An

March 14, 2005 1:07 PM

An interview with Brad Bird.

Bird: Some people said it was Ayn Rand or something like that, which is ridiculous. Other people threw Nietzsche around, which I also find ridiculous. But I think the vast majority of people took it the way I intended. Some people said it was sort of a right-wing feeling, but I think that's as silly of an analysis as saying The Iron Giant was left-wing. I'm definitely a centrist and feel like both parties can be absurd.
posted by hughbot (75 comments total)

I see IGN's writers aren't getting any better.

"His film The Incredibles had everything fans loved about The Iron Giant; intellectual honesty, it was relatable, heart, and it spoke to us like we were adults."
posted by ludwig_van at 1:26 PM on March 14, 2005

I think the semi-colon is the best part.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:28 PM on March 14, 2005

Yeah, but animating a realistic semi-colon -- much less the entire thing -- is one of the holy grails of animation.
posted by davejay at 1:41 PM on March 14, 2005

davejay - Ah, yes, the uncanny valley of punctuation. Will it ever be crossed? Perhaps with a bridge made from brackets? ] [
posted by papercake at 1:53 PM on March 14, 2005

So, did anyone else get a screenful of animated marijuana plants after page 3? Certainly was an unexpected twist in the article. Turns out to be an anti-drug message, and the second time I clicked through it, something more boring replaced it.

Here's another good Bird interview, with Michael Barrier.
posted by barjo at 2:32 PM on March 14, 2005

Bird: "Look, I think if you talk down to a kid or aim specifically at a kid, most kids aren't gonna like it, really, because most kids can feel when you are being patronizing."

I wonder how Bird would've felt about the (almost de riguer, anymore) fart-joke sequence in Robots. it seemed to me that the kids in a crowded weekend showing weren't laughing much, and I suspect it's because this gag has been done to death already.
posted by alumshubby at 2:33 PM on March 14, 2005

I think Bird doesn't get that if people have certain reading of his films based on what they saw, and it's not an uncommon or isolated view, then that reading is just as valid and should actually cause the creator to stop and think before simply dismissing those readings as "ridiculous"--could it be because of things he did and the way he presented certain characters and situations, etc? Iron Giant was certainly political--and it's obvious--either he's lying to the interviewer, or doesn't at all think about what he does and how he portrays people and events and themes and eras.
posted by amberglow at 2:53 PM on March 14, 2005

"Some people said it was Ayn Rand or something like that, which is ridiculous. other people threw Nietzsche around, which I also find ridiculous. But I think the vast majority of people took it the way I intended." Uh, which was what? I pretty much tend to take movies at face value but to me this movie had Rand all over it. If it's not supposed to be a right-wing movie, why make it seem like a right-wing movie?
posted by teleskiving at 3:12 PM on March 14, 2005

exactly, teleskiving--either he's trying to fool us, or is really clueless about the effects of his decisions throughout the movie. It reminds me a little of the biblical phrasing Bush uses in speeches--calculated to speak to people who "get it", but passed over by other viewers.
posted by amberglow at 3:14 PM on March 14, 2005

I think his point was that the sentiments of his movies are not the exclusive property of any politcal "wing". And he is right.

Damn! Some of you guys sure seem to love your ideas boxed and wrapped up so neatly. For some people not all thier ideas come from the same place.
posted by tkchrist at 3:36 PM on March 14, 2005

amberglow: I think Bird doesn't get that if people have certain reading of his films based on what they saw, and it's not an uncommon or isolated view, then that reading is just as valid and should actually cause the creator to stop and think before simply dismissing those readings as "ridiculous"--could it be because of things he did and the way he presented certain characters and situations, etc?

Except that the Rand hypotheis is ridiculous. It relies on ignoring pivotal sequences in the film, the basic motivations of the characters, and the moral telegraphed at the beginning. Yeah, the movie can be viewed as Randian, only if you spent half the movie getting popcorn and cokes.

teleskiving: Uh, which was what? I pretty much tend to take movies at face value but to me this movie had Rand all over it. If it's not supposed to be a right-wing movie, why make it seem like a right-wing movie?

If you saw "Rand" all over it, then you were not taking the movie at a face value. You missed that Mr. Incredible was defined as a "good guy" because his altruistic values are incompatible with the desire of the insurance company to make money, and the rather tricky fact that the only Randian hero in the movie turns out to be the villian. Oops!

There are pople who read Shakespeare and swear that they see the work of Queen Elizabeth or Marlowe all over it. Fortunately, most people take this hypothesis with a grain of salt.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:54 PM on March 14, 2005

Good article, but the ads on IGN were so offensive that I finally downloaded and installed Adblock for Firefox. I had bookmarked a set of filters awhile ago but didn't bother installing them until now.

This Geocities site has a good set of filters (sorted by date, use the most recent one), as well as instructions for how to turn on Adblock in Firefox and install them. Good stuff. Renders IGN annoyance-free.

I had been resistant to doing this in the past, because I like web sites to make some money off their banner ads, but IGN's stuff is so over the top and offensive .... they've raised the stakes, sadly, and I find I must Opt Out.
posted by Malor at 3:57 PM on March 14, 2005

And as a side note. Frequently, stupid and unintended interpretations have a knack for spreading as urban legends to the point where they become conventional wisdom. In the end, most of these interpretations involve people seeing what they want to see.

Just as pundits never let the facts get in the way of an argument, they never let the text get in the way of an interpretation.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:08 PM on March 14, 2005

You're taking one scene and taking that as the character's motivations, Kirk--we're looking at all of it, and how the character behaves throughout. It's like looking at Mussolini making the trains run on time and extrapolating that he was an effective leader. Most of us look at all the actions of a character, not just one scene. If Bird failed to sell us on the father being altruistic thru that one scene alone, which is totally negated and belied by his actions in every other scene pretty much, well, there you go.
posted by amberglow at 4:13 PM on March 14, 2005

I suspect that Bird doesn't see the connections to Rand or to Neitzsche because he wasn't looking to anything but comic-books for his inspiration. The übermenschen were philosophical constructs as opposed to actual super-heroes with real super powers, and no one in The Fountainhead could stretch their bodies like elastic or run faster than the speed of sound. If you think of the heroes as "real" instead of metaphorical, then the comparisons to Rand would seem ridiculous.

