The Matrix depicts a late twentieth century version of Earth where machines have taken over and are using humans as a power source, while having them experience life via a virtual simulation called the Matrix. The protagonist of the story Neo, or the One, has been recently awakened from the Matrix and is destined to free humanity. Following its 1999 release, a multitude of articles have been written about the film, each analyzing the meaning and implications of it in different ways. In one of these articles, “Mastering the Real: Trinity as the ‘Real’ Hero of The Matrix,” author G. Christopher Williams explores the idea that it is Trinity, not Neo, who is the true hero of the film.
While Williams effectively utilizes primary and secondary evidence to support his claim, there are structural problems relating to his thesis and balance that make his argument difficult to follow[Good thesis statement. ]. Williams’ use of secondary evidence is effective throughout his article, as he uses it alongside primary evidence in supporting his claim that Trinity is the true hero of The Matrix[Confusing topic sentence.
According to Real Texts: Reading and Writing Across the Disciplines, secondary evidence is defined as “the research that was conducted by other writers,” while primary evidence in the humanities is defined as “the literary or cultural artifact being examined, such as a novel, painting of movie” (Ward and Vander Lei 12). Williams uses both primary and secondary evidence when referring to the philosophies of Jean Baudrillard, as his research is alluded to throughout the film.
Williams notes one of these allusions, writing, “Neo [draws] a copy of Simulacra and Simulation from a shelf in an early scene and [allows] the audience to see its title clearly” (Williams 6). By referring to the scene in the film where Baudrillard’s book is presented, Williams is making the connection between Jean Baudrillard and The Matrix clear. By noting that the title was made clear to the audience of the film, Williams is showing that the book and the teachings within it correspond with the plot of the film and are therefore a credible form of secondary evidence.
Are you talking about secondary or primary evidence in these sentences? It’s a little confusing. ]This use of primary evidence, or evidence that comes from the movie, serves to strengthen Williams use of secondary evidence on Baudrillard to come. Williams writes, quoting Douglas Kellner as secondary evidence[Information doesn’t flow. ], “Baudrillard is suggesting that “the inherent goal of the order of simulacra is to produce a flexible and controllable universal system of order and power’” (Williams 6).
Immediately after summarizing Baudrilliard’s philosophies with this quote, Williams goes on to present his thesis statement, that through Baudrillard’s theories of reality and simulation, Trinity is revealed to be the true hero of the film. By presenting Baudrillard’s theories alongside his argument on Trinity, Williams is connecting his secondary evidence with the film. Williams effectively uses primary and secondary evidence together to further support his argument. [Build on this statement.
In addition to his effective use of primary evidence in accordance with secondary evidence from Jean Baudrillard[Good transition], Williams also uses primary evidence on its own to make his argument of Trinity being the true hero stronger. His argument is made stronger by using primary evidence on its own because he does not need to bring in outside evidence to prove that his argument has merit in the film[Repetitive. Could have combined this with the previous sentence. ].
Williams writes, “Although Neo is the protagonist of the film, Trinity starts the action rolling as we see in one of the film’s opening moments as she receives a phone call and says, ‘Is everything in place? ’ Trinity is also the one who leads Neo through a cryptic communication from her to ‘follow the white rabbit’ to a man called Morpheus” (Williams 7). By explicitly stating that Neo is “the protagonist of the film,” Williams clarifies that his argument on Trinity being the true hero does not mean that the film is not in fact still about Neo.
Rather, Williams is showing that Trinity played in instrumental role in getting Neo to where he needed to be in order for him to be awakened from the Matrix. Had Trinity not gotten the action rolling and guided Neo to Morpheus, Neo would not have been able to figure out that he is “the One,” ultimately rendering him incapable of fulfilling his destiny and freeing humanity. Quoting Trinity as further primary evidence, Williams writes, “‘The Oracle told me that I would fall in love and that the man that I loved would be the One.
So, you see, you can’t be dead. You can’t be because I love you. ’ Neo’s own belief that he is the One allows him to grow incredibly powerful within the Matrix, but it is Trinity, as she leans down to kiss him in an inversion of the Sleeping Beauty and Snow White stories, who determines with finality that he is, indeed, the One” (Williams 14). Williams effectively uses this primary evidence to show that it was Trinity’s unwavering belief in her own prophesy that made her the determining factor in Neo’s status as the One, ultimately sealing his fate.
In both the Sleeping Beauty and Snow White stories it is the prince who is the hero and awakens the princess from her sleep. So by comparing Trinity’s actions to those of the princes’ in the Sleeping Beauty and Snow White stories, Williams is further defining Trinity as the hero of The Matrix. Both of these examples of primary evidence used in Williams article serve to affirm Trinity as the hero. [Long quote but you provided adequate evidence. Good job! ] Despite Williams’ effective use of both primary and secondary evidence, there are structural problems relating to his thesis and the balance of his article.
According to An Insider’s Guide to Academic Writing: A Brief Rhetoric, thesis statements are typical in the humanities and academic writing, and can be defined as a, “central claim often (but not always) presented near the beginning of a piece so that it can tie elements of the argument together” (Miller-Cochran, Stamper and Cochran 39). Instead of clearly presenting his argument with a thesis statement early on, Williams chooses to spend the first five pages of his fifteen-page article introducing how The Matrix compares to other films on the topic of simulation.
While it is interesting to see how The Matrix fits in with the larger conversation of simulation of the time, it is irrelevant in terms of furthering Williams’ argument. [Repetitive] In this time Williams begins writing about Jean Baudrillard, without any context as to who Baudrillard is and why he is relevant to Williams’ argument[Repetitive]. Despite the definition for thesis statements stating that they are not always presented near the beginning of the article, including a thesis statement too far from the beginning makes the argument both unknown and difficult to follow.
After finally introducing his thesis statement a third of the way through his article, Williams offers some relief to the confusion he created earlier, regarding what point he was trying to make[Phrase doesn’t flow properly, I’d switch the beginning with the end. ]. This confusion however could have been entirely avoided, had he written his thesis statement earlier on, so that it could be used for its purpose of tying elements of the argument together. In addition to the poor placement of the thesis statement, Williams’s article also contains a major issue of balance.
It is in the last two paragraphs, of the twenty-two paragraphs in his fifteen-page argument, that Williams truly focuses on Trinity to explain how Jean Baudrillard’s philosophies connect her as the hero. Williams begins this paragraph by writing, “Little about Trinity has been revealed up until now” (Williams 14). This acknowledgement[Spelling error. ] of his lack of focus on Trinity shows that Williams knows that he has neglected to talk about Trinity throughout the majority of his article.
However, despite his acknowledgement[Spelling error. ], and therefore understanding of his own rhetorical moves, Williams final two paragraphs are rushed as he tries and ultimately fails to tie all of his evidence back in[To do what with it? More detail is needed. ]. Had he ingrained the connection to Trinity throughout his article instead of saving it all for the end, the problems in[Of* balance] balance would not have been present and the article as a whole would have been much stronger.
