See this is why I disagree with your take that "living in freedom isn't compatible with living in the Matrix." I think that living without freedom only occurs when the Matrix is used for deception and control. That to me is what Neo and Trinity wanted to abolish. But I could still see that even with full awareness of what the Matrix is and the freedom to leave at any time many people would elect to stay. Enough possibly to still be plugged in as power sources for the machines, assuming that that's truly necessary.
I say that because I doubt that the machines living harmoniously with the humans in IO (whether they be physical flying robots or of the "codex" variety) were getting their power from live humans. Which then begs the question as to what could be achieved in the machine's central city if they had an alliance and full cooperation with the humans.
But even if humans are needed to power all the machines of the surface world I think we already saw evidence of Neo's synergy with them spreading throughout humanity. I'm talking about the millions or billions of people who would soon realize that they were married to AI bots. Or had AI's as children. Even if the bots were a lesser form of sentience than say Sati or Morpheus I could still see many people electing to remain as they are and live out their lives as K and Joi attempted to do in BR 2049.
And then with regard to those more sentient beings if a human say wanted to marry Sati or Morpheus then they'd be faced with living in the real world with a hologram or codex or in the Matrix as a seemingly more traditionally "human" couple. I guess I just see the Matrix and physical worlds as equally viable living environments with native denizens in each that might have any number of reasons for living outside of their native "land," with Neo and Trinity being the deliverers of that message to all.
But that's just my take, and why the film works for me.
I know that your interpretation of what Lana was trying to say is more negative and cynical than mine, and honestly that's perfectly valid and acceptable. I'd be doing the movie (and your thoughtful insights) a disservice if I tried to suggest that there was only one way to read its themes and metaphors.
The concept of freedom in a Matrix-like reality is something I could discuss for days; it's an itch that I wouldn't be able to scratch enough. But I have to try to keep this specifically about Matrix 4. Must. Show. Restraint.
The points you raise about people willingly choosing to remain in the Matrix (much like Cypher in the first movie) are the perfect examples to illustrate what I mean about the hypocrisy between the movie's plot and its preachy message. Those who would choose like Cypher are portrayed as a clear part of the problem. However, the solution ends up being to allow them their artificial lives, but with a "liberated" designer of their reality. Think about that.
Wachowski spends time using dialogue from various characters to condemn the willingness of people to accept the inherent artifice of losing oneself in technology. The in-movie sheeple that the Analyst talks about are those who live in the Matrix and are most energized by manipulation. They're an obvious analog to the sheeple in our society who let themselves become slaves to the manipulations of social media and other tech. That's one of the main points of commentary. And I would say so far, so good with that commentary.
But how does the actual plot play itself out in terms of solving the problem? By having Neo/Trinity decide how people should be *allowed* to live in the Matrix. From their point of view, they're being righteous in wanting to "free" people from being manipulated. But in doing so, all that's really going to happen is the same thing that the Oracle and Neo managed to create at the end of
Revolutions. How do I know that? How do I know it'll be a very similar resolution? Because
Resurrections is the exact same plot structure as the original film. If there's a Matrix 5, I'd be willing to bet that we'd see actual proof. This story keeps going the same way.
First Matrix movie: Thomas Anderson has an inkling that there's something insidious about his reality. A liberated Trinity shows up and wins his heart, helping set the stage for his desire to escape fake reality and set himself free. He's an anomaly who gains the power to conquer his oppressors and even learns to fly at the end.
Matrix Resurrections: Tiffany has an inkling that there's something insidious about her reality. A liberated Neo shows up and wins her heart, helping set the stage for her desire to escape fake reality and set herself free. She's an anomaly who gains the power to conquer her oppressors and even learns to fly at the end.
So then what happens? Well, the same thing all over again. An effort to create a better fake reality, and also a more peaceful co-existence between humans and machines. It's the exact same ****, where you get evolved people deciding the fate of the sheeple. And *that* is the underlying real-world desire of Lana Wachowski, and why I perceive it hypocritical to set it up by condemning the same basic thing (fundamentally speaking).
It's much like the hypocrisy of spending the first 30 minutes in the movie overtly crapping on modern Hollywood, then proceeding to follow the exact same playbook of someone like J.J. Abrams. And if you believe it wasn't hypocritical because of intentional irony being employed, then it's at least manipulative because of how it demeans an audience for wanting to consume it, and then proceeds to feed it to them (with a self-satisfying condescension). Yuck!
But make no mistake, I respect your view and understand what you're getting at. And I'm glad you enjoy this movie. On some levels, I do to. But I *really* hate the redundancy of it, and therefore the pointlessness of it. And yes, the hypocrisy that I perceive (and maybe that's just on me) bothers me a great deal. No matter what, always fun having these back-and-forths with you, my friend. Always appreciate reading your well-thought-out takes.