That said, I can empathize to a certain degree with amberglow's sentiments. The hardcore Right-Wing propagandizing in Lion King set my teeth on edge, and when I went off on the film afterward, the friends with whom I had just seen the movie all stared at me as though I had watched a completely different film. The problem with these kinds of literary interpretations of works when the artist is still alive is that the artist can then say, "nope, that's not right at all." You're then faced with the choice of believing the artist about his/her intent or saying things like, "Becket, schmeckett! The tree _IS_ Godot!"
posted by FYKshun at 4:19 PM on March 14, 2005

amberglow: You're taking one scene and taking that as the character's motivations, Kirk--we're looking at all of it, and how the character behaves throughout. It's like looking at Mussolini making the trains run on time and extrapolating that he was an effective leader. Most of us look at all the actions of a character, not just one scene. If Bird failed to sell us on the father being altruistic thru that one scene alone, which is totally negated and belied by his actions in every other scene pretty much, well, there you go.

Not really. The theme is repeated throughout the entire movie. What does Mr. Incredible do at the beginning? Help people, only getting in trouble for helping someone who does not want to be helped. (The desire to help people out almost causes him to be late to his own wedding.) His dead-end job in insurance is painful to him because he is restricted from helping his clients, and his employer takes joy in the possibility that he might make money on other people's suffering. These are all key character establishing moments that can't be explained using a Randian interpretation. A chunk of his joy at finding employment as a superhero comes from feeling useful to society. So I'm trying to think of very many other scenes in which that is undermined, and I'm not thinking of much.

Then of course there are the kids, with abilities that gain maximum power only when they are protecting each other.

Meanwhile, the embodiment of the Randian self-made man in the film is Syndrome. There is very little in his portrayal that is sympathetic and is killed off at the end.

Then we have, the footrace at the end where the kid is encouraged to run, but not so fast as to be an embarassment to everybody else. This is spun as a good thing.

Now by all means, there is certainly room to criticize The Incredibles as a muddled mess in many ways. But to claim that the The Incredibles is written as a Randian right-wing parable is patently absurd.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:34 PM on March 14, 2005

Wait... the tree is Godot?!
posted by SPrintF at 4:51 PM on March 14, 2005

Who was he helping when he was hiding from his wife and kids and hanging with his super friend? when he went to the designer to get a new costume? when he agreed to work for the woman? when he lied to his family? when he ran off to the island? ...
posted by amberglow at 4:54 PM on March 14, 2005

KirkJobSluder, The Incredibles clearly argues that modern society encourages and celebrates mediocrity while actively holding back the talented. This is a key theme in Ayn Rand's work and is more or less the only politically controversial aspect of the movie. That said, I think it's worth pointing out that nowhere is it actually argued that helping people is a duty as opposed to something that individuals may or may not choose to do to make themselves feel good. That would have been decisively anti-Randian in a way that the plot points you mention are not.

As an aside, can _anyone_ explain what the footrace at the end was supposed to mean? It must have made sense to somebody, right?
posted by teleskiving at 5:06 PM on March 14, 2005

amberglow: Who was he helping when he was hiding from his wife and kids and hanging with his super friend? when he went to the designer to get a new costume? when he agreed to work for the woman? when he lied to his family? when he ran off to the island? ...

Now you see, here again you rely on tunnel vision. The entire course of the narrative can be regarded as a moral stumble story. Hero starts good, hero stumbles, hero redeems himself. (It happens in Siddartha BTW.) An important feature though is that his deception was portrayed in the film as not good.

Even objectivists in claiming the movie as their own focus on one perceived theme (punishing excellence) and then brush the other themes under the carpet or rationalize them as "joy at using his powers." Incidentally, that review points out something that bothers me about the Randian hypothesis. Syndrome is the closest to the ideal Randian hero but the movie makes it appear as if intelligence is bad. But don't let the text get in the way of an interpretation.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:09 PM on March 14, 2005

I can't believe all this litcrit wanking over a fucking animated film. I mean, c'mon, this wasn't Animal Farm or even Lord of the Flies.
posted by alumshubby at 5:16 PM on March 14, 2005

teleskiving: The Incredibles clearly argues that modern society encourages and celebrates mediocrity while actively holding back the talented. This is a key theme in Ayn Rand's work and is more or less the only politically controversial aspect of the movie.

Is it necessarily a Randian theme though? In a recent discussion here on Metafilter, there was a broad consensus that yes, quite a bit of the "self esteem" building being done in schools involving hollow praise is celebrating mediocrity.

As an aside, can _anyone_ explain what the footrace at the end was supposed to mean? It must have made sense to somebody, right?

There are ways for Dash to participate in school culture and use his talents without blowing his "secret identity."
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:16 PM on March 14, 2005

On the other hand, teleskiving et al, if the writer of the movie says he's not having Ayn Rand as an influence, maybe the writer actually didn't have Ayn Rand as an influence. Just because one of the characters says something about culture celebrating mediocrity, it doesn't mean Bird's a Randite.

I recently wrote a novel; some people reviewing it have called it anti-war; others have suggested my reasoning in the book shows the wisdom of having "boots on the ground." Another person commenting on the book said it was a book that could only have been written after 9/11 (it was almost entirely written before then). Yet other reviews have declared a certain other (rather more famous) book to be an obvious influence, when in fact I've never read that book and am only dimly aware of its plot.

In short, based on my own experience, I'm am entirely willing to believe Brad Bird when he says Ayn Rand was not an influence. What people read into a work is not always what the writer wrote into it; and when a creator suggests something is not an influence, maybe he or she should be given the benefit of the doubt.
posted by jscalzi at 5:29 PM on March 14, 2005

Okay, I'll play...

