Conservative agenda in The Incredibles?

[Spoke]

I saw The Incredibles for the first time last night. Beautifully rendered, well-paced, and very entertaining. I enjoyed it immensely.

Having said that, am I the only one who notice the conservative themes of this movie?


Evil trial lawyers bring down the super heroes.
Our first villain is French.
That whole theme of enforced mediocrity seemed very (Ayn) Randian. First, we see super heroes forced to be mediocre by government bureaucrats. Then we see Dash hounded by his mom into not using his super-speed in athletic events. Then we get the line "When everyone is special, no one is." I felt like I was watching The Fountainhead for kids.
On the island, at the caves, Elastigirl tells Violet and Dash that the villains they are fighting are not like TV villains. They want to kill people. She then tells Violet that she [Violet] shouldn't hold back from using her full power to fight these villains. (A message for America in the War on Terror?)
Speaking of killing, the villains in this film don't get captured or de-fanged, as in typical childrens' films. They get killed. In large numbers.

I went into this movie with no foreknowledge of it, and no preconceived notions. These themes jumped out at me. When I got home, I googled a bit and found that I am not alone in noticing them. I'm curious whether any other dopers saw the film this way? And were there any conservative moments I missed? Any hidden Ayn Rand references, for example?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Comics are primarily rightist, or at least they often are.

Anti-crime, pro-authority, and the whole vigilanty thing has been called "fscist", mostly by the hysterical.

I got the riff that the story was originally about Congress shutting the heroes down, & it was changed later, but maybe that's just me.

[Marley23]

Having said that, am I the only one who notice the conservative themes of this movie?
The New York Times review made note of the mediocrity thing, but (fortunately) didn't talk about Rand. They stuck to the other ways in which the film makes some very astute comments about America's educational system. (You did overlook Mr. Incredible's comment that "this culture keeps finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity" when Dash's "graduation" from fourth grade to fifth is discussed. I'm skeptical the film has a conservative agenda. It's the brainchild of Brad Bird, ex-The Simpsons, and that show is written primarily by leftist Harvard grads. Conservatives don't like those things, sure, but trial lawyers and the French are also easy targets comedically. I think that's all they are here. Everybody makes fun of lawyers and the French. Bird spent years trying to get this movie made, and it's only in the last couple of years that disliking trial lawyers and the French became a conservative thing.

[Marley23]

From IMDb:

On the island, at the caves, Elastigirl tells Violet and Dash that the villains they are fighting are not like TV villains. They want to kill people. She then tells Violet that she [Violet] shouldn't hold back from using her full power to fight these villains. (A message for America in the War on Terror?)
Speaking of killing, the villains in this film don't get captured or de-fanged, as in typical childrens' films. They get killed. In large numbers.[/list]
Bird says "Really, really little kids should not see this movie. They should wait till they get older. We're getting some reactions from people who were disappointed that their four-year-old was a little freaked out by it. Well, I don't want to compromise the intensity in order to please a four-year-old."

And from the Trivia, "Brad Bird got the idea for the film in the early 1990s, basing the story on his own experiences trying to balance a career with family."

[Spoke]

OK, so how come people are independently noticing the conservative themes? As I said, I had no preconceived notions. Only after googling did I learn that others had made the same observations.

And if that were random, shouldn't an equal number of people have noticed "liberal" themes?

The fact that Brad Bird worked for The Simpsons doesn't prove much, in my view, unless you have information that conservatives were screened from that show in the hiring process. Besides which, it has been my observation that libertarianism and irreverent humor are quite compatible. (See South Park.)

I should note that I am not criticizing the film for having conservative themes, merely observing the fact. Lord knows there have been plenty of films and cartoons with liberal themes over the years, so I guess turnabout is fair play. (I'm moderate-to-liberal myself, FTR.)

[Spoke]

The New York Times review made note of the mediocrity thing, but (fortunately) didn't talk about Rand.

I don't like to correct you, but I looked up the NY Times review (http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?oref=login&title1=Incredibles%2c%20The%20%28Movie%29&title2=Incredibles%2c%20The%20%28Movie%29&reviewer=A%2e%20O%2e%20Scott&pdate=20041105&v_id=287450) after reading your post, and it does mention Ayn Rand:

The intensity with which ''The Incredibles'' advances its central idea -- it suggests a thorough, feverish immersion in both the history of American comic books and the philosophy of Ayn Rand -- is startling.

So the NY Times reviewer and I (as well as assorted bloggers and columnists) have noticed the same thing.

[Marley23]

OK, so how come people are independently noticing the conservative themes?
That doesn't make sense. "People independently came to the same conclusion, so there must be something to it?"
Look, I didn't say you made up anything that isn't there. You didn't. I just don't think the movie is intentionally putting forth a conversative message.

And if that were random, shouldn't an equal number of people have noticed "liberal" themes?
It's not random. You're noticing themes and quotes that are really there and (in my opinion) extrapolating a conservative bent that isn't. That's all.

The fact that Brad Bird worked for The Simpsons doesn't prove much, in my view, unless you have information that conservatives were screened from that show in the hiring process.
The show is pretty even-handed in its political humor, but the staff is admittedly liberal with the exception of John Swartzwelder. I don't have proof that Bird is left-leaning, I just think it's not unreasonable to presume so.

For me, the big point is the one you didn't respond to: the fact that the idea for the movie is not new, it's about a decade old. Bird spent a long time trying to get a studio interested in The Incredibles. In my view that makes it less likely that he came up with a story to put forth all these conservative notions that are pretty new. The war on terror is about three years old, the anti-French streak in conservatism has been very pronounced for maybe two years, and trial lawyers were a big issue just in the last year. I think you're overlooking how long it takes to make a movie, especially a movie of this type. IMDb (again) says filming began on April 15, 2002, though I'm not sure exactly what filming means with a CGI movie. Writing began a long time before that, I'm sure.

[Marley23]

I don't like to correct you, but I looked up the NY Times review (http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?oref=login&title1=Incredibles%2c%20The%20%28Movie%29&title2=Incredibles%2c%20The%20%28Movie%29&reviewer=A%2e%20O%2e%20Scott&pdate=20041105&v_id=287450) after reading your post, and it does mention Ayn Rand:
I realized later that I wasn't think of the movie review, I was thinking of a newer piece that dealt more exclusively with the education side of things.

[Spoke]

For me, the big point is the one you didn't respond to: the fact that the idea for the movie is not new, it's about a decade old. Bird spent a long time trying to get a studio interested in The Incredibles. In my view that makes it less likely that he came up with a story to put forth all these conservative notions that are pretty new. The war on terror is about three years old, the anti-French streak in conservatism has been very pronounced for maybe two years, and trial lawyers were a big issue just in the last year. I think you're overlooking how long it takes to make a movie, especially a movie of this type. IMDb (again) says filming began on April 15, 2002, though I'm not sure exactly what filming means with a CGI movie. Writing began a long time before that, I'm sure.

Libertarian/Objectivist ideas have been around for decades.

The anti-French thing might be coincidental, or it might be something that was added to the villain's character since "filming began" in 2002.

The line about using your full power to fight the villains could easily have been added after "filming began" in 2002.

Trial lawyers have been a conservative bogeyman for at least twenty years. Where have you been? ;) Did you miss all the so-called "tort reform" of the 80s?

[Marley23]

Yeah, I did miss that. Like I said, what could be an easier, broader target for comedy than lawyers and the French? That's hardly a hallmark of conservative thinking.

Libertarian/Objectivist ideas have been around for decades.
You drew a parallel between the War on Terror and the "they will kill you" thing.

The anti-French thing might be coincidental, or it might be something that was added to the villain's character since "filming began" in 2002.
Sounds like more trouble than it's worth in CGI.

[DrFidelius]

But he wasn't just French, he was a MIME!

No one, Conservative, Liberal, Centrist, or Bellicosian needs a hidden agenda to hate mimes.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Making him a French Mime was just a way to have the Joker in the film, without having the Joker in the film.

And where, exactly, did any of the Family Incredible kill anybody?

True, villains died, but I don't recall any of them dying except by their own villainy.
Syndrome being the principle example.

The henchmen died in vehicle accidents.

Yes, I recall the scenes with Dash & the hovercars. But Dash only attacked one of them, & he wasn't even on the vehicle when it crashed. In fact, Dash lost that particular fight.

[Spoke]

Not sure the French character was supposed to be a mime. If so, he was a very bad mime, since he spoke. In French. (With subtitles.)

And henchmen got killed left and right. Not just in "accidents." I believe I recall Mr. Incredible throwing one hovercar into another, with explosive results. And didn't Mr. Incredible also throw a car at Syndrome, causing (if indirectly) his death?

Not that I'm saying the villains didn't deserve to die-- only that it doesn't usually happen in this sort of film.

[DrFidelius]

Making him a French Mime was just a way to have the Joker in the film, without having the Joker in the film.

His reveal looked a heck of a lot like a scene from the Batman animated series. Cool.

And where, exactly, did any of the Family Incredible kill anybody?

True, villains died, but I don't recall any of them dying except by their own villainy.
Syndrome being the principle example.

The henchmen died in vehicle accidents.

And, if a proper government safety inspection had been scheduled, and the Nomanisan research facility was under OSHA jurisdiction, perhaps there would have been safety restraints on those vehicles. Yet another example of the way a Republican administration disregards the health and welfare of the people in favour of the wealthy industrialists.

Yes, I recall the scenes with Dash & the hovercars. But Dash only attacked one of them, & he wasn't even on the vehicle when it crashed. In fact, Dash lost that particular fight.

Don't get me started on Dash and the blatant contempt shown for Ameircan Liberal educators. He would never have dreampt of manuevering those chase vehicles into such dangerous situations if he had learned any respect for the self-esteem of the minions involved...

[Menocchio]

Ha!

Brad Bird a conservative!

Well, I'm sure he'd find that amusing, given the liberal slant he was (not entirely undeservedly, IMHO) accused of putting into "The Iron Giant". You can see echoes of it in "The Incredibles" too, although it's less pronounced, in that Syndrome is an arms dealer.

[Spoke]

Ha!

Brad Bird a conservative!

Well, I'm sure he'd find that amusing, given the liberal slant he was (not entirely undeservedly, IMHO) accused of putting into "The Iron Giant". You can see echoes of it in "The Incredibles" too, although it's less pronounced, in that Syndrome is an arms dealer.

There's nothing in [u]The Iron Giant[/b] that is inconsistent with a libertarian/objectivist world view.

In fact, the evil bureaucrat is the villain of that piece, if you'll recall.

Here's an interesting review (http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Reed/Objectivist_Morality_Anime.shtml) by an objectivist writer who embraces the film, and sees something of Ayn Rand in the character of Edna Mode (the costume designer).

[Spoke]

(...an objectivist writer who embraces The Incredibles, I meant...)

[Mr. Blue Sky]

And sometimes a movie is just a movie.

[Spoke]

I know it pains some of my fellow liberals to be confronted by the notion that they really enjoyed a conservative movie. Try to get past that. ;)

Another interesting take from a blogger more familiar than I with Rand's writings and biography. (http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=kurtmaddox&static=343349)

[Spoke]

I just remembered another suspicious line from the movie. When Elastigirl is telling Violet to use her powers against the villains, she says:

"We no longer have room for doubt."

That line doesn't make much sense in the context of the movie, and is awfully clunky as a result. ("Doubt" wasn't the problem for our heroes.) On the other hand, the line makes perfect sense if Violet is an allegorical America:

We no longer have room for doubt. Don't hold back Use your full powers to combat the villains.

Hmm.

[ultrafilter]

Why are you trying so hard to convince people that the movie had a conservative bent?

[Spoke]

I'm not "trying hard". (In fact, it doesn't take much effort to find the conservatism in the film. It jumped out at me.) I stated my opinion in the OP, and I'm backing it up when challenged. Isn't that the way this board works? :)

People seem awfully defensive about this film. Really, it's OK to like it, even if you are (like me) a liberal.

[BrotherCadfael]

"We no longer have room for doubt."Isn't that more or less what Al Gore said about global warming?

[Menocchio]

There's nothing in [u]The Iron Giant[/b] that is inconsistent with a libertarian/objectivist world view.
Well, I suppose there's no reason a libertarian can't have an anti-gun agenda, but I'd usually call that a liberal position, if anything.

In fact, the evil bureaucrat is the villain of that piece, if you'll recall. Sure, a paranoid and trigger happy 1950's McCarthyist cold warrior. A boogeyman for liberals.


Here's an interesting review (http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Reed/Objectivist_Morality_Anime.shtml) by an objectivist writer who embraces the film, and sees something of Ayn Rand in the character of Edna Mode (the costume designer).

Edna Mode is a pretty obvious charicature of legendary Hollywood costume designer Edith Head (http://www.costumedesignersguild.com/hoffhead.htm) .

I think both films are pretty apolitical actually, I think you have to come in with a pretty big bias to see such things in a superhero and giant alien robot story.

[BrotherCadfael]

I saw The Incredibles for the first time last night. Beautifully rendered, well-paced, and very entertaining. I enjoyed it immensely.

Having said that, am I the only one who notice the conservative themes of this movie?


Evil trial lawyers bring down the super heroes.
Our first villain is French.
That whole theme of enforced mediocrity seemed very (Ayn) Randian. First, we see super heroes forced to be mediocre by government bureaucrats. Then we see Dash hounded by his mom into not using his super-speed in athletic events. Then we get the line "When everyone is special, no one is." I felt like I was watching The Fountainhead for kids.
On the island, at the caves, Elastigirl tells Violet and Dash that the villains they are fighting are not like TV villains. They want to kill people. She then tells Violet that she [Violet] shouldn't hold back from using her full power to fight these villains. (A message for America in the War on Terror?)
Speaking of killing, the villains in this film don't get captured or de-fanged, as in typical childrens' films. They get killed. In large numbers.

I went into this movie with no foreknowledge of it, and no preconceived notions. These themes jumped out at me. When I got home, I googled a bit and found that I am not alone in noticing them. I'm curious whether any other dopers saw the film this way? And were there any conservative moments I missed? Any hidden Ayn Rand references, for example?
So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all of this is true.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Plenty of filmmakers put political subtexts into their movies. Is it only objectionable when the subtext follows the "wrong" politics?

[Murcielago]

While I don't think any of your observations in the OP are invalid, considering them part of an "agenda" may be a bit of a stretch. In civilian life our hero was helping victims seek justice from a heartless insurance company, personified by an evil executive putting profits ahead of people. I don't see this as an "anti-corporate" statement, but rather as a way to define the character and advance the story.

...and if the mother didn't like the middle-aged spread of her ass, why didn't she simply reshape it?

[Mr. Blue Sky]

This is why I don't follow politics.

[Marley23]

I know it pains some of my fellow liberals to be confronted by the notion that they really enjoyed a conservative movie. Try to get past that. ;)
"You think I'm talking nonsense, so you must be uncomfortable with the fact that I'm right." Yes, no holes in that implication...

On the other hand, the line makes perfect sense if Violet is an allegorical America:

We no longer have room for doubt. Don't hold back Use your full powers to combat the villains.
If Violet is America, what country is the cute guy she has a crush on?

[Spoke]

Ah. Found another quote from Elastigirl, warning her children:

"Villains aren't simply villains. They're terrorists. They'll kill you if they can."

Hmm.

Also, I found one observant blogger who spotted Mr. Incredible balancing the globe-shaped robot on his shoulder. Atlas Shrugged, anyone?

Menocchio, The Iron Giant was based on a Ted Hughes story. Bird could not change the major story elements. The Incredibles, on the other hand, is fully his own.

And if you'll note, both of the articles I linked acknowledged Edith Head, and proposed (with some evidence) that the Edna Mode character is an amalgam of Ayn Rand and Ms. Head. Edna's lecture about capes is apparently especially funny to Objectivists who know that Ayn Rand wore a trademark cape (as did many of her imitative sycophants).

So let's assume, for the sake of argument, that all of this is true.

What exactly is wrong with that?

Plenty of filmmakers put political subtexts into their movies. Is it only objectionable when the subtext follows the "wrong" politics?

Show me where I said there's anything wrong with it.

In a follow-up post, I specifically said: "I should note that I am not criticizing the film for having conservative themes, merely observing the fact."

[Jonathan Chance]

As a guy trained in journalism, this is why I avoid blogs. By and large they're merely crap from a crap-point -of-view. It's like the concept of objectivity has just been tossed out and 'news' is now 'opinion'.

spoke-, you're overselling it, buddy. I saw the movie three times and didn't see an overarching political agenda (or even much of a subtext) in it. AND I'm libertarian AND I've read most things that Rand wrote.

[Spoke]

I can only say that a lot of people seem to have independently reached the same conclusion as I.

Though none on this board, apparently. ;)

[Khadaji]

I guess I'm surprised - and probably naive - to find that these are conservative views. Do liberals really embrace the message that people shouldn't excel? I had always thought that this was a new-age kinda thing, not a liberal/conservative thing.

Is this true? Do the liberals amoung us really believe that all the kids should get awards, whether they succeed or not and no one should be shown as a winner?

[Spoke]

Do liberals really embrace the message that people shouldn't excel?

Of course not. But that is a standard objectivist caricature of the liberal view. (As found in both The Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged.)

[Menocchio]

Menocchio, The Iron Giant was based on a Ted Hughes story. Bird could not change the major story elements.
Because Hollywood types are notoriously reluctant to change plot points in adaptations.

And if you'll note, both of the articles I linked acknowledged Edith Head, and proposed (with some evidence) that the Edna Mode character is an amalgam of Ayn Rand and Ms. Head. Edna's lecture about capes is apparently especially funny to Objectivists who know that Ayn Rand wore a trademark cape (as did many of her imitative sycophants).
Or anyone who read Watchmen, which was also the probable source of the government shuts down sueprheroes plot (not that Bird didn't do good things with it).

[Spoke]

(Note to self: Revive this thread and good-naturedly serve up some crow to fellow dopers when Brad Bird one day admits on the record that he is an objectivist and/or libertarian.)

[Jonathan Chance]

I can only say that a lot of people seem to have independently reached the same conclusion as I.

Well, sure. But remember...this is the Internet we're dealing with. If I wanted to it's likely I could find a group of people who agree with anything about a movie. But using that to bolster my position in a debate is hardly useful or convincing.

Dammit. I hate the bloggers. I really do.

[Hodge]

I just remembered another suspicious line from the movie. When Elastigirl is telling Violet to use her powers against the villains, she says:

"We no longer have room for doubt."

That line doesn't make much sense in the context of the movie, and is awfully clunky as a result. ("Doubt" wasn't the problem for our heroes.) On the other hand, the line makes perfect sense if Violet is an allegorical America:

We no longer have room for doubt. Don't hold back Use your full powers to combat the villains.

Hmm.I'm not saying I don't see some of the same themes you're seeing but I do think you're really stretching to make some things fit. For example, the line quoted above makes perfect sense in the context of Violet's established character. (Shrinking?) Violet's a shy girl who uses her hair and invisibility powers to hide from the world and who lacks confidence in herself. Her mother is merely giving her a pep talk while emphasizing the gravity of their situation.

AFAIC, reading geo-political subtext into that scene is awfully clunky.

[SolGrundy]

I can only say that a lot of people seem to have independently reached the same conclusion as I.

Though none on this board, apparently. ;)
Not even. I noticed the same things, but I never would've combined it under the term "conservative." As much as I liked the movie (an awful lot), there was this bitter undertone to it that just didn't sit right with me, although I couldn't put my finger on it exactly. I said exactly that to a friend of mine, who'd worked on the movie, and she described it best. It's the whole objectivist/Ayn Rand theme of the thing.

The main characters' name is "Parr." They know they're better than everybody else, but they resent not being able to express it. The people keeping them down are over-the-top annoying bureaucrats. It was just an annoying spin on the whole concept -- it's not that everyone has something that makes them special, it was "we're special, we're better, and we're not allowed to express that because you're afraid of how great we are."

It just seemed bitter, especially knowing that the storyline was predominantly a single man's work. I wanted to say, "Yes, The Iron Giant was brilliant. And The Incredibles is technically flawless and just an amazing accomplishment. But get over yourself. As terrific as it is, the movie's only possible because of the labor of hundreds of people, working together, each contributing something to it."

And the bit with Bomb Voyage: that's just typical "it's funny to hate the French and mimes" stuff that's been around for decades. Trying to get a political agenda out of that is a real stretch, methinks.

[ITR champion]

The very liberal film critic Walter Chaw cheered the movie as an anti-Bush piece. If you were trying to convince people that batting the deficit down to a mere half trillion is good enough, would you want folks watching a movie that tells them to demand "super" performance rather than settling for mediocrity? And certainly far more time is spent trashing evil insurance corporations than evil lawyers.

