The Matrix: Myth and Meaning

The Matrix trilogy famously borrowed from many sources of pop culture, philosophy, and religion. The Matrix series employs especially well concepts and ideas from Hinduism wrapped around a slam-bang action adventure story. While many people easily detect the Christian and Buddhist symbolism in the series, this post will discuss the Hindu symbols and mythology used in the series, with the most emphasis being on the second film, The Matrix Reloaded. 

The Matrix follows the journey of Neo, a computer hacker who discovers that our world is not real, but a simulation created by artificial intelligence to trap humanity. He is led by a guru, Morpheus, who guides him into this newfound knowledge of reality. Hinduism teaches the concept of Maya, that the world around us in spiritually unreal.  This is what Neo discovers during the course of the first film. The second deals with his life after ascending to the position of “The One,” who has the ability to change things within the world, i.e. The Matrix, and who is prophesied to bring about the end of the war with the machines. Neo exhibits incredible powers at the end of the first film, such as dodging bullets, and even coming back from the dead, which brings to mind astounding feats like Rama’s defeat of 14,000 demons singlehandedly in The Ramayana. 

When Neo fights his way into a dark tower that contains a room that it is said that if he enters he can end the war and save his people, he instead meets the creator of the Matrix, who reveals to Neo that the One was created to help control the human population. His dharma is to save the human race by restarting the free human population, outside the Matrix. Neo is given a choice to either fulfill his “dharma”, the purpose he was created for, or to let every human being the machines have trapped perish. Meanwhile, the love of Neo’s life is being pursued by warriors of the machine world, and it looks like she is going to die. The Architect shows Neo what is happening to her and insists he must make the choice his five predecessors as the One have made. Neo rejects the Architect’s offer, and uses his powers to rescue his love from falling to her death from a skyscraper. But he’s too late, and she dies in his arms. But Neo doesn’t accept this reality, and reaches inside Trinity’s Matrix avatar and resuscitates her heart with his hand. 

With the choice to reject what he has been told was his dharma and destiny since he first discovered the reality of the Matrix, Neo truly begins to understand what his purpose is for himself. By the third film, Neo ends up creating a state of Moksha, whereby the Machines agree to let those who wish to leave the Matrix to do so. This breaks the societal cycle of Samsara the human community living outside of the Matrix had unknowingly been experiencing. 

Neo was told by his guru that his destiny was to end the war and save humanity using his powers. That destiny was short on details, of course. Once Neo learned the truth that his five predecessors had chosen to collaborate with the machines rather than let the whole of humanity die (and if given the choice to make, would you and I do anything differently?), and that his true purpose was to continue “the war” his dharma should have been clear. His duty as the savior of humanity should be to capitulate to the machines. But he refuses and chooses instead to save his lover. This choice eventually leads to him thinking of a new solution to the human/machine conflict, where both sides get what they most need and want, though it comes at the cost of Neo’s life. 

Neo’s breaking of this cycle by specifically not doing what he had been led to believe is his duty by his friends and his foes alike, reflects a 21^st century understanding of the great truths revealed in ancient religions. A myth like the Ramayana is not just a religious text, it’s also a story completely immersed in the ancient culture of India. Something like Rama’s banishment of Sita simply because his people think she may be unclean, even though Rama himself knows that she is worthy, but he banishes her to be a good example to his people would never fly as upright behavior in our day and age in our culture. The Wachowskis show their reverence for the myths that inform the story while also critiquing what the average uninformed audience member would expect of someone on a religious journey of awakening, since many people in our secular world think that religion comes down to doing what you are told. Neo refutes that idea, by following his heart and exemplifying his true dharma by actually ending the war, not repeating what his former lives had done by merely appearing to end the war. 

Since the series was marketed as essentially a sci-fi/kung-fu movie, but it is really about awakening to your true self and state in the world, many audience members were disappointed by the second and third entries in the series. Of course this mirrors what many religious people have experienced with those who do not choose to make the journey toward enlightenment. It takes diligence and an open heart to be enlightened, and the same is true for understanding the deeper mythic meanings of The Matrix series. 

Thou Art That: Brahman for the non-Hindu

Photo courtesy of Island Light Photography

The Hindu idea that all of reality is divine and is comprised of one great whole, called “Brahman” lines up strikingly well with scientific findings that all matter is made from the same “stuff.” I find this belief exciting and challenging and wonder what its implications are for my own religious worldview, as well as our modern western secular society.

