# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/161 "2004-12-17T21:06:14Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/162 "2004-12-17T22:16:12Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/163 "2004-12-17T22:47:52Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [December 17, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/164 "2004-12-17T22:49:14Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**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 17, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/165 "2004-12-17T22:50:45Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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. ---
**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 18, 2004, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/166 "2004-12-18T02:23:29Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Just1Lurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c0e974/32.png) [@Just1Lurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just1Lurk)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/167 "2004-12-18T03:29:52Z")
> [@](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Just1Lurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c0e974/32.png) [@Just1Lurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just1Lurk)\ **Post date:** [December 18, 2004, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/168 "2004-12-18T03:37:38Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/169 "2004-12-21T19:10:11Z")
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. ---
**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 21, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/170 "2004-12-21T19:16:39Z")
> [@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. ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/171 "2004-12-21T19:21:06Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/172 "2004-12-21T19:38:26Z")
> [@Zebra](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/173 "2004-12-21T19:45:22Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/174 "2004-12-21T19:55:48Z")
> [@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): I’ve read this thread and I don’t remember anyone making this argument. Can you point it out to me? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/175 "2004-12-21T20:05:43Z")
> [@spoke-](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/176 "2004-12-21T20:11:06Z")
> [@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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Just1Lurk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c0e974/32.png) [@Just1Lurk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Just1Lurk)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/177 "2004-12-21T20:39:55Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/178 "2004-12-21T20:42:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > > [@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… > [@Miller](#): > > 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. > [@Menocchio](#): > > I hate it when people try to cram political ideas into apolitical media. > [@JDeMobray](#): > > 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: > [@rjung](#): > > Sometimes a fun movie is just a fun movie. Back in this thread: > [@Mr. Blue Sky](#): > > And sometimes a movie is just a movie. > [@Number Six](#): > > That you inferred a specific message doesn’t mean that was the message that was intended. > [@Merijeek](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [December 21, 2004, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/179 "2004-12-21T20:52:25Z")
**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. ---
**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 21, 2004, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506/180 "2004-12-21T20:56:39Z")
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_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservative-agenda-in-the-incredibles/279506.md?page=10)