Scripts, scripts, scripts!

Who wants a copy and pastable version of three Renegade Cut episodes? You do! Or you might not. I won't tell you how to live your life. Here they are, free of charge.

THE MATRIX

 AUDIO 1
 The Matrix is a computer simulation of reality in a post-apocalyptic world ruled by artificially intelligent machines. The human resistance rescues enslaved human beings from this simulation. Morpheus, a major figure in the resistance, rescues Neo and explains that a prophecy foretells of a being called The One. This individual will act as their savior. Neo is obviously a messianic figure, but in spite of a character calling him “my own personal Jesus Christ” – Neo more closely resembles a more Gnostic Messiah.    
  In mainstream Christianity, Jesus Christ saved humanity from its sins. Gnosticism is more concerned with ignorance as humanity's largest problem. Ignorance of the true, less benevolent nature of our creator. Though the religious and philosophical references are pervasive and frequent, none build into a cohesive allegory, and many of them appear and disappear without much to say. This seems to be intentional, as The Matrix is more concerned with questioning rather than answering. That is not a failing. Philosophy often trades more in proposals and hypotheses more than exact resolutions and conclusions.    
  AUDIO 2  
 In this scene, Neo opens a copy of Simulacra and Simulation by modern philosopher Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation discusses images and signs, and how they relate to our contemporary society. The book argues that late 20th century consumer culture and pop culture is a world in which simulations of reality have become more real than reality itself, a condition that he describes as the “hyper-real.” He believes we have replaced reality and meaning with symbols and signs, and in this abstract sense, what we know as reality actually is a simulation of reality. A video game is a simulacra of the experience that it replicates, for example. He called the loss of genuine connection the “desert of the real” – referenced in this scene by Morpheus. Baudrillard considered this artificiality, this unrealness a system of control, but this system is never given form.    
 If the artificial way we have constructed reality is a system of control, we have created – we have endorsed – and we are purposefully perpetuating it. Life is only as unreal as we have decided it should be. The Matrix evolves Baudrillard's concept, much to his chagrin according to interviews, by giving this system of control a face and a purpose: the machines. They have given humanity a false reality in order to benefit themselves, but, the film notes, we created the machines. We create the systems of control and endorse them and take on whatever benefits and consequences that come from them. “Control” is not an ethereal force, it is something we make, for better or worse.       
 