On one libertarian board I saw a poster insisting that the short film about the lamb is statist, pro-taxation propaganda because it tells kids that if they should happen to get "fleeced" once a year (and in the spingtime too, shockingly) they should just smile and learn to live with it. All of this probably just goes to show something, but I can't think what...

[Rysler]

Despite spoke-'s ribbing, I'm a liberal who ascribes to Ayn Rand's view (and am uncomfortable at its appropriation by modern Conservatives), and the Objectivist perspective wants me to see the film.

I read about all this in Newsweek, so it must be true! :D

Then again, I went to Team America expecting a pro-Bush rally and walked away thinking it was rather centrist, so it's probably all a mix of the baggage you bring, the baggage the creator brings, and the baggage the press provides.

[ITR champion]

Another interesting take from a blogger more familiar than I with Rand's writings and biography. (http://www.tblog.com/templates/index.php?bid=kurtmaddox&static=343349)

Frozone's three-hour radio address at the end is the dead giveaway, if you want my opinion.

[Marley23]

I just read about half a dozen interviews with Bird so far, and here's what it got me. In several interviews, Bird says the germ of The Incredibles idea is 12 years old and he started working with Pixar on it in 2000. All of which is a bit early if he wanted to bring in these themes about terrorists.

And if you'll note, both of the articles I linked acknowledged Edith Head, and proposed (with some evidence) that the Edna Mode character is an amalgam of Ayn Rand and Ms. Head.
In this interview (http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/bird.php), asked about the inspiration for Enda, Bird says, "You know, she has come up, other people have mentioned Edith Head, and people have mentioned that she looks like Patricia Highsmith, you know, we just sit there and draw it and draw it over again. If you get The Art Of Incredibles book you will see some of our other attempts where she is fatter and older and thinner and we tried a lot of things and we arrived at that and then people make their own connections and you kind of go, ok, that is valid, that is valid too, yeah, I kind of like that, I also like that. "

Edna's lecture about capes is apparently especially funny to Objectivists who know that Ayn Rand wore a trademark cape (as did many of her imitative sycophants).
I wonder what will happen the first time someone synchs up The Incredibles with Dark Side of the Moon.

Over here (http://movies.radiofree.com/interviews/theincre_brad_bird.shtml), we get this question: What was the inspiration for the title characters?

"The goal was to make the family based on archetypes. If you're going to have superheroes and it's a family, what are the family archetypes? The dad is always expected to be strong, so I made him really strong. Moms are always pulled in a thousand different directions, so I had her stretch. Teenagers in general and teenage women in particular are self-conscious and kind of defensive when they're going through that point between being a kid and being an adult, so they're like, "Don't look at me!" So she's invisible and has force fields. 10 year old boys are hyperactive energy balls that ricochet off the walls, so I had him have super speed. And babies are unrealized potential. So that was kind of what drove me to do it that way."

Maybe he just won't admit the truth. This has probably gone on past the edge of pointlessness. You know, I heard Mike Reiss (a Simpsons exec producer) give a speech a few weeks ago, and at one point he mentioned all of the books and essays that have started coming out about the show, like The Gospel According to The Simpsons. He said once in a while, he tries to read one of them, but he always gives up quickly because the things are so completely and totally wrong. I think that's what happens when you try to read too much into things.

[Odesio]

Evil trial lawyers bring down the super heroes.


I always thought lawyers were universally disliked.


Our first villain is French.


He was also competant and what isn't funny about a mime named Bomb Voyage?


That whole theme of enforced mediocrity seemed very (Ayn) Randian. First, we see super heroes forced to be mediocre by government bureaucrats. Then we see Dash hounded by his mom into not using his super-speed in athletic events. Then we get the line "When everyone is special, no one is." I felt like I was watching The Fountainhead for kids.


Maybe, though I have to admit I don't consider Ayn Rand to be all that conservative.


On the island, at the caves, Elastigirl tells Violet and Dash that the villains they are fighting are not like TV villains. They want to kill people. She then tells Violet that she [Violet] shouldn't hold back from using her full power to fight these villains. (A message for America in the War on Terror?)


Or a message that you've got to put in 100% when the brass tacks are down.


Speaking of killing, the villains in this film don't get captured or de-fanged, as in typical childrens' films. They get killed. In large numbers.[/list]


Which I applaud. I'm sick of children's movies that have a lot of violent action only to end up with nobody getting hurt at the end. Good for The Incredibles for showing that there are consequences to their actions.

Marc

[Ranchoth]

The "libertarian" theme in The Incredibles—what I saw of it, at least—just seemed more of a reflection of some themes I've been seeing in comics for a few years. You know, with the "common people" fearing and resenting superpowered people, even when the supers are honestly just trying to help people. (You see that a lot in the everyday Marvel universe. And in things like "Marvels" or "Dark Knight Returns," you can see a backlash against that kind of attitude.)

So, maybe it's more of a "modern comics" theme than an attempt push a political view.

Or maybe it's just a movie. ;)

[rjung]

Ah. Found another quote from Elastigirl, warning her children:

"Villains aren't simply villains. They're terrorists. They'll kill you if they can."
Huh? I'm pretty darn sure that quote isn't in the movie. The line you're thinking of goes like--

"Remember those villians from the shows you watched on Saturday morning TV? These guys aren't like that. They won't hesitate to kill you because you're children."

Not one peep about terrorists, sorry. And while I don't have a copy of the script to compare against, I'll wager good money my recollection is closer to the celluloid (or the MPEG, in this case ;) ).


Really, watching conservatives trying to claim The Incredibles as a "red state" movie gets silly after a while. One critic insisted it had a Republican message just because it showed a family with two parents! *Gasp!* :eek: ;)

[Skott]

I went into this movie with no foreknowledge of it, and no preconceived notions.
You may not have had preconceived notions of the film, but certainly seem to have an overinflated desire to ascribe political motivations to nonpolitical situations. Is that a preconcieved notion?

From what I've read [liberal intellectualism], Byrd based the film on his own life [Moore-style self-centered liberalism]/mid-life crisis, combined with his love of comics [Smith-style liberalism]. The fact that it's a positive [conservative battery lobby], family-centric [conservative revisionists] film [standard liberal message forum], makes it simply [red state] that.

Many of the themes present are almost standard in many comics/comic-based mediums. Saying that the film is conservative says more about you than the film. For example, let me show you just how liberal [liberal] this film is!

Evil trial lawyers bring down the super heroes.
So only conservatives are allowed to mock the "I-spilled-coffee-on-myself-where's-the-nearest-deep-pocket?" mentality? It seems like a critique of American society overall, which is were liberals usually excel.
Our first villain is French.(Did he surrender? I don't recall... ;)) Liberals tend to be angry/disappointed about how silent (politically) most Americans are. Taking down a mime is a symbol of the liberal desire that everyone should have a voice.
Then we see Dash hounded by his mom into not using his super-speed in athletic events.
A very common theme in Superman/Smallville. There's a difference between doing your best in a competition of a level playing field and using powers/steroids/nanites to beat out your competition. Liberals have always been against those who use their (cash) powers to beat down the normal individual.
On the island, at the caves, Elastigirl tells Violet and Dash that the villains they are fighting are not like TV villains. They want to kill people.
Seems like a natural explanation for kids who have only seen these type of battles in the comics. Usually, it's the conservatives who are accused of hiding the truth from the nation, and it's the job of the liberals to expose and enlighten people from their childish "I can do no wrong/I cannot die" mentality.
She then tells Violet that she [Violet] shouldn't hold back from using her full power to fight these villains. (A message for America in the War on Terror?)
Doing everything you can to defend yourself and those you love? Sounds more like FDR than Bush to me.
Speaking of killing, the villains in this film don't get captured or de-fanged, as in typical childrens' films. They get killed. In large numbers.
Funny. Usually it's the more conservative people who tend to want to censor the more grisly events in life, not liberals.

[Skott]

One critic insisted it had a Republican message just because it showed a family with two parents!
Well, the fact that they were of a different sex is what makes it a Republican Message. :rolleyes:

[HPL]

One critic insisted it had a Republican message just because it showed a family with two parents! *Gasp!* :eek: ;)

I've heard some conseratives lament the fact that in many Cartoon movies, a kid usually only has one parent and it's the mom. I don't lament it but I have noticed it.

[Phantom Dennis]

I definitely picked up an Objectivist vibe during the film, although I think at least some of it's purely secondhand -- the film is a tribute to golden- and silver-age comics, a genre that's rife with Objectivist themes (Absolute good verses evil, individualistic "supermen" who single-handedly protect or threaten the masses).

Plus, the movie was stylistically grounded in the architecture of the period: mid-century Modernism, which, as a result of the Fountainhead, will always be associated with Rand and Objectivism.

If Bird did consciously inject some Objectivist themes into his movie, I salute him for it -- I'm no disciple of Rand, but I think it's cool when a film strives to be something more than simple entertainment and offers thoughtful, well-presented ideas, even if I don't agree with them.

[Marley23]

Huh? I'm pretty darn sure that quote isn't in the movie. The line you're thinking of goes like--

"Remember those villians from the shows you watched on Saturday morning TV? These guys aren't like that. They won't hesitate to kill you because you're children."
Correctamundo. IMDb's quotes aren't always 100%, but this matches how I remember it (I saw it Tuesday):

"Remember the bad guys on the shows you used to watch on Saturday mornings? Well, these guys aren't like those guys. They won't exercise restraint because you are children. They will kill you if they get the chance. Do not give them that chance."

[Kaitlyn]

Menocchio, The Iron Giant was based on a Ted Hughes story. Bird could not change the major story elements.

You obviously haven't read the book. They have similar elements in the beginning, but vastly differing middle and ending segments. The Iron Man ends with the giant outwitting a planet-sized alien who's come to destroy the Earth.

Adam Reed, from one of your links, may be making the common mistake of seeing a hidden agenda where there is none. For example, he goes to great lengths to show how the design of costumes with fabrics that adapt to the wearer's powers and without capes is somehow related to objectivist philosophy. What I saw was a wholesale lift of the capeless, adaptable fabric costumes designed by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby for the Fantastic Four in 1961 (make the uniforms blue with a big 4 instead of red with an !, and those are FF uniforms), or the Broome / Infantino costume designed for the Flash.

Another example: Reed sees the "Capes are out" speech as evidence that the movie is espousing an objectivist philosophy. I saw it as a reference to Watchmen, in which one hero eschews a cape because it's impractical, and another is killed as a result of his wearing a cape, which in turn results in all heroes giving up on the idea altogether.

Are these references to the comics I've read, or am I interpreting them this way because of the ideas I come to the movie with regarding superheroes and the comics from which they come ? Just because I see Fantastic Four uniforms in those that Edna designs doesn't mean that that was the intent; I may be imposing my perceptions onto the material. Perhaps your libertarian/conservative deconstruction of The Incredibles wasn't actually there in it's construction.

[VarlosZ]

The theme in The Incredibles is more or less Randian; I don't think anyone seriously disagrees with this. Whether and to what extent this was intentional is debatable (and largely unknowable). The rest of the OP (which tries to link the movie to various modern conservative policies in the U.S.) seems, to me, a huge stretch.

ITR champion:
Frozone's three-hour radio address at the end is the dead giveaway, if you want my opinion.
Hahahahaha! Apparently I'm the only one, but I thought that was hilarious.

[Jonathan Chance]

I'd hesitate to say that the themes in The Incredibles is 'Randian'. That's giving a bit too much credit.

It would be like saying that anything that espouses the theme of 'The individual' vs 'The Group' is by definition 'Randian'. It's possible to have similar themes without deriving them from Ayn Rand.

[Evil Captor]

Why are you trying so hard to convince people that the movie had a conservative bent?

Why are you and others trying so hard to convince people that it doesn't?

[Spoke]

You obviously haven't read [The Iron Man]. They have similar elements in the beginning, but vastly differing middle and ending segments. The Iron Man ends with the giant outwitting a planet-sized alien who's come to destroy the Earth..

At any rate, I still do not see how The Iron Giant is supposed to be inconsistent with an objectivist worldview. The villain is a government bureaucrat, who brings a jack-booted army to bear against our heroes. Right in the groove of early-90s anti-government paranoia from the Right. Waco and Ruby Ridge and all that. (And yes, that anti-government paranoia had formerly been the property of the Left.)

I didn't go into The Incredibles looking for Randian themes. They jumped out at me. (And not me alone, apparently. See that NY Times review, for example.) It might be that it was obvious to me because I have several objectivist friends who have been spouting this stuff at me for many years.

Now, once I caught wind of some Randian themes, I will grant that I may have started looking for other conservative elements. (Maybe I am reading too much into the French character, for example). But I think anyone who denies the Randian themes are there is flat wrong.

And I do think that some of my fellow Democrats really resist the idea that they may have enjoyed a movie with Randian subtext.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

i went looking for images of the Incredibles (OK, Elastigirl) online, & found a review in French.

A Babelfish translation rendered this--

At one time, Mr. Indestructible was admired of all. He saved the cats, stopped the malicious ones and avoided the catastrophes between two amorous meeting with Elastigirl. But the hell is paved good intentions: our superhéros was found trailed in front of the courts to have wounded suicidal by saving it. It is not necessary any more so that one administration meddles relegates the heroes dressed up to the wall cupboard. What to make depressed most valiant of the iron men.

Imagine the Four Fantastic ones meeting Simpson: here Indestructibles, a family of superhéros where that moves when the housework is done. Yes, but here: the small life pépère in suburbs does not make the deal of Dad Parr - forgiveness: Mr. Indestructible. To regulate the conflicts between Violet, the teenager badly in his skin, and Dash, the facetious kid, it too is for a superman. Then when a mysterious spy proposes to him to take again service, time to readjust its lycra and, lighter than a bird, faster than a train, more powerful than a ball of gun, Mr. Indestructible is back!

PARODIES AND REFERENCES

Fan of superhéros since his more tender childhood, Brad Bird theirs returns well. In addition to all the traditional ones of the kind towards which Bird lorgne tenderly, one thinks of James Bond, the realizer remembering the decorations and the music of films of adventures of the Sixties. In short, like always at Pixar, this parody good fleure memories of childhood, the reference to the popular culture and unslung imagination: you always wondered who manufactures and rapièce the costumes of the superhéros? Bird gives you the answer with the tastiest character of film and a scene of anthology. Your costume, with or without cape? There still, the debate is worth its heavy épinards."Les Indestructibles", it is the family film par excellence: there is a hero for each member of the family. In addition to super - dad, super-mom does not let himself walk on the feet (elastic), Violette is the older sister in search of visibility and Dash will have right to the most exciting scene of film. Without forgetting Jack-Jack, the most beautiful baby of the world (obviously) to the hidden talents...
© Free Belgium 2004
Note To Moderators--not a complete review, A partial reprinting of a computer translation, with copyright noted & attributed.

[Spoke]

There's an interesting thread at IMDb (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0317705/board/flat/13424766) regarding philosophical themes in The Incredibles. (In the IMDb thread, as here, there is heavy resistance to the idea that The Incredibles has Randian elements.)

Yet another person who sees Rand in the movie. Odd that so many of us viewers seem to have arrived at the same "delusion."

Consider the possibility that you (those of you who still don't see it) may be resisting seeing Randian themes that are really there.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I checked out Rand on Wikki, & her ideas seem to be a sad mish-mash of, well other people's ideas.

Maybe you're giving her concepts too much credit. :dubious:

[Spoke]

I checked out Rand on Wikki, & her ideas seem to be a sad mish-mash of, well other people's ideas.

No argument here. But Rand (like her or not, and whether or not her ideas are a rehash) has been very influential over the past few decades.

[eunoia]

"Randian"? On the surface, it's self-evident! :D Although perhaps more accurately described as "meta-Randian": a wiser, more balanced and reasoned Rand largely mitigating all the Manichaeism and frustrated lust. I think of it as "Rand à la française©" 'cause I love pissing off self-described "conservatives" who use objectivism as a shield.

[FriarTed]

Here's an interesting review (http://www.solohq.com/Articles/Reed/Objectivist_Morality_Anime.shtml) by an objectivist writer who embraces the film, and sees something of Ayn Rand in the character of Edna Mode (the costume designer).


I WAS GONNA MENTION THAT! I THOUGHT SHE LOOKED LIKE A LITTLE ANIMATED AYN!

Seriously, I did get some Randian vibes when watching The Incredibles but I didn't regard it as a deliberate agenda.

[Bryan Ekers]

Then again, I went to Team America expecting a pro-Bush rally and walked away thinking it was rather centrist, so it's probably all a mix of the baggage you bring, the baggage the creator brings, and the baggage the press provides.

Actually, I thought Team America wasn't so much centrist as it simply ragged on the right wing for the first half (showing how cluelessly violent the Team was) and the left wing for the second half (once the FAG actors showed up), so the movie largely cancels itself out.

It's damn funny, though.

It's easy to interpret Randian elements in The Incredibles, but... so what? Is it an enjoyable movie or not?

[Menocchio]

Why are you and others trying so hard to convince people that it doesn't?

I can't speak for ultrafilter, but as for myself, I hate it when people try to cram political ideas into apolitical media.

I find the whole Randian thing especially laughable as the principle inspiration for the film was "Watchmen", where the Randian is treated as a pathetic psychopath.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Whether they are Randian or not, please CLICK HERE (http://www.electricferret.com/battle/bigfight.shtml) & go a site to vote for our Fab Four, the Family Incredible.

After all, they're movie was much better than the FF's lame & unreleased mess.
:cool: :)

[Spoke]

I can't speak for ultrafilter, but as for myself, I hate it when people try to cram political ideas into apolitical media.

Oh, right. Because no one (http://www.geocities.com/onewhoisalmighty/yertle.html) has ever (http://www.geocities.com/onewhoisalmighty/sneetches.html) tried to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Knight_Returns) slip social or political commentary (http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/banned-cartoons/) into a juvenile art form (http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/mad001.html)

I find the whole Randian thing especially laughable as the principle inspiration for the film was "Watchmen", where the Randian is treated as a pathetic psychopath.

"Inspired" maybe (at least partly), but that doesn't mean that Bird necessarily agrees with Moore's politics.

[Airblairxxx]

I would like to offer the following observation as my invaluable contribution to this debate, to wit:

I thought the costume designer was a takeoff on Carrie what's-her-name, the former spokeswoman for Old Navy who passed away a few years ago.



I will now return you to posts written by smart people.

[Marley23]

Yet another person who sees Rand in the movie. Odd that so many of us viewers seem to have arrived at the same "delusion."
You've really got to get over the idea that this proves something. A lot of people independently came to the conclusion that the moon landing was fake. :p

Consider the possibility that you (those of you who still don't see it) may be resisting seeing Randian themes that are really there.
I still want to know what country Tony is.

Airblairxxx, I think you're thinking of Carrie Donovan.

I THOUGHT SHE LOOKED LIKE A LITTLE ANIMATED AYN!
I'm really not seeing it. (http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/ayn-rand.html)

[CrazyCatLady]

So your entire argument is that other people saw it too, so you must be right? That's generally not considered a very good standard of evidence 'round these parts. I mean, lots of people independently saw a kid standing by the window in that scene in Three Men and a Baby, too. That doesn't mean he was there, ya know?

There are elements to the movie that could reasonably be described as being in line with Rand's views, yes. Does that necessarily mean they're derived from her works? No, there are lots of other sources for those sorts of ideas. Does the fact that there are other sources necessarily mean they're not derived from Rand's works? Of course not. But that's really about all we can say about it--there's just not enough evidence to really say one way or the other.

My personal opinion is that the themes are there because they make for a good story. That's the whole point of a story-telling medium, isn't it?

[Spoke]

Yet another person who sees Rand in the movie. Odd that so many of us viewers seem to have arrived at the same "delusion."You've really got to get over the idea that this proves something.

Charles Manson thought that "Helter Skelter" and the rest of the Beatles' White Album foretold a race war. Charles Manson was the only one who believed this. Clearly, he was imposing an interpretation on the material. He was nuts.

On the other hand, plenty of people have independently come to the conclusion that Yertle the Turtle was an allegorical story of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. They came to this conclusion even though (if I am not mistaken) Dr. Seuss never openly acknowledged it. They came to this conclusion because the allegory jumps right out at the reader. So much so that many different people came to the same obvious conclusion.

Ditto with The Incredibles. The allegory (and particularly the Randian talking points) jump right out at the astute viewer, and many people have independently noticed the objectivist slant.

Say Marley23, you do know that there is such a thing as allegory, yes? You know there is a reason the word exists in the dictionary?