Of course this belief is logical. While a Hindu would say that all of reality is made of spiritual energy, and a scientist would say it is made up of the same physical matter, it’s not clear to me how those two views really differ other than semantically. Saying everything is spiritual to me suggests holiness. While the secularist may not believe in any sort of divinity, I think she would understand a non-religious definition of holiness as “something that is very, very, very, very, very, very, very special or important.” It seems to me that Hinduism and science are saying the same thing, and they are simply speaking from different orientations.

I find this belief incredibly appealing. Everything is something. Everything is made of the same something, otherwise, what is it? This corresponds well to the book of Genesis, where the creation is accomplished by separating the light from the darkness, the water from the dry ground, etc, not by creating from nothing, but by separating and organizing from the great divine storehouse of matter. 

Literally believing that all things are connected by virtue of their ultimate source leads one to want to live in balance with all things. If acted upon, it destroys the separating ideals of power, materialism, and selfishness, and encourages living at peace with all things. This is an idea that everyone, religious or not, should get behind, since it’s true. 

The great thing about this idea in Hinduism and science is that it gives us actual insight into our existence. Obviously, the conclusion of the atheist and the Hindu will differ as to some of the particulars, but there is great good that comes from believing and acting on this idea. Number one being the fact that all things are connected on a fundamental level, which I think ought to give everyone pause, because if everything is one on a material level, then what is stopping everything being one on the level of consciousness? 

The first step in overcoming the seeming world of opposites is to see that many things that appear as opposites are not opposites, only the illusion of opposing forces. Does the day hate the night? Day and night only appear to us to exist as opposites, when in reality, the sun stands still as the earth moves and when the part of the earth one is standing on faces away from the sun, it is night for you. In my mind, accepting this idea would lead one to transcend things like political parties, us vs. them, and other dividing philosophies. 

Accepting that everything is materially one, can lead us to the idea that a form of balance in our personal, familiar, and societal lives is actually possible.

Many problems and dilemmas that face our Western society would be helped by adopting this idea in some form. One example is the extreme selfishness exhibited by many in the West. If we believe we have common cause with those who suffer around us, perhaps we won’t buy that fast food meal, and instead donate the money to help the sufferer.  If we perceive that we are all in this together, perhaps our orientation will shift from inward looking to outward looking and we can seek to build up others, rather than pursue the exhausting venture of focusing on one’s self at all times.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, noted astrophysicist, has said “We are part of this universe; we are in this universe, but perhaps more important than both of those facts, is that the universe is in us. Many people feel small because they're small and the universe is big, but I feel big.” If we truly spring from Brahman (whether a Hindu formulation or in the secular sense as Dr. Tyson explains), then our potential as individuals and as a species is unlimited, since we emanate from Brahman (or the universe). Above all other beings, humans have the potential to understand themselves and the universe consciously. One of the great promises of Hinduism is that Brahman can be known when the illusion of separateness is seen to be an illusion. Once this happens, what is to stop us from emulating Brahman? As Frank Morales wrote,

Brahman does not arbitrarily will the coming into being of the non-Brahman metaphysical principles of matter and jivas (individuated consciousness), but rather they are manifest into being as a natural result of the overflowing of Brahman's grandeur, beauty, bliss and love. Brahman cannot but create abundant good in a similar manner to how Brahman cannot but exist. Both existence and overflowing abundance are as much necessary properties of Brahman as love and nurturing are necessary qualities of any virtuous and loving mother.

When we believe that we are in the universe, and the universe is in us, our behavior toward others and ourselves will be transformed. We will seek to constantly expand outward, just as the universe (or Brahman) does! “All reality has its source in Brahman. All reality has its grounding sustenance in Brahman. It is in Brahman that all reality has its ultimate repose. Hinduism, specifically, is consciously and exclusively aiming toward this reality termed Brahman.” Thou art that. So let’s act like it.

