Thank goodness! I studied postmodernism in school, but I’ve had a rough day and was afraid I’d managed to somehow get it all backwards.
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. My conclusion: just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t make them right.
It’s primarily a storytelling convenience – having two parents solve the crisis in the story would often make for a considerably shorter film.
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)
A piece of art can be interpreted in a way that’s not in line with what the artist intended. So let’s just say for a moment that there was a Conservative or a, god forbid, Randian message in The Incredibles. Was it a bad message?
I saw The Incredibles as an allegory for the modern American family. There are themes common to many households regardless of politial affiliation. If you want to call them Conservative, fine. I still think there were good messages throughout the movie.
Mr. Incredible holds a job where he suffers through dehumanizing conditions at a job he hates in order to provide for his family. He’s obviously suffering through a mid-life crisis and it comes to a boil when he is finally emasculated by his boss. He’s depressed to the point where he doesn’t pay much attention to his family.
Elastigirl also gave up her hopes and dreams in order to act as the glue, or maybe the rubber band, that keeps the family together. She’s the one who has to handle the children and she’s frustrated by her husbands lack of interest in family affairs.
Violet has been told all her life that she can’t be who she is. She doesn’t know who she is and as a result she has no confidence in herself and doesn’t know how to approach others.
Dash has also been told that he can’t be who he is. Instead of withdrawing he acts out by behaving badly.
Let’s clean up a misconception first. “Filming” in the sense of shooting might not be an adequate term. However, what could be called filming is not something that is changed during the process. First the story is pitched, then there’s a script, then storyboards, then the storyboards are animated and voice artists are brought it. The art of computer animation uses so many resources, it’s simply not possible or feasible to do additional “footage”, just in case. To add or delete scenes would meaqn a lot more work than on an´ordinary feature film. There aren’t multiple camera angles, a better take on the facial expression on an actor or whatever. The “filmng” must be planned in the smallest detail, before animation begins or it would be too expensive.
Essentially, the story, as we’ve seen on the screen, has been set in stone since early '02.
Others have slammed you, spoke- for using argumentum ad populum and doing so really doesn’t help your stance (Logical Fallacies).
And finally, you argue that you went in with no preconceived notions, but your OP reads as if you were looking for arguments from other sources to support your position. I get the impression that you went in, saw a movie, caught some vibes and then googled to see if there were more to this than you thought. When you found that - bingo! - you set out to write an OP which you didn’t think could miss with the (perceived) liberal slant the SDMB has, in effect performing intellectual masturbation and wanting pats on your back from people telling you how clever you are. The way you phrase your OP:
indicates that this is the case. However, your effort backfired and instead of getting pats on the back from liberal posters, you get ripped a new one, whereas the conservative posters are missing from the thread. My guess is that’s why you’re definding your position with such sound and fury (yet signifying…).
Finally, I find it hard to believe that you hade no preconceived notions. I don’t expect every doper to read every thread, but I remember talk about possible conservative slant when the previews came out, and I remember a shortlived thread by rjung on the subject. I believe there were more.
This is not true. Every thing in every movie, from Citizen Kane to Con Air is there for a reason. This is doubly true for animated movies, where somebody has to sit down and figure out exactly what is going to be in each frame and what it will look like. Nothing in a movie is ever an accident. You can bet even the stupidest movie you’ve seen has a worldview behind it.
I havn’t seen the movie, but my friend came back saying he got a strong conservative/Ayn Rand vibe that just settled wrong with him. I dismissed it as a film student’s tendancy to overanalyse, but now I’m kind of curious about the truth. Maybe I’ll revive my old film-school practice of scribbling notes madly in the dark at the theater tommorow.
Well, yes. That’s not the same as saying it’s there for a purpose, though.
Summary
even sven --everything in every film is utterly symbolic, always.
The Gaspode --sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Sorry, sven. If you were right, then there was a symbolic reason for the cheezy cardboard tombstone falling over in Plan 9 From Outer Space. It’s reasoning like that that gave us Oliver Stone conspiracy flicks. :rolleyes:
You’re giving a lot of filmmakers wayyyy too much credit, and I suspect a lot of them would happily tell you so.
Citizen Kane? I can buy that, maybe. Con Air? I can’t. Do you really think EVERYTHING in Con Air has a “reason”? Aside from “to blow up real good”?
You are misunderstanding my argument. I’m not arguing that it’s true because it’s popular. Rather, I’m arguing that because so many people independently noticed the same things (the important part), it makes it less likely that there are no Randian themes there.
Moreover, I am not just making my argument on that basis. I pointed to specific Randian moments in the movie, and specific instances of possible Randian references. (As well as some more generally conservative themes.)
What an obnoxious and offensive post, Gaspode. I hope you’ll think better of it. I went in to the movie knowing nothing about it except what I’d seen in ads (and that my friends had enjoyed it). I saw Randian themes in the film and wanted to kick off a discussion of those themes, so I turned to my friends at the Straight Dope because I figured they were a clever bunch who might have also picked up on them and might have even spotted some references I did not. (Have you never seen a movie or read a book and wanted to discuss its themes?) If anything, I opened the thread with some trepidation, knowing that a lot of liberal members of the SD were huge fans of the movie, and might react with hostility (as they have) to the idea that they had bought into a conservative franchise.