 AUDIO 3
 The Matrix dips its toes in a variety of philosophies, some that contradict one another, but the atmosphere of the film and the positions of the narrative – whether intentional or unintentional – conjure up the notion of radical skepticism: the idea that all knowledge is likely impossible. In The Matrix, Morpheus asks Neo if he has ever had a dream so vivid that he thought it was real, and if so, how could be tell the real world from the dream world? In the narrative, Morpheus is teaching Neo the truth, but thematically, he is leading the audience down the dangerous road of radical skepticism – one of the most fundamentally difficult challenges that philosophers face. Radical skepticism suggests that we do not have an adequate ability to distinguish appearance from reality. Its easiest to explain through the allegory of Plato's Cave, in which captives mistakenly believe that shadows are all of the universe because they have seen nothing else.   
 Similarly, Neo has only experienced The Matrix since birth, and having never seen anything outside of it, assumes The Matrix is organic and natural rather than artificial. Other philosophers over the centuries have posited comparable thought experiments and have had comparable ideas about the inability within human beings to adequately perceive reality. In its strongest form, radical skepticism would even suggest that any knowledge is impossible, and since “radical” skepticism is certainly not casual skepticism by definition, one assumes that such a viewpoint would reach that extreme. In other words, in the eyes of radical skepticism, the plot of The Matrix is a possibility.   
 AUDIO 4
 Rene Descartes famously proposed a thought experiment commonly called The Evil Demon. In this, Descartes invoked radical skepticism, saying that we cannot be certain of our reality. Translating to English, Descartes asked “Now, we're not talking court-of-law reasonable doubt here—we're talking tiniest possible shred of logical doubt. I go so far as to envision a scenario in which an all-powerful demon is deliberately concerned to deceive me as far as he possibly can. Is there anything I can still know? Can I be certain there is a world out there—is there actually a table in front of me? No—this could all be a hallucination caused by the evil demon.”  
 In The Matrix, we are actually seeing this in action. The Evil Demon takes form in the machines, specifically Agent Smith, the principle antagonist. The malicious machines, much as Descartes suggested, are deliberately deceiving what remains of humankind. Descartes' proposal in radical skepticism was modernized in the first half of the 20th century by philosopher Gilbert Harman who said more or less the same but used the example of a brain in a vat that was fed stimuli rather than something as magical as a demon. It was then further elaborated upon by The Matrix of all things. In this case, it is not only a suspended brain but the entire body. The radical skeptic would find this reasonable enough in spite of how ludicrous it sounds.  
  AUDIO 5  
  The statement “We don't know anything” is intellectually disastrous because by that logic, taking it to its extremes, it casts knowledge itself as something that may not be worthwhile. It is existentially disastrous as well, because if taken in by radical skepticism, then one might conclude that if nothing is known, then maybe nothing matters. Philosophy does not exist in a vacuum. It affects how people see the universe, and in turn, how people behave in said universe. There are, in fact, a lot of problems with radical skepticism, especially as it relates to existential matters.  
  Suppose someone tells you that you are a brain in a vat. Why should you give such a reason any validity? If you are a brain in a vat, then this person who tells you that you are does not exist. He is only stimuli. Someone telling you that are are a brain in a vat is just another deceptive, fake experience from within your brain in a vat. But if you are not a brain in a vat – and let's get real here, you're almost certainly not – then you should not accept this evidence. In either case, you should ignore the brain in a vat hypothesis brought about by radical skepticism. The Matrix solves or perhaps “avoids” this issue by having those who deliver the revelation to Neo be people who live outside the false world and therefore are no longer fooled by the simulation. And radical skeptics would use that as a counter-argument, but frankly, if a radical skepticism thought experiment requires world building and supporting characters, it is probably too unwieldy to stand up on its own.  
  AUDIO 6  
