Deconstructing The MATRIX:
A Narrative Analysis of Mythic Structure


“The materials of the narrative paradigm are symbols…the communicative expressions of social reality”—Walter Fisher (p. 8)


We have at our disposal a variety of tools for the rhetorical analysis of any given piece of discourse: Metaphorical Theory, Neo-Classical Theory, Narrative Theory, Accurate Interpretation, and so on. Within each of these is a specific aspect which may be highlighted by the discourse itself, giving rise to the notion that a given discourse may “call attention” to a particular form of criticism. For example, the “I Have a Dream” speech of Martin Luther King Jr. has been analyzed using many theoretical devices, one in particular being the “matrix metaphor” aspect of Metaphor Theory, as introduced by Martha Solomon.

One might assume, therefore, that for the movie The MATRIX (a Larry and Andy Wachowski film, 1999, with Laurence Fishburne and Keanu Reeves), the “matrix metaphor” would be the logical choice as an aspect for theoretical analysis. However, I propose that The MATRIX calls attention to many theories and on many levels. To shed light on this point, I will use the aspect of Narrative Theory known as “mythic structure” to analyze The MATRIX with the specific intent to disclose the relationship between a given audience and the movie, based on the particular mythic level that the audience is accustomed to.

For the purposes of this paper, a “dynamic,” “mythic” and a “structure” are to be considered the same. A “level” refers to a particular narrative mythic being observed, given the premise that multiple structures might be present simultaneously. Also, the term “dynamic” will become increasingly important as we note the relationship between certain characters across various levels.

Bruce Gronbeck introduces us to the concept of a narrative mythic via two distinct modes: 1) by extending the “symbolic convergence theory,” as presented by Ernest Bormann; and 2) through the use of special character roles. It is my contention that the first, wherein “readers, writers, speakers, producers and viewers share stories…they repeat the stories that ring true to experience; in time, repeated stories become cultural myths” (Sillars, p 217), is often confused with the latter. I further assert that time itself is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition for the formation of a mythic structure, and that an analysis of The MATRIX will support that argument. As such, analysis of mythic structure for this discourse should provide us with insight into the film itself, insight into the effects of mythic structures on audiences, and insight into the specific aspect of Narrative Theory called the mythic structure. Specifically, my thesis will focus on the relationship between audience and character roles, and the implications of superimposed mythic structures.

Bormann lays a decent foundation for mythic structure with his work on symbolic convergence, especially considering the connection between a given discourse and its respective audience, in psychological terms: “Cognitive psychologists have usually considered the processes by which individuals perceive events and organize their knowledge in terms of ‘schema’ or ‘schemata’” (Bormann, p. 5). Mythic structure itself is described best by Gronbeck, who adds to Bormann’s theory the work of Aristotle regarding the relationship between the narrator and the audience:

“The verb ‘narrate’ comes directly from the Latin narrare, ‘to tell,’ but is akin to the Latin gnarus, which means ‘knowing.’ Both words can be traced back to the Greek gnosis—again ‘knowledge.’ While a ‘narrative’ certainly is a telling, more intriguingly it is a concept etymologically and practically founded on something pre-given, pre-known. Indeed, the process of telling is much less important to a ‘narration’ than is the process of calling-up previous knowledge. Similarly, Aristotle’s word for plot, mythos, carries the connotation of pre-known or at least pre-existing sequences-of-action, of previously understood formal relationships between those actions” (Gronbeck, p. 232-3).


Such mythic structures, as defined above by Gronbeck, are readily apparent in most works. They have specific functions, and their characters have specific duties, roles and attributes. But Gronbeck goes further, suggesting a more important concept regarding the actors themselves:

“At the mythic level of narration, actors do not simply act or even transact. Instead, they enact (Gronbeck, p. 237). Character types are seen to participate in the expression of timeless truths. Sada Thompson’s Kate Lawrence is not simply a representation of an American social stereotype we call ‘a mother,’ but is an expression of the matriarchal principle” (p. 238) [my emphases].


As examples: on the American mythic level we are presented with the “role of the outsider”; in the Christian mythic structure, we see the role of Jesus as a savior; also, some roles will present themselves in many mythic levels, such as the traitor, who is referred to as Judas in the Christian mythic and Benedict Arnold in the American mythic.

