And I’ll repeat what I already said in this thread:
“Hare-brained?”
Again with the ad hominem attacks, Miller? Please try to do better.
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.)
I didn’t insult you, I insulted your argument. When I start insulting you, you’ll know the difference.
spoke- goes on to quote me as one of those advocating the position above:
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.
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.
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?
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:
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:
“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.
[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.
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
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.
The Gaspode, you certainly seem to be of that mindset. Over in the spin-off thread, you said:
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.
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
[QUOTEspoke-]
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.
[/QUOTE]
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sigh. There are only so many hours in a day.
OK, if you insist:
Nothing in Rand’s work suggests individuals can’t choose to work together.
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.
Syndrome’s flaw is that he wants to make everyone equal. Recall that Syndrome wants everyone to be super…so no one will be.
Huh? Who sacrificed what?
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.
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.
[quote]
Ooh, I found a little gem on this site:
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?)
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.
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.
There was something wrong with the board yesterday. I had a long reply ready, but suddenly the board just ceased to function.
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* 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.