"The Incredibles" Right Wing?

[filkertom]

A fascinating meme is making the rounds in some corners of the blogosphere: Pixar's The Incredibles is Republican propaganda.

I happen to think that's utter bullshit.

The heroes are heroes because, well, they care about helping people. They aren't paid to do it, that I can tell -- they just do it. When Mr. Incredible is forced into hiding because of lawsuits filed by members of the Blame Generation, he still tries to help people by guiding them through the intractable maze of his insurance company's bureaucracy. When hiding is no good any more, the heroes revel in their superhero-ness. Their family is strong, because (by the end of the film, at least) they respect each other for what they can do, and what they can do together.

The villain, Syndrome, wants to make everyone "super" through his gimmicks and devices, and therefore get rid of their individuality as people ("... And when everyone's super... no one will be.") As a boy, he tried to become Mr. Incredible's sidekick, and he managed only to make things worse; now, holding a grudge decades later, he kills off his rivals to make himself look good.

I'm not saying anything like "Dems good, Repubs bad" here. I'm just saying that whoever is trying to make The Incredibles into a statement in favor of the neocons and BushCo is looking too hard. Thoughts?

Comments

[jadasc.livejournal.com]

Well, it's only fair: the Left has Spider-Man, after all.
http://www.yankeefog.com/london/archives/000011.html

[valkyrwench.livejournal.com]

I think you're absolutely correct on this one, even though it's way too early on a Saturday morning for my brain to be in gear.

[arensb.livejournal.com]

Coincidentally, while looking into this whole "postmodernism" thing, I ran across this article, which explains:

The basic enterprise of contemporary literary criticism is actually quite simple. It is based on the observation that with a sufficient amount of clever handwaving and artful verbiage, you can interpret any piece of writing as a statement about anything at all.

It's a good read, by the way: the author breaks most of the rules of lit crit by actually writing clearly and calling a spade a spade.

[twfarlan.livejournal.com]

It's not an unreasonable position. From the point of view of two generations prior to my own (this would be the so-called "Great Generation" of WWII vets), this is just about how the world looked. The Republicans were the party of the individual while the Democrats were the closest thing to socialism the country would allow.

One theory of superheroes sees the whole thing as being an exercise in facism. Superheroes are the textbook example of "might makes right," meeting wrongs with fists of righteous fury. Two-fisted justice rather than diplomacy; that sound like superheroes to you?

[r-caton.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the basic tenet behind all the Western heroes I was brought up with...
"God made all men, Sam Colt made them equal"

[janet-coburn.livejournal.com]

Sometimes we're too analytical. Sometimes we just have to let art flow over us.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'm just saying that whoever is trying to make The Incredibles into a statement in favor of the neocons and BushCo is looking too hard.

I think they're seeing what they want to see, for the sake of academic brownie points. While in the meantime, you can equally argue that the Incredibles is Democratic propaganda. After all, our heroes just want to be themselves, even if that doesn't fit into the larger paradigm. They have the same concerns as us, they have the same neighbors as us, but they're not the same as us. Still, they want to contribute in their own way, not to tear down.

Y'know... like gay couples.

Me, I just think its a damnfine movie, but the Pixar always brings it on in the plot department. And that's far more important than anything else.

[seanmonster.livejournal.com]

Y'know... like gay couples.

Good point.

[khaosworks.livejournal.com]

There's been a suggestion that The Incredibles is espousing a Nietzchean-Objectivist ethic, that the super/superior man should rule by nature of his being super.

The evidence that these people point to is usually the line, "(Everybody's special is) just another way of saying nobody is." The flaw in that particular line of reasoning is that The Incredibles don't rule humanity. Neither do they, or can they do exactly what they want.

In fact, the last scene expresses a more complex idea than simply saying conformity=bad, exceptionalism=good. We see the Parrs at sports day - we see Dash run the race, but hold back so he only gets second place, we see Violet making a date with the guy by being herself rather than hiding. And then when they walk towards the car, the Underminer comes out and the masks go on.

What is this scene trying to tell us? Dash was never pissed off because he couldn't win. He was pissed off because he wasn't even allowed to participate in the game.

Essentially, the idea is that if you have this ability, you should use it (cf. Matthew 25:14-30, The Parable of the Talenst). But, unlike a Nietzchean or Randian hero, you shouldn't use it to elevate yourself unconditionally to the top of the heap either. You use it to help people, not conquer them - and to borrow the other cliché, great power = great responsibility. That's where the claim that The Incredibles bursts out "out of this model of decency and concern for others... and bursting forth with their true strength and power..." falls down. The concern and decency is still there.

