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.
Sorry, I know that incorrect terminology is a problem that can be bothersome in professions, but if I were you I'd get over it. Most folks aren't going to say "I'm watching the 3-D computer animated features." They'll say "I'm watching the cartoons."
If you are offended by people who are not familiar with the animation industry calling these projects "cartoons", then you have a serious issue. And, by the by, anyone who says that they're not splitting hairs is.
Exactly. At bottom, the Randian universe essentially consists of gene-"worship," because true genius-level talent is usually portrayed as innate. The "purpose" of the ordinary person, as it were, is to "worship" and serve the genetically-talented.
This is actually a extremely moral movie. The superheros have talents and use them to do good. It is society that that wants to hide the talents. What did Jesus say about having talent. Do not bury your talent in the sand but use your talent for the benefit of God! We do not have superheros in our world but we have gifted people - intelligent, artists, singers, dancers, athletes - the list goes on. But we have a society today telling our children to hide their talent because it is not fair to the other kids. Liberals wants us to hide our talent in the sand. The movie says that no matter what our talent, we should have it shine outward to the world. That is the moral and Christian message.
But he has a talent - his gifted brain. And he has honed his body to become a fighting machine. He does not hide his talent - his brain - either as Batman or Bruce Wayne.
A go cart made from a lawn mower engine is not the same thing as a porshe 9-11 yet they both achieve the same goal of transport people around via the combustion engine and 4 wheels! Are go carts and and Eurpoean sport cars the same thing, or am I still splitting hairs?
The same thing used to get me when people would call anime "cartoons." They would be syntactically comparing "Akira" with Donald Duck or Porky Pig.
There's that tic again...
Just imagine how the real cartoonists feel about people with no innate talent using a computer to do an end run on those who do.
01001001 00100111 01101101 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 01101011 01101001 01100100 01100100 01101001 01101110 01100111
would you define cartoon for me?
A is A.
Excellent post
But Elastigirl is so hot!
animated cartoon:
a motion picture made from a series of drawings simulating motion by means of slight progressive changes in the drawings
(from M-W.com)
Sure its not drawn by hand but its basically the same idea. Also I don't care if you feel insulted, grow up. You make cartoons, do you think you are better than Tex Avery?
Elastigirl is hot I agree. She is no Jessica Rabbit but she still has it going on!
Actually, I take great offense! How dare you animators of both 2D and 3D co-opt the word "cartoon" when the only true and perfect meaning of the word is a full scale underdrawing for a work of art. Not to split hairs, of course.
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.