In The MATRIX, I have discovered (no less than) six superimposed sets of mythic structures, each apparent to a given audience depending on which structure(s) to which they subscribe. It is important at this point to direct the reader to watch the movie before continuing with my analysis, and although this is specifically against convention for rhetorical criticism, I argue that the visual idiosyncrasies provided by this discourse are just as important as the dialogue—the atmosphere becomes a character—if not more important (e.g. telling you, the reader, that Mr. Anderson “is bugged” will in no way sufficiently relate the scene being referenced). Under ‘normal conditions’ (this begs the question, considering that a summary of any given discourse will lose much in the transition), this might be considered a copout on my part as a prudent rhetorician, as a brief overview of the discourse often assists the reader. However, in this particular case, I stress that such a summary would constitute a disservice. Having “uploaded” the discourse into your respective schema, transferring yourself into an audience of the movie, as well as a critic of my work, I will discuss these mythic structures in the following order:

Overt Level:
1) “Deviant vs. Status Quo” Mythic

Fairly Obvious Level:
2) Christian Mythic

Less Obvious level:
3) Classical Mythic

Deeper Levels:
4) “Mathematical” Mythic
5) “Rhetorical” Mythic
6) “Terrorist” (Cult) Mythic

The “depth” of any level is neither arbitrary, nor a given—nor is it based on how “hard” one must work to realize a potential mythic. The depth referred to in the above case is based on the schema of one particular audience member (being myself), as well as how easily any cross-section of American society might refer to a proposed mythic. The first, fourth and sixth levels above were the most recognizable for myself—but I can not assume that the general population will have the same enthymematic reaction to the fourth and sixth, so I placed them at “deeper levels.” The second level becomes obvious after the second viewing. I had a difficult time realizing the third level, and I only researched it after being suggested to me—but the success is quite evident. The fifth level was very much like pulling teeth, and I will accept very harsh criticism for introducing it as a potential narrative structure, vice placing it into the area of “universal elements” (to be discussed in a later section).



Discourse, and Extracting Expressions of Principle:

In each of these structures, the individual characters will play respective roles, sometimes major, sometimes minor (supportive roles), and sometimes even inconsequential (lending to ambiance). On the surface (not to be confused with the “overt” mythic level), The MATRIX offers us a basic story about redefining one’s reality, and we have a protagonist (Neo), a guide (Morpheus), an antagonist (Agent Smith), a traitor (Cipher), and some friends who seek to enlighten our protagonist. On mythic levels, however, our understanding of these characters and their roles (and/or agendas) will shift dramatically.

For the purpose of this paper, I will not go into extended explication of the mythic levels, for the primary intent is show that they merely exist, and more importantly that they exist simultaneously, which will have specific implications. Some readers will not readily recognize a given level, they may consider characteristics to be strictly referential (as I argue for “universal elements” in the next major section), or perhaps they will argue against the presence of a particular level (especially the “deeper” levels being proposed here)—such arguments may be based on schema, a major part of the above thesis. Once the existence of simultaneous levels of narrative mythic structures has been established, the rest of the analysis should fall nicely into place, providing some interesting insight.


Overt Level:

The level which is directly presented to the audience concerns the realm of the automaton. The “Deviant vs. System” mythic structure is introduced to the audience via a metaphorical representation of the consumerism machine itself (see director’s commentary on the DVD for explanation): the logo of the Warner Brothers production company in green. Next we have a computer screen with numbers running a search (the “system” in action). During the first part of the movie (up until Mr. Anderson’s [Neo’s] trip “down the hole”), we are lead to believe that Mr. Anderson is nothing more than a software engineer, writing programs by day, hacking by night. Also, there is virtually nothing to bar an argument that the entire rest of the film isn’t one fantastic trip, much like one would have if you took LSD—a trip which coincidentally takes place right after Mr. Anderson takes “the red pill.”

The haziness of the only “reality” that Mr. Anderson knows (prior to his trip) is like a vice for the senses. Mr. Anderson conveys a feeling of being trapped in a cubicle. Everything about the environment, the atmosphere, the initial sub-plot, etc., exudes aspects suggesting “a presence of the system.” In the film, there exists specific dialogue which fully supports such a narrative level:
Boss to “Mr. Anderson” [Neo]: “You have a problem with authority. You believe that you are special, and somehow the rules do not apply to you. Obviously you are mistaken. This company is one of the top software companies in the world, because every single employee understands that they are part of a whole [reminiscent of the “Borg” from Star Trek]. Thus, if an employee has a problem, the company has a problem. You have a choice: be on time or find another job.”

Choi to Neo: “Sounds to me like you need to unplug.”

Morpheus to Neo: “You can feel it [the matrix] when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is a world pulled over your eyes that blinds you from the truth—that you have been born into a prison with no smell or taste, a prison for the mind.”

“We have a rule, never free a mind once it has reached a certain age—it’s dangerous; the mind has trouble letting go.”

“The matrix is a system…most of these people are not ready to be unplugged, and many are so immersed, so helplessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.”