References

Neil deGrasse Tyson. The Most Astounding Fact About The Universe, As Told By Neil deGrasse Tyson (VIDEO). Huffpost Good News. March 13, 2012. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/most-astounding-fact-universe-neil-degrasse-tyson_n_1339031

Frank Gaetano Morales Brahman of the Vedas. About.com Hinduism https://www.learnreligions.com/brahman-of-the-vedas-1770045

Everyone Needs An Editor

Walter Murch’s theories of editing say that cutting works because of the way that the brain is set up to receive information from the eye. As in the title of his book In The Blink Of An Eye, humans already have a system of editing to compose our thoughts and to receive the concepts imparted to us from others; it is the act of blinking. 

Blinking isn’t just a mechanism for clearing our eyes of dust and other small matter that lands on the lens of our eyes, it’s a biological way to show our understanding of an idea being presented to us. Murch says we blink at the same exact logical endpoint where a cut would be if our conversations were being filmed.

I love Murch’s idea that the reason we don’t always feel comfortable with certain people (like politicians and bad actors) is they don’t blink right. They blink at the wrong times and at the wrong things. Subconsciously, we pick that up, and something feels off, and we don’t enjoy the interaction because we can’t give of ourselves appropriately to someone who won’t take in what we are giving to them. 

This is just like film editing. If the pace and rhythm of the cuts are not at the right place (for at least the majority of the film) the audience becomes uneasy, if only subconsciously, and is actually prevented from having the appropriate response hoped for by the filmmakers. 

That’s a shame, because much like in life when we first meet people, films should be greeted with goodwill and graciousness, but if our new acquaintance doesn’t give the effort back to us we give to him, we will soon disengage, and the potential relationship will be nipped in the bud before it’s had a chance to develop and bear fruit! 

I’ve definitely done this in my own life, when I’ve been too busy to connect with people that it would have been in my best interest to become friends with, for the simple selfish excuse that I was too busy to give them the time they deserved. If a film is too “busy” to connect with its audience, then it has failed on the most basic level. It’s better to slow down and take our time in our interactions with others, as well as during editing. 

We need time to be surprised, by people, by the footage, and by potential cuts. We need time to be surprised by joy. The cut can provide us this joy. I liken it to the guided visions that shamans, prophets, and holy people relate. In many of these visions, a messenger from God, or less frequently, one of the gods themselves takes the seer up to a high place and begins to show them what they need to see, either personally, or for their community. 

The editor is like the vision guide. She says “look!” And the audience can only see what she shows them. Once the audience understands what they need to know, the editor says “look!” again, and the scene of the vision changes. In all actuality, when we see films we are seeing a vision projected for us by those who know the past, present, and future of the story, or the world we’ve entered. As such, they have a sacred responsibility to show us only what will help us, and help us to help others. My main point is I think I might need to start taking editing a little more seriously. 

What I love most about Walter Murch is that he not just a great editor; he’s a philosopher, too. I think everyone should be so clear thinking and logical when it comes to their work. I think too many people don’t follow through (or in Murch’s case, back?) with their beliefs to find the real core of what and why they are doing what they are doing, whether that’s in regard to relationships, jobs, or their beliefs. Murch does, and it’s inspiring. When you drill down below the surface of things, you always hit gold, and find more questions that compel you to keep digging. 

I love how Murch stands up to edit. If editing is an art, it makes sense to stand up. Is standing up to edit essential? I don’t think so, and we probably have good evidence to back that up, but as a signal to yourself that you are here to work, just like the dancer, or the carpenter, I think it works beautifully. His theory makes me want to stand up when I’m writing, even though sitting down is pretty great.... 

The main thing I take from Murch’s theories is that whatever you are engaged in, you have to constantly be thinking how you can improve in it, and how to avoid becoming complacent. Editing is an art form, it’s not just piecework. You don’t just learn a bunch of rules and procedures from the old guys, and call it a day, you take what they’ve discovered and you build on it. You don’t worship John Lennon by getting an old fashioned haircut and memorizing all his songs, you worship him by starting a band, and transcending his influence, just like he did. This is hard to do. That’s why most people don’t do it, or don’t do it very well, but that’s the challenge we face, and the example all our favorite artists have given us. 

It’s interesting to me that even someone as accomplished as Murch talks about what he would like to happen in an ideal world. He would do his first cut, and then review all the dailies from scratch to get a fresh perspective on the material. This isn’t possible because of the pace of the schedule of films in our day. I guess no matter what level of accomplishment or skill we have, we will always have our work cut out for us.