He was helping society in general by foiling a robbery when he was hanging out with Frozone.

He didn't go see Edna to get a new costume, he went to get a hole repaired in his old costume, therefore he was protecting the interests of public decency by not exposing too much flesh. This is Kirk's point, too. If you want to excoriate or defend the piece, you can come to any micro-conclusions you want based on small pieces of evidence, and then extrapolate them out into macro theses.

He was helping his family when he went to work for whats'her'name because he was currently unemployed and therefore unable to support his family and his household. More importantly, he was manipulated into the the situation by the forces of evil conspiring against him, and was therefore only doing the best he could with the tools at his disposal.

He was working to protect the safety of his family by not revealing the entire truth, and he still needed to provide for them. Bob Parr was a good guy who put himself on the line for the betterment of society and to support his family.

In order for amberglow's contention to be taken with anything more than a grain of salt, I would need to have seen Bob purposefully torpedo his dead-end job instead of merely losing his temper. Up until he shoved his boss through several walls, he had been playing inside the system. He only loses his temper when he's actually told that playing by the rules (however byzantine) isn't enough. He never wallowed in the fact that he was sneaking around. Most of the time, he seemed quite guilty about it, but he did it anyway because it was the one thing he knew he could do well.

On Preview: Just because Rand said society embraces the mediocre and holds-back the gifted, does that make it wrong by default?
posted by FYKshun at 5:38 PM on March 14, 2005

People can misinterpret almost anything so that it coincides with views they already hold. They take from art what they already believe, and I wonder how many people have ever had their views about anything important changed by a work of art? -- Kubrick
posted by Dreamghost at 5:47 PM on March 14, 2005

Oh, come ON people... If I made a movie in which the central idea was "Be nice to people so they be nice to you" would it be reasonable to extrapolate from there that I'm obviously a Buddhist out to convince everyone of the Great Circle of Karma?

The question of whether A)all men are truly equal or B)some are "more equal" than others, is one of the central conundrums of our civilization. Or any. Is there anyone who hasn't, at some point in their lives, decided that they're ACTUALLY unappreciated geniuses being held back by society? I think that's one of those things anyone ponders at some point or another, especially in their teens. (and look who says those things in the film - the pre-pubescent boy, and the emotionally undeveloped bad guy)

It's a universal question. And the inclusion of it in The Incredibles is just a reflection of that. It's no more exclusively Objectivist than the Golden Rule is exclusively Buddhist.
posted by InnocentBystander at 5:58 PM on March 14, 2005

KirkJobSluder I've just looked back at my initial comment and realized that I may have given the impression that I believe The Incredibles to have been directly influenced by Ayn Rand's philosophy. I definitely did not mean to suggest this, simply that there are striking thematic similarities between her work and the movie. At this point we may not actually be disagreeing about anything, sorry for not being clearer.

There are ways for Dash to participate in school culture and use his talents without blowing his "secret identity."

I'll buy that, and I even like the movie a bit more for the benefit of that explanation - thanks.
posted by teleskiving at 5:59 PM on March 14, 2005

There are ways for Dash to participate in school culture and use his talents without blowing his "secret identity."

I'll buy that, and I even like the movie a bit more for the benefit of that explanation - thanks.

Huh. I didn't get that part of the movie either. If he's not coming in first, he's not really using his talent, is he? I still don't get it.

If the implication is that Dash has gained a new level of maturity that lets him play sports without dominating them, I really didn't get that from the movie.

I don't see how playing at half speed is any better than not playing at all, or just playing with your sister. Athletes, help me out here.
posted by mrgrimm at 6:14 PM on March 14, 2005

I'm done with The Incredibles--Finding Nemo is on WAM right now! (a much better movie btw) : P
posted by amberglow at 6:25 PM on March 14, 2005

btw, someone in the previous TI thread was beefing about (Afro)(zone) as a name. I think it's more likely the name is the combination (Froze)(one).

I totally didn't get the ending, either. It was the antithesis of the moral. Everyone else gets to be great... except for Dash?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:27 PM on March 14, 2005

Oh, man. I thought we'd covered this already.

Here's a comment I made in the original thread this discussion started in, which I believe applies here as well:

I don't agree with the Randian or Nietzschean analysis, either. The problem with our interpretations of Rand and Nietzsche is that we find clever little bits to cling to while ignoring the context of the whole work. Yes, Ayn Rand (I hate her, btw. If I were to meet her in hell, I'd be all like "you deserve to be here!") wrote about the individual refusing to curb their exceptional nature, but let's remember something very important: The Entire Incredibles Family Were Altruists. It wasn't just a desire to use their powers that motivated them. They legitimately believed in the virtue of helping the less fortunate. Furthermore, if there IS a Randian aspect to the movie, I posit that the suicidal man who sued Mr. Incredible would be the representative of the Randian ideal. He rejects Incredible's altruism and even sues him out of a twisted devotion to his own interests. He is painted negatively in this respect. [typos left in because I am John Galt.]

I think that amberglow is advocating a kind of new-critical analysis of the movie, which is certainly a valid way to watch or read anything you want. But when the man says that's not his intention in the movie, who are you to tell him he's wrong? I mean, seriously, you can read ANYTHING into anything. Just because you can read Rand into it doesn't mean that's what the movie says, and to hell with any author who actually has the audacity to try to advocate for his own message! Now, I personally have a distaste for that kind of exclusivity in new criticism. I think you can't ignore the intentions of an author or film-maker. He's made his clear, here. Sometimes people say things that they don't intend, sure, but Objectivism is a hell of a thing to just blurt out accidentally, and since what you guys are claiming is actually an inaccurate Reader's Digest version, I don't buy it.
posted by shmegegge at 6:27 PM on March 14, 2005

oh, and from now on this site is called IncrediblesFilter. That's right, I'm making it official, by the power vested in me.
posted by shmegegge at 6:29 PM on March 14, 2005

fivefreshfish: If you're referring to my remark that the name Frozone is a combination of Afro and Ozone, then I gotta say that Frozen One doesn't make a lot of sense. I mean, it's not pronounced that way. His name is said with 2 long o's, like Froze Oan not like Froze Won. It's entirely possible you're right, of course, but it sounds like a stretch to me.
posted by shmegegge at 6:31 PM on March 14, 2005

Who was he helping when he was hiding from his wife and kids and hanging with his super friend? when he went to the designer to get a new costume? when he agreed to work for the woman? when he lied to his family? when he ran off to the island?