Some artists are clever and interesting enough to get their points across with symbolism and analog, in the hope that some of their audience will be clever and astute enough to pick up on it.

Or maybe Moby Dick is just a story about a guy chasing a whale.

[Spoke]

So your entire argument is that other people saw it too, so you must be right?

No, my entire argument is based on the plot points and dialogue I have mentioned, augmented by the fact that many other people have noticed the same things.

Yet another such person. (http://badgerherald.com/artsetc/2004/11/10/incredibles_attacks_.php)

[Spoke]

I still want to know what country Tony is.

Cute, Marley23. Your snarkiness really makes your case! Touché, sir! Check and mate!

:rolleyes:

Not every character in an allegorical story must be allegorical.

What does Ishmael represent in Moby Dick?

[middleman]

I've heard some conseratives lament the fact that in many Cartoon movies, a kid usually only has one parent and it's the mom. I don't lament it but I have noticed it.

I think it is not so much a political stance but rather because animators are cheap bastards. :D

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Whether they are Randian or not, please CLICK HERE (http://www.electricferret.com/battle/bigfight.shtml) & go a site to vote for our Fab Four, the Family Incredible.

After all, they're movie was much better than the FF's lame & unreleased mess.
:cool: :)

<ahem>
We're 200 votes behind, folks.

[Miller]

If there is one statement I find most odious when it comes to discussions of films, books, or other media, it is "You are reading too much into it."

That said...

It seems clear to me that The Incredibles was made without regard to any political agenda. As a result, it is easy to read any political agenda into it.

I'll grant the Objectivist shadings to the character of Edna Mode. They are unmistakable, and seem to be clearly intentional. However, I think the OP and those who think like him are overlooking something very important: Edna Mode is batshit crazy. Also, she is more than just a little sinister. That Edna views the superheroes through an objectivist filter does not mean that the film endorses that viewpoint. At most, her character is a nod to the established trope that the entire notion of superheroes are essentially fascist by its very nature. A trope most succesfully mined in The Watchmen by Alan Moore, who is not exactly well-known for his conservative political views.

Outside of this one character, the OP's claims fall apart. It is trivially easy to find a liberal bias that is just as vigorously supported by the material as the perceived conservative bias. Some examples off the top of my head:

Mr. Incredible assaults his boss, who is a souless corporate leech, but is protected from repurcussions by a sympathetic government spook. This illustrates the liberal principle that goverment is more helpful and trustworthy than private enterprise.

The superheroes feel that it is their responsibility to use their superior abilities to help those less powerful than them. This is a reflection of the general liberal sensibility that led to the creation of the welfare state.

The villain is an inventor who specializes in weapons, and wants to sell his inventions to the general public. Liberals, of course, support gun control laws and want to limit the availability of weapons to the public at large.

The Incredibles are a family of superpowered beings. Most families are not made of superpowered beings. There fore, the Incredibles are a nontraditional family. Liberals are known to be champions of non-traditional families.

At the end, when Dash is competing in the track meet, his parents encourage him to win, but not by too much. Again, this echoes the liberal welfare state, which places limits on how much one may excel past his fellow citizens.

And so on and so forth.

Not every character in an allegorical story must be allegorical.

What does Ishmael represent in Moby Dick?

While you may have a point in general, you could not possibly have chosen a worse novel with which to illustrate it. Take a look at this Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28Moby-Dick%29) article for the most superficial interpretation of what Ishmael represents in Moby Dick.

[Spoke]

It seems clear to me that The Incredibles was made without regard to any political agenda. As a result, it is easy to read any political agenda into it.

I disagree. If that were so, there would be as many people coming out of the theater saying "Did you catch all the liberal undertones?" That doesn't seem to be happening.

And about the Ishmael character? You're reading too much into it. ;)

[Miller]

I disagree. If that were so, there would be as many people coming out of the theater saying "Did you catch all the liberal undertones?" That doesn't seem to be happening.

Way to sidestep the actual argument there, spoke-. Got anything more substantive to add then an appeal to popularity?

[Lamia]

Now, once I caught wind of some Randian themes, I will grant that I may have started looking for other conservative elements. (Maybe I am reading too much into the French character, for example). But I think anyone who denies the Randian themes are there is flat wrong.Are where?

That's a serious question. Are you claiming that they're "there" in Bird's mind, "there" in the minds of the viewers, or "there" in the actual pixels onscreen?

I don't think anyone is denying that it is possible for a viewer to interpret the film as having Randian themes. If anyone is, they're being silly. Obviously some people have interpreted the film this way.

However, Bird has apparently said nothing that would suggest that this was his intended message. And if you want to argue that the film has Randian themes in some objective (ha!) sense, independent of the artist's intent or the viewer's perception, well...I don't think you're going to find a lot of people who'd even agree that such a thing is possible.

[Miller]

However, Bird has apparently said nothing that would suggest that this was his intended message. And if you want to argue that the film has Randian themes in some objective (ha!) sense, independent of the artist's intent or the viewer's perception, well...I don't think you're going to find a lot of people who'd even agree that such a thing is possible.

I would, but I'm shamelessly post-modern.

[Lamia]

I would, but I'm shamelessly post-modern.I would have thought the shamelessly postmodern position would be that an artistic work could have no objective meaning, that it was all a matter of individual perception.

There is of course the school of thought that holds that neither artistic intent nor viewer's reaction matters, it's the work itself that's important, but I don't think that's very postmodern. Is it?

[Miller]

You're absolutely right, Lamia. In my haste to be a smartass, I misread your post.

[Lamia]

You're absolutely right, Lamia. In my haste to be a smartass, I misread your post.Thank goodness! I studied postmodernism in school, but I've had a rough day and was afraid I'd managed to somehow get it all backwards.

[JDeMobray]

On the other hand, plenty of people have independently come to the conclusion that Yertle the Turtle was an allegorical story of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. They came to this conclusion even though (if I am not mistaken) Dr. Seuss never openly acknowledged it. They came to this conclusion because the allegory jumps right out at the reader. So much so that many different people came to the same obvious conclusion.Many people still think J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is an allegory for World War II or Industrialization despite no greater authority than Tolkien himself repeatedly, and loudly, telling them it isn't. My conclusion: just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make them right.

[rjung]

I've heard some conseratives lament the fact that in many Cartoon movies, a kid usually only has one parent and it's the mom. I don't lament it but I have noticed it.
It's primarily a storytelling convenience -- having two parents solve the crisis in the story would often make for a considerably shorter film.

Actually, I thought Team America wasn't so much centrist as it simply ragged on the right wing for the first half (showing how cluelessly violent the Team was) and the left wing for the second half (once the FAG actors showed up), so the movie largely cancels itself out.
If you want to tease right-wing fans of Team America, you can point out that the theme song "America -- F*ck Yeah!" gives a shout-out when "Democrats" are mentioned, but only gets confused Huhs? for "Republicans." :D

(No, I don't believe there's any hidden message there, just pointing out the silliness of looking for political themes where there aren't any)

[Odesio]

A piece of art can be interpreted in a way that's not in line with what the artist intended. So let's just say for a moment that there was a Conservative or a, god forbid, Randian message in The Incredibles. Was it a bad message?

I saw The Incredibles as an allegory for the modern American family. There are themes common to many households regardless of politial affiliation. If you want to call them Conservative, fine. I still think there were good messages throughout the movie.

Mr. Incredible holds a job where he suffers through dehumanizing conditions at a job he hates in order to provide for his family. He's obviously suffering through a mid-life crisis and it comes to a boil when he is finally emasculated by his boss. He's depressed to the point where he doesn't pay much attention to his family.

Elastigirl also gave up her hopes and dreams in order to act as the glue, or maybe the rubber band, that keeps the family together. She's the one who has to handle the children and she's frustrated by her husbands lack of interest in family affairs.

Violet has been told all her life that she can't be who she is. She doesn't know who she is and as a result she has no confidence in herself and doesn't know how to approach others.

Dash has also been told that he can't be who he is. Instead of withdrawing he acts out by behaving badly.

[Charlie Tan]

Let's clean up a misconception first. "Filming" in the sense of shooting might not be an adequate term. However, what could be called filming is not something that is changed during the process. First the story is pitched, then there's a script, then storyboards, then the storyboards are animated and voice artists are brought it. The art of computer animation uses so many resources, it's simply not possible or feasible to do additional "footage", just in case. To add or delete scenes would meaqn a lot more work than on an´ordinary feature film. There aren't multiple camera angles, a better take on the facial expression on an actor or whatever. The "filmng" must be planned in the smallest detail, before animation begins or it would be too expensive.

Rendering is the art of translating all the information in the file that make up the shot. [snip] Each frame represents 1/24 of a second of screen time and takes about six hours to render, though some frames have taken as much as ninety hoursSource. (http://www.pixar.com/howwedoit/index.html)

Essentially, the story, as we've seen on the screen, has been set in stone since early '02.

Others have slammed you, spoke- for using argumentum ad populum and doing so really doesn't help your stance (Logical Fallacies (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm)).

And finally, you argue that you went in with no preconceived notions, but your OP reads as if you were looking for arguments from other sources to support your position. I get the impression that you went in, saw a movie, caught some vibes and then googled to see if there were more to this than you thought. When you found that - bingo! - you set out to write an OP which you didn't think could miss with the (perceived) liberal slant the SDMB has, in effect performing intellectual masturbation and wanting pats on your back from people telling you how clever you are. The way you phrase your OP:am I the only one who notice the conservative themes of this movie?
indicates that this is the case. However, your effort backfired and instead of getting pats on the back from liberal posters, you get ripped a new one, whereas the conservative posters are missing from the thread. My guess is that's why you're definding your position with such sound and fury (yet signifying...).

Finally, I find it hard to believe that you hade no preconceived notions. I don't expect every doper to read every thread, but I remember talk about possible conservative slant when the previews came out, and I remember a shortlived thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=282421) by rjung on the subject. I believe there were more.

[even sven]

And sometimes a movie is just a movie.

This is not true. Every thing in every movie, from Citizen Kane to Con Air is there for a reason. This is doubly true for animated movies, where somebody has to sit down and figure out exactly what is going to be in each frame and what it will look like. Nothing in a movie is ever an accident. You can bet even the stupidest movie you've seen has a worldview behind it.

I havn't seen the movie, but my friend came back saying he got a strong conservative/Ayn Rand vibe that just settled wrong with him. I dismissed it as a film student's tendancy to overanalyse, but now I'm kind of curious about the truth. Maybe I'll revive my old film-school practice of scribbling notes madly in the dark at the theater tommorow.

[Charlie Tan]

This is not true. Every thing in every movie, from Citizen Kane to Con Air is there for a reason.

Well, yes. That's not the same as saying it's there for a purpose, though.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

This is not true. Every thing in every movie, from Citizen Kane to Con Air is there for a reason. This is doubly true for animated movies, where somebody has to sit down and figure out exactly what is going to be in each frame and what it will look like. Nothing in a movie is ever an accident. You can bet even the stupidest movie you've seen has a worldview behind it.

Well, yes. That's not the same as saying it's there for a purpose, though.
Summary
even sven --everything in every film is utterly symbolic, always.
The Gaspode --sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Sorry, sven. If you were right, then there was a symbolic reason for the cheezy cardboard tombstone falling over in Plan 9 From Outer Space. It's reasoning like that that gave us Oliver Stone conspiracy flicks. :rolleyes:

[RickJay]

This is not true. Every thing in every movie, from Citizen Kane to Con Air is there for a reason.
You're giving a lot of filmmakers wayyyy too much credit, and I suspect a lot of them would happily tell you so.

Citizen Kane? I can buy that, maybe. Con Air? I can't. Do you really think EVERYTHING in Con Air has a "reason"? Aside from "to blow up real good"?

[Spoke]

Others have slammed you, spoke- for using argumentum ad populum and doing so really doesn't help your stance (Logical Fallacies (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm)).

You are misunderstanding my argument. I'm not arguing that it's true because it's popular. Rather, I'm arguing that because so many people independently noticed the same things (the important part), it makes it less likely that there are no Randian themes there.

Moreover, I am not just making my argument on that basis. I pointed to specific Randian moments in the movie, and specific instances of possible Randian references. (As well as some more generally conservative themes.)

And finally, you argue that you went in with no preconceived notions, but your OP reads as if you were looking for arguments from other sources to support your position. I get the impression that you went in, saw a movie, caught some vibes and then googled to see if there were more to this than you thought. When you found that - bingo! - you set out to write an OP which you didn't think could miss with the (perceived) liberal slant the SDMB has, in effect performing intellectual masturbation and wanting pats on your back from people telling you how clever you are.

What an obnoxious and offensive post, Gaspode. I hope you'll think better of it. I went in to the movie knowing nothing about it except what I'd seen in ads (and that my friends had enjoyed it). I saw Randian themes in the film and wanted to kick off a discussion of those themes, so I turned to my friends at the Straight Dope because I figured they were a clever bunch who might have also picked up on them and might have even spotted some references I did not. (Have you never seen a movie or read a book and wanted to discuss its themes?) If anything, I opened the thread with some trepidation, knowing that a lot of liberal members of the SD were huge fans of the movie, and might react with hostility (as they have) to the idea that they had bought into a conservative franchise.

Finally, I find it hard to believe that you hade no preconceived notions. I don't expect every doper to read every thread, but I remember talk about possible conservative slant when the previews came out, and I remember a shortlived thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=282421) by rjung on the subject. I believe there were more.

I make it a point not to read threads about movies before seeing them, so as to avoid spoilers and preconceived notions. If you are calling me a liar, that is disappointing. I'd like to keep this discussion on a higher plane. Do we really need to insult one another? An apology would be appreciated.

I opened this thread hoping to spark a discussion, and fully expecting I'd catch some flak. I knew some would respond emotionally because they are emotionally attached to the movie. I am trying very hard not to respond in kind.

[Kaitlyn]

To have an agenda, there must be the intent to convey a specific message. You haven't provided any evidence that a conservative message was the purpose of the elements you've cited. No matter how many people see that same message, to say that it is an agenda, you must prove intent.

While I have little doubt that many are seeing Randian elements, I think that to ascribe to the filmmakers a political message on that basis without any corroboration from those filmmakers is a bit dubious, especially in light of the explanations offered by Bird that do not indicate any political motivations.

People coming to the movie with a background in superhero comics tend to see a lot of allusions to Watchmen and Fantastic Four. Check boards dedicated to comics and you'll see them all over the place.

People coming to the movie with a background in political analysis will likely find a political message, and can find the same message by looking at boards / blogs to find corroboration.

Bird has denied the connection to the Fantastic Four that I and a lot of other comic book geeks think are obvious, and has described an entirely different motivation for his characters' powers. The similarity may be coincidental, and we may be projecting our world view onto the movie. Just because I see strong connections to the FF doesn't mean that that's where they came from.

To make claims about what the movie's agenda was, you must provide evidence that the elements you see were placed there intentionally by the makers for the purpose of sending the message you are recieving. That you inferred a specific message doesn't mean that was the message that was intended.

[BrotherCadfael]

I come back to the question I asked upthread: Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the filmmakers did in fact and on purpose put a Randian theme into the movie.

So what is wrong with that? Just that you don't like the message? Big whoop. There are tons of movies out there with messages I don't like, but a filmmaker has the legal and moral right to put whatever message he likes into his creation. If it pisses off enough people, they won't go and see the film. Period.

[Spoke]

I come back to the question I asked upthread: Let's stipulate for the sake of argument that the filmmakers did in fact and on purpose put a Randian theme into the movie.

So what is wrong with that? Just that you don't like the message?

And I'll give you the same answer I gave before. Nothing is wrong with that.

I encourage filmmakers, authors and artists to create works that can be appreciated on more than one level (even if I don't necessarily agree with the message conveyed).

To have an agenda, there must be the intent to convey a specific message.

...To make claims about what the movie's agenda was, you must provide evidence that the elements you see were placed there intentionally by the makers for the purpose of sending the message you are recieving.

What evidence would you accept? Must the filmmaker himself spell out the meaning for you? Only the most pedestrian artist would explicate his own allegories. Wouldn't you agree?

[Spoke]

People coming to the movie with a background in superhero comics tend to see a lot of allusions to Watchmen and Fantastic Four. Check boards dedicated to comics and you'll see them all over the place.

...Bird has denied the connection to the Fantastic Four that I and a lot of other comic book geeks think are obvious, and has described an entirely different motivation for his characters' powers. The similarity may be coincidental, and we may be projecting our world view onto the movie. Just because I see strong connections to the FF doesn't mean that that's where they came from.

I should respond to this as well.

I agree that a Fantastic Four influence is obvious. I think you and other comic book fans are correct in seeing that influence. (Once again, when a lot of people see the same thing, it's probably because it's there.)

So why would Bird deny it then? Maybe because he fears those lawyers he lampoons in his movie...

Yes, 'The Incredibles' has taken inspiration from several sources, but you forgot the main one: The Fantastic Four. 20th Century Fox is still debating whether to take any legal action against the family of superheroes, which bears a striking resemblance the the Marvel Comics band of superheroes.

Cite. (http://cgi1.usatoday.com/mchat/20041115003/tscript.htm)

[Charlie Tan]

You are misunderstanding my argument. I'm not arguing that it's true because it's popular. Rather, I'm arguing that because so many people independently noticed the same things (the important part), it makes it less likely that there are no Randian themes there.

I don't think you know what argumentum ad populum is.

A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to
be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust)
sector of the population.

What an obnoxious and offensive post, Gaspode.

:shrug:

I'm reacting to how I perceive you, based on numerous posts in this thread. Maybe my perception is wrong, maybe you intended something else. Much like I think Brad Bird intended something which you failed to see.

[Spoke]

Oh, I know what argumentum ad populum is. I explained the distinction between that argument and my own. Perhaps both Mr. Bird and I are being too subtle for you.

By the way, do you know what argumentum ad hominem is?

I'm particularly curious in light of this jab:

My guess is that's why you're definding your position with such sound and fury (yet signifying...).

Let's raise the tone of the debate a bit, shall we?

[Merijeek]

The very liberal film critic Walter Chaw cheered the movie as an anti-Bush piece. If you were trying to convince people that batting the deficit down to a mere half trillion is good enough, would you want folks watching a movie that tells them to demand "super" performance rather than settling for mediocrity? And certainly far more time is spent trashing evil insurance corporations than evil lawyers.

On one libertarian board I saw a poster insisting that the short film about the lamb is statist, pro-taxation propaganda because it tells kids that if they should happen to get "fleeced" once a year (and in the spingtime too, shockingly) they should just smile and learn to live with it. All of this probably just goes to show something, but I can't think what...

(shudder)

Has it occurred to anyone that, maybe, all of this results simply from there being too many English Majors out there with too much free time?

-Joe

[Miller]

What an obnoxious and offensive post, Gaspode. I hope you'll think better of it. I went in to the movie knowing nothing about it except what I'd seen in ads (and that my friends had enjoyed it). I saw Randian themes in the film and wanted to kick off a discussion of those themes, so I turned to my friends at the Straight Dope because I figured they were a clever bunch who might have also picked up on them and might have even spotted some references I did not. (Have you never seen a movie or read a book and wanted to discuss its themes?) If anything, I opened the thread with some trepidation, knowing that a lot of liberal members of the SD were huge fans of the movie, and might react with hostility (as they have) to the idea that they had bought into a conservative franchise.

I don't think anyone here is insulted by the idea that The Incredibles has a conservative agenda. I think most posters on the 'Dope are more mature than that.

What is insulting is your insistance that the reason people aren't agree with you is the aforementioned political bias, and not the paucity of your arguments. What's insulting is that you so far have refused to engage in the debate you started with anything more substantial than, "A lot of other people see it, so it must be true!"

The idea that there is a conservative message in The Incredibles is defensible. So start defending it, already. You're going to need something more concrete than a couple broadly-drawn political stereotypes and a logical fallacy to do it, though.

[Spoke]

The idea that there is a conservative message in The Incredibles is defensible. So start defending it, already. You're going to need something more concrete than a couple broadly-drawn political stereotypes and a logical fallacy to do it, though.

What more shall I do? I pointed out the bits of dialogue that struck me as suspiciously conservative. I pointed out the Randian themes, prominent in her works The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (i.e., enforced mediocrity-- the subjugation of the talented individual to society's needs). I pointed out the symbolism and possible winking references to Rand: the Atlas image (Mr. Incredible with the globe-shaped robot), Edna and her cape obsession. Did I mention Edna's cigarette holder? (Also a Rand trademark.) Or the fountain in Edna's courtyard?

At some point, either you see the references and "get it" or you don't. Not much more I can do, barring a "confession" by Mr. Bird.

