(By the way, you seem to be under the misimpression that I am a Rand admirer. Nothing could be further from the truth.)
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?
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.
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.
Apparently they do not for anyone but you and a few nutty Randians out there on the Web.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I have to ask, spoke-: do you have any formal training in literary or cinematic criticism?
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.”
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?
Truer words were never spoken, shyguy.
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.
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.
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).
I think I’ve been much fairer to you than you have to anyone who’s disagreed with you.
*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.
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.
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.
Oh no! Does it show?
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?
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!
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?)
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.
*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.
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.
Moore discussing the Watchmen.
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.
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.
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.
BRAD BIRD SPEAKS!
Here are some quotes from “The Art of The Incredibles.”
From Brad Bird himself:
Bolding mine. And this is from John Lasseter:
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:
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?
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…)
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: 
… :dubious:
My apologies, rjung. I don’t know *what * I was thinking.
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?)
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.