I could have sworn that these were the kinds of things a character does during the development of a story that eventually he learns shouldn't have been done. You know, mistakes. I mean, are you going to point at the character at his worst and say that those examples clearly show it's a Randian theme?
posted by shmegegge at 6:34 PM on March 14, 2005

shmegegge, if many got that message, and the creator didn't intend it, why did we get that message? something's off here. we all read different things from works, and the creator's intention is just one reading--not the standard, or even the only, reading. Don't privilege creators that much--they create, and send it off--how we receive things should never be dependent or solely-based on the creator's intentions, i don't think.

and i never saw that he learned he shouldn't have done those things--it's fair to even say that his disobeying brought his family closer together and enabled their actualization.
posted by amberglow at 6:36 PM on March 14, 2005

FFF: As Helen says when she hands out the costumes, protecting the secret identity is still the most important thing. Dash matured to the point that he could understand the need to moderate the use of his powers in order to protect the identities of himself and his family. For Dash, coming in second is a sign of maturity and growth, and his family recognizes that.
posted by FYKshun at 6:44 PM on March 14, 2005

Never mind Rand, and nevermind The Incredibles too--go out right now and rent The Iron Giant if you have not seen it already. It is ten times the film, it is the greatest animated movie in the history of creation, and it makes me cry like a damn baby every time I see it.
posted by LarryC at 7:05 PM on March 14, 2005

My guy has a beef with Brad Bird for making me cry so damn much.

SOO-PER-MAAAAAAN!
posted by hautenegro at 7:33 PM on March 14, 2005

Damn you hautenegro... Damn you to hell.

/sobs in corner.
posted by JGreyNemo at 7:36 PM on March 14, 2005

I'm glad I'm not the only one who chokes up during The Iron Giant.

I watched TIG with a friend who loved The Incredibles and had never heard of Brad Bird before... he was appropriately snuffly by the end, too.
posted by BoringPostcards at 7:47 PM on March 14, 2005

FYK: Oh. I thought that by the end of the film, society had recognized that it needed some superheros, and that it was okay for them to excel.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:18 PM on March 14, 2005

amberglow: Why do so many get the message that Invasion of the Body Snatchers is about Communism, Dark Side of the Moon goes with Wizard of Oz and Paul is dead, was replaced with a look alike, and most of the later Beatles work provides clues about his death? Or for that matter, why do people believe that The Rocky Horror Picture Show was made for audience participation, in spite of both O'Brien and Curry admit that it was just "badly paced?"

The problem is that if we want to consider The Incredibles a Randian ministry, it fails miserably having too many contradictions. The Wizard of Oz in contrast as an American utopian novel never breaks message. But The Incredibles is too inconsistent turning too many of the people Randoids would praise as heros into undesireable and selfish villians. If what we are looking at is a Randian work, what is the deal with the archetypical capitalist and genius? Rand-Objectivists who like the film's theme of celebrating excellence seem to balk at the film's depiction of capitalism as embodied in the characters of Syndrome and the insurance manager.

A much more probable interpretation in my mind is three parts. First, The Incredibles bungles many of the moral messages behind the comic book super-hero. Second, having been produced in a year of division and controversy, we tend to see everything as having a place on the political spectrum. Third, humans are suggestable creatures, and the Rand hypothesis has gotten a lot more press than it deserves, influencing a lot of people.

If indeed we should not put much weight on what the author intended, then we get into a more interesting question than how to read a movie with a rather bungled set of moral messages. What is it about people that sees this film as Rand-Objectivist?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:56 PM on March 14, 2005

What is it about people? Well, they have brains, and know how to read subtext, and overt text, for one. They place what they see in context, aided (sometimes inadvertently) by the creator.

CSN on Incredibles & Polar Express--Reviewers have been raising these concerns, too. "The Incredibles" suggests "a thorough, feverish immersion in both American comic books and the philosophy of Ayn Rand," writes A.O. Scott in The New York Times, referring to the founder of "objectivism," a philosophy anchored in capitalism and atheism.

When the "Incredibles" hero "balances a globe-shaped robot on his shoulders, should we be thinking of 'Atlas Shrugged'?" writes Newsday critic John Anderson, citing Rand's most famous novel, about a "strike" by gifted leaders that brings an ungrateful society to its knees. The movie's chief subplot, about a superhero imitator, "suggests not only class warfare, but also something approaching a Divine Right of Superheroes," he adds.

"The Incredibles" is great fun, these reviews agree, but they all sense a subtext that's serious. The film is "a fun-filled foray into animated action, fantasy, and adventure," as Mr. Anderson puts it. "And objectivism. And tort reform," he adds, noting that the villains include citizens who sue superheroes over injuries they've incurred during rescues.
posted by amberglow at 9:07 PM on March 14, 2005

amberglow, my point was that you may read it or watch it however you choose, and there's nothing wrong with that. What's peculiar is this flat refusal to allow the creator of the work to say "That's not what I was saying."

For instance: Iron Giant was certainly political--and it's obvious--either he's lying to the interviewer, or doesn't at all think about what he does and how he portrays people and events and themes and eras.

Well, what he actually said was that he doesn't lean one way or the other because he finds both liberal and conservative viewpoints too open to ridicule. He never denied the political implications, only that he was either a strict liberal or a strict conservative. He said he's a centrist. That's not the same thing as not being political.

Honestly, I'm having difficulty seeing whether or not you think he intended the Objectivist interpretation. It seems at times like you really think he's lying to hide his Objectivist leanings or something.