Just to see how the movie compares with modern literature on the phenomenon of automatons, I recommend that the reader watch another movie, Office Space. Another particularly relevant piece of work, concerning both the concept of automatons and that of “reality,” is the movie Fight Club (note: the connection between Mr. Anderson and Neo in The MATRIX, and their respective protagonist counterparts in Fight Club). Also, I have included here a very brief quotation from Scott Anderson’s work, “The Dilbert Principle: A Cubicle’s Eye View of Bosses, Meetings, Management Fads & Other Workplace Afflictions”:

Boss to Dilbert: “Here’s your new cubicle: the ‘CUBORG2000’. It’s a self-sufficient work space and life-support system! These tubes attach to various parts of your body so you never have to leave” (Adams, p. 21).


There are three primary sides to this mythic level—which most of us in the 21st century workplace should be able to identify with: the all-powerful and controlling system, represented by agents and other devices, the lowly automaton hoping to make enough to retire by sixty-five, and deviant people who live “outside” the system (homeless, hackers, etc.). Mr. Anderson plays the role of the “Automaton,” and is only present as a character expressly for this level—his alter-ego, Neo, is the “Deviant.” Agent Smith (the common name is not accidental) is the principal “Agent”— and per Morpheus, “he can be anyone and everyone.” Morpheus plays the mythic role of the “Bad Influence” who wants to sell you a book on how to beat the system —or, for a more dangerous interpretation, he is the cult figure, the anti-government militia leader, or the local drug dealer peddling escapism (you want an upper or a downer—“blue pill or red?”). All other characters reinforce this dynamic through minor roles as either Agents (e.g. the other agents working with Smith), Automatons (e.g. everyone in Mr. Anderson’s workplace), or as Deviants (the entire crew of the Nebuchadnezzar).


Fairly Obvious Level:

“The social significance of the Gospel requires the recognition of the narrative structure of Christian convictions for the life of the Church” (Stanley Hauerwas, p. 9).

The second mythic level to be described, and perhaps the most apparent to a Christian-American audience, is the Christian structure (calling attention to the “savior” theme). The Matrix provides us with a representation of a (matrix) reality which can be interpreted as pre-Christian (Old Testament), and our protagonist, with the help of his friends, will bring about a new age.
We continue with Hauerwas for further illumination: “Some traditions lapse into complete incoherence and can be recovered only by revolutionary reconstitution” (Hauerwas, p. 14). The characters from The MATRIX definitely play out roles in a Christian mythic fashion—supplementing the hundreds of Christian references in the dialogue (e.g. Choi, the hacker-friend: “You’re my savior, my own personal Jesus Christ”; and Cipher: “Jesus!…So, you’re here to save the world”). Neo is “Jesus, the Savior” and the “One.” Like Jesus, Neo has extraordinary gifts—although many of his friends can leap buildings, Neo can dodge bullets, fly, and possess another person’s body. Neo has been baptized (flushed) and at the end of the film is “resurrected.”

As “John the Baptist” to Neo’s Jesus, Morpheus is the one who initiates Neo into his new-found reality, and into the role as the savior. Agent Smith, the arch-rival, represents the status quo (the Jewish State in particular—or Judaism in general) on this level and also plays the role of the devil who tempts Neo (the interview room scene), who torments Neo, and ultimately slays Neo (shoots him to death in the hall). Trinity, albeit in name only, lends to the Christian abstract theme of “the father, the son and the holy ghost.” Each of the other characters play minor Christian roles, such as Cipher, the traitor, who perfectly portrays Judas, or they merely lend to the setting.

For other possible connections between The MATRIX and Christianity (and other referrals to web-sites of the same vein), go to: http://awesomehouse.com/matrix/parallels.html.


Less Obvious Level:

The Classical mythic structure does not fully develop each of the characters, but merely utilizes each character as a metaphorical representation of a particular myth—thus we have Morpheus representing one Classic myth, Neo another, Trinity another, and so on. But it is important to note that “metaphor” is being employed only as the specific device, and the device must not be confused with the effect, which is narrative in nature, and further supports the argument that Narrative Theory is a qualified method for analyzing The MATRIX.

The character of Morpheus could be “Morpheus,” who, according to Vovid’s translation of the Greek story, is a God who resides in dreams. Another Classic myth also plays on the name of Morpheus—that being the story of “Orpheus,” who, as we know, traveled to the underworld to gain the freedom of his loved one. In The MATRIX, we know that Morpheus has specifically been searching for “the One” and we understand that his primary intent is to free humanity from being “slaves” who are practically dead (kept in storage as a source of power for the machines).

Neo’s character, on the level of Classical mythic structure, may very well represent Icarus for two specific reasons: he flies at the end of the movie, but more importantly, his primary intent is to awaken humanity to a “higher” realm of possibilities. Trinity on this level represents the Greek goddess, Artemis, as she is the only character in the movie to successfully shoot an agent. More importantly, just as in the Christian mythic structure, her name lends another distinct connection on the Classic mythic level:

“Artemis was the Goddess of the Hunt. She was also a part of the Triple Goddess. The Triple Goddess was the Moon in three forms…[and] she had only one love” (http://www.geocities.com/ailiathena/Majors.html) [my emphasis].