Destroying the World to Save It

Still from the Tree of Life, directed by Terrence Malick

In an opinion piece published in the Guardian, entitled “Why We Should Have Fewer Children: To Save The Planet,” Travis Rieder responds to objections raised by others in response to his research and teaching concerning population control in an age of climate change. The upside of voluntary population control would be that there would be less overall human suffering and competition for resources. The downside to voluntary population control would be that fewer humans would have a chance to experience life. Rieder is trying to convince people that it is their moral duty to curtail the most basic activities that make us human so that less suffering will exist in the world.

Travis Rieder has great academic credentials. He works at John Hopkins University’s Berman Institute of Bioethics as a philosopher. He obviously has great expertise and training as a researcher. He’s also a good writer with his pulse on people’s anxieties about the future, along with a unique angle on how to address them.

Rieder invokes our emotions in a few ways. First, he mentions the suffering of people in underdeveloped nations, which will be the first to be affected by massive climate change. He writes that, “The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that from the years 2030-2050 – as we reach this level of warming – at least 250,000 people will die every year from just some of the climate-related harms.” The global poor will obviously be hurt the most, since they lack resources those in the West enjoy. He then plays on the sympathy of the Western reader by pointing out that if the warming trend continues we will be the cause of rising sea levels, which will destroy places like the Maldives.

Rieder also tries to make the case that making the people who are currently alive happier is better than making more humans with the potential to be happy. Of course there is a conflict here with many religious people, such as married Catholics or Latter-day Saints, who believe in the sanctity of life. How could people with such beliefs ever adopt the ideas that Rieder proposes? Rieder says that, “It is not a harm to someone to not be created.” For Latter-day Saints specifically, this would not hold, since we believe that God created people’s spirits prior their being born on Earth, and that God has ordained marriage and family as the means to provide these spirits a physical body, and experiences on Earth that they need to become more like God. To be denied this would be a great harm in the Latter-day Saint view, and in fact would be a form of damnation. For Catholics it is a sin to tamper with the means God has ordained for the continuance of life. So that’s more than a billion people who cannot in good conscience support the measures Rieder suggests. I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that Rieder is not a believer in any traditional religion.

Rieder’s reasoning is strong, yet his evidence for world destruction is flimsy. He is basically encouraging people to give up on what makes them human –their genetic inheritance – on the word of scientists who cannot prove their claims of destruction. Everything he claims is based on an “if, then” model. For example, yes, if the ocean rises and the Maldives are destroyed and it was my fault because my wife bore two children, I will feel terrible. But that’s not going to happen tomorrow. It’s not going to happen without warning. He bases his arguments on current trends in the planet’s warming. 40 years ago scientists were predicting that we were about to enter a new ice age and that the effects of the planet cooling would be disastrous. This was based on current trends. The trends changed. The trend in the United States for childbirth is at below replacement levels, something Rieder would cheer. This might or might not change. Would Rieder want us all to react to this alarming news by increasing childbearing? Of course not. So why does he want Westerner’s to stop having kids based on the warming trend?

I think fundamentally his argument is a religious one. He believes the prophecies of the secular prophets of scientism. But knowing what he knows, he still brought a child into this world. He still uses automobiles and flies on airliners to conferences to present papers. I feel he has a faith without works. His argument would be more persuasive to me if he were a sustenance farmer with a good wi-fi connection writing his own blog. His argument avoids specific logical fallacies. He is just good old-fashioned wrong.

In Rieder (2016)’s very last sentence he says, “I believe difficult yet civil discussion is the crucial first step to making that future one we won’t be condemned for creating.” It’s interesting that he brings up the idea of future generations condemning us. This is an aspect of social proof (Cialdini, 2009, p.99), only instead of looking around at those around us and taking our cues from them, Rieder would have us look to the future and imagine what people who are not alive yet will think of us if the predictions of scientists come to pass, and choose to act now based on how he imagines they would want us to act if they were in our shoes. I believe that the reason this tactic works on people is because of some of the horrible practices of the past that we are taught were mostly practiced unthinkingly, like slavery and other horrors. People today do not want to be looked at the way we look at people of the past.

There is a strange inverted form of reciprocation (Cialdini, 2009, p.19-20) implicit in this argument as well. It’s as though Rieder is saying that because our parents have given us a pretty good world it would be impolite to give a worse world to our potential children.