I still don't think the Objectivist thing fits for the reasons I stated above, but that's not to say you can't think it does.

Also, how many is "many?" less than five here and one journalist? Sometimes you don't see the boat in the stereoscopic image, and you see a dinosaur, but a boat is what the artist put in it. There's nothing wrong with seeing a dinosaur, but it's only a few who see it, the rest of us see the boat the guy intended.
posted by shmegegge at 9:32 PM on March 14, 2005

amberglow: What is it about people? Well, they have brains, and know how to read subtext, and overt text, for one. They place what they see in context, aided (sometimes inadvertently) by the creator.

Well, I would argue that brains does not have much to do with it. I like to read works in the history of science and it becomes clear that some very smart people can have some pretty sensitive blind spots when their egos and politics are on the line. Nobody claimed that Einstein was a dummy, but yet, most people agree that his early rejection of a dynamic universe was based on seeing what he wanted to see.

But again, what do you do with a classic case of mixed messages? How do you handle the problem that huge parts of the subtext and overt text includes messages that are antithetical to Rand-Objectivism (capitalism is bad, genius is bad, altruism is good)?

The problem as I see it is that those pushing this film as Rand-Objectivist are cherry-picking from the text the things that support their view, and ignoring or rationalizing the rest. Is this due to dishonesty? Or blinkered blindness?

Of course, frequently I'm forced to consider some of the claims to a specific political subtext with a great deal of salt. In the 1950s, there was an attempt to ban Robin Hood from Indiana schools because it "clearly" had a communist subtext (in spite of the legend being quite a few centuries older than Marx.) Harry Potter which is just as "clearly" about devil-worship. Why should I privilege claims that The Incredibles contains coded pro-Objectivist messages?

I think the subtext of the reviews is more interesting that the subtext of The Incredibles. When you really look at The Incredibles, there is not that much subtext there. On many levels, it is ham-fisted and inconsistent. There is not much of a there there for an objectivist interpretation to live. However, the texts of reviewers trying to extract a single political theme is highly interesting for showing how far people will go in projection.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:46 PM on March 14, 2005

The end: Dash can handle being on the team and participating now, even if he has to be fake-mediocre, because now he's allowed to excel where he truly belongs, as a superhero. His strengths are allowed expression, so it doesn't matter anymore that he can beat the normal people.

Also: I don't know Rand that well, but I think when the hero of the movie complains about how people celebrate mediocrity, a Randian discourse (whether intentional or not) pretty much stops being subtext and starts being just plain text.
posted by SoftRain at 3:56 AM on March 15, 2005

You know, I've changed my mind about this movie.

SoftRain, while Bob Parr is the hero, he's also portrayed as a flawed and embittered human being. It's arguable that his mean-spirited comment is just a consequence of the character's frustration, and to this extent the film may not advocate a Randian world view any more than it does lying to your spouse. The same applies to Dash's remark "If everybody's special, nobody is".

Other reactionary themes in the movie are also arguably just plot devices. It strikes me that there a limited number of ways to create a family of frustrated superheroes and perhaps the out-of-control litigation thing was simply convenient?
posted by teleskiving at 5:06 AM on March 15, 2005

Incredible left me with a bad taste in the mouth (so to speak)--that's true for others too. We went back over the movie and wondered why that was. We found out why. Seeing Robin Hood during the Cold War is different from seeing it in the 30s when it first came out. Seeing Incredibles now is different from how it will be seen 20 years from now. Psycho used to be incredibly shocking--now it's not. That's not because of the creator's intent--it's because we see things differently. Birth of a Nation help lead to a great resurgence of the Klan and exacerbated racial tensions in the country--was that the creator's intention? The creator's intention is moot unless they craft the work so that it can't be read any other way than their intended way--something not possible, or only possible with a more masterful creator than Bird is--Hitchcock was a master but we still see his works differently than he intended nowadays.

SoftRain had that bad taste too, and many others.
posted by amberglow at 5:13 AM on March 15, 2005

and nothing exists in a vacuum, especially things that are created to be seen by humans.
posted by amberglow at 5:15 AM on March 15, 2005

Hollywood realities being as they are, anyone who's not yet on the "A" list really doesn't have any choice but politely to deny active right-wing sympathies.

Those denials aren't to be taken seriously in the case of The Incredibles, which unreels a series of signature conservative arguments: attacking trial lawyers, valorizing the traditional family, and denouncing elevation of the ungifted on grounds of equity or fairness.

The attack on the insurance company isn't really a counterweight -- more an indictment of bureaucracy than of capitalism. (Note that Bob Parr is trying to show the old lady how to get the benefit of her insurance contract, not urging her to lobby Congress to supplant private insurance with welfare programs.)

However, Bird is certainly right to deny Randian or Nietschean sympathies. As pointed out above, the Parr family's altruism and family-mindedness, and Syndrome's arrogant misanthropy, simply don't fit anywhere into either Rand's hero/villain schema or Nietsche's (to the limited extent I understand the latter; Nietsche's more subtle than Rand...)
posted by MattD at 6:49 AM on March 15, 2005

I saw Dash's race at the end more like he was able to compete on a different level than the rest of the runners. Dash knows he can win any race, hands down. It must be much harder to pick what place he'll get beforehand and run for that ("I have to run slower than X but faster than Y in order to get second place").

The fact that his pacing benefits his family is just icing on the cake.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 8:19 AM on March 15, 2005

when a creator suggests something is not an influence, maybe he or she should be given the benefit of the doubt.

Bullpuckey. Why do you assume he's telling the truth. Maybe all he cares about is selling more DVDs? Do you not think the main point of this movie, above all else, is to make money? Wouldn't that affect his comments about the film? (Or what MattD said.)

It's not like Mel Gibson was going around saying that the Jews responsible for the crucifixion were working for Satan. He lets his movie speak for itself.

If you think the author's intent is important, I would disagree. Why does it matter? The work should be able to stand, and be criticized, on its own. I suppose that's a fundamental disagreement.