Tank and Dozer might represent Hephaestus for two reasons: 1) they are crippled, to the extent that by being born without implants they are unable to travel into the world of the matrix; and 2) they are creators and problem-solvers—they forge (uploading, downloading and otherwise manipulating via computer programming) and they implant their “inventions” into the travelers. Finally, the Oracle would be the mythic “Oracle at Delphi.” Other roles might be present.


Deeper Levels:

Can a theory, or an aspect of a given discipline become mythic for a given group? For example, can Metaphor Theory be drawn upon on as a mythic structure, if the audience is so moved or influenced by that theory. Many disciplines offer such possibilities, and the one which is explicitly referred to in this particular discourse is the mathematical discipline. On the level of the proposed “Mathematical” mythic structure, which is the level I personally perceived the movie, we must return to the mathematical definition of a matrix, in that we interpret information in a given arrangement of components.

According to Howard Anton: “A matrix is a rectangular array…[with] entries” (Anton, p. 25—Anton’s emphases). [Note, entries may be numbers or other symbols which represent variables, constants, or other items]. It is vital to understand that a matrix is not merely a table (as is the common misuse of the term), but a dynamic—each entry has distinct relationships with other entries along the respective (horizontal) narrative level, meaning with other “character expressions of principle,” and on a (vertical) personal level, meaning with themselves. Humans, through the enthymematic process, as an audience can relate to and/or identify with such a complex dynamic.

Horizontal and vertical arrangements are known as vectors. Biology describes viruses as “vectors” (probably because they infuse their respective gene with the host gene in order to create more of its kind)—coincidently, Agent Smith defines the human species as “a virus.” From Agent Smith’s point of view, Morpheus, as a virus, is infecting (corrupting) the matrix. And this ties directly into another theoretical aspect provided by Gronbeck:

“Because dramatic works depend for their functioning upon mutually shared knowledges, we need a sensible way to talk about the symbol-systems which are employed in the essentially enthymematic processes of meaning-attribution…by symbol systems here is meant nothing more than the array of codes available as vehicles for signification” (Gronbeck p. 238-9) [my emphasis].


It is no coincidence that I have emphasized “array of codes” in my quoting of Gronbeck above, for this is almost a direct, mathematical definition of the term matrix. This definition will become crucial later in the paper, further demonstrating just why this particular discourse is so important.

In this mythic structure, practically romantic in depiction, Mr. Anderson plays the “Nerd” (specifically a computer or math geek—note that matrices are used in both programming and mathematics, especially in the area of cryptography)—a very intelligent programmer, very uncomfortable around women, rarely making his own choices, and very secluded. His alter-ego, Neo, is again the “Deviant,” who just as brilliant, but with more guts and willing to take risks—in effect, as Neo, Mr. Anderson is partially living his fantasy. Morpheus plays the classic “Mentor” in traditional style. Trinity is the independent, strong-willed, brilliant Hacker “who cracked the IRS d-base.” Agent Smith plays the classic, strong (reminiscent of a bully from high school), mythic “Adversary.” All other characters, excepting the Oracle, are either Hackers or Agents.


I also argue for a Rhetorical mythic structure, as viewed by an audience of rhetoricians—and the fact that this would seem to be a stretch, much like the above Mathematical mythic proposed, if recognized at all, directly contributes to the argument that a relationship with the respective audience is crucial for a narrative to be transformed into a “mythic” structure. Such an audience, as a basic but by no means all-inclusive necessity for this level, would have an enthymematic understanding of Aristotle’s definition of the rhetoric: “an ability, in each case, to see the available means of persuasion” (Kennedy, p. 36). Per the dialogue, and on many occasions, two specific characters attempt to manipulate all the others—Morpheus and Agent Smith:

Morpheus to Neo: “What is ‘real’?”; “I can only show you the door, you’re the one who has to walk through”; and “She [the Oracle] only told you what you needed to know.”

Agent Smith to Neo: “Morpheus is dangerous”; and “Morpheus is wanted for terrorism.”


We know that Morpheus has discussed the coming of “the One” to others of his crew. We know that Neo is not the first person Morpheus has pulled from stasis. We know that Cipher thinks Morpheus tricked him with false promises. Regardless of what “reality” really is, we can assert based on the text that these two specific characters are playing the role of a rhetorician. They understand the rules of a dynamic, they know about computer codes, they each have respective agendas, they seek to persuade, and they know their specific audience.