 Skepticism, in general, is methodologically important. Reasonable skepticism challenges our theories and knowledge and demands that we “test” said theories. Reasonable, scientific skepticism is not the same as radical skepticism. That is important to understand. Radical skepticism, taken to its extreme, dismisses “knowing” anything, and even if true, becomes impractical to day-to-day life. A “consensus” reality is necessary for simply interacting with people. In The Matrix, when on the Nebecanezzar, Neo, Morpheus and everyone else agrees that this is the real world and work from that assumption until proven otherwise. They do not enter the real world and still maintain radical skepticism. And no, there is no Matrix within a Matrix. If the Matrix were within another Matrix, why would the machines let humanity know about its true enemy in the first place? Why wouldn't the second Matrix simply be another pleasant reality? So, let's just...not.  
  But that's the danger of radical skepticism, isn't it? Never being satisfied with answers that have a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up so long as there is a preposterous alternative with virtually no evidence. Frankly, an extremist position of radical skepticism only requires a more reasonable skepticism in order to poke holes in it. There is a belief among some people that we are most likely living in a simulated reality right now. The idea is that human beings will be able to build artificial realities like in The Matrix one day, and that reality will build its own artificial reality, and so on, ad infinitum. So, what are the odds we are living in the real world and not one of countless artificial realities?  
  AUDIO 7  
 Now, if one were easily taken in by such things, said person would say “Oooh, that blew my mind!” but this hypothesis makes huge leaps in logic. It assumes that humankind will definitely be able to create an artificial universe so precise that its inhabitants could not tell the difference. It assumes that humankind would exist so long in the future that such technology would be possible. It assumes that said artificial universe would be so flawless that there could never be a glitch. It assumes that the computers that the “real world” uses would never have an error or be turned on even once. It assumes the creators of such universes would never even attempt to make contact – ever.    
 But some people really believe that. When Morpheus explains the nature of The Matrix to Neo, that his life has been a lie, Neo is understandably upset. Yet, he quickly accepts this when one would assume Neo would be so paranoid that he would question everything else that ever happens to him from then on. To be unable to take anything that one perceives – to doubt everything without any exception – would lead to insanity. Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein called radical skepticism into question for this reason, saying “If you tried to doubt everything, you wouldn't get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty. … For, a doubt that doubted everything would not even be a doubt.”     
  AUDIO 8  
 Radical skepticism can often lead to the thought that maybe nothing has value. It is not a coincidence that Neo's aforementioned Simulacra and Simulation copy opens up to the chapter “On Nihilism”. In his copy, it's in the middle so we can see it. In the real book, it's at the end. However, The Matrix absolutely does not take such a position. The machines are the system of control, but the humans are characters of value, even faith. Neo is the Messiah. Trinity's name is related to Christianity, the belief that God is three consubstantial persons or hypostases. The three main characters form this union. The ship's name, the Nebuchadnezzar, refers to a Biblical figure whose dream is interpreted by Daniel. The last human city is called Zion.  
 Morpheus is a mythological god of dreams in The Metamorphoses by the Roman poet Ovid. Morpheus' question to Neo about not knowing the difference between dreams and reality is in reference to this. The Oracle is a figure that reoccurs in many cultures, but the film showing a blind man just before seeing seeing this Oracle connects her to the blind Tiresias of Oedipus Rex. Those who work for the resistance are associated with religion, with spirituality, with mythology and art, with things that people value. Events occur in the film that are attributed to miracles and cannot be explained otherwise.  
  AUDIO 9  
  The Matrix travels in the realms of radical skepticism, but that is not its home. Radical skepticism is the byproduct of the narrative and expanding upon Simulacra and Simulation, but I believe that the film's more spiritual and life-affirming aspects are more substantive. Sometimes a piece of art intended to be positive or even innocuous can sometimes accidentally embolden “toxic” worldviews. The Matrix presents humanity as luminous beings, blessed with intelligence and decency, and worth saving.  
 

