# Conservative agenda in The Incredibles? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [December 12, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506 "2004-12-12T22:47:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/121 "2004-12-15T14:45:07Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/122 "2004-12-15T14:50:58Z")
> [@Number Six](#): > > 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! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/123 "2004-12-15T15:31:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Odesio](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/odesio/32/20003_2.png) [@Odesio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Odesio)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/124 "2004-12-15T15:58:02Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/125 "2004-12-15T16:02:42Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/126 "2004-12-15T16:11:05Z")
> [@MGibson](#): > > 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. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/127 "2004-12-15T17:29:48Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/128 "2004-12-15T18:17:15Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/129 "2004-12-15T21:00:22Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/130 "2004-12-15T21:08:14Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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: ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/131 "2004-12-16T00:09:32Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > (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. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/132 "2004-12-16T00:47:47Z")
> [@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? The question should be does it help _you_. _I_ am not the one trying to argue that Bird is a closet Randian, remember? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/133 "2004-12-16T02:55:07Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/134 "2004-12-16T04:02:32Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/135 "2004-12-16T07:19:15Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Kaitlyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/73ab20/32.png) [@Kaitlyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kaitlyn)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/136 "2004-12-16T07:56:25Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/137 "2004-12-16T15:40:30Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/138 "2004-12-16T15:57:08Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/139 "2004-12-16T19:06:59Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/140 "2004-12-16T20:33:58Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > 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.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506.md?page=8)