I think the correct quote is:

Helen: Dash, everyone is special

Dash: Which is another way of saying no one is

If you don't think that's the main premise of the film, I think you're nuts. amberblow mentions the other one: the "divine right" of superheroes. Put them together, and all I could think of was eugenics (godwin!) and class-based society.

If you actually believe that quote, well, I believe that you're associating yourself with some morally and scientifically dubious folks. (Then again, so do I, so no offense.)

amberglow (via NYT) covered most of what I called the "will to power" moments of the film. If you can't see it, eh.
posted by mrgrimm at 8:27 AM on March 15, 2005

Amberglow, it seems to me that at least part of the discussion between you and KJS can be summarized as KJS pointing out a way in which TI advocates non- or anti-Randian themes, following which you point out a way in which the opposite is true, and therefore concluding that it is, in fact, Randian—when all you've done is established (if that) that it's contradictory. You can say that the people who think it's not Randian are focusing solely on certain aspects of it and ignoring the rest, but in saying that it is Randian, you're doing the exact same thing.
posted by kenko at 8:35 AM on March 15, 2005

You people are all barking up the wrong logic tree. As I said back in November, it's not Ayn Rand, but Gilbert & Sullivan that inspired the "when everybody's special, nobody is" theme.

(I know, I know, the thread would've been easier to find if it hadn't been tagged "AnyRand.")
posted by soyjoy at 10:20 AM on March 15, 2005

Errr... so let me get this right - Americans are now so horribly divided that they're arguing over wether a kid's film is left or right wing? You guys should listen to yourselves, you sound like lunatics.

And many of the arguments you guys are using to support your conservative bias are just cockeyed.

eg. Attacking trial lawyers. Are you saying that the suicidal guy shouldn't have been saved?

eg. The "celebrating mediocrity" line. Are you saying that there are times when talented children should supress their ability? Deny who they are?
posted by dodgygeezer at 10:33 AM on March 15, 2005

you sound like lunatics.
No kidding.

Nietsche's more subtle than Rand
A brick to the face is more subtle than Rand.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:38 AM on March 15, 2005

sorry, amberglow. bad typo.

Errr... so let me get this right - Americans are now so horribly divided that they're arguing over wether a kid's film is left or right wing? You guys should listen to yourselves, you sound like lunatics.

I really don't see this as argument. A debate, perhaps, but this is pretty civilized conversation, as far as the Intarweb goes.

People used to sit in living rooms and do it all the time. I don't think "horribly divided" has anything to do with it. Humans have had opinions for a long time now.

But please, O Mighty Arbiter of All That's Important, what should we be talking about? Tivo? Mac OSX? Please help me organize my "hierarchy of importance" so that I know which subjects are worthy of commentary. Jeez.
posted by mrgrimm at 11:04 AM on March 15, 2005

It occured to me at some random time during today that this isn't really a discussion about "a kids' film." It's more of a kids' indoctrination.

The movie contains some very strong messages. It is indoctrinary. Thus, it deserves some careful consideration.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:49 PM on March 15, 2005

Amberglow, it seems to me that at least part of the discussion between you and KJS can be summarized as KJS pointing out a way in which TI advocates non- or anti-Randian themes, following which you point out a way in which the opposite is true, and therefore concluding that it is, in fact, Randian—when all you've done is established (if that) that it's contradictory.
Even if that's all i've done, it was more than enough to give me a bad taste when viewing it, and others too--It's not just me, you know. If it is contradictory and sending a mixed message to viewers (and i think it's clearly established that that's the very least it did), there are problems with this movie, and with its creator's way of making it, and decisions made.

Even something as simple and basic as "individual against restrictive bureaucracy/system" is political--without a doubt. No one can deny that, i don't think. Whether that premise also feeds into other philosophies mentioned is completely legitimate to question and discuss and state, since we saw it right away.
posted by amberglow at 8:06 PM on March 15, 2005

If you think your kids are brainless enough to learn the majority of their morals and worldviews through movies, perhaps you should never show them any movies.

I don't know about you, but even when I was a child, if I saw something that didn't agree with how I felt, I didn't start to agree with it simply because it was a movie.

Even so, if I decide to live my life according to one author's views or not, it hardly has any effect on my actual life wherein I am working to make money to support myself and buy stuff. So what the crap is a KID supposed to do with that "philosophy," even assuming they learn it from a movie?

You guys can watch The Incredibles and see all the philosophy you want. I see a fun movie. Most kids see pretty colors and exciting action. Sheesh.
posted by kevspace at 9:56 AM on March 18, 2005

Heh. Look like the programming really worked well for you: you believe that the movies haven't influenced your thinking!

This is, of course, what "they" want you to think. Remain placid in your belief that you are not influenced, so that they can continue to influence you.

Muuuwhahaha.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:07 PM on March 18, 2005

Man.

I know that this comment may be coming too late for anyone to read it, but I'd just like to say for the record that everybody arguing that this movie is Randian is completely fucking nuts. And I respect most of y'all that are saying so, but I'm under the impression that many of you have never read any Rand and are merely arguing about her based on what others have told you. (I say this with the utmost chagrin, having done so myself for a few years in college.)

Look. Try this one on for size. There are two separate threads going on here: Rand and Dash's race at the end.

Put them together. First, we can all agree that Dash coming in second and fitting in with the kids is represented as a Good Thing in the movie, right?

OK, with that in mind, ask yourselves this:

Would Ayn Rand ever argue that not exercising your full potential and special talents in order to fit in and not embarrass your peers is a Good Thing?

