories during the 1967 war they actually started (the E., not the I.).

For this reason, we can understand that Joe-6-amphorae (the average Egyptian) doesn't want to see a movie which describes the fear Zion people are living in.

You are the only person I see so far that *gets* it -- only you slightly missed it by *that* much ... /me holds thumb and index finger together

Mostly, the Egyptian censor is probably freaking out of about the word 'Zion'. Islamists call the people of Israel and all countries that support Israel (esp. the U.S.) 'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...the Egyption censor feels that the term Zion anyway, refers to Israel.

That's it. That's all that he's freaked out about, most likely.

Re:So?

[the gnat]

Most brands of Christianity that survive today have learned to cope with modernity in all its varied forms. I do not particularly care for the Christian Right, but they are generally reconciled to a technologically advanced, pluralistic society. Their odd hangups about gay people and school prayer are actually exceptions to this rule. The only groups that explicitly reject modern life are small sects like the Amish and (to a lesser degree) the Jehovah's Witnesses, neither of which can be considered a viable political or social force in any country. (The Amish don't even proslytize - they just keep to themselves, and can't be compared to radical Islamists.)

The more virulent brands of Islam, however, most certainly do prefer a less sophisticated society. The Taliban seriously did drive Afghanistan further into the Stone Age than the Russians managed to. Banning television, eliminating women's education, blowing up its cultural heritage - it's not cultural chauvinism to call this "uncivilized". Turkey has shown (imperfectly) that it's possible to form a large Western democracy from a Muslim population, but they did this by explicitly rejecting Islamic influences on government.

This is the key point: no thriving, modern democracy that I can think of has been able to advance as long as its government is tied to religious leaders. The only first-world nation whose identity is bound to a particular sect is Israel, and I'd argue that Israel is a little more complicated (they don't evangelize either, for one). I realize it's fashionable to compare Bush and the Religious Right to the Nazis or the Catholic Inquisition, but the influence of religious leaders on US government is many orders of magnitude less than in, say, Saudi Arabia. Unless you equate abortions with civilization, it's hard to see what your complaint is.

(A side point: what this means is probably that we will never see another country that joins a thriving, evangelical religion with a modern, pluralistic, technically advanced society. The only way to have both is to completely separate them as in the US (most of the time), which then limits the extent to which religion can influcence the development of the nation and culture. The only sect I can think of that might prove this wrong is the Mormons.)

Re:So?

[KjetilK]

Disclaimer: Didn't RFTA, haven't seen any of the movies.

But I have been to Egypt, and my parents have been there twice. It is a fantastic country, allthough you'll see bottomless poverty like I have seen in no other place. Egyptians, like most arabs, are very friendly and respectful people, very proud of their history and their country, with good reason I might add.

And indeed, islamist extremism is a serious threat to not only most Egyptians, but the entire region , and possibly the whole earth. But it is a problem because people do not have basic human rights. It is the obvious poverty problem. Unemployed people have too much time on their hands, and they are easy prey for extremists.

But they do not have the right to free expression, to peacefully protest, the suppression of the people is what is causing the problem.

In that situation, it is my sincere belief that the problems must be addressed by openness, by allowing people to speak, and by allowing them to participate in society. It is the only way to confront extremism, to insist on more human rights. When exposed to different viewpoints, extremism will be moderated.

It is troubling that if you go into the bazars, you'll hear everybody is a vocal opponent of US foreign policy. So, they have the freedom to say it as long as it is not heard, as long as it is uninfluencial. That is good and all, in many places they cannot do that, but they have very little freedom to say it out loud and clear, the torture chamber awaits you. This is the disturbing fact you never hear about. Everybody is so scared to islamist extremism, nobody thinks about their basic rights.

But, to combat extremists, the only thing you can do is to emphasize, they have rights too.

Mubarak certainly has many qualities as leader, but it is very important not to turn the blind eye to some severe shortcomings.

What this has to do with the Matrix is left as an exercise to the reader... :-)

And How Do the People Feel?

[Nom du Keyboard]

And how do the Egyptain people feel about having this decision made for them by others?

Funny how that question never seems to be asked, or answered, in these articles.

You know, if the Kingdom of God and Heaven could be brought down by a movie, we'd of been standing in the shards of it long since.