::shrug::

[Charlie Tan]

spoke- - no, you don't. Your claim was that you weren't arguing a position because it was popular, but because you'd found others seeing the same thing. That is argumentum ad populum. It doesn't have anything to do with popularity, it could be about dislike as well.

And yes, I do know what ad hominem is, considering I linked to the logical fallacies index. And I still think you're fiercly arguing something which signifies nothing.

[Spoke]

Gaspode, I'll try one more time with you:

The point of my argument is not that "A lot of other people believe the same thing, therefore it's true," which would be a classic argumentum ad populum.

The point is that others viewing the same film independently reached the same conclusion. The independent arrival at one conclusion is the crux of it. In other words, it is not a case of groupthink (upon which the classic argumentum ad populum often relies). It makes it less likely that those of us who caught the references are simply imagining things.

Sorry if that distinction is too subtle for you.

[Zebra]

I don't think Ms Rand nor Brad Bird invented the hero type that is presented in The Incredibles.

I don't think Ms. Rand invented the idea of the Individual vs Society either.


The jabs at enforced mediocrity could just be jabs at political correctness.


Oh and doea an Objectivist = Conservative? The thread title is Conservative agenda not Objectivist.


The cape and the cigarette holder could be references and maybe not. If Rand loved a cape wouldn't Edna love capes? Just because she talks about capes when she is discussing the design of SUPER HERO costumes doesn't mean it is a reference to Rand. I bet the film makers decided, for some reason, that the heros would not wear capes. Probably due to animating capes is a pain, so they may have added that line for just an explanation and then used it as a set up for the joke at the end.

Would you say that Spy Kids is conservative as well? To me The Incredibles is very similar to Spy Kids.

[rjung]

One thing that gets the Randians all excited about The Incredibles is that the notion "When everyone is special, no one is" gets expressed twice in the movie. For some reason, some folks take this to be an endorsement of Rand.

What they conveniently ignore is that the notion gets expressed by less-than-likeable characters in the film -- first by a surly ten-year-old, and later by a cackling supervillian. Doesn't that serve to undermine the idea, instead of endorsing it?

[Charlie Tan]

Gaspode, I'll try one more time with you:

[snip]

The point is that others viewing the same film independently reached the same conclusion. The independent arrival at one conclusion is the crux of it. In other words, it is not a case of groupthink (upon which the classic argumentum ad populum often relies).[snip]

Sorry if that distinction is too subtle for you.

It's funny how a lot of posters independently reached the same conclusion about your OP and subsequent posts. To say that you are wrong, because so many, myself included, pile on you, would be AAP, but it would never the less not be true. I don't think you're right. I think you're stretching more than Elastagirl to make the dots connect.
I may be wrong though. You might be on to something most others in this thread don't see.

The reverse is true too, but not very subtle. Saying that other people have seen what you saw, doesn't make it true.

[Spoke]

One thing that gets the Randians all excited about The Incredibles is that the notion "When everyone is special, no one is" gets expressed twice in the movie. For some reason, some folks take this to be an endorsement of Rand.

What they conveniently ignore is that the notion gets expressed by less-than-likeable characters in the film -- first by a surly ten-year-old, and later by a cackling supervillian. Doesn't that serve to undermine the idea, instead of endorsing it?

It's Mr. Incredible (not Dash) who first makes the observation.

[Miller]

Gaspode, I'll try one more time with you:

The point of my argument is not that "A lot of other people believe the same thing, therefore it's true," which would be a classic argumentum ad populum.

The point is that others viewing the same film independently reached the same conclusion. The independent arrival at one conclusion is the crux of it. In other words, it is not a case of groupthink (upon which the classic argumentum ad populum often relies). It makes it less likely that those of us who caught the references are simply imagining things.

Sorry if that distinction is too subtle for you.


Subtle? Try non-exsistant. An appeal to popularity has nothing to do with "groupthink." The fact that a bunch of people have come to the same conclusion as you has absolutely no relevance to the validity of your conclusion. It doesn't matter if you all came to the same conclusion independently, or if you all sign up to the same newsletter. If you're wrong, being able to find a bunch of other people who are also wrong doesn't suddenly make you right. If your argument has any merit to it, it will be able to stand on its own, even if you're the only person on the planet who thinks that way.

As for what more you could do, how about actually addressing some of the counter arguments that have been presented in this thread? That's sort of how a debate works. One person puts up an argument, another person puts up a counter argument, the first person tries to show how his argument is stronger than the counter-argument, and so forth. All you've done is repeat your initial assertions, repeatedly commit the same logical fallacy, demonstrate your ignorance of the function of allegory, and then whine that liberals are being mean to you. That's not a debate, that's just annoying.

[Spoke]

It's Mr. Incredible (not Dash) who first makes the observation.

Hmm. I may be mis-remembering that, now that I think about it. Maybe it was Dash.

[JDeMobray]

All you've done is repeat your initial assertions, repeatedly commit the same logical fallacy, demonstrate your ignorance of the function of allegory, and then whine that liberals are being mean to you. That's not a debate, that's just annoying."OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse! You want room 12A, next door."

[Spoke]

Miller, I think maybe you and Gaspode do not fully grasp the concept of the argument ad populum. Take a look. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html)

The main problem with this fallacy is the fact that many people agree on something does not imply that what they agree on is true; nevertheless, the fact that many people agree, can be relevant evidence for the truth in some instances. The trick is to understand the nature of the relevance of the premisses to the conclusion.

In this case, I am not arguing that because many people believe X it is true. I am arguing that if enough people independently spot symbolism and allegory in a film, maybe it's really there. The independence of the observations is the crux of the argument, not merely the numerosity.

[Spoke]

...demonstrate your ignorance of the function of allegory...

Oh please do explain the function of allegory to me, kind sir. Dispel my ignorance!

[Miller]

It's Mr. Incredible (not Dash) who first makes the observation.

No, it's not. Dash says that in the car with Elastigirl after the meeting with his principal. Mr. Incredible expresses a somewhat similar sentiment later in his argument with Elastigirl, although he never specifically says, "When everyone is special, no one is," at any point in the movie.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

WHOA!
WHOA!
WHOA!

People!

Take it easy!

We all like the film, & interpetations of its symbolism are less important than that fact.

We are also all Dopers, all friends.
No need for Syndrome-level hostility.

[Miller]

In this case, I am not arguing that because many people believe X it is true. I am arguing that if enough people independently spot symbolism and allegory in a film, maybe it's really there. The independence of the observations is the crux of the argument, not merely the numerosity.

And you're wrong. There are some arguments where the number of people supporting a position is relevent to the argument. This is not one of them. If your argument were, "Many people believe there is a conservative subtext to The Incredibles," then pointing out the number of blogs repeating this theory would be relevant to the debate. Since you are instead arguing the objective reality of your interpretation, the number of people who agree with you means nothing, regardless of wether or not they came to the interpretation independently.

Oh please do explain the function of allegory to me, kind sir. Dispel my ignorance!

Easy. You seem to have confused allegory with metaphor. The primary difference between the two is that an allegory is sustained throughout the length of the work, and is executed in the minor details of the work, not just the larger themes. Generally speaking, it is more proper to say that an entire work is allegorical, not just one aspect/character/situation within it, although there are examples to the contrary. Many allegorical works contain a number of characters or situations that are self-contained allegories not directly or thematically related to each other, while in others, every aspect of the story contributes to the over-arching allegory. (Or at least one of them, if there are more than one allegory functioning in the story.) Moby Dick, interestingly enough, is an example of both, depending on which allegory in the novel you are adressing. Nothing in Melville's later work has only a literal meaning, Moby Dick more so than anything else he ever wrote.

Returning to The Incredibles, to say that Violet is an allegory for the American electorate would mean that every major aspect of her character should, to some extent, fit into that allegory. Therefore, her relationship with the boy at school, as well as her relationship with her family, her conflict with Syndrome, and the nature of her super abilities (all major parts of her character on the purely literal level of the film) must all somehow be making a statement about America/the American electorate.

If you want to say that Violet's conversation with her mother in the cave is a metaphor for the current state of the American elctorate, you would be on firmer ground, although I would still disagree with your conclusion.

[Lamia]

What evidence would you accept? Must the filmmaker himself spell out the meaning for you?I see you've chosen to ignore my question as to where you think these Randian themes lie -- in Bird's mind, in the minds of the viewers, or in the film itself. If you're going to claim that they're part of Bird's intent then yes, you need some sort of outside evidence. A quote would do it. Barring that, proof that Bird was a follower of Ayn Rand, or was even familiar with the ideas of Ayn Rand, would be helpful. Not conclusive, but better than nothing, which seems to be all you've got.

Only the most pedestrian artist would explicate his own allegories. Wouldn't you agree?No.

<later post>

The point is that others viewing the same film independently reached the same conclusion. The independent arrival at one conclusion is the crux of it. In other words, it is not a case of groupthink (upon which the classic argumentum ad populum often relies). It makes it less likely that those of us who caught the references are simply imagining things.So says you.

Anecdote time: I wrote a short story in college that was published in the annual school literary magazine. Quite a few people read it and told me they liked it. They also almost universally interpreted the story in a different way than I intended.

I won't detail my story's plot here, I'll just say that it was a mystery/ghost story. Almost everyone who read the story told me they thought it was cool how throughout the story the investigator protagonist was gradually becoming posssessed by the spirit of the murderer. This is an interpretation that didn't even cross my mind while I was writing the story. I rather wish I had because I like it and I think the story is better for it, but I didn't.

This doesn't make the interpretation a bad one. It is interesting, and it is perfectly consistent with the text of the story. However, anyone claiming that I must have meant for the reader to come away thinking the narrator was possessed by a ghost would be wrong. It wouldn't matter how many people thought that was my intent when writing the story. It wasn't, and that's all there is to it.

[Kamino Neko]

I bet the film makers decided, for some reason, that the heros would not wear capes. Probably due to animating capes is a pain

Or more likely because capes have been out of fashion for superheroes for a long time. 90%+ of current cape wearing heroes have been wearing them for half a century or more. And a lot who were wearing capes back then, no longer do. (The most recent versions of Sandman and Starman wore ordinary street clothes, for instance.) Even that far back, most heroes skipped the cape.

[Bryan Ekers]

On reflection, superhero fiction and Ayn Rand both owe major debts to Nietzsche, so one could argue for a common source, rather than the latter inspiring the former.

[Kaitlyn]

What evidence would you accept? Must the filmmaker himself spell out the meaning for you?

Bird has done exactly that in some instances--he explains how the Incredibles' powers are metaphors for their positions in the family and in society. What he hasn't done is mention Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or any of the hot button Conservative issues in your OP.

He's even said exactly what the inspiration for Edna was--a combination of Edith Head and other fashion designers--while making no mention of Ayn Rand, yet this seems to do nothing to discourage her being interpreted that way.

If you were saying that you see Randian / conservative themes in the movie, your point would be unassailable. If you were claiming that a Randian interpretation was possible based on the reasoning in your OP, you would get no argument from me.

But when you try to claim a conservative agenda is present in the film, you're making a claim regarding the intent of the filmmaker, which requires a much higher standard of evidence than your personal interpretation.

A quote from Bird in support of your claims would be a good start.

Only the most pedestrian artist would explicate his own allegories. Wouldn't you agree?

No. Many artists in all kinds of fields are often only too happy to explain the inner workings of their art, while others are just as reticent. It has nothing to do with the artist's talent.

[Ranchoth]

Edna and her cape obsession. Did I mention Edna's cigarette holder? (Also a Rand trademark.) Or the fountain in Edna's courtyard?

A fountain. In a fancy courtyard. ::Pause:: Yeah, you don't see something like that very often.

And Edith Head, (http://www2.lhric.org/pocantico/womenenc/head.jpg) the fashion designer Edna was patterned after, also had a trademark cigarette holder. So did Cruella De Ville, and Holly Golightly. I'm pretty sure I've seen FDR with one, too.

And maybe the "cape obsession" is in there because it's funny? Y'know, what with the superheroes, the stylized symbols of perfection, having to face what would be a practical problem with their choice of clothing? Hell, search these boards, and you'll find a few jokes (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5322467) about superheroes (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5319703&postcount=3) with capes. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5319867&postcount=7)

[CrazyCatLady]

[ I am arguing that if enough people independently spot symbolism and allegory in a film, maybe it's really there.

Well, see, the operative word here is maybe. It might be there, and it might not. And so far, people are agreeing that it might be there. What people are disagreeing with is you saying that it's definitely there, because there's just not enough evidence to really say one way or the other. I mean, so far your evidence seems to consist of your opinions and those of people who agree with you. That would be great if we were talking about your motivations or intentions. However, we're talking about Brad Bird's motivations and intentions, so the only opinion that counts as real evidence is his.

[Spoke]

You seem to have confused allegory with metaphor. The primary difference between the two is that an allegory is sustained throughout the length of the work, and is executed in the minor details of the work, not just the larger themes.


al·le·go·ry n. pl. al·le·go·ries

1. a.The representation of abstract ideas or principles by characters, figures, or events in narrative, dramatic, or pictorial form.

b.A story, picture, or play employing such representation. John Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress and Herman Melville's Moby Dick are allegories.

2. A symbolic representation: The blindfolded figure with scales is an allegory of justice.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Nothing in there says an allegory must be sustained in every detail throughout the work.

There you go imposing your own interpretations again.

[Spoke]

I see you've chosen to ignore my question as to where you think these Randian themes lie -- in Bird's mind, in the minds of the viewers, or in the film itself. If you're going to claim that they're part of Bird's intent then yes, you need some sort of outside evidence. A quote would do it. Barring that, proof that Bird was a follower of Ayn Rand, or was even familiar with the ideas of Ayn Rand, would be helpful. Not conclusive, but better than nothing, which seems to be all you've got.

I believe it was the intent of the filmmaker to convey these Randian (and other conservative) themes.

Is he going to say that in print? Of course not. He'd be foolish to do so, since it might alienate a large segment of the market. I expect Bird is a better businessman than that.

Familiarity with Rand? Well, I believe Bird was on the Simpsons staff the year Maggie wound up in the Ayn Rand Daycare Center. Does that help you?

[Spoke]

He's even said exactly what the inspiration for Edna was--a combination of Edith Head and other fashion designers--while making no mention of Ayn Rand, yet this seems to do nothing to discourage her being interpreted that way.

Cite?

In every article I've seen, Bird has refused to be pinned down on this subject. From USA Today:

Some say she is based on Edith Head, the grande dame of movie costume designers. Others guess diminutive actress Linda Hunt or fashion mag mogul Anna Wintour. Lotte Lenya's Rosa Klebb in From Russia With Love? Frau Farbissina in the Austin Powers spoofs?

As the mighty mite herself might say, "I never look back, dahling. It detracts from the now." Bird's lips are sealed. Except for the fact that he actually speaks for E, as she is known.


Cite. (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2004-11-02-bird-secret-identity_x.htm)

This is the most pathetic pile-on I've ever seen. If y'all are going to pile on me, please do a better job of it! :D

[Spoke]

Here's some outside reading for those unfamiliar with Ayn Rand: Synopsis of Atlas Shrugged (http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/id-7,pageNum-7.html). From that synopsis:

Worsening the economic depression in the U.S. is the unexplained phenomenon of talented men retiring and disappearing. [Ahem.]

...Because of the new economic restrictions, the major Colorado industrialists have all retired and disappeared. [Ahem.]

See the parallels or don't. I can't make you see 'em.

[Odesio]

See the parallels or don't. I can't make you see 'em.

So does that mean the popular DC Kingdom Come graphic novel also ripped off Atlas Shrugged? In Kingdom Come most of the old tyme superheroes like Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern and Batman either retired completely or cut themselves off from most of the world. The results were ultra-violent heroes who had more interest in killing their foes then saving people and things were getting bad.

Of course in The Incredibles there's no clear decline shown like there was in Kingdom Come or Atlas Shrugged. Still, I do believe your comparisons are valid whether or not Byrd meant to include them in his movies. Hey folks, just because you see something the artist didn't mean to include doesn't make your point of view less valid. Personally, I think the Atlas Shrugged connetion is not the main theme of the movie.

Did the Randian connections make this movie more enjoyable or less enjoyable for you?

Marc

[Spoke]

So does that mean the popular DC Kingdom Come graphic novel also ripped off Atlas Shrugged?

Quite possibly. I haven't read it.

I have heard that the world of comic books is rife with objectivists/libertarians these days, but I'm not close enough to the industry to know if that's true.

[Spoke]

Did the Randian connections make this movie more enjoyable or less enjoyable for you?

Forgot to answer this. I diagree strongly with Randian philosophy and libertarian politics. On the other hand, I appreciate a film that has layers of meaning. So it's a mixed bag. On the whole, I probably enjoyed it more, because it allowed me to have this pleasant debate with my friends at the SDMB. :D

[Zebra]

The thing is that you have brought up things that may point to a Rand-theme in the movie.

Other people are pointing out different, and they feel, more plausible explanations for those things.


I could easily say how Mr. Incredible represented the Communist revolution.

After all his suit was blue and he worked alone. (each person is out for themselves)

Later his whole family works together. From each according to his abilities and they all wear red. Clearly united they stand against the machines of industry. Syndroms henchmen are all slaves to machinery as Syndrom doesn't have power, he just controls the means of production.

So Mr. Incredible is a commie.

[Kaitlyn]

Cite?

In every article I've seen, Bird has refused to be pinned down on this subject. From USA Today:

Cite. (http://www.killermovies.com/i/theincredibles/articles/4575.html):

"We certainly looked at Edith Head, but there are actually a lot of female fashion designers that have giant glasses," Bird said. "Also, Patricia Highsmith was an influence. She wrote The Talented Mr. Ripley. When you're designing a character, you're just saying, 'Who is that?' We have drawings where she's taller and fatter and older and younger and thin. We tried a lot of stuff, and we ended up with something that reminds you of Edith Head and Linda Hunt."

[Miller]

Nothing in there says an allegory must be sustained in every detail throughout the work.

There you go imposing your own interpretations again.

Jesus Christ, man. A dictionary definition? Do a little real research into the subject next time before you go shooting your mouth off. Of course the dictionary doesn't make a meaningful distinction between allegory and metaphor. Dictionaries represent popular usage, and most people don't understand the difference. We're talking about a technical term used in a specialized field towards which most people do not devote any serious amount of study. If you want to understand allegory (and especially if you're going to snark at other people for not understanding allegory) try and find a real reference source that spends more four lines explaining the fucking term.

From here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory):

"An allegory is distinguished from a metaphor by being longer sustained and more fully carried out in its details, and from an analogy by the fact that the one appeals to the imagination and the other to the reason."

From here (http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/ent/A0803383.html):

"The allegory is closely related to the parable, fable, and metaphor, differing from them largely in intricacy and length."

From here (http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Terms/allegory.html):

"In an allegorical narrative, each character (or, sometimes, object) has both a literal meaning and a consistent metaphorical meaning, and the story proceeds on two levels at once."

From here (http://bcs.bedfordstmartins.com/virtualit/fiction/elements.asp?e=7):

"An allegory is a work of fiction in which the symbols, characters, and events come to represent, in a somewhat point-by-point fashion, a different metaphysical, political, or social situation."

And that's just what I could find on-line at work.

[Miller]

I believe it was the intent of the filmmaker to convey these Randian (and other conservative) themes.

Is he going to say that in print? Of course not. He'd be foolish to do so, since it might alienate a large segment of the market. I expect Bird is a better businessman than that.


Right, because no one has ever made it anywhere in America by courting conservative sentiments. :rolleyes:

[ITR champion]

(shudder)

Has it occurred to anyone that, maybe, all of this results simply from there being too many English Majors out there with too much free time?

-Joe

Dude, the libertarian who complained about the lamb short was joking. I think.

[Lamia]

Familiarity with Rand? Well, I believe Bird was on the Simpsons staff the year Maggie wound up in the Ayn Rand Daycare Center. Does that help you?The question should be does it help you. I am not the one trying to argue that Bird is a closet Randian, remember?

[Steve MB]

On reflection, superhero fiction and Ayn Rand both owe major debts to Nietzsche, so one could argue for a common source, rather than the latter inspiring the former.
I've seen at least one suggestion that the movie's portrayal of all supers as good guys (the three villains we saw were normals using tech -- very explicitly so in the case of Syndrome) reflected Nietzsche's idea of the "superman" (he saw the "superman" as morally superior, not merely stronger and smarter).

The more straightforward explanation is that the backstory just doesn't work if there are inherently powered supervillains (as opposed to tech-using ones who can be locked up like any other crook once their toys are disabled and taken away) -- in that situation, the government obviously wouldn't have the option of banning superheroes.

