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.'"

14 of 1,362 comments (clear)

  1. So? by ConsumedByTV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:So? by TomV · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:So? by realnowhereman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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....

      --
      Carpe Daemon
    3. Re:So? by realnowhereman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Carpe Daemon
  2. Why not censor the first movie? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  3. Not far from what people think here by bigmattana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Perhaps the censor can explain... by SeanTobin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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;
  5. Re:The one thing I didn't understand by SolubleFrank · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Yeah, within a virtual system by DarkZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Re:Congratulations Egypt by ThinWhiteDuke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Pirated VCDs and P2P will beat censorship by Quizo69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  9. Re:And fundamentalists are so peace loving! by TomV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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

  10. Re:Religion in, rational thought out. by jake007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:Matrix as code by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
    > 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 :)