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[neksys]

Well, thats what governments do -- they make decisions for the citizenry based on percieved need. You forget that in many parts of the world, religion is intrinsic to everyday life -- the Church in many cases is the State. Religion is hugely important to most of the middle east... I daresay nearly as important as the "war on terror" is to the United States, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light. Its all a question of cultural values. How do you feel that your government won't let you make "How to destroy government buildings for dummies"?

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[Jonathan]

you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light

And _The Matrix_ *doesn't* do this? A bunch of incredibly self-righteous people hide from a more technological society, occasionally venturing out to do battle with the mainstream world. Innocent people get killed, but that's considered a-okay by the group's leaders.

Re:And How Do the People Feel?

[bludstone]

you can bet your bottom dollar that the US government would intervene if a movie were to be released in the country showed terrorism in a positive light.

Like Star Wars?

Wow

[CptChipJew]

"The press launched a campaign to stop showing the movie, saying that it reflects Zionist ideas, and promotes Jewish and Zionist beliefs."

I think that quote speaks for itself.

Overanalyzed Much?

[Chromodromic]

All this proves is how global our community has become ... and how Egypt can be just as susceptible to a bunch of overhype about pseudo-philosophy in a movie as a bunch of AintItCool.com readers ...

"Matrix Reloaded" has as much to do with philosophy and religion as my dog's yawns. There are so many already well documented gaping holes and problems with the Matrix universe, that to read a search for God into this extremely Hollywood-ish movie--Keanu Reeves is our new Messiah? spare me--is only indicative of the starvation for spiritual themes that our culture is undergoing. It's like seeing God on the back of a cereal box--or getting God as the prize at the bottom.

Which would suck, because the coolest thing I ever got was a propeller-helicopter toy that got stuck on the roof. Bummer. What kind of a Neo would let a little boy down?

Well, there's one thing about the new religion, and I don't know if it's cool or not ... but at least the new Messiah can have hot monkey love with Carrie Anne Moss ...

Why not censor the first movie?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking... why they didn't banned the first
Matrix movie? After all, is in that movie where Neo is featured as some kind of messiah, while in Reloaded is rationalized as just "a necessary anomaly" that can be explained scientifically...

Wait, maybe the fact that religion can be explained by rational ways is what these censors fear?

Not far from what people think here

[bigmattana]

While we have the freedom of speech here in the U.S., similar thinking regarding the fear of talking about religion is alive here. Religion these days is like sex was 100 years ago - nobody thinks it is appropriate to talk about, as if some sort of war or riot is going to break out of we talk about it. When will people understand that there can be both peace and difference of opinions and beliefs at the same time? If we think we have to neuter ourselves for the sake of getting along with others, then we have truly given up. We don't need to voluntarily self-impose such restrictions as Egypt is on our own talk and thoughts. I am glad that the Matrix 2 looks at some of these issues. (Though I am always a little worried when Hollywood does try to look at religious issues.) I think that part of the reason many people think the movie is so deep is that they had never thought about such things for themselves before.

Nope. Sorry.

[Mr2cents]

which we all respect and believe in.

Excuse me, I'm an atheist.

Re:Perhaps the censor can explain...

[SeanTobin]

Not that tough on its face value. Some spoilers here, but if you haven't seed/downloaded the movie by now, you aren't going to. If you are planning to wait for dvd, don't read this.

The architect says that this is the 6th incarnation of the one [confirming evidence, The guy who likes to curse in french and makes really good desserts said he "survived his predicessors"].

The reason that the one exists is because of a 'flaw' in a basic equation of the matrix. Earlier attempts at Matrices (how do you plurialize a proper name with a previously existing plural form of a general noun?) failed because the brains would reject the programming. A solution was found that gave the people a 'choice' to accept the program or not, at a subconcious level. Those that rejected it ended up in Zion.

The remainder in that unbalanced equation leads to the creation of the One. Because it is a forseen eventuality, the machines believe that they can control it. Part of this control manefests itself by giving the One a strong connection to humanity. In Neo's case, it was more specific - to one person, Trinity. Because of Neo's strong connection to her, he wasn't going to say 'fuck you' to the Architect and blow the whole place up. Blowing the whole place up would lead to the death of everyone in the matrix, and coupled with the destruction of Zion would lead to the extinction of the human race.

