Controlling Reality: Exploring Ideas of Power in Contemporary Cinema
Nathaniel Pope
June 2005

    Cinema can be defined as a reflection of and reaction to reality, especially when it comes to the depiction of new technologies and expressing the apprehension that modern devices such as computers, artificial intelligence, cybernetic systems, robots, simulated realities, and surveillance technologies possess the inherent and inevitable ability to grant unwanted power to corrupted governments, individuals, and machines. As computers continue to develop and become increasingly integrated into every facet of society, so do people’s fear of losing control and becoming overly dependent on these machines to the point of abrogating not only democracy as known in the United States, but eliminating any and all sense of human superiority over animals and machines. There is hardly a greater example of this developing fear both in society and in the cinema than the parallel between surveillance culture in Enemy of The State (Tony Scott, 1998) and the phenomenon of "simulacra and simulation" in The Matrix (Andy and Larry Wachowski, 1999) and its prequels, sequels, side stories, and video game series. These interconnected and overlapping visions of totalitarian control allow people not only to express, experience and reflect on fears of losing control, but to extend and create them. Together, these films characterize human and machine existence as a constant struggle for control: a simultaneous tension between desire for complete autonomy, resistance to others’ control, and the reality that one is subject to uncontrollable and repressive social powers. While in Enemy of the State corrupted NSA officials use surveillance to violate innocent Americans’ civil liberties, the The Matrix takes this idea one step further in the form of autonomous computer programs and corrupted AI turned against the human race. Despite their differences, both of these films present the idea that our reality is being redefined by computers, reduced to a primordial fight for survival. These mind twisting, action packed, sci-fi adventures of special effects, kung fu, roof top chases, bullet dodging shootouts, explosions, and gadgetry have such resonance in society due to their depiction of rebellion and resistance as defining characteristics of not only what it means to be human, but what it means to be an “intelligent” machine.

    In order to understand why people fear an inevitable struggle between man and machines, presented on the exaggerated scale of the cinema, it is first necessary to breakdown the idea of control, its ideological preconditions, and the effects these notions have on society. Control can best be defined as the power to influence and manipulate the actions of another, whether machine, human, or cyborg, sometimes to the extent of social repression. In these films, technological advancement is the main prerequisite required for corrupt individuals to gain control, despite the fact that new technologies not only have the ability to simultaneously grant more political power to all parties concerned, whether government, business or private individuals, but have in the past. From the printing press to radio, television, and the internet, new forms of media have given numerous individuals a chance to voice their opinions and have lead to numerous civil rights movements and even revolutions. Information technologies have the unique ability to grant exponential amounts of power to its users. The more users there are, the more easily knowledge can spread and the more powerful those ideas become. Hollywood generally ignores this idea when presenting the future of technology. Rather in these films, anytime one entity gains control it is generally at the sake of another. Despite the exaggeration, Hollywood is not completely off base when it comes to ideas of control and its development. In terms of technological progress, Bill Nichols argues that this process is an “ideological contestation” and a “domain devoted to a social theory of power” (639). In other words there are various social factors that determine how a technology contributes to a rise to power. Enemy of the State’s Richard Dean (Will Smith) loses his 4th amendment rights as the government gains control due to corrupt individuals use of advanced technologies. Thomas Reynolds (Jon Voight) and his goons are able to exert force over Mr. Dean not only because the development of technology enabled them to do so, but because they feel that they are acting on behalf of the greater good of national security. Neo (Keanu Reeves) and the rest of humanity “plugged into the Matrix” become slaves in a “computer generated dreamworld” as a result of their inhumane treatment of machines. During the “The Second Renaissance” (episode of The Animatrix ) the machines exact revenge, using their multitudes and superhuman intelligence and strength to rise up against and suppress the tyrannical human race. Yet this technological determinism, founded on the misconception that to possess control is mutually exclusive and only available to those with the means of production, is not the entire story.

