The point of my argument is not that “A lot of other people believe the same thing, therefore it’s true,” which would be a classic argumentum ad populum.
The point is that others viewing the same film independently reached the same conclusion. The independent arrival at one conclusion is the crux of it. In other words, it is not a case of groupthink (upon which the classic argumentum ad populum often relies). It makes it less likely that those of us who caught the references are simply imagining things.
I don’t think Ms Rand nor Brad Bird invented the hero type that is presented in The Incredibles.
I don’t think Ms. Rand invented the idea of the Individual vs Society either.
The jabs at enforced mediocrity could just be jabs at political correctness.
Oh and doea an Objectivist = Conservative? The thread title is Conservative agenda not Objectivist.
The cape and the cigarette holder could be references and maybe not. If Rand loved a cape wouldn’t Edna love capes? Just because she talks about capes when she is discussing the design of SUPER HERO costumes doesn’t mean it is a reference to Rand. I bet the film makers decided, for some reason, that the heros would not wear capes. Probably due to animating capes is a pain, so they may have added that line for just an explanation and then used it as a set up for the joke at the end.
Would you say that Spy Kids is conservative as well? To me The Incredibles is very similar to Spy Kids.
One thing that gets the Randians all excited about The Incredibles is that the notion “When everyone is special, no one is” gets expressed twice in the movie. For some reason, some folks take this to be an endorsement of Rand.
What they conveniently ignore is that the notion gets expressed by less-than-likeable characters in the film – first by a surly ten-year-old, and later by a cackling supervillian. Doesn’t that serve to undermine the idea, instead of endorsing it?
It’s funny how a lot of posters independently reached the same conclusion about your OP and subsequent posts. To say that you are wrong, because so many, myself included, pile on you, would be AAP, but it would never the less not be true. I don’t think you’re right. I think you’re stretching more than Elastagirl to make the dots connect.
I may be wrong though. You might be on to something most others in this thread don’t see.
The reverse is true too, but not very subtle. Saying that other people have seen what you saw, doesn’t make it true.
Subtle? Try non-exsistant. An appeal to popularity has nothing to do with “groupthink.” The fact that a bunch of people have come to the same conclusion as you has absolutely no relevance to the validity of your conclusion. It doesn’t matter if you all came to the same conclusion independently, or if you all sign up to the same newsletter. If you’re wrong, being able to find a bunch of other people who are also wrong doesn’t suddenly make you right. If your argument has any merit to it, it will be able to stand on its own, even if you’re the only person on the planet who thinks that way.
As for what more you could do, how about actually addressing some of the counter arguments that have been presented in this thread? That’s sort of how a debate works. One person puts up an argument, another person puts up a counter argument, the first person tries to show how his argument is stronger than the counter-argument, and so forth. All you’ve done is repeat your initial assertions, repeatedly commit the same logical fallacy, demonstrate your ignorance of the function of allegory, and then whine that liberals are being mean to you. That’s not a debate, that’s just annoying.
Miller, I think maybe you and Gaspode do not fully grasp the concept of the argument ad populum. Take a look.
In this case, I am not arguing that because many people believe X it is true. I am arguing that if enough people independently spot symbolism and allegory in a film, maybe it’s really there. The independence of the observations is the crux of the argument, not merely the numerosity.
No, it’s not. Dash says that in the car with Elastigirl after the meeting with his principal. Mr. Incredible expresses a somewhat similar sentiment later in his argument with Elastigirl, although he never specifically says, “When everyone is special, no one is,” at any point in the movie.
And you’re wrong. There are some arguments where the number of people supporting a position is relevent to the argument. This is not one of them. If your argument were, “Many people believe there is a conservative subtext to The Incredibles,” then pointing out the number of blogs repeating this theory would be relevant to the debate. Since you are instead arguing the objective reality of your interpretation, the number of people who agree with you means nothing, regardless of wether or not they came to the interpretation independently.
Easy. You seem to have confused allegory with metaphor. The primary difference between the two is that an allegory is sustained throughout the length of the work, and is executed in the minor details of the work, not just the larger themes. Generally speaking, it is more proper to say that an entire work is allegorical, not just one aspect/character/situation within it, although there are examples to the contrary. Many allegorical works contain a number of characters or situations that are self-contained allegories not directly or thematically related to each other, while in others, every aspect of the story contributes to the over-arching allegory. (Or at least one of them, if there are more than one allegory functioning in the story.) Moby Dick, interestingly enough, is an example of both, depending on which allegory in the novel you are adressing. Nothing in Melville’s later work has only a literal meaning, Moby Dick more so than anything else he ever wrote.