Now, the architect says that the One is supposed to then distribute the code he carries back into the prime program. I suppose to 'rebalance' the equation, but we didn't get there yet. I assume that there will be another form of control that would make Neo 'want' to do it.. in order to get something else done. Probably after the destruction of Zion, he will have to pick the people to repopulate Zion, otherwise the unbalancedness will destroy the matrix.

And that's about it to explain the architect scene. Again, he lays it out fairly plain. Now to mess with your heads a little :)

Remember afterwards when they were back in the ship and he was talking to Morpheus about what happened, and why the war wasn't over. Neo said the following: "It doesn't matter. I believed him." To me, that line just sounded slightly out of character. And it probably was supposed to.

Think back to when Neo was talking to the Oracle. When he asked how he could believe her, she replied: "You can't. You have to make up your own damn mind." I think that a good portion of movie 3 is going to revolve around that.

Re:The one thing I didn't understand

[SolubleFrank]

In my mind it was either:
a) Neo's many conflicting reactions on all forms of consciousness.ÂÂ
or
b) The Architect's list of every possible way Neo could react.

Re:Yeah, within a virtual system

[DarkZero]

Have you not noticed that everyone who sees The Matrix is a philosopher for a day?
They normally would laugh at the thought of reading Descartes, Plato, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, etc, but when they see the pop-culture, hollow corpse of the afore-mentioned writers works, they are automatically philosophers.

Currently, there are two possible results of pop culture:
1. Philospher for a day who has become interested in the basic philosophical questions raised by the Matrix
2. "Wow, that chick's tits were AWESOME , dude!"

Thanks to the Matrix, pop culture might be on a slow climb upward. Don't try to fuck it up and send us back to Captain Horndog's Big-Tits-Big-Guns-Even-Bigger-Tits Bonanza just because pop culture hasn't gone from zero to Philosophy Major in 3.6 seconds. When someone mentions the basic philosophical questions that are raised by the Matrix, maybe you should politely point them toward Descartes instead of mocking their enthusiasm for something better than Die Hard 460: Die Harder Than You've Ever Died Hard Before WITH A VENGEANCE.

Re:Congratulations Egypt

[ThinWhiteDuke]

Talk about an uninformed, self-righteous post!!!

Ever travelled to Egypt? Ever read articles about the country from multiple sources (yes, that means other than Fox News)? Ever tried to genuinely understand what's going on over there and how Egyptians think?

Egypt is NOT a theocracy. Egyptian law actually bans Islamist political parties. Because Egypt has a HUGE problem with radical Islamism. One that dwarfs 9/11. Islamist terrorism does not mean "once, 2 years ago" in Egypt. It means "every month or so".

Egypt is not a full democracy either; at least not in the modern, western sense. Yet, they have made continuing progress on that path, considering that just 30 years ago, they were in a state of chronic war against Israel. They are now one of the most stable, reliable country in this region.

You're so obscured by your binary (good/evil) way of thinking that you can't even read.
"Such religious issues, raised in previous times, caused crises." Violence also played a part in the decision, the committee said. "Screening the movie may cause troubles and harm social peace," according to the statement.
Remember, we're talking about a country that has a long history of war against Israel and is painfully trying to get over it. They are plagued by groups of armed Islamist terrorists. This movie portrays Zion as the last hope of Mankind, as a sanctuary where good is besieged by evil. They KNOW that the Matrix is going to be targetted by terrorists. Setting up a bomb in a movie theater is incredibly easy. I don't think either of your 2 statements are true. I would put my money on :
#3: This movie is offensive to most of our population. Violent groups will use this opportunity to bring death and chaos. The benefits of airing the movie do not exceed the costs.

Religion in, rational thought out.

[panurge]

I'm not surprised by the Egyptian reaction. It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity. Wars have been fought over the definition of both of them. Sadly, as someone with connections to Reform Judaism and non-Trinitarian Christianity, I believe that the present Government of Israel (and not, please, Jews or the bulk of the Israeli people) has so disgraced the word "Zion" that its use should be subject to the greatest care.

To give an example, how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"? Not, I guess, favorably.