    Although control is generally defined and accepted as that of an outside force exerted on a system, it can also be viewed as a built in part of a system that only functions as it was designed to do. This idea is obvious in Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions especially as the Oracle repeatedly explains to Neo that “We’re all here to do what we’re all here to do.” Computer programs were designed by their creators, whether human or machine, with a designated function in mind and certain, unalterable, levels of control. Simultaneously, however, these films also embody society’s fear that computer programs will take on a life of their own, inevitably resist human authority, and ultimately “grow beyond” human control as shown through Smith’s nihilistic character. Matrix Reloaded extends this idea even further as the Smith program, originally created by the machines as an agent whose job it is to maintain their system of control over humans, evolves into a freethinking virus whose sole purpose is to replicate and survive. As time passes, his emotions become more and more human. He first develops a desire to exact revenge on Neo for defeating him, but eventually experiences emotions of fear, anger and sadness all the while continuing to pursue his “purpose,” although altered, as a result of a built-in control mechanism. His statement that “there’s no escaping reason” and “no denying purpose” exemplifies the common concern that machines will develop a traditionally human desire for world domination. Smith’s purpose, just like man’s is to resist control.

    In Enemy of the State, the idea of predefined control is less obvious but nonetheless present in the idea that American society was founded on ideas of democracy which were embedded in the constitution as a form of control. Any attempt to usurp these principles whether murder, coverup schemes or other violations of so called “natural” laws through surveillance technologies or any other means goes against this mechanism. Mr. Reynold’s use of unilateral authority and his desire to eliminate privacy in the name of national security presents itself as entirely undemocratic and a coverup for more corrupt surveillance practices. Mr. Dean is forced away from his family, friends, and job during Christmas as a result of Mr. Reynold’s use of technology and his perception that Mr. Dean would use “sensitive information” to undermine his power. As a result, Mr Dean loses all control of his life. At this point, he will do anything to get his life back, his sole desire to survive and to protect his family.  Concurrently, constitutional ideals kick in to bring society back to hegemonic equilibrium and inherent principles. In sum, democracy is a form of control that was built into the constitution that allows individuals and society as a whole to return to these principles of law and order, fairness and equality, and liberty and justice for all if ever jeopardized. This rhetorical strategy is highly motivating, appealing to viewers’ sense of patriotism. 

    Similarly, ideas of justice and equality suggest that control is neither a completely technological nor social function, but rather a composite meshwork of the two, grounded in perceptions of reality. Both Mr. Dean and Neo think that they are in control of their lives until they come to learn the “horrifying” truth that they have never had the control that they once thought. Nonetheless, the perception of control is real, identical to control, until it is lost. New technologies not only function to enable transformations of reality, but to redefine notions of control. To possess or to lack control is neither a completely enabling nor completely disabling condition, the extent of which can further be explained by Noah Wardrip-Fruin in his examination of Norbert Weiner’s theories of cybernetics, a study of “communication and control in the animal and machine.” Wardrip-Fruin contends that “communication and control involve power differentials and have physical manifestations, to be sure” and thus could be defined by their social affects similar to Nichols’ position, “but are more akin to the workings of a digital computer: most observable, not with a voltage meter or the gaze of the naked eye, but from the inside, from within the system” (65). Accordingly, it is only by analyzing the workings of a cybernetic system and imbedded principles of “regulatory feedback,” i.e. control, from within, that the reality of these “power differentials” reveals itself and in the process gives an explanation as to why these films are so popular: control is an intangible part of an endless cycle of man-to-man, man-to-computer, and computer-to-computer abstractions and symbioses.