[Bryan Ekers]

The more straightforward explanation is that the backstory just doesn't work if there are inherently powered supervillains (as opposed to tech-using ones who can be locked up like any other crook once their toys are disabled and taken away) -- in that situation, the government obviously wouldn't have the option of banning superheroes.

Actually, I find it odd in the extreme that there are (or were) lots of supers but not one of them went evil. Were there any references to supervillians in Mr. Incredible's/Frozone's reminiscing? Heck, I can see Dash going evil, and the baby is, heh, a wildcard. I hope the sequel throws in a supervillian or two. It ain't a megabattle without a whole bunch of buildings knocked over, and the big robot thing has been done.

[Miller]

Actually, I find it odd in the extreme that there are (or were) lots of supers but not one of them went evil. Were there any references to supervillians in Mr. Incredible's/Frozone's reminiscing? Heck, I can see Dash going evil, and the baby is, heh, a wildcard. I hope the sequel throws in a supervillian or two. It ain't a megabattle without a whole bunch of buildings knocked over, and the big robot thing has been done.

Just blue-skying, here, but everyone who had superpowers in the movie was about the same age, Dash, Violet, and the baby excepted. There's no mention of any new supers arising during the ban, and no mention of elderly supers who might have retired of their own freewill before the government ban. In fact, the ban itself suggests the whole super phenomenon is rather recent. Maybe there was one incident that created a bunch of unprecedented superbeings (A meteor shower, or cosmic rays, or flouride in the water... whatever), with no new ones coming along until the old ones started having kids. Perhaps, of that one batch of superheroes, all the evil ones had been killed off before the movie started, leaving only science villains and non-powered lunatics to act as foils for the remaining supers.

[Kaitlyn]

Perhaps it's just character economy. You really only need two villains: One for the early sequence, and one for the body of the movie. You need a bunch of heroes to act as victims for the bots Syndrome was building. There may have been supervillains that just didn't appear in this movie.

[Spoke]

Dictionaries represent popular usage

What can I say? I'm a popular guy. Can't you tell from the thread responses?

We're talking about a technical term used in a specialized field

No, you are talking about technical meaning. I am using the term as it is popularly understood.

At any rate, I think the allegory was sustained throughout the movie.

My guess would be that Bird originally conceived this movie as a purely Randian allegory, where society's overachievers were being held back, but then ultimately prevail (the central theme of Rand's works).

After 9/11 (notably many months before filming began), he saw the opportunity to modify the film somewhat to include the terrorism themes. Note that this would have required only slight modification: make the name of the villain Syndrome (terrorism being a syndrome of sorts, no?), add the line about using full powers and about Syndrome wanting to kill people, and voilá, you have added another layer of meaning to the film.

Now you can view The Incredibles (or perhaps all supers) not just as society's over-achievers, but alternatively as allegorical Americans. (Not Violet alone, by the way.) Shunned by the rest of the world because of the damage they (which is to say we Americans) sometimes do, even though their (and our) intentions are not evil.

But then a real threat comes into the world (Syndrome) and the supers must spring into action. The Incredibles must learn to use their full powers against Syndrome without fear. They must be willing to kill to defeat him, because he intends to kill them.

(Note: the image of Mr. Incredible with the globe-shaped robot on his shoulders beautifully serves both allegorical meanings.)

Your homework assignment: Please explain the super-villain name Syndrome.

[Steve MB]

Were there any references to supervillians in Mr. Incredible's/Frozone's reminiscing?
None that would distinguish between inherently-powered villains and normals with gadgets.

[Miller]

No, you are talking about technical meaning. I am using the term as it is popularly understood.

And you are using it incorrectly. The term has a specific meaning, especially in the context of a discussion of this nature. That you are misusing it in a common way does not make that misuse any less incorrect.

And I'm only making an issue of it because you got pissy with Marley23 for using the term as it is meant to be used.

At any rate, I think the allegory was sustained throughout the movie.

Then what does Violet's putative boyfriend represent?

My guess would be that Bird originally conceived this movie as a purely Randian allegory, where society's overachievers were being held back, but then ultimately prevail (the central theme of Rand's works).

Again, if you're going to make claims about the film maker's actual intentions, you're going to need some solid evidence to back up your claims. Bird has publically stated on numerous occasions that the allegory he was working with in the movie was the family unit, and has never made any mention of Ayn Rand or objectivism. I don't have any problems with your interpretation per se, although I don't agree with it, but I do object to your insistance that your interpretation tells us more about Brad Bird than it tells us about you.

After 9/11 (notably many months before filming began), he saw the opportunity to modify the film somewhat to include the terrorism themes. Note that this would have required only slight modification: make the name of the villain Syndrome (terrorism being a syndrome of sorts, no?), add the line about using full powers and about Syndrome wanting to kill people, and voilá, you have added another layer of meaning to the film.

Terrorism is a "syndrome"? That's a hell of a stretch, there. Further, I don't see anything in the movie that directly relates to the concept of terrorism that isn't contained in the normal supervillain trope.

Now you can view The Incredibles (or perhaps all supers) not just as society's over-achievers, but alternatively as allegorical Americans. (Not Violet alone, by the way.) Shunned by the rest of the world because of the damage they (which is to say we Americans) sometimes do, even though their (and our) intentions are not evil.

But then a real threat comes into the world (Syndrome) and the supers must spring into action. The Incredibles must learn to use their full powers against Syndrome without fear. They must be willing to kill to defeat him, because he intends to kill them.

There's nothing wrong with this interpretation, so long as you recognize that it is merely an interpretation, and that there are equally compelling interpretations that run entirely counter to what you're suggesting.

Your homework assignment: Please explain the super-villain name Syndrome.

I don't really have one. I don't think one is necessary to understanding the movie. If anything, I suppose it is a comment on his mental health.

[Spoke]

And I'm only making an issue of it because you got pissy with Marley23 for using the term [allegory] as it is meant to be used.

Marley23 didn't use the term at all. He was essentially taking the position that a cigar is just a cigar. (Or "A is A" if you like. ;) )

I merely pointed out to Marley23 that there is such a thing as allegory.

Sometimes A is more than A.

(And Miller, quibbling over whether it's technically an allegory or a metaphor is a silly exercise in semantics that misses the point.)

[Charlie Tan]

After 9/11 (notably many months before filming began), he saw the opportunity to modify the film somewhat to include the terrorism themes. Note that this would have required only slight modification: make the name of the villain Syndrome (terrorism being a syndrome of sorts, no?), add the line about using full powers and about Syndrome wanting to kill people, and voilá, you have added another layer of meaning to the film.


You really don't understand how a computer animated (or cell animated) feature film is made. [iYour[/i] homework assignement is to find out how it's done. When come back, bring knowledge, not opinion.

[Miller]

Marley23 didn't use the term at all. He was essentially taking the position that a cigar is just a cigar. (Or "A is A" if you like. ;) )

I merely pointed out to Marley23 that there is such a thing as allegory.

Sometimes A is more than A.

You have an interesting approach to reading comprehension.

(And Miller, quibbling over whether it's technically an allegory or a metaphor is a silly exercise in semantics that misses the point.)

Hey, you asked me to explain the difference. Don't whine at me because I pursued a tangent you expressly brought into the conversation.

[rjung]

I'll note that, AFAIK, Pixar and Brad Bird have admitted making one change to The Incredibles in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks:
Remember when Mr. Incredible and Frozone were hanging out, listening to the police scanner, and eventually saved those people from a burning building? That wasn't in the original script -- instead, Mr. Incredible would take out his frustrations by finding a condemned building scheduled for demolition, tear it down himself, then hang out afterwards in a bar with Frozone. This was changed in storyboards in direct response to the 9/11 attacks; a reference to the change can be found in the book The Art of The Incredibles.
Now, if they're not shy to admit that plot point was made in response to 9/11, why would they be oblique about all the other stuff spoke- keeps alleging?

[Spoke]

I'll note that, AFAIK, Pixar and Brad Bird have admitted making one change to The Incredibles in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Which nicely disproves The Gaspode's opinion that it would have been impossible to make script changes after 9/11.

Now, if they're not shy to admit that plot point was made in response to 9/11, why would they be oblique about all the other stuff spoke- keeps alleging?

Because Bird doesn't want to explicate his allegory (and potentially alienate anti-war viewers)?

(Do you have a cite for your quote, by the way? Not a hostile question. Just asking.)

[Charlie Tan]

No it doesn't. Your roriginal claim was that the movie was hailing conservative values, being in tune with how America's going conservative. Hindsight is always 20/20 and this is easy to say efter the election, after TWAT, Iraq 9/11.
Re-doing one scene, takes an incredible amount of work and costs a boatload of money. You're claiming that several scenes, the name of the villain, the over all theme of the movie was changed.

[Spoke]

Your original claim was that the movie was hailing conservative values, being in tune with how America's going conservative.

I never said anything about the film being tailored so as to be "in tune" with political trends. I just said the movie had conservative themes. Presumably it has conservative themes because the writer genuinely holds those beliefs, not because he is going after a target audience.

Re-doing one scene, takes an incredible amount of work and costs a boatload of money. You're claiming that several scenes, the name of the villain, the over all theme of the movie was changed.

According to this site (http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/incredteam.html), "[t]he Incredibles story went through quite a few changes." Hell, not only was the name of the villain changed, they changed principal villains altogether and made multiple scene changes in the process.

Your argument doesn't make sense. Bird first brought this story to Pixar in 2000. 9/11 happened a few months later. Filming didn't begin until the following year, and the film wasn't released until two years later. Are you saying the work they did in the few months prior to 9/11 couldn't have been modified in the three years which followed? If you are making that argument, you are wrong, as the cited evidence demonstrates.

[Charlie Tan]

:sigh:

The animation process takes about two years. That means that the story and all elements therein must be decided before that date. There must be a vary good reason to change a scene after the animation process has begun. With so many elements involved, it's not like with live action movies (which BTW is very expensive too). The production company can't just set up a camera and re-do a scene with Craig Nelson. Changing the smallest thing, like Syndrome's name, leads to a lot of other changes - the design of his suit, meaning all scenes where he's wearing said suit. All voice work, where "Syndrome" is spoken. And even if animation lip movements is not that hard with stylized characters such as these(they basically open and and close the mouth, no sibilants, for instance), if it's change from Bob to Syndrome, there's going to bit a whole lot of work to re-do.

Prior to animation most, sometimes all, voice acting is done. While the actors don't have to be on set at the same time, there's still scheduling to take care of. So re-doing the voice work entails delays and higher costs.

This is what's done when the script is greenlighted. My WAG based on normal procedures say that the animation process started late summer 2002.
But to get the project greenlighted, they first do a rough animation of the storyboard and show it to the execs. This takes time doing too. And it was probably during this stage that the above mentioned scene was changed. It wouldn't surprise me if the bean counters at Disney had something to do with that.

Check out the credits for a modern animated feature and realize just how many people are involved in the project. Then tell me that things where changed on a whim.

BTW, you'd have a bigger chance of selling me Heinlein as the inspiration. He's a better writer, has a larger humanitarian streak than Rand, and it's a lot easier thinking about a young Brad Bird reading Heinlein and getting influenced, than a young Brad Bird reading Rand - or an adult Brad Bird scheming evilly in his lair to subtly sell conservative, libertarian, randian, objectivist, anti-terrorist and anti-french ideas as an allegory in a family movie.

Occam's razor, you know.

[Marley23]

According to this site (http://www.agirlsworld.com/rachel/hangin-with/incredteam.html), "[t]he Incredibles story went through quite a few changes." Hell, not only was the name of the villain changed, they changed principal villains altogether and made multiple scene changes in the process.
They did make some changes. You still haven't managed to show that any of those changes were to inject new themes, be they terrorism-influenced or conservative or Objectivist (did we ever decide which one the movie is?) into the movie. The edits specifically mentioned don't seem to have changed the themes of the movie at all. And yet again, we hear that Edna's accent is Japanese+German, which has nothing to do with Rand.

[Marley23]

"I think it's about being okay with yourself and not feeling like you have to cut yourself to fit some big conceived notion of what you should be. It was very liberating for me when I figured out that I could define who I was and that it was okay. If people liked that, then it was great and if they didn't, sorry but I’m not going to change. I think it’s something like that."
That's pretty typical kids' movie stuff.

[Spoke]

You still haven't managed to show that any of those changes were to inject new themes, be they terrorism-influenced or conservative or Objectivist (did we ever decide which one the movie is?) into the movie.

Scratch an objectivist and you'll find a conservative. All the "objectivists" I know tend to vote Republican.

As I explained above, my impression is that the movie began as an objectivist piece, and had a few minor changes made after 9/11 to add a "war on terror" subtext.

So there was no need to "edit in" objectivism. That was the foundation of the film, IMO. And only a couple of minor edits would have been needed to add the "war on terror" subtext after 9/11, as I've pointed out.

[Marley23]

As I explained above, my impression is that the movie began as an objectivist piece, and had a few minor changes made after 9/11 to add a "war on terror" subtext.

*Evil trial lawyers bring down the super heroes.
*Our first villain is French.
[...]
*On the island, at the caves, Elastigirl tells Violet and Dash that the villains they are fighting are not like TV villains. They want to kill people. She then tells Violet that she [Violet] shouldn't hold back from using her full power to fight these villains. (A message for America in the War on Terror?)
*Speaking of killing, the villains in this film don't get captured or de-fanged, as in typical childrens' films. They get killed. In large numbers.
These are minor changes? There are whole scenes and themes in there.

[Lamia]

I've seen at least one suggestion that the movie's portrayal of all supers as good guys (the three villains we saw were normals using tech -- very explicitly so in the case of Syndrome) reflected Nietzsche's idea of the "superman" (he saw the "superman" as morally superior, not merely stronger and smarter).I wish whoever you heard suggest that were here, so I could correct their error -- they've confused Nietzsche's "superman" of the future with his description of the "master races" of the past. This is an unfortunately common mistake, particularly among people who only know Nietzsche's work secondhand, but it's a major one.

I was going to write that none of the characters in The Incredibles come close to embodying Nietzsche's ubermensch ideal, although upon reflection I realize that one of them does. I'm not talking about Mr. Incredible or Syndrome, although both have some ubermensch characteristics (and Syndrome would probably claim that he is one). No, I mean Edna! I'm sure this is coincidental, since Edna is portrayed as a humorous character rather than one to emulate and I see nothing in the movie to indicate that Nietzsche's work was a direct or conscious influence. However, like a proper ubermensch Edna does devote herself to creative work, strives for greatness within her field, and takes pleasure in exercising her talents.

[Bryan Ekers]

My guess would be that Bird originally conceived this movie as a purely Randian allegory, where society's overachievers were being held back, but then ultimately prevail (the central theme of Rand's works).

That may (roughly) be the premise of Rand's The Fountainhead, but the basis of her larger, more important book Atlas Shrugged suggests the overachevers were being held back, then voluntarily "went on strike", opting out of society until it collapsed, then decided to come back and rebuild it. Had the movie folowed that line, the supers would have been inclined to let techno-villians like Syndrome trash the place, then rebuild their ideal society from the rubble.

[even sven]

I've started a discussion of intent and political meaning in popular film (including a detailed anlysis of Con Air here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5618866#post5618866) /

[rjung]

Because Bird doesn't want to explicate his allegory (and potentially alienate anti-war viewers)?
:dubious:

(Do you have a cite for your quote, by the way? Not a hostile question. Just asking.)
I saw it in an interview a few weeks back, but can't remember which one. I do know it's in the Art of book, though -- they even have several storyboard scenes and a color test for the "bar chat" scene.

[Spoke]

That may (roughly) be the premise of Rand's The Fountainhead, but the basis of her larger, more important book Atlas Shrugged suggests the overachevers were being held back, then voluntarily "went on strike", opting out of society until it collapsed, then decided to come back and rebuild it. Had the movie folowed that line, the supers would have been inclined to let techno-villians like Syndrome trash the place, then rebuild their ideal society from the rubble.

Well, yeah, but I am not saying The Incredibles is a point-for-point animated reiteration of Atlas Shrugged, but rather that the movie pointedly pursues Randian themes. (And I again point to the image of Mr. Incredible as Atlas, with the globe-robot on his shoulder. You really think that wasn't a knowing wink?)

[Miller]

Well, yeah, but I am not saying The Incredibles is a point-for-point animated reiteration of Atlas Shrugged, but rather that the movie pointedly pursues Randian themes. (And I again point to the image of Mr. Incredible as Atlas, with the globe-robot on his shoulder. You really think that wasn't a knowing wink?)

You are aware that that imagery pre-dates Ayn Rand, right?

[Spoke]

You are aware that that imagery pre-dates Ayn Rand, right?

Brilliant.

Of course you can take any single point I'm making, isolate it, and then find an alternative explanation for it.

But when you take the points together, they coalesce into a coherent whole.

Sorry you can't see it.

[Miller]

Brilliant.

Of course you can take any single point I'm making, isolate it, and then find an alternative explanation for it.

But when you take the points together, they coalesce into a coherent whole.

Sorry you can't see it.

So that'd be a "no" then?

[Spoke]

So that'd be a "no" then?

Disappointing.

You know, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Are all the implied insults really necessary to this discussion?

[jsgoddess]

Brilliant.

Of course you can take any single point I'm making, isolate it, and then find an alternative explanation for it.

But when you take the points together, they coalesce into a coherent whole.

Sorry you can't see it.


Well, when you consider that lots of people would recognize the name "Atlas" who have never heard of Ayn Rand, and when you consider how many businesses have had the name "Atlas" in them, and how many of those have had logos with an Atlas holding a globe, then it seems very likely that they were expecting viewers to see and recognize a very common image? Which is more likely, that they are taking an image from popular advertising or taking one from a book that the majority of their audience has never heard of?

And which is more likely, that they based themes on Ayn Rand, or that they based them on comic books (which this is a filmed version of) and extant American themes such as can be seen in cowboy movies and Mark Twain? These things predate Rand in popular American media.

[Marley23]

Of course you can take any single point I'm making, isolate it, and then find an alternative explanation for it.

But when you take the points together, they coalesce into a coherent whole.
You're saying that a coherent whole is made from these individual points. But you haven't even convinced anybody that the individual points mean what you say they mean, so it's only a coherent whole to you. I think this is begging the question.

[emarkp]

You know, I've never read a single sentence of Rand. When I saw the movie though, it reminded me of Harrison Bergeron and political correctness.

Plus a healthy disgust with our litigious society.

[Marley23]

You know, I've never read a single sentence of Rand. When I saw the movie though, it reminded me of Harrison Bergeron and political correctness.
That's right, I meant to say something about that. The bits about Dash having to slow down and not go out for sports called that story to mind for me.

[Miller]

Disappointing.

You know, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Are all the implied insults really necessary to this discussion?

I don't think that anything I've posted in this thread has been out of step with the tone you have been employing through out. You want a civil debate? Here are a few tips. Answer direct questions. If you're going to make objective claims, back them up with objective facts. Reply to entire posts, not just the one or two lines that most lend themselves to smarmy quips. If you don't like snarky responses, don't use them yourself. Why should I waste my time responding seriously and respectufully to your posts, when you don't do the same with mine?

To paraphrase the Beatles, the debate you get is equal to the debate you give. You don't like the responses you're getting? Maybe it's time to reconsider how you have been framing your argument from the get-go.

[Miller]

Incidentally, I was perusing the last few weeks of Roger Ebert's "Movie Answer Man" column when I came across this. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20041114)

I think it speaks for itself.

[Just1Lurk]

Originally posted by spoke-
Familiarity with Rand? Well, I believe Bird was on the Simpsons staff the year Maggie wound up in the Ayn Rand Daycare Center. Does that help you?
I’m not sure this helps you, though.

Authority suppressing the individual, who eventually triumphs, is a Randian theme. And Maggie does indeed triumph over the head of the school. But this can’t be seen as pro-conservative allegory. The headmistress claims she wants to promote self-reliance, “to encourage the bottle within”, but she is actually an Orwellian fascist, promoting individuality while actively enforcing conformity. What are the writers’ intentions in making the head of a school named after Ayn Rand a suppressor of the individual? Are they making an English Major in-joke? Are they making subtle fun of a perceived distinction between conservative values and conservative practice? Are they making even subtler fun of the fact that that perceived distinction is a liberal stereotype?
So even if we accept “A Streetcar Named Marge” as proof Bird is familiar with Rand’s works (personally, I feel it’s a tenuous connection at best), it still doesn’t prove that Bird agrees with her ideas or is promoting a conservative agenda. In The Incredibles, Bird could be celebrating a conservative agenda; or, as in The Simpsons, he could just as easily be having fun with it. For example, Rand wore capes and every cape-wearing character in the films dies a gruesome death. Accepting for the sake of argument that Edna Mode was based on Rand in some way, who was the in-joke for? Was it for Randian Objectivists who would see the connection between Rand, Edna, and capes, or for the well-educated (who are usually left-leaning) audience, who would enjoy the death-by-cape as poetic justice by proxy? You could argue it either way, I think.

