They Live & The Matrix

Film posters for They Live (left) and The Matrix (right)

Comparing and contrasting They Live and The Matrix - What does it mean to "see" ideology?

Our reality is not always what it appears to be, but is structured by the ideology that surrounds us. Both films explore this concept in similar ways and thus are excellent examples for the power ideology holds over us. They Live (1988) and The Matrix (1999), despite being released over a decade apart, tell the same story: a man is taught about the true nature of reality and is thus forced to struggle against the overwhelming power of ideology with the hope of possibly liberating his fellow subjects. Simultaneously, the differences between the two are significant, especially in how they handle the role of the revolutionary subject and the nature of overcoming the control of ideology.

The revolutionary proletarian subject - They Live and the struggle against ideology

The plot of They Live is essentially a proto-Matrix that reflects both the director's political leftism and the social climate of the late 80's. The protagonist is John Nada (played by Roddy Piper) is a homeless drifter forced to travel from city to city in search of work. For the first act of the film, the only known characters are of a distinctly impoverished status. This sets the stage for the resulting elements of class struggle, in which the proletarian Nada struggles against the powers that secretly control society. 

This is the first aspect of differentiation between the two films. While The Matrix positions its protagonist as a sort of middle-class office worker, They Live is unequivocal in its political convictions. The police, instead of being just another means of suppression, are the primary means of disciplining the working class, as they demolish the shantytown and attack those who speak out against the controlling ideology. 

Essentially, the struggle against ideology is not something that is happened upon, as it is portrayed in The Matrix, but instead is the necessary result of the proletarian condition itself. Although a "spark" is needed to ignite the flame of revolution, the ultimate instrument of change comes from within the margins of the system, not from the "enlightened outsider" that is emphasized in The Matrix. 

The sublime nature of ideology

One of the most enduring scenes from the film is its portrayal of reality "sans ideology." For a film like The Matrix, there is essentially nothing to see when ideology is removed, as everything is illusory, but for They Live, ideology is wholly entwined with daily life.

The impact of ideology, therefore, is almost entirely subliminal and operates below the surface of our conscious understanding. We are lulled into a state of passivity because all aspects of our society encourage a set of values that promote docility: obedience, consumerism and conformity. The subject of ideology thus is unaware of his or her position within the ideological structure itself, as behavior is conditioned and reinforced consistently, with the only disruptions coming from rebellious factions and being physically painful to experience. The moment of severance from ideology, like in The Matrix, is not pleasant, but instead violent and completely alien to one's normal experiences. 

Both films are also similar in their portrayal of the oppressive force behind the ideological shift as being alien (either literally or more figuratively) and having interests completely counter to that of the human race as a whole. For They Live, the oppositional force are aliens that have come to exploit the people and resources of Earth, an allusion to the predatory behaviors of multinational corporations in their dealings with the third world. As is discovered by Nada, the aliens themselves are the masters of the world, but not fully removed from, instead walking among us as the physical enforcers of the illusory ideological apparatus.

The chosen one - individual and collective struggle against ideology

While both films essentially center around one single person whose actions bring down the ideological apparatus that governs society, the differences in character between them make the various perspectives on ideology all the more apparent. For The Matrix, the ability to resist ideology is something that is almost solipsistic on Neo's part: he is enlightened and knows the truth, thus can bend the world to his will. For Nada, there is no real power to his newfound knowledge, in fact, it alienates him from his former friends and forces him to become a criminal, but his resistance comes from a general spirit of necessity: things cannot keep going as they are now. 

 

The Matrix's hero is positioned as the subject of a grand, historically inevitable narrative: as the chosen one, Neo will bring down the reign of the machines and destroy the matrix, but yet in the film his mortality and agency are emphasized more than ever. On the other hand, there is no grand destiny in store for Nada, yet he is stronger and more invincible than interstellar imperialism. This dissonance can only be resolved through a synthesis of both perspectives, in which the inevitable collapse of ideology is the result of contradictions within ideology itself, yet still the result of the historically necessary subject's own free will. 

The conclusion of both films places Nada's actions as ultimately in contrast to Neo's. Nada dies with his (and the viewer's) faith that change will occur with the collapse of the ideological apparatus into its constituent contradictions, but Neo's position at the end of The Matrix is one of almost ironic acceptance of ideology. On one hand, Neo continues to struggle against the current ideology, but not ideology itself, as he has essentially mastered it and is using it as a tool. This is a far cry from the early Neo who had neither the knowledge to fight the matrix or the skills to use it to his advantage. In many ways, Neo has adopted the ideas of the machines, believing that he himself is the chosen one and that the ordinary person has no real capacity for understanding the broad ideological underpinnings of society. 

This ultimately leads logically to examine the famous "red pill / blue pill" scene in which Neo is forced to choose between reality and illusion. Neo's choice of the red pill shows the result of a complete loss of ideology, especially when ideology itself structures the reality one is used to experiencing. Without ideology, Neo is reduced to an infantile state in which everything he knew must be discarded and reconstructed from the ground up. This is the power of ideology.

Conclusion

The greatest source of unity between the two films is an underlying and pervasive sense of hope. Hope in the power of knowledge, hope in the power of resistance, hope of revolution in the face of immense power. For the disenfranchised subject, the metaphorical red pill or sunglasses is only the first step, the second being action. Knowledge of the problem is not enough the bring about change, but the raw, physical pain of being disassociated from the reality one knows -- and being thrust into a new, post-ideological state -- is enough to make anything but resistance impossible, as one cannot hope to return to their original state of ignorance. The death of ideology in both films is thus a new rebirth, but a chaotic rebirth. Instead of the security and certainty provided by the ideological structure, both protagonists must simultaneously struggle against the now revealed ideological apparatus while also adapting to a new reality that is free from the ideological considerations that made life prior comfortable and familiar.