It has been ruthlessly coopted by people who want to see it that way and refuse to believe that any other interpretation could possibly exist.
I freely admit that the the fact that the writers and directors later both changed their gender makes a good case that that was an element of the story.
But, this was also a huge budget action movie produced by a mainstream Hollywood studio in 1999 when the world was far less trans-friendly than even today. There’s no way they would have OK’d a movie that could only be interpreted as a trans allegory.
The Matrix films are about being transgender, the trilogy’s co-director says.
“That was the original intention but the world wasn’t quite ready,” says Lilly Wachowski, who came out as trans along with her sister Lana after the films came out.
Speaking with Them:
Wachowski clarifies her previous comments, explaining that The Matrix was not intended to be a trans allegory when it was in production. While she acknowledges the movie’s strong trans themes, she says the ideas came about naturally, without intention on her or co-director Lana Wachowski’s part. Check out what Wachowski had to say below:
No, I didn’t [confirm The Matrix is a trans allegory].
Yeah, so that came from an interview I did for Disclosure. They had a bunch of Matrix questions. And the question they asked me was about Switch, who was originally written as a trans character who was male in the real world and female in the matrix. And they took that response and attached the question that everyone now references that it’s a trans allegory. And so it was slightly out of context, but I don’t sit here and put a stink up about it, because it is a trans allegory in that it was written by two closeted trans women. And so all of the things that are in it are super-duper trans. The idea of transformation, even the whole “My name is Neo, Mr. Anderson —” that idea of claiming identity, it’s undeniable.
Yeah, with all the decisions we made with that film, there’s just this burbling transness simmering below everything. So when I look back at the way that we cast those two parts, I can see how obvious it is that they’re one part in a lot of ways; that they’re two sides of the same coin. It’s not like these were conscious decisions, but more like we’re finding our way instinctively as these two closeted trans women. So all those things that your receptors are buzzing about are completely valid. When people say, “Oh, it’s a trans allegory,” it’s like, “Yeah… it is, but we weren’t like, Hey, let’s write a trans allegory.” That’s not how it started. We were like, “Hey, let’s write this action film,” and then we got our trans all over it. [laughs]
Yeah. People often try interpret creative works in unique ways that the author didn’t intend. Doesn’t make the experience and impact on the reader/viewer any less important.
Please note that I’m not applying personal opinion to the matter, rather just trying to provide the directors own context because it is their own work.
No, there was reading material attached to the script and it was mostly metaphysical and philosophy. Not sure the watchowskis actually understood what they wrote by the end of 3, they maintained it wasn’t ALL the matrix even though that seems to be what they wrote and fits with the books they pulled inspiration from
Lilly doesn’t know “how present my transness was in the background of my brain as we were writing” The Matrix.
They weren’t consciously making it a trans allegory. And, the studio would never have accepted it if that was all it was. In retrospect it’s obvious that that was a major influence in the story they were telling. And, they’re happy that in the present people are interpreting it that way. But, it wasn’t as intentional as people like to claim, and that’s far from the only possible interpretation.
Isn’t The Matrix just an allegory about being transgender?
It has been ruthlessly coopted by people who want to see it that way and refuse to believe that any other interpretation could possibly exist.
I freely admit that the the fact that the writers and directors later both changed their gender makes a good case that that was an element of the story.
But, this was also a huge budget action movie produced by a mainstream Hollywood studio in 1999 when the world was far less trans-friendly than even today. There’s no way they would have OK’d a movie that could only be interpreted as a trans allegory.
It was not intentionally written as such, no.
Fully intentional:
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53692435
Except:
Okay weird. The BBC article reads totally different and there’s a lot of statements put into a new context.
Yeah. People often try interpret creative works in unique ways that the author didn’t intend. Doesn’t make the experience and impact on the reader/viewer any less important.
Whatever, it’s a better retcon than everything J.K.Rowling said about Harry Potter.
The Matrix having a bunch of trans themes > Dumbledore having a throbbing gay sex backstory and the 1 jewish student being named Goldstein.
The Matrix actually supports those themes and readings within the work.
Please note that I’m not applying personal opinion to the matter, rather just trying to provide the directors own context because it is their own work.
Also JK Rowling is a hack.
No, there was reading material attached to the script and it was mostly metaphysical and philosophy. Not sure the watchowskis actually understood what they wrote by the end of 3, they maintained it wasn’t ALL the matrix even though that seems to be what they wrote and fits with the books they pulled inspiration from
What do you mean, there’s only 1 Matrix movie? Do you mean the Animatrix?
Not the entire thing but there were some characters in there that were meant to be trans. Switch, for example, but the studios cut it.
Given the watchowskis are trans, I’d say “not intentionally, but DEFINITELY subconsciously”
No, it’s fully intentional.
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-53692435
From that article:
They weren’t consciously making it a trans allegory. And, the studio would never have accepted it if that was all it was. In retrospect it’s obvious that that was a major influence in the story they were telling. And, they’re happy that in the present people are interpreting it that way. But, it wasn’t as intentional as people like to claim, and that’s far from the only possible interpretation.
yes they said so in retrospect, but it wasn’t really deliberate at the time