Originally posted by spoke-
What evidence would you accept?
A very good question, that.

Most of those who disagree with you would probably accept a quote from Bird supporting your position. To paraphrase Lamia, if you’re claiming these Randian themes are part of Bird’s intent then you need to provide some outside evidence. (And yes, the burden of proof is on you.)

As for the examples you cite from the movie itself, how much of the script is actually Bird’s? Yes, he got sole writing credit, but scripts for animated films are not written like scripts for live-action movies; the storyboard artists have considerable input in the plot, characterization, look, and pacing of an animated film.

You cite many visual examples as proof of allegory: Edna Mode’s cigarette lighter, the fountain in her garden, Mr. Incredible holding up the Sphere ala Atlas. If Bird intended for The Incredibles to be allegory, these elements would have to be there from the start – specifically mentioned even in the earliest treatments. But are these elements the work of Bird or the Story Artist? (Pixar frequently includes drafts of the treatment on the DVD, so we might get an answer then.)

Speaking of Pixar, is it possible that The Incredibles’ message of “individuals should be allowed to excel” is there not because Bird or Pixar have a pro-conservative agenda, but because it speaks to them personally, i.e. Pixar’s struggles with Disney? (Or maybe even Steven Jobs’ vs. Microsoft?). The everyman/underdog fighting and winning against great odds is a quintessentially American motif, used by artists of all political stripes.

I think it’s also fair to ask that question of you. What evidence would you accept that you are wrong?

[Just1Lurk]

Originally quoted by spoke-
Your homework assignment: Please explain the super-villain name Syndrome.

From the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary:
Syn-drome, noun
1: a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality
2: a set of concurrent things (as emotions or actions) that usually form an identifiable pattern

By making this request, do you mean to imply (please correct me if I’m wrong) that the filmmakers named the character “Syndrome” to hint to the audience that the film includes clues that reveal a hidden meaning? – i.e. “We’re secretly Objectivists. Rah Rah Rand!”? If so, that strikes me as being on a par with those who use acrostics to prove Marlowe wrote Shakespeare’s plays. I think there’s a more sophisticated explanation.

Like emarkp, I think the movie is more about the dangers of political correctness. (BTW – I acknowledge that I may not be right, even though more than one person reached the same conclusion independently.) If any character speaks for Bird, it would be the protagonist, Mr. Incredible. What upsets Mr. Incredible is that “they keep finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity.” He is outraged when he learns Syndrome’s plan: “You killed real heroes so you could pretend to be one!” The import of these lines, as well as the twice used “When everyone is special, no one is”, is that no one should be content with false achievements.

And that brings us back to the name, “Syndrome.” The tragedy of Buddy Pine is that he was capable of being a true superhero. His fatal flaw was that he couldn’t tell the difference between phony achievements and real accomplishment. As “Syndrome”, he literally characterizes a “particular abnormality” that is symptomatic of today’s PC-influenced culture: Self-esteem is just the same as self respect.

One can be against political correctness without being conservative or objectivist.

[Spoke]

Well, here's an interesting little quote from Brad Bird, for those who still insist that there's nothing more to the movie than meets the eye (The Gaspode, I'm looking at you):

This is popcorn with extra butter. There's good stuff underneath it -- the popcorn has been fortified with all the necessary vitamins and iron, if you choose to go there. I think it's about a lot of things. It's about growing older. It's about a society that doesn't always encourage us to be all that we can be.

But on the surface, it's just a blast ride. You don't have to know that there's some nutrients in there. It tastes good, too.

I like entertainment that works on more than one level. On the surface level, I want to lose myself in a movie and be taken on a trip. The golly-gee-wow part of me wants to be dazzled. But I think the great movies, the ones I really admire, are ones that have a lot of stuff going on underneath the dazzle. That's certainly what we've tried for here. We had a blast making it.



--Brad Bird, Amazing Stories (magazine), December 2004, pp. 22-23.

(emphasis mine)

He who hath eyes, let him see.

He who hath ears, let him hear.

[Miller]

Well, here's an interesting little quote from Brad Bird, for those who still insist that there's nothing more to the movie than meets the eye (The Gaspode, I'm looking at you):

Which argument, I hasten to point out, has been advanced by no one in this thread.

[Zebra]

So my question to you spoke or anybody else is this.


When did it become a liberal idea to limit people?

If you think this is a conservative/Rand inspired theme you must think that liberals want to hold back the best the brightest so as not to hurt the feelings of those that are not as special.

[Spoke]

When did it become a liberal idea to limit people?

It is not, of course. It is the caricature of liberal ideas often offered up by objectivists. It is the caricature of liberal ideas offered by Rand in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

[Spoke]

A better term might be straw man. The idea that liberal ideas put limits on individual achievement is the standard straw man employed by Rand and the objectivists.

Which is one of the things that makes me think Bird's point of view is informed by objectivism.

[jsgoddess]

Well, here's an interesting little quote from Brad Bird, for those who still insist that there's nothing more to the movie than meets the eye (The Gaspode, I'm looking at you):

I've read this thread and I don't remember anyone making this argument. Can you point it out to me?

[rjung]

The idea that liberal ideas put limits on individual achievement is the standard straw man employed by Rand and the objectivists.
Which is bullstuff, pure and simple -- historically, it's conservativism that advocates holding people back:

"What makes you think negros can play basketball?"
"It's a scientific fact that women don't have the intellectual capacity needed to vote."
"Who needs integration? Let their kids go to their schools, and our kids will go to ours."
"No, Sally, girls can't be astronauts or doctors."
"How can a gay couple adopt kids? Everyone knows children are better off in homes with a mother and a father."

[jsgoddess]

A better term might be straw man. The idea that liberal ideas put limits on individual achievement is the standard straw man employed by Rand and the objectivists.

Which is one of the things that makes me think Bird's point of view is informed by objectivism.

So, say I watch a movie that disparages pedophiles.

I come out of the movie and I say, "Obviously the writer is a fundamentalist Christian."

Since the movie never mentions religion at all, you ask why I came to that conclusion.

I say, "Because they are attacking the Catholic Church."

You are confused, and I explain that fundamentalists "employ a standard straw man in which the RCC is pro-pedophilia."



Would you understand why I came to the conclusion that the writer was an anti-Catholic fundamentalist Christian? Somehow, I doubt you would. You'd want more evidence. And that's where I am with your OP. There are simpler explanations for everything you've mentioned. Easy explanations. Explanations that make the movie make sense for the majority of its audience. Explanations that don't require leaps of logic or knowlege of persons or philosophies that are fairly obscure for the majority of the US population. I would like those explantions debunked before I search for something more complex. That's all.

[Just1Lurk]

Originally posted by spoke-
It is not, of course. It is the caricature of liberal ideas often offered up by objectivists. It is the caricature of liberal ideas offered by Rand in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
As I said in my early post, is Bird promoting the caricature, or is he caricaturing the caricature?
Originally posted by spoke-
(Quoting Bird) It's about a society that doesn't always encourage us to be all that we can be.
Again, is this pro-objectivism or anti-PC?

Kudos to you, spoke- , for bringing up an interesting topic. And I'd like to know what you think of my take on Syndrome's name.

[Spoke]

Well, here's an interesting little quote from Brad Bird, for those who still insist that there's nothing more to the movie than meets the eye (The Gaspode, I'm looking at you):Which argument, I hasten to point out, has been advanced by no one in this thread.

Well, let's see...

It seems clear to me that The Incredibles was made without regard to any political agenda. As a result, it is easy to read any political agenda into it.

I hate it when people try to cram political ideas into apolitical media.

Many people still think J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is an allegory for World War II or Industrialization despite no greater authority than Tolkien himself repeatedly, and loudly, telling them it isn't.

If you want to tease right-wing fans of Team America, you can point out that the theme song "America -- F*ck Yeah!" gives a shout-out when "Democrats" are mentioned, but only gets confused Huhs? for "Republicans."

(No, I don't believe there's any hidden message there, just pointing out the silliness of looking for political themes where there aren't any)

[my emphasis]

And of course, rjung started his own thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=282421) to argue that the movie had no political message of any sort. And then over in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5618866#post5618866) rjung had this to say:

Sometimes a fun movie is just a fun movie.

Back in this thread:

And sometimes a movie is just a movie.

That you inferred a specific message doesn't mean that was the message that was intended.

Has it occurred to anyone that, maybe, all of this results simply from there being too many English Majors out there with too much free time?


jsgoddess, in response to your last post I again point to the Atlas imagery in the film as a pointed reference to Atlas Shrugged. The Randian themes are combined with a Randian visual reference.

[Spoke]

rjung, I agree with you that Rand's ideas are so much bunk. I agree with you that her straw man is ridiculous. But I think Brad Bird disagrees with us.

Just1Lurk, I think that last quote from Bird suggests that he is endorsing these ideas, not lampooning them.

[Miller]

And today's magic word, spoke- is "political." Nobody is buying your hare-brained political interpretation. That's not at all the same as saying there are no deeper meanings to the film at all.

[jsgoddess]

jsgoddess, in response to your last post I again point to the Atlas imagery in the film as a pointed reference to Atlas Shrugged. The Randian themes are combined with a Randian visual reference.

And I'll repeat what I already said in this thread:

Well, when you consider that lots of people would recognize the name "Atlas" who have never heard of Ayn Rand, and when you consider how many businesses have had the name "Atlas" in them, and how many of those have had logos with an Atlas holding a globe, then it seems very likely that they were expecting viewers to see and recognize a very common image. Which is more likely, that they are taking an image from popular advertising or taking one from a book that the majority of their audience has never heard of?

And which is more likely, that they based themes on Ayn Rand, or that they based them on comic books (which this is a filmed version of) and extant American themes such as can be seen in cowboy movies and Mark Twain? These things predate Rand in popular American media.

[Spoke]

"Hare-brained?"

Again with the ad hominem attacks, Miller? Please try to do better.

[Spoke]

jsgoddess, I think Atlas as a Randian reference is the more likely explanation, given the film's Randian theme of society's repression of exceptional individuals.

Just out of curiosity, have you read Atlas Shrugged? Or The Fountainhead? (I'm not being a smart-ass. Just curious.)

[Miller]

"Hare-brained?"

Again with the ad hominem attacks, Miller? Please try to do better.

I didn't insult you, I insulted your argument. When I start insulting you, you'll know the difference.

[Kaitlyn]

Well, here's an interesting little quote from Brad Bird, for those who still insist that there's nothing more to the movie than meets the eye (The Gaspode, I'm looking at you):

spoke- goes on to quote me as one of those advocating the position above:

That you inferred a specific message doesn't mean that was the message that was intended.

Read my quote, and the post that it comes from and you'll see that my objection is not to the idea that there are messages in the film, but to the idea that the message of this film is there to advocate a conservative / Randian agenda. Your quote from Bird does nothing to back up that argument.

It's about a society that doesn't always encourage us to be all that we can be.

The same type of society can be found in Watchmen. It's been a core element of the X-Men since the beginning of the Chris Claremont era, and was even there, to a lesser extent, in the Lee era. It's been part of Spider-Man since the beginning. The messages you see as Randian can just as easily be explained as references to the comic books on which the movie is based.

[jsgoddess]

Just out of curiosity, have you read Atlas Shrugged? Or The Fountainhead? (I'm not being a smart-ass. Just curious.)

Yes, I have. I've been a small-l libertarian at times in my life.

If the film is so Randian, surely it embraces Rand's other major themes.

Anti-communism: Hmm. Looks like the Incredibles need to act collectively in order to survive. Looks like Mr. Incredible, solo, is overmatched.

Capitalism: Hmm. Looks like Mr. Incredible's employeer is portrayed very negatively. Looks like Syndrome, the rich inventor who achieved through personal effort and drive, is the villain. When Mr. Incredible seeks to sell his skills, it is a bad thing.

Invention and reason: Hmm. Looks like Syndrome, again, is the villain, despite using his brains and his science for his own gain.

Repudiation of self-sacrifice: Hmm. Seems that there are lots of messages about sacrifice and togetherness.


Let's read a little of Rand, shall we?

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Well, golly. I don't think this quite applies to Mr. Incredible, or any of the Incredibles, does it? In fact, it sounds down right Syndromatic.

Or how about this one:

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group many initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Is Mr. Incredible's retaliatory use of force under objective control? Nope. Is he a vigilante, trying to usurp the only rightful role of government? Of course he is.


Ooh, I found a little gem on this site (http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faq.asp#family):

What sort of relationship should a person have with his family?
by Malini Kochhar

Objectivism holds that the fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle. This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them - values of all sorts, including common interests in art, sports or music, similar philosophical outlooks, political beliefs, sense of life, and more. Trade, in this broad sense, is the only proper basis of any relationship—including relationships with members of our families.

"If I changed your diaper, Jack-Jack, what are you planning on doing for me?"


Rand rejected altruism, sacrifice, vigilantism, communism, dependence, and sentimentality.

Yes, she was for individuality, but individuality in the movie is never put above the best interests of the society as a whole. The powers of the Incredibles are not put to use for their own gain, but for the gain of their world.

A more compelling argument could be made that the movie is trying to promote communism, by showing that the extraordinary can still have a place in a mutually interdependent society.

[Charlie Tan]

[Travis Bickle]
Are you looking at me?
Are you looking at me
[/TB]

Can you please find a quote where I say that there's only one layer to the movie.

[XT]

Well, yeah, but I am not saying The Incredibles is a point-for-point animated reiteration of Atlas Shrugged, but rather that the movie pointedly pursues Randian themes. (And I again point to the image of Mr. Incredible as Atlas, with the globe-robot on his shoulder. You really think that wasn't a knowing wink?)

Not to be snarky, but have YOU read the books? Do you know what the image of Atlas Shrugging MEANS in the book? To answer your question, I don't think this was a 'knowing wink' at Rands Atlas, though I suppose it could be a wink at the actual Atlas myth...THAT I'd buy. However, it makes zero sense in context with the actual meaning of Atlas Shrugging in Rands book.

As to the rest, I think most others have hit the high points (though some a bit harshly) as to your conservative themes point from the OP. I've seen the movie twice AND I'm a huge Rand fan...and at least as far as this board is concerned I'm a 'conservative'. And I'm just not seeing anything in there as far as an AGENDA goes. Certainly there are themes from Rand (and others) as far as the individual over society...of course those are themes that don't necessarily HAVE to come from Rand as they are common to many others. Overall the movie simply isn't Rand's style, and if the producer is a closet Randian he's not doing a very good job of conveying those themes either on the surface or deep down.

One perfect example of this IMO is the fact that at the end of the movie Dash is running a race with other kids and is winning, then looks up into the stands and slows down...and takes SECOND place (and is happy about it, as well as his family). Ayn Rand would be rolling over in her grave over something like that if it was supposed to be associated with her.

Another example IMO is the main thrust of the movie...i.e. Super Heros are FORCED to stop being heros by the government and society turns against them basically (unlike in Atlas Shrugged, as has already been pointed out, where they left of their own free will so that society would basically collapse and they would rebuild from the ashes to their OWN ideas). On their own the heros, when they perceive a threat to society, they spring back into action to rescue society from the evil clutches of whats basically a jumped up arms dealer (not a terrorist but a capitalist of the evil school).

This is the theme of the movie...and is completely against Rands philosophy in so many ways its hard to hit them all if you don't really understand her books at a deep level. Suffice it to say that Rand would never have HER hero's jump in to protect society (and a society that rejected them) at risk to themselves for 'the common good'. Hell, she'd be spinning in her grave again at just the implications in this movie if they were associated with her and her philosophy.

I seriously think you are reading WAY too much into this. The Rand thing to me is a huge stretch. The 'conservative themes' and terrorist analogies are just out there IMO. Not that I expect to convince you. :)

-XT

[Miller]

xtisme: Actually, Dash does win the race at the end, but only by a little bit, instead of leaving the rest of the kids choking on his dust in the starting blocks. Although from what I understand about her philosophy, I doubt that Rand would have been any happier with that outcome.

[Spoke]

The Gaspode, you certainly seem to be of that mindset. Over in the spin-off thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=5618866), you said:

So I made an effort to see things for what they are, instead of trying to deconstruct them. Most filmmakers aren't that smart and it's a process of collaboration. I prefer to go with Occam's razor and follow the money in most cases. To think that there are hidden meanings and agendas is saying that too many people are involved in the conspiracy.

Sometimes the allegory is plain in sight, not trying to be half seen. If it's not, I suspect that all the bruhaha that ensues is just film students who have od'd on their own intelectual debates late at night over red wine, intoxicated at how smart they are at deconstructing.

So, most of the time, a movie is just a movie. It's a scriptwriter or director who has a story to tell. And most of the time, the whole story can be summed up in a single sentence. Many times, there isn't even that much. A movie is a vehicle for a star and the marketing department, written by a commite and squeezed dry by focud groups at test screenings.

But maybe I'm misreading you. Can you show me where you agreed that The Incredibles had deeper layers of meaning? Because I sure wasn't getting that vibe from you.

xtisme, I didn't read the super-heroes as acting out of a sense of altruism. Rather, I think they were seeking self-fulfillment. Being super-heroes is the area in which they excelled, and so they wanted to be able to pursue that.

Similarly, you'll recall that the architect Roark in The Fountainhead reached his fullest potential while designing public housing.

[XT]

xtisme: Actually, Dash does win the race at the end, but only by a little bit, instead of leaving the rest of the kids choking on his dust in the starting blocks. Although from what I understand about her philosophy, I doubt that Rand would have been any happier with that outcome.

You know, I saw the movie twice and I still incorrectly thought he took second in the race (and I was quite disappointed in that result too). Just goes to show my powers of observation aren't what they should be. Hell, maybe the OP is right and it flew right over my head.

You are right though...Rand would be no happier with him holding back as opposed to deliberately losing by a nose. The whole point of her philosophy is to be everything you can be. In her philosophy Dash should have won by as much as he possibly could win by...or he'd be cheating not only himself by those racing against him.

-XT

[XT]

xtisme, I didn't read the super-heroes as acting out of a sense of altruism. Rather, I think they were seeking self-fulfillment. Being super-heroes is the area in which they excelled, and so they wanted to be able to pursue that.

No doubt there were elements of self interest in their actions...but over all there was the sense that they had to protect society. Risking ones self for society is about as opposite to a Randian theme as you can get spoke-. Purely self motivated reasons would be her theme...and it wasn't there (though as I said there were certainly SOME elements of self motivation there).

Still, I conceed that your interpretation here showed mine wasn't as cut and dried as I made it out to be as far as the motivation goes.

Similarly, you'll recall that the architect Roark in The Fountainhead reached his fullest potential while designing public housing.

Do you remember WHY Rourke designed that public housing spoke-? It wasn't for 'the people'...it was purely for himself and the challenge of doing something that was nearly impossible. There was absolutely zero 'for the public good' in his motivation. Contrast that to this movie. Simply put Rand would have hated having this associated with her...and if the director was a closet Randian he'd know that.

-XT

[Spoke]

Do you remember WHY Rourke designed that public housing spoke-? It wasn't for 'the people'...it was purely for himself and the challenge of doing something that was nearly impossible.

Right. And that's my point. The Incredibles were acting out of self-fulfillment, not altruism. They wanted to be superheroes because that's where their talents lay.

Once I started picking up on Randian themes in the movie, I specifically started listening to see if there were an endorsement of altruism in the film, which would run contrary to my interpretation. It never came. There was never any indication that the Incredibles or Frozone were acting from any motivation except self-actualization.

[Raygun99]

Right. And that's my point. The Incredibles were acting out of self-fulfillment, not altruism. They wanted to be superheroes because that's where their talents lay.

Once I started picking up on Randian themes in the movie, I specifically started listening to see if there were an endorsement of altruism in the film, which would run contrary to my interpretation. It never came. There was never any indication that the Incredibles or Frozone were acting from any motivation except self-actualization.

Originally posted by Frozone

"Where's my super suit? It's for the greater good!