Anyone who has read Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses will know how difficult the whole area is. Although it was ostensibly attacked by Iran for being blasphemous, the real reason for the attack was Rushdie's description of an Ayatollah in exile, which was uncomplimentary to say the least. Mubarak may not be a democrat or hugely lovable by Western standards, but he has largely held Egypt together without it collapsing into fundamentalism. Egypt is a better society than much of the Middle East. The last thing he needs is Taliban inspired crazies going berserk over a movie that presents "Zion" as the good guys, and using this as a lever to attack the government. I suggest that college-age kids who don't get this probably need to obtain passports and visit the region, and LISTEN. Perhaps if enough of them do, one day we'll get a government with a clue about the Middle East. But I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Religion in, rational thought out.

[jake007]

It was frankly stupid and insensitive for the makers of Matrix reloaded to use emotive words with years of history like Zion and Trinity.

First, you can never please everyone. We would have no books, no movies, in fact we would have nothing if we always caved in and self-censored.

Second, what should be so insensitive about Zion (Sinai)? That's where - traditionally - the Jewish code of law was given and note that both Christianity and Islam relate to it. Why not show a movie which treats it creatively, yet with some respect? There's nothing wrong in playing with items from our shared heritage if it's done with sane mind and has some artistic quality.

...the present Government of Israel has so disgraced the word "Zion"...

That's a serious accusation but you bring no evidence. First, the present government of Israel has been democratically elected, just like every government in Israel to-date. Can you say that about Egypt which you call "a better society than much of the Middle East"?

Second, being democratically elected the government represents the majority of its electorate. Your excuse that you don't mean, "please, Jews or the bulk of the Israeli people" is lame.

it [Satanic Verses] was ostensibly attacked by Iran for being blasphemous

You miss the point. It is Mr. Rushdie who has been attacked, his life turned upside down because otherwise Iran's Islamic rulers would have had him long killed by now!

Your advise? He shouldn't have written a "difficult" book. That's the wrong advise. You must never give in to criminals and those who pervert human values. Instead, you hunt them down (if possible) and punish according to their crimes. This is the major tenet of our Western civilization as we know it - we define what our rights are and defend them. If we don't, soon we won't have any left.

how would US fundamentalists react if the Egyptians made a film in which evil Southern baptists launched an attack on a society presented as being good but called "The Third Reich"?

US fundamentalists?? Do they decide what we get to see on the TV? Do they censor the newspapers? If an Egyptian made a movie as you describe, I think pretty much noone in the US would give a damn. Try to come up with a better analogy.

You mention Taliban. Hm, you are right we don't want them in Egypt. Does it help then to not screen Matrix and instead show the Protocols of Zion, made up by Russian Secret Police to blame an economic misery on the Jews? Does it help to smuggle TNT belts to Gaza so that they can be used to blow up busses with people like you and me in them? Does it help to issue building permits for mosques but not for churches even though Egypt sports a sizable Coptic Christian minority? Look up on the net how many of the 9/11 terrorists were Egyptians, how many of the virulently anti-human Islamic preachers active in mosques in the UK and US studied their craft at the state-controlled Egyptian University of Cairo.

Before "letting a rational though out", please get the facts straight first. Thank you.

had it banned already...

[jeremie_z_]

... for it's obvious hollywoodesque crap with kung-fu combat and MTV-like state of the art wrapping. you can call this a troll as i didn't see the sequel but just got that impression from the first one. i guess my adolescence crisis is over by now... the real Matrix for me lies in Gibson's work, not in expensive mortal-kombat-like exhibitions...

Re:Truth versus Belief

[apdt]

I would like to offer an alternative definition for belief...

belief is the acceptance of something that you cannot prove absolutely.

There are very few things in the real world that can be proven absolutely. For everything else you have to go on the balance of evidence.

Pirated VCDs and P2P will beat censorship

[Quizo69]

Having lived in a country that has no copyright laws (PNG) I've seen the proliferation of imported pirated VCDs and recently DVDs sold openly in every shop.

What will happen in a country like Egypt is that pirates (the real, organised crime gang type) will simply supply the demand which will be there, because the more affluent Egyptians will have read about how the Matrix: Reloaded is a kick arse movie and wish to see it.

Furthermore, those with internet connections (there will be plenty) will download the inevitable DivX release and share it with their friends, thus spreading it through yet another channel.

This is why censors are becoming irrelevant in our technological society. In Australia censors have recently banned "Ken Park" from even screening at a film festival! No matter that it aired at Cannes etc, we're apparently not mature enough to form our own opinion on the matter. The same goes for Egypt, in this case though it's based on religion instead of sex, but it always sees to be the trinity of Sex, Politics and Religion that people feel they must suppress for the good of the populace. So when "Ken Park" is released on the net, it too will be downloaded and watched, regardless of what some censor in an office says we should or shouldn't watch.