On this level, Morpheus would be playing a mythic role of Socrates himself. Plato’s role (as the protector of “the state”) is definitively portrayed by Agent Smith. Neo, as the protagonist for all who would be rhetoricians, takes on the role of Aristotle [can “Neo” be referring to Neo-Aristotelian—as in a form of rhetorical criticism?]. Trinity, once again dipping into the abstract via her name alone—the three disciplines (the Dialectic, the Poetic and the Rhetoric). [As a side note—Neo grows from someone who is controlled by the dynamic, effectively given choices (e.g. “If you take the red pill…”), to someone who begins to make his own choices (e.g. to fight in the subway instead of running), to someone who gains control of the dynamic and offers choices to others (e.g. last line in the movie, “where we go from there, is a choice I leave to you”)].


Finally, from a psychological perspective, I will address the Terrorist (or Cult) mythic structure. This level is complex in itself, and must be addressed on two sub-levels depending on which role the audience member respectively subscribes to: the conditioner or the conditionee.

Conditioners are found among the higher levels of respective terrorist/cult organizations. These people “recruit” and “condition” would-be terrorists not only to kill the enemy, but more specifically to “identify the enemy as being evil.” Terrorists use speeches, film and written narratives to persuade, condition and reinforce—for example, we see footage of the al-Qaida terrorists training recruits, and in that footage the targets are painted with red “crosses” signifying them not only as the enemy, but specifically as the Christian enemy.

At the very first part of the scene introducing Mr. Anderson [Neo], the audience is presented with three distinct headlines flashing in quick succession on his computer screen: 1) “Global Search—Morpheus Eludes Police At Heathrow Airport”; 2) [newsprint in Arabic]; and 3) “International Manhunt Underway.” Agent Smith specifically and directly informs Neo that Morpheus is at the top of the wanted list for “terrorism”:

Agent Smith to Mr. Anderson [Neo]: Whatever you think you know is irrelevant, Morpheus is the most dangerous man alive. Help us bring a known terrorist to justice.”


The “conditionee” gets caught up in a dynamic, being targeted for recruitment into a particular organization. It is easy to find yourself among hate groups if you are already disgruntled, but Neo is not necessarily so disappointed with his life (remember, he almost gets out of the car to walk off in the rain and leave the group behind). Therefore, Neo must be conditioned more forcefully, and this conditioning must then be reinforced directly—he is removed in a harsh manner from his previous life (“flushed”), then he is given the preliminary discourse (Morpheus’s “speech” regarding reality), then given positive reinforcement via his martial arts training (not unlike terrorist groups in Afghanistan or elsewhere), then he is further conditioned to recognize that “the enemy can be anyone” (even a woman in a red dress)—“trust no one”:

Morpheus to Neo: “The matrix is a system—the system is our enemy. Inside you see businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters [possible reference to Jesus]—the very minds we are trying to save. But until we do, those people are part of the system and that makes them our enemy. They will fight to protect it [the system]. If you are not one of us, you are one of them.”


From that point on, any interaction with “hostile” agents would only reinforce Neo’s belief that they are in fact the enemy. This is called the Stockholm syndrome, and in the manner of Patty Hearst herself, we find Neo and Trinity killing armed guards and blowing up buildings.

As such, Morpheus is portraying the mythic role (extending even back to Christian myth) of the likes of the deceiver who will lead you on a path of destruction—a.k.a. the Reverend Jones (or much like today’s Osama bin-Laden). Agent Smith is once again playing the role of the “state” as an FBI or CIA representative. Neo, even as the protagonist in our discourse, is a Patty Hearst who, arguably, is being manipulated to participate in the agenda of a terrorist. Other characters are either Agents or Terrorists, except for the Oracle (who is an Aide for the terrorists).



Exploration of Other Universal Elements:

It is not sufficient to leave the concept of superimposed mythic structures without touching upon the idea that some elements may be transferred between multiple structures. Although these elements did not warrant discussion as mythic structures themselves, for they are merely referenced and not sufficiently supported by character enactment, an overview is still deemed necessary. Examined here are four ‘arguably’ universal elements, but there are probably many more in The MATRIX to be discovered.


The Quest:

This element concerns the process of a search, as well as the item of particular value that will bring completion and closure to its pursuer. Often, narratives will disclose a value to the process being greater than the value of the item finally attained. The Quest has been noted in many forms: Arthur sought the Holy Grail; the Christian mythic suggests seeking salvation and redemption; Dorothy was in search of her home and family (and her pals had their respective agendas as well)—in The MATRIX, Cipher states: “Buckle your seatbelt Dorothy, ’cause Kansas is going bye-bye”; heroes in the American mythic level are often in search of peace (e.g. the movie Tombstone); Jason and the Argonauts sought the Golden Fleece; etc. In The MATRIX, we have each respective character in search of something: Mr. Anderson in search of meaning and a place in life (beyond the desk job)—his alter-ego in search of his destiny; Morpheus in search of “the One”; Trinity in search of her true love; Tank in search of an end to the war and a return to Zion, “where the party will be”: Cipher in search of “blissful ignorance”; and Agent Smith in search of an end to the matrix.