Also note that Elastigirl ridicules Mr. Incredible when she is under the mistaken impression that he is doing this as a test of his abilities, when after all he has a family to protect. (near the end after they crash into the city)
Mr. I does in fact start out his retraining as a way to practice his old ways, but the movie repudiates that motivation both implicitly and explicitly. The exercise is a trap, to get him in better shape to test out Syndrome's robot. Syndrome appeals to his vanity in order to try to bring him down. It is only by acting in the interests of his family and for others that the Incredibles succeed.

[MovieMogul]

Right. And that's my point. The Incredibles were acting out of self-fulfillment, not altruism. They wanted to be superheroes because that's where their talents lay.

Once I started picking up on Randian themes in the movie, I specifically started listening to see if there were an endorsement of altruism in the film, which would run contrary to my interpretation. It never came. There was never any indication that the Incredibles or Frozone were acting from any motivation except self-actualization.That's funny, because when Frozone asks his wife for the supersuit, he argues that he needs to break his date "for the greater good" (to which she has a snarky reply).

There is also an assumed reponsibility they take on in their roles as superheroes that contradicts the assertion that their sole motivation is self-fulfillment. They talk about saving the world and individual's lives and they take threats to themselves and other innocents seriously. If this were merely about self-fulfillment, they'd stop acting like heroes when they feel like it; if it was merely about exercising their powers, they could do as much good as satisfied them, then call it a day. But they don't--they wait until the threat is eliminated, even if it means willingly sacrificing themselves. That, by definition, is altruism.

I also find it curious that JSGoddess managed to articulate a rather comprehensively damning deconstruction of your flimsy Rand assertion, which you have conveniently skipped in this debate.

[Miller]

I think the entire opening sequence argue in favor of an altruistic motive for the supers. Look at the interviews in the beginning, Mr. Incredible's in particular. It' seems clear that being a superhero isn't something that he wants to do, so much as something he feels he has to do. He's not self-actualized, he's exasperated.

I'd also argue that Mr. Incredible's reaction to the mugging he witnesses from his boss's office is largely altruistic in nature.

[Spoke]

I also find it curious that JSGoddess managed to articulate a rather comprehensively damning deconstruction of your flimsy Rand assertion, which you have conveniently skipped in this debate.

Sigh. There are only so many hours in a day.

OK, if you insist:


Anti-communism: Hmm. Looks like the Incredibles need to act collectively in order to survive. Looks like Mr. Incredible, solo, is overmatched.

Nothing in Rand's work suggests individuals can't choose to work together.

Capitalism: Hmm. Looks like Mr. Incredible's employeer is portrayed very negatively.

As is Roark's boss in The Fountainhead. My impression is that Rand was as didainful of corporate bureaucracy as of governmental bureaucracy. Either is capable of thwarting individual achievement.

...Looks like Syndrome, the rich inventor who achieved through personal effort and drive, is the villain. When Mr. Incredible seeks to sell his skills, it is a bad thing.

...Invention and reason: Hmm. Looks like Syndrome, again, is the villain, despite using his brains and his science for his own gain.

Syndrome's flaw is that he wants to make everyone equal. Recall that Syndrome wants everyone to be super...so no one will be.

Repudiation of self-sacrifice: Hmm. Seems that there are lots of messages about sacrifice and togetherness.

Huh? Who sacrificed what?

Let's read a little of Rand, shall we?

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Right. And being a superhero is what made Mr. Incredible happy. Remember how miserable he was when he wasn't allowed to be super? Productive achievement? Check. Reason? Check. Don't see the conflict here.

Or how about this one:


The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group many initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man's rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man's right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

You score a minor point here, but then, you really can't have a movie about superheroes without force, can you? A concession to the idiom, I'd say.

Ooh, I found a little gem on this site:

[quote]
What sort of relationship should a person have with his family?
by Malini Kochhar

Objectivism holds that the fundamental standard for all relationships is the trader principle. This principle holds that we should interact with people on the basis of the values we can trade with them - values of all sorts, including common interests in art, sports or music, similar philosophical outlooks, political beliefs, sense of life, and more. Trade, in this broad sense, is the only proper basis of any relationship—including relationships with members of our families.

No points here. Why does Bird's take on objectivism have to agree with Kochhar's? (Any more than my take on being a Democrat has to agree with, say, Marley23's?)

[Spoke]

Good point on Frozone's remark. But it is a throwaway laugh line, so I'm not sure how much weight I'd give it. Could also have been inserted by another writer, for that matter.

[Raygun99]

I still think the biggest argument against this interpretation is that Syndrome, the most self-made man in the entire movie, is the villain of the piece.

[Charlie Tan]

There was something wrong with the board yesterday. I had a long reply ready, but suddenly the board just ceased to function.

But maybe I'm misreading you. Can you show me where you agreed that The Incredibles had deeper layers of meaning? Because I sure wasn't getting that vibe from you.


You're not misreading me. You're (deliberately?) misrepresenting me. In this thread my argument has been that it's not feasible to add or change minor details, to nip/tuck the movie, to suit a change in political mores.

In the other thread, I'm arguing that trying to find hidden meanings in movies, mostly says something about those doing that, and to a lesser extent about the movie or movie makers. In the quote by me you posted here (from that other thread) I'm saying that a movie indeed can be allegorical and if you read all of my arguments you'll find that I never claimed that there aren't layers to a movie.

However, when studying things like movies, books, stage plays or music, it's very important to separate my interpretation of the movie from the intention by the director (producer, script writer). This might seem trivial to you, but it's not. It is, for example, popular to attach a feminist perspective to the plays Medea and Lysistrata. There are way too many liberal arts college students who have written papers about "the first feminist drama." It's easy for us to read in gender issues in these works, but I doubt that []Euripides[/i] and Aristophanes wrote them with the intent of empowering women. I just checked an encyclopedia from 1876 and there's nothing in the text about either writer that suggest a gender perspective. Considering the general view the old Greek culture had about women, the very idea that they were written as part of a feminist agenda is ludicrous.

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't or can't put these plays in production with a feminist agenda in mind or that they can't serve that purpose, it just means that there's a world of difference between the writer's intent and our interpretation.

I was going to leave this thread alone, since arguing with you is pointless. We're at 200 posts and I can't be bothered counting how many of these that say that there might be something to what you say, but barring Brad Bird, Pixar or Disney going of record to either acknowledge or refute the whole Rand-conservative agenda, there simply is no proof either way. The problem, as many have said, is not that you put forward this theory, but that you claim it to be an absolute truth.

Since this has been going on for so long, I've given up hope of having a meaningful debate. But you decided to single me out, and concerning the question about layers in movies (not politics). To try to defend that, you dug a quote from another thread and then try to pin me down for not saying that the Incredibles "has deeper layers of meaning". You then use a quote, taken out of context to justify that you singled me out. (It's out of centext, because in that thread we're debating deepert meanings in films - which I say might be there or not - but in this thread, I'm arguing that adding a scene or changing a name isn't as easy as you seem to believe.)

I'm too lazy to take you to the pit, which would only serve to re-hashing all this arguments again, much to the dismay of the teamsters of hamsters. Rest assured that if I did, there would be gratuitous expletives.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

The more spoke- tries to defend the indefensible, the more he sounds like he's Witnessing in Great Debates.

And yes, I know that the neurotic Ms. Rand was an athiest. I also know that she didn't believe in psychiatric medicine, which is a pity, given her alcoholism.

spoke-, pay attention--

hero

n 1: a man distinguished by exceptional courage and nobility and strength; "RAF pilots were the heroes of the Battle of Britain" 2: the principal character in a play or movie or novel or poem 3: someone who fights for a cause [syn: champion, fighter, paladin] 4: Greek mathematician and inventor who devised a way to determine the area of a triangle and who described various mechanical devices (first century) [syn: Hero, Heron, Hero of Alexandria] 5: (classical mythology) a being of great strength and courage celebrated for bold exploits; often the offspring of a mortal and a god 6: (Greek mythology) priestess of Aphrodite who killed herself when her lover Leander drowned while trying to swim the Hellespont to see her [syn: Hero] 7: a large sandwich made of a long crusty roll split lengthwise and filled with meats and cheese (and tomato and onion and lettuce and condiments); different names are used in different sections of the United States [syn: bomber, grinder, hero sandwich, hoagie, hoagy, Cuban sandwich, Italian sandwich, poor boy, sub, submarine, submarine sandwich, torpedo, wedge, zep]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


Several of these definitions apply to Mr. Incredible & company, but none of them apply to anything Ms. Rand wrote. She misused the word "hero", solely to exploit the positive emotional context it provides. Her notions are often diametrically opposed to what the word "hero" means, and I strongly suspect that she knew it. I have reservations about her ethical standards in this matter.

I object to the dragging of the word "hero" through the mud of Ms. Rand's distateful execise in selfishness, every bit as much as I object to its misuse as a synonym for "celebrity".

I genuinely revere the word "hero"; what it stands for; and the men & women who have earned, through self-sacrifice, the right to be called by that title. I find your misuse of it strongly offensive.

[C K Dexter Haven]

::: Moderator rings a little tinkly bell to attract atttention ::::

Just a reminder that it's OK to insult the movie makers, the characters, the actors... but NOT the other posters. The whole thing about art (and animated film is certainly a form of art) is that it's open to many interpretations, and no one can say that any one interpretation is right or wrong. You can only say that some interpretations are "stronger" or "weaker."

Frankly, even if the artists says "No, no, I didn't mean that", I wouldn't always believe it. I'm reminded of Mark Twain's denial that there was any meaning in Huckleberry Finn. Or Alfred Hitchcock, being asked why the jazz band is playing "Most Unusual Day" at the beginning of NORTH BY NORTHWEST, saying it was "just a coincidence." Trust the tale, not the artist. Even the artist does not always know what he/she has wrought, and that's especially true in film where there are many creative hands contributing.

So, polite and well-mannered disagreement is possible and indeed encouraged in this forum. Let's just be sure it remains polite and well-mannered: no name-calling, no finger-pointing, no misquoting. If you're going to paraphrase and summarize someone else's position, don't distort it to make your own point (unless you tell us that's what you're doing.)

We all agreed on this?

[rjung]

To try and get the civility level of this thread back on track, here's an interesting counter-argument (http://www.longstoryshortpier.com/vaults/2004/11/21/atlas_leans_back_everywhere) to the OP:
As with any superhero work, there are echoes and resonances, responses and repudiations of Rand and Nietzsche. That stuff’s built in, like the secret identities and the underwear on the outside: even if you try not to do them, you have to take the time to let the audience know you’re not doing them, which means you end up doing them. Whoops. — So, yes: there’s a there there in The Incredibles, sure, but mostly because it is what it is. Brad Bird wanted to tell a story with superheroes in it; along with that genre comes certain baggage; that he hauls it about without complaint does not mean he’s crafted a candy-colored piece of crypto-Randian propaganda.

For instance: to read the conflict with Syndrome, the villain, as a “class war” of Übermenschen v. Lumpen is to miss the whole point of his costume, his tropical island, his lava curtain, his expendable henchpeople, his Heat Miser hair, his zero-point energy gauntlets. Syndrome doesn’t want super powers. He’s had super powers ever since he was a wee tot: he’s the mad inventor, the kid genius, the gadgeteer: a super-powered archetype with a long and pulpy pedigree. What it is that Syndrome wants is to be a superhero—without, y’know, the pesky bother of all those superheroics. He doesn’t get the altruistic end of the stick; he just wants to shortcut straight to the adulation.

So Syndrome isn’t an unpowered drone with delusions of acting above his station. Syndrome’s an asshole.
Of course, at the end of the movie, the status quo is mostly resumed: the Incredibles return to incognito, and though Dash gets to run track, he can’t do it full-out, y’know? Rational, egotistical Objectivism is not followed to its seemingly logical conclusion: they don’t end up living in their supersuits, imposing the super-powered diktatoriat that is their Nietzschean due. —Their secret identities are lies, yes, but not lies to be repudiated: they’re roles, to be put on and taken off as needed—necessary compromises we all must negotiate with the expectations of the world around us.

[MovieMogul]

Good point on Frozone's remark. But it is a throwaway laugh line, so I'm not sure how much weight I'd give it. Could also have been inserted by another writer, for that matter.So let me get this straight--you're investing significant meaning into a throwaway visual that had the greater likelihood of being added by someone other than Bird, but are eagerly willing to dismiss an actual line of dialogue by an actual principal character that was less likely to be added by someone other than Bird?

:rolleyes:

[Spoke]

Brad Bird sez:

Wrong-headed liberalism seeks to give trophies to everyone just for existing. It seems to render achievement meaningless. That's a weird goal.

Cite. (http://www.republic-of-gilroy.com/fear_of_ambition.htm)

[Just1Lurk]

Originally posted by spoke-
Brad Bird sez: Wrong-headed liberalism seeks to give trophies to everyone just for existing. It seems to render achievement meaningless. That's a weird goal.

And he's right.

Bird is worried about a modern cultural trend and made it a theme in The Incredibles. Fine. That doesn't mean he's conservative, or promoting a conservative agenda, or a Randian.

I think Liberals (or anyone) who celebrate mediocrity are wrong-headed. But that doesn't make me a conservative.

[Miller]

Well, it only took you the better part of a month to finally find a cite that actually supports you allegations. Congrats, spoke-.

'Course, still no evidence of any intentional Objectivism, and so far the extent of the "conservative agenda" consists of an idea with which this liberal, at least, wholeheartedly agrees. But it's a start! Maybe. Anyone got a link to the original article, so we can see this quote in context?

[Miller]

Sorry, that should be "original interview," the one from which this article got the Bird quote.

[Spoke]

Miller, I have given plenty of evidence (circumstantial, of course) of the Objectivist worldview of this film. Do you really expect Bird to explicate his allegory? As I said before, no artist worth his salt does that. But maybe I'm wrong. Did Orwell ever explicate Animal Farm, for example? Or did he let the work speak for itself?

But hey, let the rationalizations continue!

[Miller]

Miller, I have given plenty of evidence (circumstantial, of course) of the Objectivist worldview of this film. Do you really expect Bird to explicate his allegory? As I said before, no artist worth his salt does that. But maybe I'm wrong. Did Orwell ever explicate Animal Farm, for example? Or did he let the work speak for itself?

But hey, let the rationalizations continue!

And so for the past ten years I have been convinced that the destruction of the Soviet myth was essential if we wanted a revival of the Socialist movement.

On my return from Spain I thought of exposing the Soviet myth in a story that could be easily understood by almost anyone and which could be easily translated into other languages. However, the actual details of the story did not come to me for some time until one day (I was then living in a small village) I saw a little boy, perhaps ten years old, driving a huge cart-horse along a narrow path, whipping it whenever it tried to turn. It struck me that if only such animals became aware of their strength we should have no power over them, and that men exploit animals in much the same way as the rich exploit the proletariat.

I proceeded to analyse Marx's theory from the animals' point of view. To them it was clear that the concept of a class struggle between humans was pure illusion, since whenever it was necessary to exploit animals, all humans united against them: the true struggle is between animals and humans. From this point of departure, it was not difficult to elaborate the story. I did not write it out till 1943, for I was always engaged on other work which gave me no time; and in the end I included some events, for example the Teheran Conference, which were taking place while I was writing. Thus the main outlines of the story were in my mind over a period of six years before it was actually written.

I do not know which is more impressive: the capacity of your mouth, or your prodigious number of feet.

[Spoke]

Well, I specifically said that I might be mistaken about Orwell. So I shall eat crow graciously on that point. (No need for petty sniping, I think.)

Still, I don't think we'll find Brad Bird explicating his allegory. At least not until The Incredibles has reached its full profit potential.

[Lamia]

Still, I don't think we'll find Brad Bird explicating his allegory.And how convenient for your case if he doesn't.

[Spoke]

Well, he could easily deny it. Lord knows there are plenty of people out there who see the film as objectivist allegory, as a google search will quickly reveal. So if Bird wanted to distance himself from this idea he could easily say "No. That's not what I meant at all."

His silence is neither convenient nor inconvenient for me. It proves nothing.

On the other hand, we do have his quote (cited earlier) intimating that the film has deeper layers of meaning. And then we have his quote cited a few posts up, which ought to tell you that whatever his deeper meaning may be, it is not liberal-friendly. I've explained at length why I think his viewpoint is Objectivist. If you don't agree, not much I can do about it.

Posters to this thread might want to avoid too much arrogance. Brad Bird will be giving interviews and making movies for years to come. Who knows what time may reveal?

[Miller]

I've explained at length why I think his viewpoint is Objectivist. If you don't agree, not much I can do about it.

And yet, you keep posting.

[Spoke]

Now Miller, you keep sniping at me and people will start thinking there's sexual tension in the air. ;)

[Lamia]

Well, he could easily deny it. Lord knows there are plenty of people out there who see the film as objectivist allegory, as a google search will quickly reveal. So if Bird wanted to distance himself from this idea he could easily say "No. That's not what I meant at all."He's supposed to deny every wacky interpretation of his film that doesn't precisely correspond with his intent? Apparently no interviewer has ever asked him about this subject, so what should he do, call a press conference to specifically deny these allegations? (An act which, at this point, I suspect you would take as further "proof" that he's a closet Randian anyway.) I'm sure Bird is a busy man, and I doubt he cares what a bunch of Rand fans on the Internet are saying about his movie.

His silence is neither convenient nor inconvenient for me. It proves nothing.Then stop attempting to use it as support for your position.

Posters to this thread might want to avoid too much arrogance. Brad Bird will be giving interviews and making movies for years to come. Who knows what time may reveal?Are you talking about yourself here? If he ever says his purpose in making The Incredibles was to promote Randian themes then I will have no trouble believing him. Unlike you, I have never claimed to have special insight into the man's motives. I don't believe anyone else here has. What I think everyone else has been saying is that you have NO PROOF AT ALL that Bird ever intended anyone to perceive Randian themes in The Incredibles, and you are wrong to keep insisting that he most certainly did.

You are the only one that's taken a position that could be disproved by Bird's future words or actions, which is why I said that his silence on the matter is convenient for you.

[Just1Lurk]

Originally posted by spoke-:
But hey, let the rationalizations continue!

Originaly posted by ArchiveGuy:
So let me get this straight--you're investing significant meaning into a throwaway visual that had the greater likelihood of being added by someone other than Bird, but are eagerly willing to dismiss an actual line of dialogue by an actual principal character that was less likely to be added by someone other than Bird?
So, you accept evidence that fits your thesis, ignore or dismiss everything that doesn't, and we're the ones who're rationalizing?

[Miller]

Now Miller, you keep sniping at me and people will start thinking there's sexual tension in the air. ;)

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

[Spoke]

Feel the love!

[Spoke]

He's supposed to deny every wacky interpretation of his film that doesn't precisely correspond with his intent?

No. And neither is he supposed to deconstruct his allegories for us. As you say, no one has asked him the question.

I have not argued that Bird's silence proves my point. Others have argued that we cannot infer Bird's intent without a full confession from the man himself. In response to that, I have simply shown why he might want to remain silent.

What I think everyone else has been saying is that you have NO PROOF AT ALL that Bird ever intended anyone to perceive Randian themes in The Incredibles, and you are wrong to keep insisting that he most certainly did.

On the contrary, I have offered proof (-circumstantial evidence, to be sure). It's just that you will not accept any proof short of a plain admission by Bird himself. You and others seem to think the only proof of a person's intent is their words. If that were so, we'd rarely get a murder conviction.

I think we can infer Bird's intent from what we see on the screen. I've shown the parallels to Rand's work and the iconic references in the film, and will not re-hash the arguments here. The on-screen stuff has now been augmented by the last two quotes I've cited, which suggest that Bird himself intended to convey hidden meanings, and that he has an aversion to "wrong-headed liberalism."

So at this point, all we can really do is agree to disagree. Either the dots form a pointillist portrait of Ayn Rand for you or they don't. Eh.

[Spoke]

(By the way, you seem to be under the misimpression that I am a Rand admirer. Nothing could be further from the truth.)

[Lamia]

On the contrary, I have offered proof (-circumstantial evidence, to be sure). It's just that you will not accept any proof short of a plain admission by Bird himself.No, I am not going to accept anything short of an artist's own words, or at the very least a reliable secondhand account of such, when it comes to the subject of his own intent. This is a perfectly reasonable position, certainly much more reasonable than pretending that I can read his mind.

What would it take to convince you that he did not intent for there to be a pro-Randian subtext in his film?

You and others seem to think the only proof of a person's intent is their words. If that were so, we'd rarely get a murder conviction.In a murder case there's at least proof that someone is actually dead. You do not have analagous proof in this situation. No corpus delecti. No one says "Boy, that Ayn Rand sure had some good ideas!" The best you've got is what, a sight gag that references the image of Atlas bearing the earth on his shoulders? You'd never even get an arrest in this case.