"The premise of censorship is that offensive content contaminates the hearts and minds of people. But you can only have censorship if someone can judge content without himself being contaminated. This contradicts the premise of censorship, which alleges that these contaminating powers exist inherently in the offensive material. On the other hand, if a censor can censor without being contaminated, that implies that offensive content does not automatically contaminate the mind or heart of a person. In that case, you would be admitting that censorship is unnecessary. That is the contradiction of censorship." - don't have the name of the quoter sorry.

Quizo

As an American who resides in Egypt....

[Soul Colossus]

I was very dissapointed to hear this a few days ago as I and many of my egyptian friends have been eager to see this. I moved here just over a month ago with my father and since I'm now in a 3rd world country I've had to give up many indulgencies of American life such as viewing movies when they're released. This commitee defintely does NOT accurately reflects the views and beliefs of Muslim Egyptians I know here, the Matrix is pretty freaking popular. As far as reflecting Jewish/Zionist beliefs, that's just a crock of hot, steaming shit, they're just making up their excuse as they go along, especially as Jews aren't taking a liking towards here. Now I'll have to resort to pirating the movie so as an athiest and American I will get to enjoy it without all the corruption it would supposedly hearld.

Re:Truth versus Belief

[spongman]

Firstly, there's no absolute truth outside of abstract though (mathematics, logic, philosophy). As soon as you start talking about nature, the "real" world, you instantly have a lack of data. Everything becomes a matter probability. As for the existence of God, statistically the probability is zero, but with a finite margin of error. I liken the existence of God to the health of Schrodinger's cat. You don't know he exists until you die.

If you die and discover that God does exist, can you be certain that he existed before you died?

Re:Zion...

[Sycraft-fu]

No it wouldn't. There is a big difference between public uprorar, movie theatres refusing to show something, and a government ban. There is lots of material out there that is only available in certian outlets because the public doesn't like it. A good example of something actually not too extreme is the Anarchists' Cookbook. You aren't going to see this out in front in Barnes and Nobles, but it is available and legally so, amazon.com seels it for example. It is the sort of thing that the public does not approve of and, all said and done, law enforcement would rather not have in public hands. Yet it is available.

The public has a right to speak out against things they don't like and refuse to buy them. Movie theatres have a right to choose not to show a film for any number of reasons. However if the government decides to ban something outright, that is very different. I am quite sure that if a movie came out that made terrorists out to be heros it would be villified in the US. No major theatre would show it, no normal movie store would sell it or rent it. However I also firmly believe it would not be banned by the government. If you care to do some digging, there are plenty of books out there that villify America and make us out to be evil, books that you can buy and read in America.

Re:Got all that...

[TephX]

Some words in the Architect's speech are completely superfluous (for example, there's no reason for him to say "apropos" when he does, and it's even slightly nonsensical in context). However, the vast majority of it is just a long, convoluted way of saying the same things that others have said in their summaries in this thread. I have no doubt the Architect's speech was designed to confuse a reasonably high percentage of the viewers (he could have said everything he did far more simply). But it also creates an interesting effect for those who look a little deeper, as it seems at least plausible that an earlier AI program (remember, the Architect created the Matrix, so he's pretty old) would favor using a lot of technical terms so as to be as precise as possible.

Close...but just a little wrong.

[mcoko]

Neo makes the choice that will cause the Matrix to fall and kill the entire human population, including Zion.

If Neo chose the door to HIS right (the left of the screen from the Architects perspective) then Zion would fall, the Matrix would RESET and NEO could choose 23 people (17 female and 6 male) to join him in making the new ZION and start the whole damn thing over again (the seventh Matrix/Zion).

If Neo chose the door to HIS left (the right side of the screen from the Architects perspective), then he could save Trinity but it would cause a feed back in the Matrix destroying it and killing every human plugged in. Also the sentinals would still destroy Zion.

Neo made the choice to save Trinity therefore condeming the entire human race (Matrix plugies and Zionites), but he knows there is something he can do. For one he can affect the sentinals in the real world (is it really the real world? hmmm). And two why would he make that choice and then admit that there was nothing he could do (in response to Morpheus asking what had happened, that Neo was a piece of the CONTROL just like everything else, Oracle, Crazy French Guy, etc.)