ON THE SILVER GLOBE:

 AUDIO 1
 On the Silver Globe is a science fiction film directed by Andrzej Żuławski. Three astronauts leave Earth in hopes of finding freedom, a better way to live, somewhere else. In the novel from which this was adapted, the implication is that they land on the moon, but in the film is not as explicit. The astronauts attempt to build a new civilization. Years pass, and one astronaut, Jerzy, is called The Old Man by the new society, revered as a god. Jerzy sends his recordings and findings back to Earth in a rocket. Another astronaut, Marek, receives the recordings and travels to the planet. We is welcomed as the Messiah, who must free the people from the Szerns, a race of raven or crow monsters.    
  Marek leads an army to battle the Szerns, but the people start to suspect Marek is only a man and not a divine figure. He is crucified. Approximately 20% of the film does not exist. On the Silver Globe is incomplete. During stretches of the film that require explanation about what would have been filmed, narration is spoken over footage of people riding down escalators or walking on the sidewalk. Even the ending is narration rather than a grand finale. Because of this, the audience is forced to pay careful attention to understand the plot.  
  AUDIO 2  
  The gaps in the film have a lot to do with its troubled production. Zulwaski originally left his native Poland to shoot an earlier movie in France for fear that his work would be censored by the Polish government. Upon seeing that film, Poland reevaluated him and asked him to return. When he did, he shot On the Silver Globe, but long into its production, a new vice-minister of cultural affairs interpreted the battle between Marek's army and the Szerns as an allegory for the Polish struggle with totalitarianism. The film was ordered to be destroyed, but the crew saved much of it in their homes. It was released – still incomplete – about a decade later in 1988.  
  The history of post-war Poland is full of communist influence, rigged elections and general political strife. It's not hard to see why one would make the connection between what was going on in the director's country and what happens in the film. In the beginning, the astronauts speak of...freedom. They have come to this new planet to be free, but they speak in abstract philosophy and pontificate in grandiose, complicated language, navel-gazing all the way. At least according to the English subtitles.  
  [clip]  
  AUDIO 3  
  Their vague pronouncements of freedom is actually quite apt because “freedom” is a complicated term. In the strictest sense, freedom is the power or right to speak and act as one wants, but “freedom” as it relates to the government is trickier. Libertarians would say that the only true freedom is lack of government, lack of bureaucracy, lack of control, lack of oversight and lack of regulation. But this creates a situation in which people can be harmed by this lack of support from their government. If someone is poisoned by something that was not properly regulated by their government, that person is not more “free” – if someone loses their home because the government did not properly regulate the housing market, this newly homeless person is not more “free”.    
  Freedom can be a paradox. Perhaps the astronauts are not talking about the government, though. Maybe the Polish vice minister of cultural affairs had it wrong. Maybe the astronauts are referring to freedom from social constraints, cultural constraints, religious constraints, even human constraints. On the Silver Globe concerns itself with what it means to be fundamentally human – the core of what we are, our central nature that cannot be escaped. The astronauts land on a new planet and say goodbye to the ways of Earth, but immediately afterward, they have created a new religion that is not unlike the one they left behind. The people see them as gods.  
  AUDIO 4  
  The next astronaut, Marek, is seen as the Messiah, the chosen one who will deliver them from their enemies. If the film is concerned with the foundation of religion, one can't help but determine that On the Silver Globe suggests that theistic religion is founded on ignorance. The astronauts are definitely not gods, not messiahs, not anything. The people of the planet simply do not understand space travel enough to make a rational, scientific conclusion that the astronauts are mortal and are no more or less  divine than themselves. When Marek finds the planet, it only needs to vaguely resemble the prophecy of the messiah in order for the people to believe in him. Ignorance, the film seems to say, is fundamentally human. Also, the astronauts do not exactly do a lot to dissaude these beliefs. The film condemns them for perpetuating this ignorance.  
  The astronauts want to escape the trappings of Earth, but it is not long after their arrival before a great ignorance has spread and war has broken out. If there is war on Earth, and humans leave Earth to escape it only to create a situation that leads to war, then one could argue that from this perspective, violence is also fundamentally human. If the astronauts take their humanity with them, then it is not the systems of Earth – the governments and such – that create these damning qualities, it is humanity. It is the fundamental nature of humanity.  
  [clip]  
  AUDIO 5  
 In the face of a rotting Earth, is there any way to restart humanity without inevitably arriving at the worst of our ignorance and aggression? Are these qualities embedded in us? As natural as the feathers on birds or scales on fish? The film answers “Yes.” Characters in the film scream into the void, damning their own existence as meaningless. On the Silver Globe might be political, as the Polish government feared. It shows government is be corruptible, after all, but it is far more about the internal workings of people than the external governments – far more about the frightening nature of humankind.  People often believe in what is called human exceptionalism, the idea that humanity is extraordinary in some way, compared to other species. In the final part of the film, Marek – mistakenly believed to be the divine savior of this planet – understands that the exceptionalism of humanity is as much a myth as himself.    
  The director had no interest in instilling this exceptionalism in his characters or even giving it to his audience. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Exceptionalism often leads to people assuming their alleged importance is tied to the correctness of their actions. In one scene, a character refers to “the end of faith” – now that the prophetic age is over, all that is left what has come – this Messiah – a man who can be killed. When the astronauts say they want to be free, what they mean is that they want to be free of humanity. Not free of a particular government or a particular religion. The film has a wider scope than that. They want to be free of all humankind and its violent, ignorant ways. But they can't. …. They can travel to another world, but they will still bring their humanity with them, with all the good and evil that comes with it.    

DONALD TRUMP DOESN'T UNDERSTAND CITIZEN KANE:

 AUDIO 1
 When I heard Donald Trump's favorite movie was Citizen Kane, I thought “Well, at least he has good taste.” But at a glance, it's kind of comical, isn't it? Donald Trump, a man who wants everyone to know he is incredibly wealthy, has a favorite movie in which the protagonist is incredibly wealthy. It's a joke, right? … In 2002, Trump was interviewed for a discarded documentary about his favorite movie, and after watching his description, it becomes clear that Donald Trump doesn't understand Citizen Kane. [fade]
 AUDIO 2
 Throughout this interview, which is presented more like a monologue, Trump says he identifies with Kane. It's a little troubling, on face value, that Trump relates so much to a lying egomaniac, especially since he appears to be unaware of some of the negatives. He says of Kane's complete and utter humiliation and emotional destruction: “And there was a modest fall. The fall wasn’t a financial fall.” In the film, Charles Foster Kane alienates everyone in his life, ruins his reputation, blames others for his misfortunes and ends up isolated in his mansion, dying with nothing but regrets – but Trump calls this a modest fall. That's how he describes Kane losing everything that is truly important. That's how he explains Kane's inability to make someone love him. That's how blind he is to Kane's hubris and how Kane only loves himself. Just woman troubles and a “modest fall.”   
 AUDIO 3
 The trouble Charles Foster Kane has is not because of a bad marriage, and it's not a case of “more money, more problems.” as Trump suggests. The trouble is he’s empty and hollow. He ends up alone, living in his cavernous, unfinished mansion – representative of himself, an incomplete person. For the average viewer, he is a cautionary tale. To Trump, Kane is himself, and he misinterprets and misunderstands his cinematic double with such enthusiasm that it is almost sad. He stumbles through the interview about his favorite movie in his typical broken, disjointed, mad libs style, particularly when he says so much about NOTHING on Rosebud.  
  [clip]
 AUDIO 4

OK, enough of Trump's word salad. There are noticeable comparisons between them. Both became wealthy at a young age. After a gold mine is discovered on her property, Kane's mother sends him away to be educated in the finest schools. Trump was born into a wealthy family. His father gave him what Trump called a “very small loan” to start his business. Trump said it was actually a million dollars, but The Wall Street Journal uncovered he actually owed his father $14 million. Both had multiple wives and have been accused of extramarital affairs. Both ran for political office as an alleged populist. Both hang their names everywhere. Both promised to jail their political opponents, promises that went unfulfilled for differing reasons. They both yearn for some happier past — Kane to his childhood, and his mother's love and Trump to much darker, violent ideas about the so-called good old days.    
 And both keep, let's say, questionable company. There are massive differences as well, but Donald Trump does not talk about any MEANINGFUL comparisons in his interview – his speech – about Citizen Kane. If he did, that would mean he would be self-aware and contemplative, and I do not believe those are qualities he possesses. Those would be the qualities of a mature person, not a permanent child.
 [Cooper]
 AUDIO 5
 The way Trump describes Charles Foster Kane, he seems to believe that the man is a victim of circumstance, a victim of external forces outside of his control, even a victim of women. Trump does not see that Kane victimized others. He does not see Kane's lies and propaganda as such. He does not see that Kane was a philanderer, a liar, a narcissist. He does not see that Kane was broken. Trump says he sees himself in Kane, but his remarks about that are highly superficial. He's in the dark, much like the journalist characters whose job it is to uncover what really made Kane tick. Charles Foster Kane was a man who had love as a child, and when it was taken away, he spent the rest of his life trying to recapture it, but instead of showering love, he demanded it of others.
 He demanded the love of women, so he took it under suspicious circumstances. He demanded the love of the people, so his newspaper purposefully spread lies and propaganda to support him. He demanded the love of America, so he ran for political office, less as a public servant and more a demagogue. He demanded the love of his wife, but when he could not have it, he became violent and belligerent. Trump rarely apologizes, rarely admits when he is in error, rarely admits to a lie. He sees himself as besieged by everyone else rather than admit his own wrongdoings. So, his miscasting of Kane as the victim makes sense under this lens.
 [clip of 7:44]
 AUDIO 6
 Maybe it's no surprise that Donald Trump does not understand Charles Foster Kane. He recognizes superficial comparisons between them – the wealth, how money does not buy happiness – but he does not recognize the megalomania and narcissim of Kane because he does not recognize it in himself. If he can't see that he is the monster, why would he be able to see it in his fictional doppleganger? Donald Trump does not understand Citizen Kane because he does not understand compassion. [clip of handicapped] He does not understand decency. [I think Islam hates us] He does not understand boundaries. [grab them] He does not understand empathy. [rapists]
 He does not understand any of Orson Welles' critique of power, the protagonist or even the basic plot of the film. Donald Trump does not understand what his favorite film is even about because if he is Kane, he thinks, how could Kane be wrong?