Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
"Not my manner of thinking but the manner of thinking of others has been the source of my unhappiness." - M
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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 ...
... but at least the new Messiah can have hot monkey love with Carrie Anne Moss ...
"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
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
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?
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.
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.
Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
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.
Feed me a stray cat.
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.
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.
It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.
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
Visceral Psyche Films
If you die and discover that God does exist, can you be certain that he existed before you died?
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.
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.
I metamoderate all Redundant and Offtopic moderations as Unfair.
... 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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.