Another version of the “Quest” was Lewis Carroll’s, “Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There.” Alice was in search of a way out of the strange dream-like “wonderland”—in The MATRIX, Trinity and Morpheus each respectively make references to this tale: “follow the white rabbit”; “you must feel like Alice, tumbling down the hole”; and “take the red pill, and I’ll show you just how far down the rabbit hole goes.” Morpheus’s words suggest a trip down, yet he is supposedly lending a hand to Neo and pulling him out of the hole (the matrix being a metaphorical Wonderland). This reference might have been considered mythic, but it, like the short reference to Dorothy “leaving Kansas,” goes no further than being metaphorical for Neo’s (by now, formerly “Mr. Anderson”) impending “disorientation.”


Death as Re-birth (with potential):

Though related to resurrection, and previous lives, this is slightly different in that a character, usually a protagonist or a mentor, must die in order to fully realize “the gift.” We see this in Star Wars as a sub-plot, and in the Highlander as a major part of the main plot. In The MATRIX, the protagonist has gone through all three forms of this concept (being resurrection, having a previous life, leaving a former identity, and fully realizing his gift upon dying), and the re-birth form is very subtly predicted by the Oracle to Neo: “You have the gift, but…you’re waiting for something…your next life maybe, who knows.”


Rag-tag Revolutionary Group:

Within the Science Fiction genre, ever notice how any small group doing battle against the immense imperialistic forces is always dressed in rags? I recommend viewing The MATRIX, Star Wars, Battlefield Earth, Battlestar Galactica (this element is even quoted in the beginning narrated theme of the television show), Planet of the Apes, etc., in order to draw the comparison yourself. All of these might be metaphorical themes referring back to the Judeo-Christian story of Moses leading his people away from the Egyptians.


Virtual reality:

We know from Morpheus himself that the matrix is not reality but: a “neural interactive simulation.” Morpheus says that the machines keep humans in stasis so that they can be tapped for their electrical power. Morpheus goes on to “show” Neo what the world “really looks like” (lounge chair scene at the bottom of cliffs. From this point we as an audience “assume” that the “true” reality exists outside the matrix. But who is to say that this reality, as proposed by Morpheus, is any more real than the matrix itself? Who can say that it is not just another training program, being neither real nor “inside” the matrix? It could be suggested that a narrative mythic level exists, called “virtual reality video game” mythic structure, in which only two characters are “real” and play the specific role of “role-players” (ironic?): Morpheus and Agent Smith. These two could be playing a virtual game of human chess, in a fantasy world, building their characters with personalities and abilities, playing on the common area known as the matrix. As a mythic level, this potential is not fully realized by the movie, however, there is some support from modern Western consumerist (escapist) culture: a variety of multi-user games exist for home use and on-line, with respective sets of “rules and boundaries. More importantly, role playing games provide the player with one vital mythic property: the act of participation—to the point of “controlling” characters.


Further Analysis:

There exists the inherent argument within this paper as to just what sufficiently comprises a “mythic structure.” Some might argue against the construction of the above “deeper” levels of interpretation as being purely arbitrary, and this is an important point, for in order to establish a relationship between any particular discourse and a given mythic structure, the mythic reference itself must be clearly defined. Those who readily consider Classical, American or Christian mythic structures to be valid are also missing this point. The mere fact that a narrative has existed in written, visual or oral form for hundreds or thousands of years is not in itself a sufficient qualification for consideration as a mythic structure.

Bormann, Gronbeck and Hauerwas provide us with a good indication as to the importance of understanding narratives on a mythic level, but still, something appears to be left out. I believe that audience participation is the key—not just that we hear and read these stories, but that we attribute certain social values to these stories—and more to the point we “feel” as if we are taking part in the dynamic itself: there is a clear emotional connection to mythic structures. As Hauerwas puts it, “the best way to learn the significance of stories is by having our attention drawn to stories through a story” (Hauerwas, p. 13). The MATRIX allows us some insight into this phenomenon, wherein character roles as “expressions of principle” (Gronbeck, p. 238), the act of subscribing to a narrative, and the vicarious nature of the audience all play a part in what we call “mythic structures.”