    In Enemy of the State, only the first two of these abstractions apply as the relationship between entities of control is generally one of government-citizen and government-citizen-computer interaction, with actual power generally flowing down this hierarchal gradient as a result of a similar flow of technological knowhow. This is the representation of control as a simultaneous technological and social function that serves to motivate the characters. Again, to have control is both enabling and disabling. To have control grants immediate authority to its recipient and disabling to those without it. Initially, technology grants Mr. Reynolds great amounts of power, displacing Mr. Dean and his family and friends. Although control is legally shared between citizens and government officials through an intricate system of checks and balances, in which the people are crucial to maintain democracy, the film demonstrates a common dystopian belief that the government will gain too much power with the help of technology. As a result, the common citizen will be become helpless to defend against crime, corruption, murder and other insurmountable injustices, despite the desire to do so. However, on another level, a lack of control is an enabling condition that allows those who are without it to strive to obtain it according to human nature. For example, as the film progress Mr. Dean’s diminishing control becomes the incentive he needs to reclaim freedom and democracy. Yet this is not without the help of an insider, “Brill” (Gene Hackman), an ex-NSA agent, communications expert, and explosives enthusiast, banished after years of loyal service for no just cause. Together they restore democracy (constitutional control) by using what Brill refers to as “guerilla warfare.” They use  the NSA’s surveillance equipment to turn the tables against this corrupt “surveillance society.” In his essay “Constituents of a Theory of the Media,” Hans Magnus Enzensberger refers to this action as “reverse circuitry,” and endorses this as a means of exacting political change, a “revolutionary plan” that doesn’t require the “manipulators to disappear” but, allows everyone to become a manipulator (265). However, this process also endorses technological determinism in that Mr. Dean and Brill must use surveillance technologies in the exact fashion they were used against them in order to create a “reverse circuitry” to defeat their enemies. In his “Requiem for the Media” Jean Baudrillard directly opposes Enzensberger’s notion of “reverse circuitry” suggesting that this means of resisting control is in fact counterproductive. Dedicated to an intermediate ideality and a blind social practice, the “mode of communication” has had the leisure for an entire century of “making revolution” without changing the theory of the mode of production one iota in the process. (278)

    Baudrillard implies that there are means of exacting social change besides adopting the dominant “mode of communication.” In the context of Enemy of the State, this suggests that perhaps Mr. Dean and Brill use ineffective and hypocritical means of resisting corruption and exacting change. In some ways there is no change, but in many ways there is as these two men use government officials’ televison sets to communicate the need for change and to draw attention to the fact that the technology can be used to invade one’s privacy. Accordingly, the film concludes with Brill’s presentation of surveillance, spying on Mr. Dean from a beach resort. Perhaps the film is popular for the reason that it is enjoyable to see a “happy” ending where the antagonist is defeated by their own weapons. Yet the film also ends suggesting that citizens can only regain control by these means.   

    While Enemy of the State presents surveillant technologies as the only means to gain control, The Matrix series explicitly questions these ideas of control, proposing that power is rooted in a “Man-computer symbiosis,” (Licklider) and not subject to ideas of totalitarian control. This idea evolves as the series progresses and is especially apparent in Reloaded during Neo’s late night encounter with Councilor Hamann and their discussion of control on the engineering level of Zion. In this scene, Hamann explains to Neo how he feels as “plugged” into the machines they use to maintain survival as those people “plugged” into the matrix. While Neo contends that humans control machines in the sense that they have the ability to shut them down, Hamann astutely points out that in order to remove the influence of computers on any and all facets of everyday life, people would have to shut them down completely. If this were to happen, life would drastically change, or in the extreme case of the Matrix it would end. People in Zion need the machines for their basic survival as without it they would have no air, water or power. The conversation further demonstrates that although humans do not have complete control over machines, they do rely on them to survive and thus it is better to submit to living with them and to learn how to do so as symbiotically as possible rather than resisting their very existence and in the process hindering our own. Although this idea is frightening to many, it fuels the film’s popularity because it demonstrates how to accept machines and to understand their potential to improve life, rather than feeling intimidated by their very existence. As Hamann notes, it is not crucial to understand how machines and computers work as long as one “understands the reason” that they work just as Hamann wants to understand why Neo has the power he does “before it is too late.” People need not understand why computers work, only that they do because of their ability to help society. People flock to this film for its ability to show the reality of computers, commanding  attention, fear, and respect for their coexistence with society. By the end of Revolutions Neo has helped to achieve this balance and equality between the two.

