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–
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.
::: 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.)
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?
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.
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, 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?
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?
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.
Then stop attempting to use it as support for your position.
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.
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.
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.