Returning to The Incredibles, to say that Violet is an allegory for the American electorate would mean that every major aspect of her character should, to some extent, fit into that allegory. Therefore, her relationship with the boy at school, as well as her relationship with her family, her conflict with Syndrome, and the nature of her super abilities (all major parts of her character on the purely literal level of the film) must all somehow be making a statement about America/the American electorate.
If you want to say that Violet’s conversation with her mother in the cave is a metaphor for the current state of the American elctorate, you would be on firmer ground, although I would still disagree with your conclusion.
I see you’ve chosen to ignore my question as to where you think these Randian themes lie – in Bird’s mind, in the minds of the viewers, or in the film itself. If you’re going to claim that they’re part of Bird’s intent then yes, you need some sort of outside evidence. A quote would do it. Barring that, proof that Bird was a follower of Ayn Rand, or was even familiar with the ideas of Ayn Rand, would be helpful. Not conclusive, but better than nothing, which seems to be all you’ve got.
*No.
<later post>
So says you.
Anecdote time: I wrote a short story in college that was published in the annual school literary magazine. Quite a few people read it and told me they liked it. They also almost universally interpreted the story in a different way than I intended.
I won’t detail my story’s plot here, I’ll just say that it was a mystery/ghost story. Almost everyone who read the story told me they thought it was cool how throughout the story the investigator protagonist was gradually becoming posssessed by the spirit of the murderer. This is an interpretation that didn’t even cross my mind while I was writing the story. I rather wish I had because I like it and I think the story is better for it, but I didn’t.
This doesn’t make the interpretation a bad one. It is interesting, and it is perfectly consistent with the text of the story. However, anyone claiming that I must have meant for the reader to come away thinking the narrator was possessed by a ghost would be wrong. It wouldn’t matter how many people thought that was my intent when writing the story. It wasn’t, and that’s all there is to it.
Or more likely because capes have been out of fashion for superheroes for a long time. 90%+ of current cape wearing heroes have been wearing them for half a century or more. And a lot who were wearing capes back then, no longer do. (The most recent versions of Sandman and Starman wore ordinary street clothes, for instance.) Even that far back, most heroes skipped the cape.
On reflection, superhero fiction and Ayn Rand both owe major debts to Nietzsche, so one could argue for a common source, rather than the latter inspiring the former.
Bird has done exactly that in some instances–he explains how the Incredibles’ powers are metaphors for their positions in the family and in society. What he hasn’t done is mention Ayn Rand, Objectivism, or any of the hot button Conservative issues in your OP.
He’s even said exactly what the inspiration for Edna was–a combination of Edith Head and other fashion designers–while making no mention of Ayn Rand, yet this seems to do nothing to discourage her being interpreted that way.
If you were saying that you see Randian / conservative themes in the movie, your point would be unassailable. If you were claiming that a Randian interpretation was possible based on the reasoning in your OP, you would get no argument from me.
But when you try to claim a conservative agenda is present in the film, you’re making a claim regarding the intent of the filmmaker, which requires a much higher standard of evidence than your personal interpretation.
A quote from Bird in support of your claims would be a good start.
No. Many artists in all kinds of fields are often only too happy to explain the inner workings of their art, while others are just as reticent. It has nothing to do with the artist’s talent.
A fountain. In a fancy courtyard. ::Pause:: Yeah, you don’t see something like that very often.
And Edith Head, the fashion designer Edna was patterned after, also had a trademark cigarette holder. So did Cruella De Ville, and Holly Golightly. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen FDR with one, too.
And maybe the “cape obsession” is in there because it’s funny? Y’know, what with the superheroes, the stylized symbols of perfection, having to face what would be a practical problem with their choice of clothing? Hell, search these boards, and you’ll find a few jokes about superheroes with capes.
Well, see, the operative word here is maybe. It might be there, and it might not. And so far, people are agreeing that it might be there. What people are disagreeing with is you saying that it’s definitely there, because there’s just not enough evidence to really say one way or the other. I mean, so far your evidence seems to consist of your opinions and those of people who agree with you. That would be great if we were talking about your motivations or intentions. However, we’re talking about Brad Bird’s motivations and intentions, so the only opinion that counts as real evidence is his.