Note that Bob Parr fails here as a hero. He rushes into defending the world again, but as Elastigirl points out, he's forgotten that he's a part of a family unit, too, and he has to take care of that as well. It is the meshing of abilities that make The Incredibles unstoppable - we bring different things to the table. He also fails as a hero - by rejecting Incrediboy casually, he creates Syndrome. Sneering at someone because he doesn't have the same abilities leads to bad consequences.

If this was a classic Disney film, at the end the status quo will be achieved. Mr. Incredible would have gone back to just being Bob Parr, but now content with raising his family, or the community would embrace The Incredibles as just being that odd family down the block. But no - the family still needs to wear the masks, hiding while in civilian identities, but now they can operate openly in their masked form. Again, this is a more complex subtext than it lets on to be.

The concept of the "superman" may be Nietzchean, but the superhero is not. If you want to pin a political label on the concept, the closest you'll be able to get is that the superhero is the symbol of the New Deal - power used to improve the lot of others and make sure nobody gets left behind.

In the words of Alan Brennert, in Christmas With The Super-Heroes, "We don't do it for the glory. We don't do it for the recognition.. We do it because it needs to be done. Because if we don't do it, no one else will. And we do it even if no one knows what we've done. Even if no one knows that we exist. Even if no one remembers we ever existed."

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Re: Mr. Brennert's point -- yeah, isn't there something in Cicero about that...?

Whatever is done without ostentation, and without the people being witnesses of it, is, in my opinion, most praiseworthy: not that the public eye should be entirely avoided, for good actions desire to be placed in the light; but notwithstanding this, the greatest theater for virtue is conscience.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

I think that if you do a little work, any piece of fiction can be analyzed into meaning anything you want it to mean. Such analysis is, however, a false triumph - applying too much logic when one should be using reason instead.

A couple of quotes that show the flaws in the piece:

But it’s hard not to be suspicious of the winners. Any winners, for that matter, and that includes "The Incredibles".

This line is a big warning - being suspicious of the content of the movie only because it is successful. They would not question it at all if it were a failure, or mediocre. Mere goodness is a reason to be suspect, in the author's eyes. It is as if we are not allowed to have anything of quality - all things must be smeared.

Such a motive makes the analysis highly suspect - the analysis is done not because the author found the ideas inherent in the piece, but because the author is ideologically driven to find fault. That suggests a highly slanted analysis - yellow criticism.

The message of "The Incredibles" —reported everywhere! — was that the chosen few should have the right to exercise their powers over a wide, bland majority of fans and mediocrity-worshippers, and save the world from a bitter, deadly evil.

This would be a fine point, if it was supported by anything within the movie. The Parr family very clearly does not execise their powers over any civilian.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I also don't recall that latter point being "reported everywhere!" except in these articles and commentaries. Certainly not in reviews I've read.

[trdsf.livejournal.com]

Well, nowadays, everything is politicized. I've already seen arguments that Parker and Stone's "Team America" is pro-Bush or anti-Bush or even Libertarian propaganda--take your pick.

All I know for sure is that when we went to see The Incredibles, the only thing I saw was a great movie--and that soon after the election, I was kind of hypersensitized to notice any sort of propaganda message, real or imagined.

People are going to see what they want to see--whether that means they're seeing something that they support, or something that they want to complain about. I could probably "find" political messages in Lost Skeleton of Cadavra or The Best of Beakman's World, if I set my mind to it.

[dbcooper.livejournal.com]

I think that, much as Superman has averred several times in his own and other comics in recent years, that a true superhero is above politics, but must not be above the common human. One of my favorite moments in the new revival of the Justice League animated series--cribbed from Grant Morrison's take on the comic--is that the heroes agree only to help out when nobody else can do it, thus avoiding the trap of forcing the world to depend on them. And I think any hero or group of heroes is only in top form when the stakes are high, and there is nobody else.

I say, though, that if I can read any values into The Incredibles, I would pick Rand-esque individualism (as quoted in the article, but I hold that Rand-ism is only anti-socialist, but neither conservative nor liberal) and humanism. Mr. Incredible, in particular, saves people because he wills it, and because in doing so, he feels powerful--but unlike a Rand character, because he feels useful.

There is a strong sense of family values as well, but despite what neoconservatives will tell you, those are independent of conservatism or liberalism as well.

The only thing I can truly read into The Incredibles is the basic moral that one cannot dictate to you what you believe is right. To be a hero means to seek out what is good and defend it, come what may.

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

Okay, I can kill all this noise with ONE point!

Remember that scene where Mirage faces down Syndrome and says "Valuing life is NOT a weakness, and discarding it is NOT a strength"?

Well, when's the last time a neo-con gave half a CRAP about life OUTSIDE of a ZYGOTE?!

Case closed.