The argument also hinges on people’s uncertainty (Cialdini, 2009, p.109), but again in an inverted form. The future has been scary for the rising generations for a very long time. Whether it was the great depression, World War II, the threat of nuclear war, being drafted into Vietnam, the cold war, the threat of terrorism, economic recessions, mass shootings, massive student loan debt, or environmental disaster, the world that’s coming is uncertain, and has been for a long time. Rieder seems to provide answers that will benefit us by allocating resources here and now by ensuring that no one else is born to compete, and also helps theoretical people, who if Rieder’s suggestions are followed, will never exist, thus negating the help he wants to give them, which effectively means no help was given. Rieder wants to destroy the world in order to save it.

References

Cialdini R.B., (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Rieder, T.N., (2016). Why we should have fewer children: To save the planet. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/12/why-we-should-have-fewer- children-save-the-planet-climate-change

Ambition and Bliss

Art by Alan Syliboy

The Micmac story Caught By a Hair-String can be fruitfully examined in light of the psychological and anthropological viewpoints, even by a layperson in these fields. This tale sheds light on healthy psychological states, something sorely lacking in many of the protagonists of more famous myths and epics. 

One of the most interesting aspects of Caught By a Hair-String is that the Lazy and Unattractive-Looking Husband refuses the leadership of the tribe when offered it by his brother-in-law. That is shocking in light of how many other myths proceed to depict similar situations. If this story were Greek, for instance, it is easy to imagine that the Lazy and Unattractive-Looking Husband surely would have already seized political power as he increased in knowledge and skill prior to the chief’s death. His loyalty to his brother-in-law would most likely not have been as strong as his need for glory and fame. 

Psychologically, this speaks to human nature. The fact that despite Lazy’s capabilities he stays loyal to the Chief’s Son speaks volumes about his psychological state. He has reached a healthy state of balance between his ambition to progress (exemplified by his desire to learn all that the Chief’s Son knows) and his familial and tribal obligations. Lazy has also overcome any need to prove himself. The remarkable thing about this is that after reaching this point, he does not attempt to overstep his bounds. He does not even countenance the idea of taking over the leadership of the tribe. He allows his love for The Chief’s Son to hold sway over his decision. The freely given offer to assume leadership of the tribe is not even a momentary temptation for Lazy. 

The power dynamics of this tale have a lot to teach us in our modern society. Lazy learns so much from his brother-in-law, and progresses so far from the young man we meet in the opening of the story, that upon first reading, I felt that the story was going to end with Lazy becoming the new Chief. I surmise this was my thought process because of the way in which modern Americans are encouraged to perceive power. The “best” person is the person who should get the job. Lazy has eclipsed The Chief’s Son, so surely Lazy should be the new Chief. But where is the end of ambition? In our age of economic expansion, where companies continually consolidate and move into new areas, it makes perfect sense that the next step that Lazy would take would be to consolidate power, but because of his psychological health, he does not even perceive this offer as a temptation. This is the opposite of the Greek atē. 

Another beautiful thing we can take today from this myth is the way Lazy takes advantage of his opportunities. We live in a day and age of unprecedented access to learning and education. The gradual expansion of the internet over the last two decades continues to roll on and penetrates more and more of the world. Now teenagers carry with them access to the knowledge of the world around with them in their pockets.  But having the potential to use one’s opportunities is not the same thing as actually using them. As Joseph Campbell (2011) said, 

Follow your bliss. If you do follow your bliss, you put yourself on a kind of track that has been there all the while waiting for you, and the life you ought to be living is the one you are living. When you can see that, you begin to meet people who are in the field of your bliss, and they open the doors to you. I say, follow your bliss and don't be afraid, and doors will open where you didn't know they were going to be. If you follow your bliss, doors will open for you that wouldn't have opened for anyone else (p.113).

Lazy fully takes full advantage of having The Chief’s Son as his brother-in-law, and learns so many skills and powers that he eventually eclipses his brother-in-law. Lazy follows his bliss without any psychological hang-ups getting in the way. His original station in life was so lowly that his only name (which follows him throughout his entire life) is Lazy and Unattractive-Looking! Of course, later on after he “catches” the shy daughter of the elderly couple with the enchanted hair-string, “husband” is added to his designation. 

