I WAS GONNA MENTION THAT! I THOUGHT SHE LOOKED LIKE A LITTLE ANIMATED AYN!
Seriously, I did get some Randian vibes when watching The Incredibles but I didn’t regard it as a deliberate agenda.
Actually, I thought Team America wasn’t so much centrist as it simply ragged on the right wing for the first half (showing how cluelessly violent the Team was) and the left wing for the second half (once the FAG actors showed up), so the movie largely cancels itself out.
It’s damn funny, though.
It’s easy to interpret Randian elements in The Incredibles, but… so what? Is it an enjoyable movie or not?
I can’t speak for ultrafilter, but as for myself, I hate it when people try to cram political ideas into apolitical media.
I find the whole Randian thing especially laughable as the principle inspiration for the film was “Watchmen”, where the Randian is treated as a pathetic psychopath.
Whether they are Randian or not, please CLICK HERE & go a site to vote for our Fab Four, the Family Incredible.
After all, they’re movie was much better than the FF’s lame & unreleased mess.
Oh, right. Because no one has ever tried to slip social or political commentary into a juvenile art form
“Inspired” maybe (at least partly), but that doesn’t mean that Bird necessarily agrees with Moore’s politics.
I would like to offer the following observation as my invaluable contribution to this debate, to wit:
I thought the costume designer was a takeoff on Carrie what’s-her-name, the former spokeswoman for Old Navy who passed away a few years ago.
I will now return you to posts written by smart people.
You’ve really got to get over the idea that this proves something. A lot of people independently came to the conclusion that the moon landing was fake. 
I still want to know what country Tony is.
Airblairxxx, I think you’re thinking of Carrie Donovan.
So your entire argument is that other people saw it too, so you must be right? That’s generally not considered a very good standard of evidence 'round these parts. I mean, lots of people independently saw a kid standing by the window in that scene in Three Men and a Baby, too. That doesn’t mean he was there, ya know?
There are elements to the movie that could reasonably be described as being in line with Rand’s views, yes. Does that necessarily mean they’re derived from her works? No, there are lots of other sources for those sorts of ideas. Does the fact that there are other sources necessarily mean they’re not derived from Rand’s works? Of course not. But that’s really about all we can say about it–there’s just not enough evidence to really say one way or the other.
My personal opinion is that the themes are there because they make for a good story. That’s the whole point of a story-telling medium, isn’t it?
Charles Manson thought that “Helter Skelter” and the rest of the Beatles’ White Album foretold a race war. Charles Manson was the only one who believed this. Clearly, he was imposing an interpretation on the material. He was nuts.
On the other hand, plenty of people have independently come to the conclusion that Yertle the Turtle was an allegorical story of Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany. They came to this conclusion even though (if I am not mistaken) Dr. Seuss never openly acknowledged it. They came to this conclusion because the allegory jumps right out at the reader. So much so that many different people came to the same obvious conclusion.
Ditto with The Incredibles. The allegory (and particularly the Randian talking points) jump right out at the astute viewer, and many people have independently noticed the objectivist slant.
Say Marley23, you do know that there is such a thing as allegory, yes? You know there is a reason the word exists in the dictionary?
Some artists are clever and interesting enough to get their points across with symbolism and analog, in the hope that some of their audience will be clever and astute enough to pick up on it.
Or maybe Moby Dick is just a story about a guy chasing a whale.
No, my entire argument is based on the plot points and dialogue I have mentioned, augmented by the fact that many other people have noticed the same things.
Cute, Marley23. Your snarkiness really makes your case! Touché, sir! Check and mate!
:rolleyes:
Not every character in an allegorical story must be allegorical.
What does Ishmael represent in Moby Dick?
I think it is not so much a political stance but rather because animators are cheap bastards. 
<ahem>
We’re 200 votes behind, folks.
If there is one statement I find most odious when it comes to discussions of films, books, or other media, it is “You are reading too much into it.”
That said…
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.
I’ll grant the Objectivist shadings to the character of Edna Mode. They are unmistakable, and seem to be clearly intentional. However, I think the OP and those who think like him are overlooking something very important: Edna Mode is batshit crazy. Also, she is more than just a little sinister. That Edna views the superheroes through an objectivist filter does not mean that the film endorses that viewpoint. At most, her character is a nod to the established trope that the entire notion of superheroes are essentially fascist by its very nature. A trope most succesfully mined in The Watchmen by Alan Moore, who is not exactly well-known for his conservative political views.
Outside of this one character, the OP’s claims fall apart. It is trivially easy to find a liberal bias that is just as vigorously supported by the material as the perceived conservative bias. Some examples off the top of my head:
[ul][li]Mr. Incredible assaults his boss, who is a souless corporate leech, but is protected from repurcussions by a sympathetic government spook. This illustrates the liberal principle that goverment is more helpful and trustworthy than private enterprise.[/li]
[li]The superheroes feel that it is their responsibility to use their superior abilities to help those less powerful than them. This is a reflection of the general liberal sensibility that led to the creation of the welfare state.[/li]
[li]The villain is an inventor who specializes in weapons, and wants to sell his inventions to the general public. Liberals, of course, support gun control laws and want to limit the availability of weapons to the public at large.[/li]
[li]The Incredibles are a family of superpowered beings. Most families are not made of superpowered beings. There fore, the Incredibles are a nontraditional family. Liberals are known to be champions of non-traditional families.[/li]
[li]At the end, when Dash is competing in the track meet, his parents encourage him to win, but not by too much. Again, this echoes the liberal welfare state, which places limits on how much one may excel past his fellow citizens.[/ul][/li]
And so on and so forth.
While you may have a point in general, you could not possibly have chosen a worse novel with which to illustrate it. Take a look at this Wikipedia article for the most superficial interpretation of what Ishmael represents in Moby Dick.
I disagree. If that were so, there would be as many people coming out of the theater saying “Did you catch all the liberal undertones?” That doesn’t seem to be happening.
And about the Ishmael character? You’re reading too much into it. 
Way to sidestep the actual argument there, spoke-. Got anything more substantive to add then an appeal to popularity?
Are where?
That’s a serious question. Are you claiming that they’re “there” in Bird’s mind, “there” in the minds of the viewers, or “there” in the actual pixels onscreen?
I don’t think anyone is denying that it is possible for a viewer to interpret the film as having Randian themes. If anyone is, they’re being silly. Obviously some people have interpreted the film this way.
However, Bird has apparently said nothing that would suggest that this was his intended message. And if you want to argue that the film has Randian themes in some objective (ha!) sense, independent of the artist’s intent or the viewer’s perception, well…I don’t think you’re going to find a lot of people who’d even agree that such a thing is possible.
I would, but I’m shamelessly post-modern.
I would have thought the shamelessly postmodern position would be that an artistic work could have no objective meaning, that it was all a matter of individual perception.
There is of course the school of thought that holds that neither artistic intent nor viewer’s reaction matters, it’s the work itself that’s important, but I don’t think that’s very postmodern. Is it?
You’re absolutely right, Lamia. In my haste to be a smartass, I misread your post.