I guess we will have to wait and see how they FIX the Matrix so that the entire human race doesn't die.

Or maybe the Woz Brothers agree with many that the human race's worst enemy is itself and they will let it happen. Time will tell

Re:And fundamentalists are so peace loving!

[TomV]

... islamic fundamentalists a such a peace loving people, committed to the continuation of "social peace" and avoid "crisis" at all costs.
...which might have some relevance here if the government of Egypt was an islamist fundamentalist government, rather than a secular government which has for decades been in 'crisis', trying to cope with an ongoing islamist fundamentalist revolution which has killed many hundreds of people and nurtured several of the most hard-core 'afghan' commanders. There's been no 'social peace' in Egypt for a very long time, and past experience suggests that allowing the showing of a film which portrays a supposed 'promised land' called, of all things, Zion (not provocative at all, eh?).

'Their social problems' are obviously not the result of western movies. However, their social problems do mean that the showing of this film could cause the sort of unrest that gets cinemas bombed. Which is turn leads to people getting killed. That's killed as in dead, as in bereaved relatives in mourning, as in families without breadwinners, as in, well, if you've had to deal with the death of a loved one you know what I'm talking about. Not as in 'OK, so roll me up another Agent Smith and let's continue the groovy action sequence'.

The government of Egypt is, effectively, more than 20 years into a civil war against the fundamentalists, and that does make a difference in this sort of decision. If it was Saudi Arabia or Iran we were talking about (or Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan, plenty of others to choose from) then, yes, it would be ludicrous. But it isn't. Very sad, yes, but while I'm entirely free to sacrifice MY life for my beliefs in freedom of speech, expression and so forth, I have absolutely NO right to sacrifice someone else's life for anything at all.

TomV

Religon is so much fun!

[Quixadhal]

I love religious debate... it's so much fun because it almost always breaks down into "Prove it!" vs. "You have to believe."

It's understandable that Egypt (with a rocky political situation these days, and a strong Islamic population that, like its two brethren religions, is not know for tolerance of conflicting ideas) might want to exercise a little caution in how the philosophical/religious views of The Matrix are presented... but to ban something entirely because you're afraid to let people draw their own conclusions is just going to make it worse.

What Egypt has done is declare this film to be forbidden fruit. The younger people will now go to every extreme to find that movie and watch it, and they'll make more of it then they would have if it were just another flick, because it's on the forbidden list!

Consider, people under the age of 21 (here in the US) usually make a big deal out of consuming alcohol -- they get older friends to buy it for them, they get fake ID's, they do all kinds of things because the perceived value has been elevated by the fact that they can't just go buy it themselves. About 1-5 years after turning 21, the charm wears off, and it just becomes another item on the shopping list.

I suspect you can extend that concept to any illegal substance, but that's a different debate.

Religion and Science are not as different as both sides like to think. They are both predicated on logical systems built up from fundemental "facts" which have to be taken as faith.

In science, we build systems of proof which allow you to extend a concept, using the assumption that the underlying concept was correct. Hence, we can talk about molecular bonds in terms of the interaction of subatomic particles... using the assumptions that those subatomic particles work as we believe. Make that a recursive algorithim, and you're on your way to defining the Universe by science.

In a religion, the depth of the predicate tree is usually much shorter. We describe how the world came to be, and why things are, and why we should act in certain ways. The ultimate predicate for this is that the Creator said so.

The difference between the two is that science breaks things down far enough so that it becomes difficult to fragment into factions. Unlike most (other) religions, scientists are generally willing to modify their belief system when another theory makes more sense. Example: Relativity vs. Quantuum Mechanics. For decades, those have been two rival belief systems, but now they are resolving their differences and merging those systems to get a step closer to God (The Unified Field Theory).

Imagine, for a moment, how interesting it would be if the various religions would take a similar approach...

But, people always have strong feelings when they get ideas in their heads. Denying the "truth" of one man's interpretation of a single line in the Bible is just like telling a computer scientist that a bit can be half on, or SCO/Caldera that they don't matter anymore. They'd rather fight to defend their belief, than have to change the way they see the world around them.

At least it's entertaining... :)

Religion that delicate?