This background would seem like a lot to overcome, and Lazy does it by following his bliss. Following your bliss in simplest terms is following the path of your destiny, and one cannot follow the path if one never gets on, or gets on but sits down to rest and never gets up again, or if one wanders off the path for any reason. We find the path by taking advantage of the opportunities that present themselves to us.

The myth of Caught By a Hair-String can also be understood anthropologically. Claude Levi-Strauss (1963) said that, "Myth is language, functioning on an especially high level where meaning succeeds practically at 'taking off' from the linguistic ground on which it keeps rolling." This being true, what does the story of Caught By a Hair-String communicate to us about the people called the Micmac?

The most shocking thing about reading Caught By a Hair-String on first approaching the story is the seeming lack of female agency exhibiting by the shy daughters who marry Lazy and The Chief’s Son. Upon further investigation, however, the hair-string can be seen as a symbol of advantage in attracting a mate, and not as a form of coercion. One cultural ideal inherent in this story and referenced above, is the idea of using the advantages that come to you. When Lazy meets The Old Woman who offers him a chance to become a husband to one of the shy maidens, she asks him if his brag about being able to get one of the shay daughters to marry him has any truth to it. Does he really want to marry and have children? Since he is sincere in his wish, she gives him the magic hair-string. Using this device allows him to be in a position to meet with his future wife alone and gain her favor as well as the favor of her elderly parents. 

Employing the magic hair-string, Lazy and his shy wife are able to be married and join fully the community of adults. This is much like today, where any worthy advantage should be pursued, as long as it is not at someone else’s expense. If one is athletic, they person could use that advantage to woo a spouse. If one is musically gifted, one can use that to win the heart of another. If one is intellectually blessed, one can use that cognitive power to court their love. I belief this is what the myth is getting at, and furthermore, the fact that in the story The Old Woman is helping the young man to win the heart of someone who would typically be outside the realm of marriage and courtship due to her living conditions and upbringing, shows that the actions of Lazy are sanctioned by the community and were not about violating the rights of others. Lazy is empowered by the community represented by The Old Woman. Cultural Empowerment refers to enabling the underprivileged to become more (Compton & Hoffman, 2013, p.272).

The ways in which The Chief’s Son teaches Lazy explain the way that the Micmac had to rely on each other in order to survive. Lazy is only able to woo and marry the younger shy daughter because of the help of The Old Woman. Lazy only gains greater skills and power because he became the brother-in-law of the Chief’s Son, which only occurred because he shared the secret of the hair-string, which he only knew because The Old Woman shared it with him. The Chief’s Son only gets to ascend to the station of Chief because Lazy refuses to take the position form his friend and brother-in-law. And it goes on and on like that forever. The tale of Caught By a Hair-String teaches and enforces the idea that we all need each other, and we all have a part to play. In some ways this could be perceived as social control of the populace, but in the case of  Lazy, while he has seemed throughout the course of the story to accept more and more power and an increase in his skills, he has never come across as ambitious for ambition’s sake. This is shown clearly in the complete lack of rebellion he shows. He focuses on his duties, and does not simply demand his rights, as many young people insist on (Cialdini, 2009).

Lazy’s choice to remain as the friend and brother-in-law of the new Chief, rather than to ascend to the leadership of his people (which the teachings of the Chief’s Son had enabled him to be prepared to become) reinforces the social ties those ancient societies like the Micmac as well as our modern societies with their almost total separation into specializations, depend on. Without this cooperation, society as we know it could not function. Whether that is a good or bad thing is a topic for another paper, but what is obviously true is the way in which smaller, less mechanized cultures still function very similarly to our own. Lazy’s does not transverse the bounds of his station, but only progresses inside of it until he is fit to seize the reins of leadership. He decides not to continue and cross the boundary that would have him replace his best friend and brother. That is an example to all of us that our task is to be the best we can be in our own sphere, and certainly Lazy developed far past what his name claims that he is, yet he does not try to expand and take over everything, like many corporations of today do. He is much more like the filmmaker that just keeps cranking out small independent films year after year, than he is the starry-eyed young director who lets Hollywood seduce her away from pursuing making personal, pure cinema in order to make big dumb films for the studios. 

The tale of Caught By a Hair-String has many responses psychologically, and teaches us much of the way Micmac society and culture was structured. By showing us a healthy mix of ambition along with familial and tribal loyalty, this tale teaches us about a different culture and reveals to us how to strike a similar balance in our own lives.