Next, we must turn back to matrix properties to gain additional insight into both The MATRIX and narrative theory. We have seen the definition of a matrix in mathematical terms, and we realize that it can be done with items other than strictly numbers, but let us look briefly at a rhetorical approach, employed by Martha Solomon, which utilizes matrices formally for analysis—that of matrix metaphors:

“One area scholars have not explored fully is the relationship among and function of disparate metaphors in a single work or text…we may consider whether the diverse “surface” metaphors reflect some “deeper,” “embedded” formulation (Solomon, p. 67). I shall define a matrix metaphor as a comparison of two concepts or objects that at a minimum stimulates or generates other metaphors and, consequently, provides a unifying bond among those diverse figures (p. 68). An implicit matrix metaphor both generates the imagistic richness and creates the structural, thematic, and philosophical unity of the text” (p. 81).


With this in mind, let us now take a closer look at a proposed “relationship among and a function of disparate mythic structures in a single work” (Solomon, p. 67 [with my substitution and emphasis]). I have demonstrated that multiple narrative mythic structures (at least six, perhaps more based on interpretation and a more fully developed argument for the respective element) are presented simultaneously in the discourse entitled, The MATRIX. I have also demonstrated that each mythic structure is comprised of separate and distinct “expressions of principle” (fulfilled by character roles). I will now demonstrate that these expressions can be “entered” into an array in horizontal fashion and vertical fashion:

Log:

frequency and duration coefficient, a respective value would be present for all entries, being zero (0) should the character not fulfill a role on that mythic level.

(Au)=Automaton Mythic (Ch)=Christian Mythic
(Cl)=Classical Mythic (Ma)=Mathematical Mythic
(Rh)=Rhetorical Mythic (Te)=Terrorist/Cult Mythic

Mythic coefficients would be present for all entries.


Pro=Protagonist Men=Mentor Ant=Antagonist

→ = “extend for other minor characters”

Refer to above mythic structure levels (1-6) for the character roles and expressions of principle, e.g.:
(Ba[Mor])=(Bad Influence [Morpheus])
and
(Pa [And])=(Patty [Anderson]).


Mythic Structure Dynamic of The MATRIX:

Pro Men Ant

(Au) (De [Neo]) (Ba [Mor]) (Ag [Smi]) (De [Tri]) (De[Cip]) (De [Ora]) (De [Apo]) (Au [And]) →

(Ch) (Js [Neo]) (Jo[Mor]) (Je [Smi]) (Tr [Tri]) (Ju [Cip]) (Pr [Ora]) (Ap [Apo]) (0 [And])

(Cl) (Ic [Neo]) (Mo[Mor]) (0 [Smi]) (Ar [Tri]) (0 [Cip]) (Or [Ora]) (0 [Apo]) (0 [And])

(Ma) (De [Neo]) (Me [Mor]) (Ad [Smi]) (Ha [Tri]) (Ha [Cip]) (0 [Ora]) (Ha [Apo]) (Ne [And])

(Rh) (Ar [Neo]) (So [Mor]) (Pl [Smi]) (Tr [Tri]) (0 [Cip]) (0 [Ora]) (0 [Apo]) (0 [And])

(Te) (Pa [Neo]) (Jo [Mor]) (Ag [Smi]) (Te [Tri]) (Te [Cip]) (Ai [Ora]) (Te [Apo]) (Pa [And])


Such an arrangement will add to our understanding of other narrative theories. For example, we see that some characters are fairly complex, ever changing their roles depending on whom they interact with and in which context, adding to our conception of “flat vs. round” characters as introduced by Mieke Bal’s work. Further, as per Gerard Genette, we note that “frequency and duration” become vital measures, not only in terms of how often an expression is portrayed, but also in terms of each particular dialogue. Note that in the “lady in red” scene alone, Morpheus takes the audience on a trip through mythic structures concerning automatons, terrorism, Christianity—many characters follow suit, at times with each successive sentence conforming to a different mythic structure.

We note other connections, such as the reinforcement of “deviance via brilliance,” as Neo is Deviant on both levels of Automaton and Math. The Christian mythic level is uniquely represented by each character. The adversarial nature of the state is displayed on four levels (Deviant, Christian, Mathematical and Terrorist) and enhanced by the focus of The MATRIX on Agent Smith. We note that both Neo and Mr. Anderson are a form of Patty Hearst on the Terrorist level—and it is only within this mythic structure that Mr. Anderson feels empowered. The frequency of specific inter-dynamics is reinforced by the dialogue, for example: every time that Neo and Agent Smith come into contact, the latter specifically refers to the former as “Mr. Anderson,” almost in mocking fashion, conjuring within Neo (as within all of us who have an emotional tie with the protagonist) his own perceived weaknesses—until, in defiance, Neo exclaims: “The name’s NEO!” Many more connections can be drawn along, between, and across mythic levels, by employing this tool comprising entries of “expressions of principle” (abstracted character roles).