[chonet4444]

It's always amazed me how delicate religion seems to be. I mean really: "'religious themes' of the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, may cause 'crises'".

Apparently it's exceedingly easy to point out that the emperor has no clothes, at least when it comes to religion.

Either that or one piece of fantasy (the movie) can easily supplant the older fantasy (the religion) in the minds of the rubes (the worshippers).

Just my $.02.

Computers are like Old Testament gods; lots of rules and no mercy.

Re:Matrix as code

[Tackhead]

> Is there really this war between humans and the machines, or is it part of a larger scheme of control operated by other humans?

I'm surprised nobody picked up on the kid in the early part of the movie who handed Neo the spoon.

Neo1 through Neo5 decided the Architect was lying, and gambled that "the source" or whatever would set 'em free. (Instead, it was just a trap that "reloaded" the Matrix, like Ghosting a drive. OK, bug caught. Reinstall.)

Neo6 figured the Architect might not be lying. So screw it, pop through the second door and see what happens. Maybe the Architect's worried that meta-Matrix will crash (which would suck for him and for humanity, if that's where the AIs actually "live"). Or maybe not. We (the viewers) and Neo6 don't have enough information to say.

But sure enough, when Neo6 goes back into what he thought was the "real world", "there is [still] no spoon". Zion, the seekers, everything he thought was real was just a higher-level matrix, destroyed and reloaded five times before. It's just another level of control.

So Movie III is gonna be Neo6, who jumped into the meta-Matrix and just discovered that There Is No Spoon, versus (or working with!) the "free" version of Agent Smith, who somehow figured out a different way to jump from the Matrix into the meta-Matrix.

Wonder how Free Agent Smith (he's half-AI, half-newsreader? :) will react when he finds out that what he's been programmed to believe is the "real world of the machines", and that he thought he was defending when he got Zion whacked, is also just a higher-level Matrix.

> It raises the question that it's not impossible that we ourselves are in some kind of simulation, or are indeed simulated. There would be no way to tell, which perhaps is the problem that the Egyptian censors have with the film.

"It raises the question", heck, for the offended religion in question, you coulda stopped there. :)

> If nothing really is real, then nothing really matters and you're left with the philosophy of the marquis-de-sade. Not something any civilised society really wants.

Not quite. If nothing really is real, then nothing "really" matters and you're left with having to (as the Oracle put it) "make up your own damn mind" on how to live. IMO that's something many societies could benefit from, and something most religious societies are extremely threatened by.

(And IMNSHO, that's a feature, not a bug :)

It's the Zionomy, stupid, was Re:Almost

[bourne]

Islamists call the people of Israel and all countries that support Israel (esp. the U.S.) 'Zionists', referring I'm sure to Mt. Zion...

To be precise, they are referring to Zionism, a racist ideology very popular in Israel.

Based on the rest of the comments throughout this entire topic, I can only conclude that the average /. reader slept through their history classes.

To wit: yes, the Egyptian censorship is about Zion (in the movie) and Zionism. The fact that most people missed this implies they don't know what Zionism is.

Zionism refers to a Jewish movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism and sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine.. To dismiss it as "a racist ideology very popular in Israel," as above, is to ignore the roots of the mideast conflict.

Put simply, Zionism was a movement based on the belief that as long as the Jews lived as ethnic minorities in other countries, they were going to be discriminated against ("discriminated" meaning "killed and robbed whenever public tension needed an outlet" - read up on the Pogroms sometime). The Dreyfus Affair convinced a reporter named Theodor Herzl that the only solution was for a Jewish homeland. He founded the Zionism movement, with the goal of creating a Jewish state. This movement slowly fought for progress over the next 50 years (see also the Balfour Declaration)

Fast-forward to 1948. After 6 million or so Jews were killed in the Holocaust, the survivors got serious about a homeland. With lots of leftover guns lying around from World War II, they founded Israel. In doing so, they resorted to terrorism, and displaced much of the non-Jewish palestinian population.

None of the neighboring countries wanted to absorb the Palestinians, and something like 6 wars have been fought since then. So, for the Egyptians, Zionism represents a massive local disruption which they've lost wars over.

So-called "Modern Zionism" is the "racist ideology" referred to above, which basically boils down to "Jewish Israel - love it or leave it." To focus on it and ignore over 100 years of history is short-sighted.