    At this point, one must ask oneself why films about symbiotic relationships with computers are so popular. The answer is control– of the viewer. Films like the Matrix series and Enemy of the State command attention and remain popular not only as a result of the seductive power of their own images but also because of the way in which they depict the evolution of our perceptions of reality and our apprehension that life is changing irrevocably into a state of cybernetic existence. Our dependence on computers in all facets of our life fuels the apprehension that we are becoming overly dependant on computers and in affect are becoming bound to various computerized devices. Yet this idea is not old as anytime new technologies have the ability to change one’s life, these struggles will occur. The cinema helps to show how to deal with these natural fears of being irrevocably changed by advocating a mutual existence with computers and other information technologies. Society must continually make room for new ideas allowing existence to be redefined not only in order to coexist with machines, but in order to fully embrace a cybernetic future.

    In conclusion, films like Enemy of the State and The Matrix that present the rebellion of computers intensify public anxieties about securing control over the future of technology while demonstrating that humans never consciously accept control without resistence. These films are tremendously popular, especially with younger generations, not only because they embody our fear and resistence to a cybernetic future, but because they reject fear as a suitable reason to hinder the development of technology, offering coexistence and acceptance that reality is changing as the ultimate solution. In the process, these films suggest that the only way to live with technology is to accept the idea that computers will never be able to be completely controlled. The resulting message, intended or not can be summed up by Norbert Weiner who stated that “If we want to live with the machine, we must understand the machine, we must not worship the machine” (72) As technologies continue to evolve, society will continue to lose control over individual components of these devices, however, as Councillor Hamann suggested, we need not understand how individual components of computer hardware works only the overall result of these workings. As Mr Dean’s wife suggests, eternal vigilance in which everyone monitors everyone else and an understanding of the entire process of surveillance is necessary in order to embrace the democratic potential of these devices. That said, “There will nevertheless be a fairly long interim during which the main intellectual advances will be made by men and computers working together in intimate association” (Licklider 75) just as Neo and the Source work together to ultimately restore freewill and save humanity.  


Bibliography

Agre, Philip E. “Surveillance and Capture.” The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2003. 737-760.

Baudrillard, Jean. “Requiem for the Media.” The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2003. 277-288.

---. Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1995

Enemy of The State. Tony Scott. DVD. Touchstone Home Video, 1998.

Enzensberger, Hans Magnus. “Constituents of a Theory of the Media.” The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2003. 261-275.

Evans, Dylan. Introducing Evolutionary Psychology. Cambridge: Totem Books, 2000.

Kelly, Kevin. Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines, Social Systems, and the Economic World New York: Perseus Books Group, 1994.

Levin, Thomas Y., et al., eds. Ctrl Space: Rhetorics of Surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2002.

Licklider, Joseph Carl Robnett. “Man-Computer Symbiosis.” The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2003. 73-82.

Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001.

The Matrix. Andy and Larry Wachowski. DVD. Warner Studios, 1999.        

The Matrix Reloaded. Andy and Larry Wachowski. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2003.

The Matrix Revolutions. Andy and Larry Wachowski. DVD. Warner Home Video, 2004.

Nichols, Bill. “The Work of Culture in the Age of Cybernetic Systems.” The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2003. 625-641.

Weiner, Norbert. “Men, Machines, and the World About.” The New Media Reader. Ed. Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Nick Montfort. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2003. 67-72.

Zizek, Slavoj. “The Matrix, or the Two Sides of Perversion.” The Matrix and philosophy. Ed. Irwin, William. Illinois: Carus Publishing Company, 2002.   


The author would also like to thank Alex Olenick, Kyle Ravreby, Stephanie Tiaden, Peter Krapp, and Chris Roncal  whose vital support and conversations made the article possible.