If you answered "Yes," you're clearly as batshit crazy as she was, and you need to get a grip. This thread should have ended with Kirk's first post, and all this hand-wringing is making y'all look stupider by the sentence. Cut your losses.
posted by spiderwire at 6:09 PM on March 18, 2005

the movie isn't about a kid losing a race on purpose. It's about a guy exercising his full potential and special talents even tho society doesn't want him to.
posted by amberglow at 6:14 PM on March 18, 2005

... and being peacefully quiet about it. because special people shouldn't act out unless it's necessary.

look, if you think that people have unequal abilities, no one's going to argue that no one should ever exercise their abilities. that's not even an argument. and it'd be a stupid movie.

what you guys don't seem to understand is that ayn rand argued that using your abilities is a prima facie good, and the Incredibles makes the clear and less crazy argument that you shouldn't rock the boat except where it's most necessary. in other words, that while "being special" is a goal, it's not the only goal. how can you not see that as a sensible middle ground? if i say that i'm a good at anything, does that make me an objectivist?

these strawman arguments are laughable. for the love of god, mr. incredible is someone special who uses his powers at no benefit to himself in order to help society. it's like if they gave free passage on the John Galt Line or were giving away Rearden Metal by the boatload. if this were an objectivist movie, he'd be using his powers for personal gain and people would be unfairly holding him back in order to protect the interests of others -- oh, wait, exactly like the fucking villain in the movie.

i mean, seriously, are y'all nuts or just just obtuse?
posted by spiderwire at 6:23 PM on March 18, 2005

he doesn't help society; he helps himself, and fellow superheroes. society is not in danger from the villain.
posted by amberglow at 6:24 PM on March 18, 2005

wait, i'll do you one better. the moments in the movie that y'all are claiming as "objectivist" aren't. lamenting that "if everyone's special, no one is" isn't "objectivist," it's a truism. objectivism would be if you claimed that special people should be allowed to do whatever they wanted by virtue of the fact that they're special.

here's a few more comic book analogies for ya:

Q. is Professor X an "objectivist" because he acknowledges that mutants are special?
A. No, he's not because he simultaneously acknowledges that being special is not coequivalent with being better, which is the Randian argument. coincidentally, this is also the argument of The Incredibles.

you know who's the Objectivist in the X-Men? Magneto. because he thinks that mutants deserve to rule and survive by virtue of their superior power.

y'all are confusing the sensible functional argument of the Incredibles with the crazy moral argument of Magneto and Ayn Rand. you can't point me to one damn place in that movie where the family is portrayed as being superior to regular people by virtue of their powers. quite to the contrary, they're portrayed as human, bungling, and fallible just like the rest of us.

on preview: right, amberglow, rescuing kitten from trees and chasing down robbers and saving people from fires because you get really uneasy and bored when you're not doing these things has nothing to do with helping society. sure.
posted by spiderwire at 6:34 PM on March 18, 2005

society told him not to do it--he ran around and did it. society passed laws about it and apparently didn't need or want his services, and told him so--even placed him out the way purposely in makework jobs. society wasn't threatened at any time in the movie and wasn't hurting because of a lack of superheroes. there was no need for him to be super--he was redundant and didn't like it, and didn't want to just be regular, so ignored everyone, including his wife.
posted by amberglow at 6:49 PM on March 18, 2005

...it's like if they gave free passage on the John Galt Line or were giving away Rearden Metal by the boatload...

This thread is worth it just for that. Well done.

society is not in danger from the villain.

Bzzzt. Syndrome's plan is based on firing an incredibly destructive robot into the middle of a highly populated metropolitan area and then swooping in and appearing to save the day whilst all the time having the robot under his control. Even if this plan hadn't gone wrong (and of course it does), it's still fraud on a sociopathic level. Syndrome does not care about society, he cares about Syndrome and what society can do for him. Society is very much in danger from that type of person. I'm sure you can think of a few contemporary parallels, hmmm?

Question: have you read Watchmen? SPOILER




If so, did you think society had nothing to fear from Adrian Veidt? His plan was essentially the same as Syndrome's after all, just on a larger scale... Was his success a net positive for society?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:50 PM on March 18, 2005

i haven't read Watchmen. sorry.
posted by amberglow at 7:11 PM on March 18, 2005

Further distinctions:

Incredibles: Special people should exercise their abilities for the good of humanity.
Ayn Rand: Special people should exercise their abilities on their own behalf. This is good for humanity.

Incredibles: Special people shouldn't exercise their abilities in public to obtain an unfair advantage over other people.
Ayn Rand: "Unfair advantage?" What's that?

Incredibles: Acting to fulfill your personal desires and ambitions, while potentially good, is an act of hubris that can lead you into trouble.
Ayn Rand: "Hubris?" Are you some kind of Communist? If anyone tries to stop you from fulfilling your ambitions, beat some sense into 'em.

Incredibles: There are times to be special and there are times to be fair.
Ayn Rand: I agree with that: "Always," and "Never," respectively.

Incredibles Villain: "If everyone is special, then no one is. I want to make everybody a superhero. By the way, I'm a somewhat complex and novel character whose motivations are more originally comedic than blatantly philosophical."
Ayn Rand Villain: "No one is special. I want to make all the superheroes like everyone else. Also, I am a one-dimensional strawman whose only purpose is to demonstrate that collectivism promotes mediocrity."

Incredibles Hero: "I want to help people, but it's hard to balance everybody's needs. Boy, working together with my family is great. Oops, gotta go save a kitten."
Ayn Rand Hero: "What is this 'helping'? I'm a one-dimensional strawman intended to demonstrate the Virtues of Selfishness -- by getting rich, I'll help the world 'cause of all the mediocre saps who'll get to ride on my coattails. Man, I hope that guy getting mugged isn't covered by my insurance company. And this employee of mine who's trying to help his customers rather than trick them out of every last penny for my benefit is really getting on my nerves. Hasn't he read Atlas Shrugged? Whoo-ee, I think I'll destroy a major metropolitan area with a giant robot or start up a sweatshop just for my personal benefit. And boy, do I feel like some bondage right about now."
posted by spiderwire at 7:12 PM on March 18, 2005 [2 favorites]

i haven't read Watchmen. sorry.

I'll let it pass. ;-) Seriously, if you find the philosophical issues in The Incredibles interesting, I think you'd really enjoy Watchmen, which is indisputably about some of these same issues (and quite a brilliant work, to boot).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:15 PM on March 18, 2005

there was no need for him to be super--he was redundant and didn't like it, and didn't want to just be regular, so ignored everyone, including his wife.