I make it a point not to read threads about movies before seeing them, so as to avoid spoilers and preconceived notions. If you are calling me a liar, that is disappointing. I’d like to keep this discussion on a higher plane. Do we really need to insult one another? An apology would be appreciated.
I opened this thread hoping to spark a discussion, and fully expecting I’d catch some flak. I knew some would respond emotionally because they are emotionally attached to the movie. I am trying very hard not to respond in kind.
To have an agenda, there must be the intent to convey a specific message. You haven’t provided any evidence that a conservative message was the purpose of the elements you’ve cited. No matter how many people see that same message, to say that it is an agenda, you must prove intent.
While I have little doubt that many are seeing Randian elements, I think that to ascribe to the filmmakers a political message on that basis without any corroboration from those filmmakers is a bit dubious, especially in light of the explanations offered by Bird that do not indicate any political motivations.
People coming to the movie with a background in superhero comics tend to see a lot of allusions to Watchmen and Fantastic Four. Check boards dedicated to comics and you’ll see them all over the place.
People coming to the movie with a background in political analysis will likely find a political message, and can find the same message by looking at boards / blogs to find corroboration.
Bird has denied the connection to the Fantastic Four that I and a lot of other comic book geeks think are obvious, and has described an entirely different motivation for his characters’ powers. The similarity may be coincidental, and we may be projecting our world view onto the movie. Just because I see strong connections to the FF doesn’t mean that that’s where they came from.
To make claims about what the movie’s agenda was, you must provide evidence that the elements you see were placed there intentionally by the makers for the purpose of sending the message you are recieving. That you inferred a specific message doesn’t mean that was the message that was intended.
I come back to the question I asked upthread: Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that the filmmakers did in fact and on purpose put a Randian theme into the movie.
So what is wrong with that? Just that you don’t like the message? Big whoop. There are tons of movies out there with messages I don’t like, but a filmmaker has the legal and moral right to put whatever message he likes into his creation. If it pisses off enough people, they won’t go and see the film. Period.
And I’ll give you the same answer I gave before. Nothing is wrong with that.
I encourage filmmakers, authors and artists to create works that can be appreciated on more than one level (even if I don’t necessarily agree with the message conveyed).
What evidence would you accept? Must the filmmaker himself spell out the meaning for you? Only the most pedestrian artist would explicate his own allegories. Wouldn’t you agree?
I should respond to this as well.
I agree that a Fantastic Four influence is obvious. I think you and other comic book fans are correct in seeing that influence. (Once again, when a lot of people see the same thing, it’s probably because it’s there.)
So why would Bird deny it then? Maybe because he fears those lawyers he lampoons in his movie…
I don’t think you know what argumentum ad populum is.
:shrug:
I’m reacting to how I perceive you, based on numerous posts in this thread. Maybe my perception is wrong, maybe you intended something else. Much like I think Brad Bird intended something which you failed to see.
Oh, I know what argumentum ad populum is. I explained the distinction between that argument and my own. Perhaps both Mr. Bird and I are being too subtle for you.
By the way, do you know what argumentum ad hominem is?
I’m particularly curious in light of this jab:
Let’s raise the tone of the debate a bit, shall we?
(shudder)
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?
-Joe
I don’t think anyone here is insulted by the idea that The Incredibles has a conservative agenda. I think most posters on the 'Dope are more mature than that.
What is insulting is your insistance that the reason people aren’t agree with you is the aforementioned political bias, and not the paucity of your arguments. What’s insulting is that you so far have refused to engage in the debate you started with anything more substantial than, “A lot of other people see it, so it must be true!”
The idea that there is a conservative message in The Incredibles is defensible. So start defending it, already. You’re going to need something more concrete than a couple broadly-drawn political stereotypes and a logical fallacy to do it, though.
What more shall I do? I pointed out the bits of dialogue that struck me as suspiciously conservative. I pointed out the Randian themes, prominent in her works The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged (i.e., enforced mediocrity-- the subjugation of the talented individual to society’s needs). I pointed out the symbolism and possible winking references to Rand: the Atlas image (Mr. Incredible with the globe-shaped robot), Edna and her cape obsession. Did I mention Edna’s cigarette holder? (Also a Rand trademark.) Or the fountain in Edna’s courtyard?
At some point, either you see the references and “get it” or you don’t. Not much more I can do, barring a “confession” by Mr. Bird.
::shrug::
spoke- - no, you don’t. Your claim was that you weren’t arguing a position because it was popular, but because you’d found others seeing the same thing. That is argumentum ad populum. It doesn’t have anything to do with popularity, it could be about dislike as well.
And yes, I do know what ad hominem is, considering I linked to the logical fallacies index. And I still think you’re fiercly arguing something which signifies nothing.