Conclusion:

It is not enough to state that this film is about a matrix, or even that it can be abstracted into a matrix formation—The MATRIX is presented to the audience, via simultaneous representation of narrative mythic structures, in matrix form. I assert that The MATRIX is an identity of the concept of a matrix, being a system of mythic structures—a real dynamic in every sense. With this analysis as a foundation, combined with the understanding of matrices from both the mathematical and rhetorical fields (courtesy of Solomon), we can use substitution within Solomon’s definition for a matrix metaphor to provide us with a definition for what will be known as a matrix mythic.

In viewing The MATRIX, we are presented then with a discourse that has multiple possibilities for interpretation with regard to mythic structure. Much depends on the audience—and more specifically to which mythic structure they subscribe. The roles of each character dramatically change, from good to bad, from major to minor, based on which narrative is being observed by the audience. That The MATRIX is telling a story is not enough of a description, especially considering the powerful form (a matrix of simultaneous mythic structures) it is presented in. The potential of realization of this enthymematic phenomenon, first described by Bruce Gronbeck, is enhanced via a matrix representation of multiple narrative mythic structures, to an exponential degree:

“Insofar as the production and writing incorporate signs and symbols which find their signifieds on the social or mythic level of narration, the program teaches. In imitating prototypical human actions, it teaches us about cultural expectations and customs; and, in imitating universalized categories of human conflict and desire, it reinforces our visions of the eternal struggles endemic to all human life” (Gronbeck p. 241).


As such, The MATRIX, in light of Narrative Theory, has many implications: 1) that reality is greatly perceptive in nature and the level of reality you recognize when viewing The MATRIX is directly dependent on whichever narrative mythic structure you follow; 2) insights may be obtained for a given discourse utilizing the aspect of mythic structures, but especially a discourse that uses multiple narrative levels; and 3) some insights into Rhetorical Theory, specifically Narrative Theory itself (more specifically narrative mythic structures), may be realized.

Although some might believe that in order for a narrative to qualify as a mythic it must be present for many hundreds (or thousands) of years, I asserted in my thesis that a mythic is constructed more on the basis of the enthymematic relationship between the audience and the characters. This concept is supported by analyzing The MATRIX in particular, which delivers to the audience multiple narratives simultaneously. Each of these structured levels may or may not be recognized as being mythic by a given audience—an audience may readily understand and relate to the Christian mythic proposed earlier, yet have no recognition of (or meaningful response to) the Classic or Mathematical mythics, etc. As such, I feel that Gronbeck’s statement on the narrative mythic with respect to characters, whereby “characters enact [and provide] expressions of principle” (Gronbeck, p. 238), is a more reliable means of deriving sufficient qualification for the status of being mythic.

Should a member of a given audience “not follow” or “relate” to a narrative as being mythic, for any given discourse, then it is possible that the discourse itself has not been properly set up. It is just as possible that not enough of a respective principle is built into the schema for reference when presented with a character that is enacting it. For example, someone who only knows the term “matrix” as being an arrangement of numbers might consider the title of the discourse examined here as being contrived or a mere coincidence—whereas for that same work, a mathematician, knowing full-well the inherent implications enthymematically, might have no trouble in immediately constructing a MATRIX mythic.



Works Cited:

Adams, Scott. The Dilbert Principle: A Cubicle’s Eye View of Bosses, Meetings, Management Fads & Other Workplace Afflictions. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996.

Anton, Howard. Elementary Linear Algebra, 7th edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1994.

Bormann, Ernest G. “Symbolic Convergence Theory: A Communication Formulation.” Journal of Communication, Autumn 1985.

Fisher, Walter R. “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm.” Communication Monographs 51, March 1984.

Gronbeck, Bruce. “Narrative, Enactment, and Television Programming.” The Southern Speech Communication Journal, Spring 1983.

Hauerwas, Stanley. A Community of Character, 4th printing. London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1986.

Kennedy, George A. Aristotle on Rhetoric: A Theory of Civil Discourse. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

“Major Greek Goddesses.” On-line web-site: http://www.geocities.com/ailiathena/Majors.html. Last viewed, December 2001.

Sillars, Malcom O., Gronbeck, Bruce E. Communication Criticism: Rhetoric, Social Codes, Cultural Studies. Prospect Heights : Waveland Press, Inc., 2001.

Solomon, Martha. “Covenanted Rights: The Metaphoric Matrix of ‘I Have a Dream’.” Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Sermonic Power of Public Discourse, ed. Carolyn Calloway-Thomas and John Louis Lucaites. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1993.

The MATRIX. Warner Brothers, 1999.

“The MATRIX as Messiah Movie.” On-line web-site: http://awesomehouse.com/matrix/parallels.html. Last viewed, December 2001.