I think we can infer Bird's intent from what we see on the screen. I've shown the parallels to Rand's work and the iconic references in the film, and will not re-hash the arguments here.Well, thank goodness for small mercies. Since you have chosen not to respond to the many contrary arguments presented in this thread I will not re-hash them either, although I will point out that several of your supposed Rand connections do not indicate someone who actually approves of Ayn Rand. If the running gag about capes were in any way a reference to Rand's cape-wearing (a hypothesis I consider absurd), it could only be to mock her.


So at this point, all we can really do is agree to disagree. Either the dots form a pointillist portrait of Ayn Rand for you or they don't. Eh.Apparently they do not for anyone but you and a few nutty Randians out there on the Web.

(By the way, you seem to be under the misimpression that I am a Rand admirer. Nothing could be further from the truth.)I am under no such impression. You've said from the beginning that you are opposed to Rand's ideas, and I have not argued otherwise. Your persistent inability or unwillingness to understand the intent of other posters who are doing their best to clearly express their ideas certainly does not inspire me to any confidence in your interpretations of the secret intent behind this movie.

[Spoke]

Apparently they do not for anyone but you and a few nutty Randians out there on the Web.

It's not just Rand lovers (and me) who see the Randian threads. Try a google search and you'll see this.

I'm pretty sure the reviewer for the New York Times is not a Randian, for example.

Like I said, I'm not going to re-hash my arguments, but next time you decide to summarize them, I'd appreciate it if you'd do a more thorough job.

The best you've got is what, a sight gag that references the image of Atlas bearing the earth on his shoulders? You'd never even get an arrest in this case.

You are leaving out something which might be of some minor relevance-- the fact that The Incredibles shares its major theme with both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead: the theme of the superior individual being held back by society.

No, I am not going to accept anything short of an artist's own words, or at the very least a reliable secondhand account of such, when it comes to the subject of his own intent. This is a perfectly reasonable position, certainly much more reasonable than pretending that I can read his mind.

Well there's the problem right there. You do not have to read minds to infer intent. Have you never spotted an allegory without having it pointed out to you by the author/artist?

[Miller]

I have to ask, spoke-: do you have any formal training in literary or cinematic criticism?

[shy guy]

I finally saw the movie (brilliant, by the way; I think it's the best super-hero movie ever made) and I must say that I think anyone reading excessive Randian influence (to say nothign of 'conservative,' which I find absurd) simply doesn't have a strong enough background in superhero comics to recognize the various "Randian" elements of the film as an engagement with material that is more accurately described as "superhero-y."

I think the link provided by rjung really says it quite well. A lot of these objectivist/whatever elements are so ingrained in the superhero genre that you can't help but reference them in some way. That doesn't make the film an objectivist allegory (I don't even know where the 'allegory' thing came from in the first place, because the film definitely isn't one, of anything). And if Bird chose one of the major themes of the movie (cultivating personal talents) as a response to "wrongheaded liberalism," well, I think the key word there would be "wrongheaded."

[Just1Lurk]

Originally posted by spoke-
You are leaving out something which might be of some minor relevance-- the fact that The Incredibles shares its major theme with both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead: the theme of the superior individual being held back by society.
I'm not convinced that that is the major theme, but assuming it is for the sake of argument, so what? It's not unique to Rand; is Erin Brockavich Capra-esque because it shares its major theme (little guy takes on powerful evil-doers) with Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

[Just1Lurk]

Originally posted by shyguy:
That doesn't make the film an objectivist allegory (I don't even know where the 'allegory' thing came from in the first place, because the film definitely isn't one, of anything).
Truer words were never spoken, shyguy.

[Kaitlyn]

You are leaving out something which might be of some minor relevance-- the fact that The Incredibles shares its major theme with both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead: the theme of the superior individual being held back by society.

A theme also present in Alan Moore's Watchmen and V for Vendetta. The fact that it shares a theme with those works does not indicate that this theme was derived from those works.

Well there's the problem right there. You do not have to read minds to infer intent. Have you never spotted an allegory without having it pointed out to you by the author/artist?

One problem with inferences is that it's quite possible to infer a message different from the creator's intent. Without supporting corroboration from the creator, an inference remains the interpretation of the viewer and nothing else.

I have what I think is a logical, consistent interpretation of the movie Donnie Darko. The writer / director has an explanation that is much different. My inference is just that: my inference. It's not the creator's intent.

[Yookeroo]

On the other hand, we do have his quote (cited earlier) intimating that the film has deeper layers of meaning. And then we have his quote cited a few posts up, which ought to tell you that whatever his deeper meaning may be, it is not liberal-friendly.

Do you really have that? I think you reaed way too much into that quote (as you seem to have almost everything else about the movie).

[Lamia]

Like I said, I'm not going to re-hash my arguments, but next time you decide to summarize them, I'd appreciate it if you'd do a more thorough job.I think I've been much fairer to you than you have to anyone who's disagreed with you.


You are leaving out something which might be of some minor relevance-- the fact that The Incredibles shares its major theme with both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead: the theme of the superior individual being held back by society.Do you sincerely believe that this is a theme so unique and so strongly associated with the work of Ayn Rand that no one could possibly make a film utilizing this theme without it being an intentional tribute to her? Even after other posters have listed multiple other works that utilize the same theme, including several that are actually in the superhero genre? Moore's Watchmen, to take one already mentioned example, deals specifically with anti-superhero legislation.

Well there's the problem right there. You do not have to read minds to infer intent. Have you never spotted an allegory without having it pointed out to you by the author/artist?If you are asking if I am capable of, without help from the writer/director, interpreting a film at more than the most basic surface level then the answer is "yes". When I was collecting degrees in fields that will never make me any money, I got one in just that area. In fact, as an undergraduate I was a double major in Communication (film studies) and Philosophy. I realize these are not hugely impressive credentials, but I suspect I am better qualified than you to discern philosophical subtext in popular film.

What I am not, however, qualified to do is take a broad theme and a couple of sight gags and use these to discern the filmmaker's unstated secret political message to such a powerful degree of certainty that I could sincerely claim that anyone who disagreed with me on the subject was flat-out wrong. No one is qualified to do such a thing, because (absent heretofore undiscovered mind-reading powers) it is impossible. And yet you keep insisting that you have done just that.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

What I am not, however, qualified to do is take a broad theme and a couple of sight gags and use these to discern the filmmaker's unstated secret political message to such a powerful degree of certainty that I could sincerely claim that anyone who disagreed with me on the subject was flat-out wrong. No one is qualified to do such a thing, because (absent heretofore undiscovered mind-reading powers) it is impossible. And yet you keep insisting that you have done just that.
spoke- has many virtues. Sadly, neither telepathy nor modesty are commonly attributed to him/her/it.

And that's coming from a guy like me, a man so conceited that, as a child, I believed that all mirrors were public portraits of myself.

[Spoke]

I have to ask, spoke-: do you have any formal training in literary or cinematic criticism?

Oh no! Does it show?

I suspect I am better qualified than you to discern philosophical subtext in popular film.

Ah! A personal challenge! So that's it then! Lamia, Miller, I shall see you two on the field of honor at dawn! Degree-waving at ten paces!

(But no! I will let you choose the weapon!) What shall it be? Degrees? Honors? SAT scores? Dental records?

All a bit silly, I think. I assure you I am well-educated in the liberal arts. I'll be happy to compare undergraduate and postgraduate degrees and honors with either of you if you really insist. But will that really advance the debate?

[A]nyone reading excessive Randian influence (to say nothign of 'conservative,' which I find absurd) simply doesn't have a strong enough background in superhero comics to recognize the various "Randian" elements of the film as an engagement with material that is more accurately described as "superhero-y."

What's this? Another challenge to my qualifications? And this time it's my qualifications as a comic book geek? Oh shy guy, if you only knew!



Do you sincerely believe that this is a theme [societal repression of achievers] so unique and so strongly associated with the work of Ayn Rand that no one could possibly make a film utilizing this theme without it being an intentional tribute to her?
A theme [societal repression of achievers] also present in Alan Moore's Watchmen and V for Vendetta. The fact that it shares a theme with those works does not indicate that this theme was derived from those works.

Perhaps. But it's the combination of that theme with the winking reference to Atlas which makes me think Atlas Shrugged is the source being referenced by Bird. (Along with some other Randian imagery.)

And now Bird makes reference to "wrong-headed liberalism" as being the source of the problem, which just reinforces the point in my view.

(By the way, has it occurred to you that Watchmen may itself have been influenced by Rand?)

[Lamia]

Ah! A personal challenge! So that's it then! Lamia, Miller, I shall see you two on the field of honor at dawn! Degree-waving at ten paces!No, it was not a personal challenge. It was a response to your questioning of my abilities to interpret film. Well, you picked the wrong person to be condescending to, as I happen to have bona fide credentials in that specific field.

I personally feel pretty confident that you do not, although I suppose it's possible you simply attended a very bad school. No good one would have let you get away with this "no real artist ever explains his intent" nonsense. But the point is not your lack of academic credentials, it's your lack of understanding of the subject. You're still entitled to your opinions about movies of course, but I'm not sure why you think you get to be the final word on the true meaning of The Incredibles.

Perhaps. But it's the combination of that theme with the winking reference to Atlas which makes me think Atlas Shrugged is the source being referenced by Bird. (Along with some other Randian imagery.) Fine. That's your interpretation of the work, and you're not alone in it. There's nothing wrong with thinking there are Randian themes in the movie. There is something wrong with taking one broad theme and a couple of sight gags and deciding that Bird was secretly and intentionally inserting a Randian subtext into the film and that anyone who disagrees is woefully mistaken. That is not rhetorical analysis or film criticism, that is tinfoil hattery.


(By the way, has it occurred to you that Watchmen may itself have been influenced by Rand?)Yes, it has. I don't know anything about Moore's influences other than the broad genre of superhero comics, and for all I know Ayn Rand was a huge influence on him. Moore's influences, however, are irrelevant to your claim that The Incredibles is an intentional tribute to the ideas of Ayn Rand by devout yet closeted Randian Brad Bird.

And now I must observe that you have still not responded to the question of what would convince you that Bird was not intentionally inserting pro-Rand material into The Incredibles. I suspected that you would not.

[Kamino Neko]

Moore discussing the Watchmen (http://www.blather.net/articles/amoore/watchmen2.html).

Given his descriptions of the Question and more particularly Mr A - two characters Steve Ditko created to deliberately explore and put forward Rand's themes - and how he portrayed Rorschach, the Watchmen analogue to the Question (as a brutal, paranoid nutter who is distinctly unpleasant to be around), it's...difficult to believe Moore is a Randian.

[shy guy]

(By the way, has it occurred to you that Watchmen may itself have been influenced by Rand?) As Tengu noted, of course Watchmen was influenced by Rand. As several others have said, it's hard to do a superhero story that doesn't deal with Randian themes.

However, the fact that Watchmen was influenced by Rand doesn't mean that it promotes a Randian agenda, doesn't mean that Bird was drawing on it as a Randian source rather than as one of the most important superhero stories ever (especially since Watchmen doesn't promote Rand's philosophy), and certainly doesn't come anywhere near suggesting that The Incredibles promotes Randian thought.

But it's the combination of that theme with the winking reference to Atlas which makes me think Atlas Shrugged is the source being referenced by Bird. (Along with some other Randian imagery.)
That's an extremely flimsy basis upon which to suggest that he's referencing Rand (and if he really wanted to get the point accross, wouldn't he have had Mr. Incredible shrug?) when Atlas imagery is common not only in pop culture but, more importantly, in superhero comics.

As someone suggested earlier, pretty much all of your assertions need only have Occam's Razor applied to them to catagorize them as allusions to superhero mythology rather than Randian philosophy. And that gets you, at best, an indirect engagement with objectivism, a far cry from promoting an agenda.

I read this thread before seeing the movie, so I looked for this kind of thing specifically. Considering all the to-do people are making about it, I was surprised how little there was in it that could be read to further any kind of agenda. I think people are just thrown because its theme is quite unusual for a "children's" film (which is one of the reasons I like it so much), which tend to have the very "everyone is special" themes that this movie opposes.

[Just1Lurk]

BRAD BIRD SPEAKS!
Here are some quotes from "The Art of The Incredibles."
From Brad Bird himself:
Consciously, I'd always thought of The Incredibles as a tribute to the pop mythology of my youth, a gumbo of spy movies, comic books, and favorite television shows; but I realize now that the other half of its ingredients came out of personal anxieties about family, work, expectations, and the special gifts we are all given but don't always appreciate.
Bolding mine. And this is from John Lasseter:
I remember Brad being so passionate - he was like the warrior against mediocrity. We both worked at Disney back in The Fox and the Hound days, a time when we just wanted to do good work, but the people who ran the studio creatively tried to keep young people in their place.
Again, bolding mine. And, I would just like to point out, I suggested something along this line in my first post, thankyerverymuch.
And here's this from Teddy Newton, Character Designer:
I think this movie is metaphorically autobiographical for Brad. I know he suffered trememdous frustration working in studios that did not fully appreciate the value he brought them. It takes so much effort to make something great. And often, the mediocre stuff is what's hightlighted.
So what can we infer?
A. Brad Bird hid his inner Rand not only from the public, but from his colloborators.
B. The folks at Pixar did know about Bird's secret conservative agenda, and are conspiring to decieve us all.
C. Bird used the theme of "the excellent not being allowed to excel" because it has great personal signficance to him; the superhero trappings are an affective homage to the shows he loved when he was young.

Some other tidbits from the book:
An early conceptual sketch of the omnidroid battle shows a pyramidal, not spherical, omnidroid. So much for Atlas Shrugged.
Edna Mode when through several designs - at one point she was tall and sexy. The only design elements Brad specified were the glasses and pageboy hairstyle - not the cigarette holder which spoke- claims is a reference to Rand.
Edna's home was the work of Lou Romano, the production designer. The look was drawn from Greek mythology; the final design a combination of ancient and modern ideas. The fountain was suggested by Poseidon, god of the sea. So much for The Fountainhead.
Finally, there is no signficance to Syndrome's name. In Brad's original pitch, the chief villain was named Xerek. Syndrome was a bad guy killed in the original 'glory days' prologue sequence. Syndrome became the main bad guy at Lasseter's suggestion.

Can we put this thing to rest now?

[rjung]

What, and derail the fun with facts? ;)

(I don't give two toots about Randian overtones, I'm just thinking of a way I can weasel in one more viewing before I have to go back to work next week...)

[Spoke]

Well, you picked the wrong person to be condescending to...

Lamia, I did not intend to be condescending. if it came across that way, I apologize. I only intended to show that it is possible to infer an artist's intent without having the artist spell it out for you. In hindsight, I should have chosen different phrasing.

And my last post was just good-natured ribbing of you and Miller. Maybe I should use more smileys: :) :p :D

... :dubious:

[Just1Lurk]

My apologies, rjung. I don't know what I was thinking. :p
And if you're really need an excuse to see it again, well, I heard somewhere that The Incredibles promotes conservative values - and that means watching it is an act of patriotism, isn't it?
(I left work early yesterday myself to see it again. And everytime, there's something new. Did anyone else catch the bit where Jack-Jack is geeting the bath and is just about to drink the liquid soap and Elasti-Girl casually puts her hand on the lid at the last second?)

[panache45]

Spoke-,

First off, I haven't seen The Incredibles, though I intend to. That being said:

Throughout this thread, you've exhibited a totally superficial understanding (or misunderstanding) of Objectivism, which tends to negate any possible validity of your thesis.

You (and, to be fair, others) constantly equate Objectivism with Conservatism, which couldn't be further from the truth. Rand despised conservatives even more than she despised liberals. And justifiably, I might add. There are many, many conservative values that are diametrically opposed to Objectivism.

And regarding the issue of ad populum: it's irrelevent how many people "independently" came to the same conclusion as you; I imagine there used to be a great many people who "independently" believed that the earth was flat.

And think about this: If I, as an Objectivist, were to create a Randian work of art, don't you think I would be totally "out" about it? I'd go out of my way to proclaim to the world my allegiance to Rand and her philosophy. To evade the source of my ideas would be totally un-Randian.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Just saw it for the 3rd time today, & it just keeps getting better.

The background scenes are far more detailed than I thought at first showing.

Look on the roof scene, in the Glory Dats segment.

There's a graffito on the wall. I believe it reads "Stan, Steve & Jacky K. Were Here!"

Those names ring a few bells, True Believers? If I saw correctly, that is so cool ! And a fine tribute to the Marvel Bullpen.

[Kaitlyn]

Just saw it for the 3rd time today, & it just keeps getting better.

The background scenes are far more detailed than I thought at first showing.

Look on the roof scene, in the Glory Dats segment.

There's a graffito on the wall. I believe it reads "Stan, Steve & Jacky K. Were Here!"

Those names ring a few bells, True Believers? If I saw correctly, that is so cool ! And a fine tribute to the Marvel Bullpen.

Heh. I love stuff like that. In Daredevil, the boxers Jack Murdock beats in his comback are Miller, Mack, and Bendis, and the guy he's supposed to throw the fight against is Joe Quesada.

[Menocchio]

Heh. I love stuff like that. In Daredevil, the boxers Jack Murdock beats in his comback are Miller, Mack, and Bendis, and the guy he's supposed to throw the fight against is Joe Quesada.

Kevin Smith's (himself an ex-DD writer) bit part is as coroner Jack Kirby.

[Skott]

From NRO's interview (http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/good200412230957.asp) with Craig Good, Pixar’s Senior Layout Artist.
GOOD: In interviews, Brad Bird (who wrote and directed The Incredibles) has said that part of his impulse for writing this story was his own doubts about being able to succeed in the movies and still be a good dad. So the very real dynamic and respect for family in the movie is no accident. As for the other counter counter-cultural questions, a maxim of filmmaking is that we are not entitled to the reactions of others. I think that movies are mirrors, and what people find in them usually says more about the viewer than the movie. So if you saw something in the movie, you're entitled to it. Frankly, we're often astounded at what people see in our cartoons once they hit the theatres.
As for Omnidroid, he's actually from Explorers (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089114/), which ILM did the special effects for (explaining the ending copyright attribute). Pixar gleaned some of its employees from ILM (Pixar was orignally a LucasFilm division), so it's inclusion is a tribute more than anything else.

[Raygun99]

A rather explicit denial from Brad Bird today at IGN (http://dvd.ign.com/articles/594/594806p3.html)

IGN DVD: Ok, I gotcha. One of the things I liked was Bob's frustration, when he talked about celebrating mediocrity, and Syndrome's comment that if everyone is super, then no one is. Do you think people picked up on that point?

Bird: I think so. I think it got misinterpreted a few times. Some people said it was Ayn Rand or something like that, which is ridiculous. other people threw Nietzsche around, which I also find ridiculous. But I think the vast majority of people took it the way I intended. Some people said it was sort of a right-wing feeling, but I think that's as silly of an analysis as saying The Iron Giant was left-wing. I'm definitely a centrist and feel like both parties can be absurd.

IGN DVD: How in the world can you see The Iron Giant as left-wing?

Bird: It was one New York paper, not the Times, I don't remember which one, but a reviewer said the Iron Giant represented Russia and that my standpoint was that Russia was just a cuddly friend and we never should have had nuclear missiles against Russia, and he said that was a ridiculous thing, that Russia was dangerous. And I'm sitting here thinking "You think the Iron Giant is Russia? Where the hell did you get that?" But you can't control how people interpret your stuff. Have you ever met someone and you say something nice to them and they make a face and are deeply offended? You just don't know how people are going to take things. Ninty-eight percent of the people got that stuff the way I intended and two percent thought I was doing The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged.

Good interview all around.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Excellent & informative update, Ray!

[rjung]

Bird says something similar in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/42371.htm) as well:
Q:"The Incredibles" generated quite a lot of ink on op-ed pages, where pundits debated the film's thesis that mediocrity is celebrated in America and that people with special abilities were being discouraged from being quite so special. Were you surprised?

A:The idea that "The Incredibles," a mainstream animated feature, was thought of as provocative was wonderful to me. I was very gratified, though I thought some of the analysis was really kind of goofy.

Q:Such as?

A:Some pieces compared the viewpoint to the objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand. I thought that was silly and the writers were humorless. I was into Rand for about six months when I was 20, but you outgrow that narrow point of view. Some compromise is necessary in life.

...

Q:So how would you describe yourself politically?

A:Somewhere in the middle. Both the extreme left and the extreme right end up eating their own tail, defeating the very objectives that they state. My previous film, "The Iron Giant," was seen wrongly as a left-wing film and some people have misconstrued "The Incredibles" as having a right-wing agenda. Both those analyses are very limited.