...So... society legislated mediocrity and suppressed achievement, and it was working. The special people were redundant. And the exercise of his powers put him, his family, and countless other people at risk, because he was doing it for personal benefit rather than for the good of humanity.

Ergo, the Randian moral: "Legislating mediocrity works. Special people aren't necessary to the functioning of society. Hubris is dangerous."

...

Right. "society wasn't threatened at any time in the movie and wasn't hurting because of a lack of superheroes." ... so... special people giving up their specialness? Where have I heard something like that before? Sounds like a big, ponderous book that I had to slog through once... hmmm....

Wait, did I just hear Ayn Rand turn over in her grave?

Shit, everybody run!
posted by spiderwire at 7:29 PM on March 18, 2005

I'll let it pass. ;-) Seriously, if you find the philosophical issues in The Incredibles interesting, I think you'd really enjoy Watchmen, which is indisputably about some of these same issues (and quite a brilliant work, to boot).
Hopefully, Watchmen handles them better than Incredibles did.

spider: the movie tries to prove that legislating mediocrity is stupid. it fails. the movie tries to prove that he is right for wanting to act super and society is stupid. it fails. the movie tries to make this selfish baby of a man a hero. it fails.
posted by amberglow at 7:35 PM on March 18, 2005

it fails for me i should say. i understand the intended messages clearly.
posted by amberglow at 7:49 PM on March 18, 2005

I'm done arguing about this, so this is the last thing I'll say. No more jokes; this time I'm serious, because this is important: if amberglow or anyone else really thinks that this movie is an example of Objectivist, they need to be introduced to a little thing called nuance.

(And on preview: amberglow is dodging. Amber, you said upthread that, authorial intent aside, the movie promotes Objectivism/fascism/whatever in every scene but one, and that this case was clear and overwhelming. So either make that case or admit that you were wrong. If your argument is just that it fails, it seems to me that that's a case for Objectivism being bad, not the other way around.)

Look. I've been a virulent anti-Objectivist my entire educated life. But as far as I'm concerned, the kind of knee-jerk reactionary attitude some people here are demonstrating is precisely the sort of thing that Rand used to animate her strawmen. It's dangerous. Her villains react to any sort of talent as if it's a sin. No one rational does that, but there are people who will react to any sort of discussion that even involves talent as somehow sinful. Do you really want to be like an Ayn Rand villain?

The thing is that in some sense, Ayn Rand was right: people aren't equal. But the major error that Rand and Mussolini and all the other fascists make is to take their truisms and their strawmen too far -- true, some people are special, and shouldn't be restrained from being special. Does it give them the right to do whatever they want, morality be damned? No -- that's where the Objectivist argument starts to get fucked.

(The comparison to fascism upthread is apt -- if you read the fascist manifesto ("Born of a Need For Action"), you can see very clearly how Mussolini sets up his argument in this way: Collectivism is flawed because the individual is subordinated to the will of the herd; therefore all sorts of collectivism should be done away with and the individual should become a heroic agent of the State. Baby and bathwater.)

But the ironic thing I see here, and the thing that's making me kinda mad, is that The Incredibles is in many ways a cogent answer to Objectivism and fascism and no one seems to be getting that. It gets the part of the equation right that says that you shouldn't punish talent and reward mediocrity. It gets the part of the equation right which says that the great individual is often underappreciated. But it also points out that being talented or special doesn't mean that you don't have to consider the consequences of your actions, or that you're somehow better than others, or that you should be given an unfair advantage. This is the part of the equation that Rand gets wrong, and that the Incredibles gets right.

Throughout the movie, the one overwhelmingly pervasive theme is that the special individual has a responsibility to exercise their abilities on the behalf of others: one's family, or society. If you don't understand why this is anti-Objectivist, then you don't understand Objectivism.

Furthermore, if you reject the argument of the Incredibles wholesale, then you commit the same egregious error of logic that Ayn Rand and the fascists did. It means that you've failed to see how each side gets part of the equation right. If you can't understand the parts of the equation that Objectivism gets right and how it then twists those facts to get to its fucked-up conclusion, you will always be at a severe disadvantage arguing against Objectivists.

This is an argument that you must understand if you want to argue against Objectivism. This movie makes the clear argument that it's not enough to do good for selfish reasons and hope that the world can ride on your coattails. In the end, the hero admits that his selfish desire to do good was wrong -- a distinction is created between doing good for selfish reasons and doing good because one has a responsibility to do so. That's a really potent critique of Objectivism.

(I assure you that no Ayn Rand hero has ever come to a similar conclusion. If this movie were an Ayn Rand book, when all the superheroes became regular people, the supervillains would have taken over and society would have collapsed. As amberglow points out, this doesn't happen.)

Amberglow calls this clumsy; I say that the answer here isn't cut-and-dry, and what you see as clumsiness is actually nuance. Like I said, assuming that there's a cut-and-dry answer is the Objectivist error you should be trying to avoid.

From their inception, comic books have wrestled with the implications of being superior. The Incredibles is a great exploration of the nuances involved in this question, much like Spiderman. There are always people who hate the heroes. It's hard to stand tall without walking on other people's toes. But at the same time, if you have the ability to help, you really can't stand back and let things happen, or let people stand in your way. You want to help, but are you doing it because you want to help or because it makes you feel good? What if the villain takes advantage of you for this? These aren't easy questions. If they were, like Objectivists pretend they are, there wouldn't be much of a debate.

Comics engage Objectivism in a mature way by acknowledging the existence of superiority and then investigating the difficulties involved in dealing with it, both by exercising it, and not. And their best answer, which was penned quite some time ago, has generally been: With great power comes great responsibility. (You may have heard that one. It was in a movie.) The Incredibles is a welcome addition to this canon, and we would all do well to recognize that.

Night.
posted by spiderwire at 9:01 PM on March 18, 2005 [2 favorites]