Posted on 12/06/2004 5:45:10 AM PST by billybudd
I'm somewhat befuddled as to why objectivists seem so enthralled with The Incredibles. I suppose some of it has to do with some press coverage labelling the movie "Randian". It is understandable for objectivists to bask in the national spotlight that so rarely shines on them.
Objectivists seem to be confused by The Incredibles. What underlies their confusion with this movie is their reflexive attempt to fit cultural events into the narrative of Atlas Shrugged. The proper dichotomy should be, they argue, between the strong and the weak, the able and the incompetent. So it is not surprising that they should scratch their heads at a competing narrative: one of special people born with unearned gifts and of regular people who must make do with what they have. One of the regular people dares to rise above his station through hard work and innovation. As did Prometheus (an Ayn Rand favorite), this rogue attempts to bring the “fire of the gods” to man by means of a technology that gives everyone the Incredibles’ powers. For his impertinence, he is labelled a villain.
Now, I'm not arguing that Syndrome is not the villain - he is. That is how the writers have presented him, but that's not the point. The moral message of the movie lies beneath the superficialities of presentation, in the fundamental traits of its characters. Given their complaints about the false choice presented in this movie, one would expect objectivists to remain neutral in judging it on moral grounds. But, disturbingly, they are not. It's disturbing because, in a choice between a self-made innovator and a hero with innate powers, they side with the "hero". Instead of praising the American spirit of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, they engage in royalty- and god-worship. Anyone familiar with objectivism would find this sickeningly ironic.
I would amend that to say the worship of the very talented and driven......
Rand pointed out that some of the talented do not necessarily have the grit and determination to max out their talents.
Why do you think he moved to the bottom of the ocean ?
Or did i mean, Who is John Galt?????
Were all going to die. AAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH
I suppose, though I hadn't seen it this way. Rand was all about "motive power," which, to my way of thinking, is just another definition of "life." Talented and gritless? Not Jim, though. Gritless, yes, but if he had a talent, it was mouching.
I happen to think that a high regard for drive is not worship, any more than a high regard for breathing is worship. It's essential.
Actually, for about the first 25 minutes or so, I thought to myself, "This could be a kids version of 'Atlas Shrugged.'" The the plot quickly turned away from that.
To me it seems to be the reason that both Henry Cameron, and then later on Steven Mallory, were imbued with some essential weakness, to contrast with Roark......
Huh? this guy must have read a different "Atlas Shrugged" (or "Fountainhead") than did I. Since when is this the "Randian" philosophy?
Point taken... and why did he have to kill off all the superheroes if they were in forced retirement anyway? BTW, has anyone ever noted that the bad guys in James Bond films all seem like Randian heroes (geniuses, rich, knowing that they're superior to most of humanity, believing that they owe the world not a fig, creating cool new technology, etc.?)
Bwahahahahahaaaa!!!! That pretty much sums it all up.
The first part of your quote does apply to Randian philosophy. Ayn Rand's ideal society was one in which the able and strong are free and revered above the incompetent and weak. The second part about "one of the regular people" refers to Syndrome in The Incredibles.
He killed off the superheroes testing his evil destruction machine spider . He knew the superheroes were retired but if a giant evil robot thing attacked they would still try to stop it. He wanted to be the only one to be able to stop it.
Also he is crazy.
In comics when they try to explain what happened to the old war world 2 superheroes they always say it was HUAC that shut them down. In this movie it was scummy lawyers , which seems more realistic to me.
Well put. In the more obvious sense,and had the author REFLECTED on the movie instead of opining with the stench of popcorn still emaniating from his breath he would have relaised that, Syndrome = Ellsworth Toohey.
see above.
I agree, and I usually hate when people do this after an article like this...but here goes...We went to see The Incredibles a few days ago and I have to say I was bored silly the first 1/2 hour. After that, the sound went off for about 10 minutes and when nobody did anything, I said to my husband, "Let's get our money back and go." I'm assuming the second half was much better than the first.
What underlies their confusion is their reflexive attempt to fit cultural narrative of the proper dichotomy between the superficialities of presentation in the fundamental objectivism.
OR, you can just enjoy some animated entertainment.
Gee, and I thought Syndrome represented Marxism. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.