The Incredibles

[coalescent]

Tom requested a poll on the philosophy of The Incredibles. But, given that I'm me and not him, I'm going to preface his simple enquiry with a whole load of other quotes and questions.

Exhibit A:

The superhero was dreamt up by Nietzsche during the 1880s, and has been summoning humanity to transcend itself ever since. Does Mr Incredible's renunciation mean that the superman has finally despaired of the midget, puling race he was meant to lead onwards and upwards?

Exhibit B:

Is Dash, the supersonic third-grader forbidden from racing on the track team, a gifted child held back by the educational philosophy that "everybody is special"? Or is he an overprivileged elitist being forced to take into account the feelings of others?

Is his father, Mr. Incredible, who complains that the schools "keep inventing new ways to celebrate mediocrity," a visionary reformer committed to pushing children to excel? Or is he a reactionary in red tights who's been reading too much Nietzsche and Ayn Rand?

Is Syndrome, the geek villain trying to kill the superheroes, an angry Marxist determined to quash individuality? Or is his plan to give everyone artificial superpowers an uplifting version of "cooperative learning" in an "inclusion classroom"?

Exhibit C:

Who would have thought that an animated film would finally touch a nerve, putting egalitarians on the defensive? That is the achievement of Pixar Studio's new hit, The Incredibles, the story of a family of superheroes who struggle against the reign of mediocrity and finally break free to excel. Along the way it skewers the dumbing down of schools, the mantra that everyone is special, and the laws that give losers special status as victims.

Exhibit D:

The movie does come to some interesting philosophical conclusions, not least among them the way it advocates full-on Nietzschean ethics. The "Supers" -- literal Ubermensch -- are the strong, endowed with special gifts that place them beyond the range of normal men. The Supers also possess unimpeachably noble spirits, just as Nietzsche described. While competing amongst themselves to be the finest hero, they devote themselves and their gifts entirely to protecting the weak from themselves.

And, as mentioned in my earlier post, the Guardian has a roundup of comment here.

[Poll #399598]

Note that if you answer 'other' to question three, you should explain that in the comments, too. Myself, I'm undecided. So, convince me, one way or the other!

Comments

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

It's saying we shouldn't be forced to conform to what society says and everyone is getting hung up on the fact that the metaphor it uses can punch through steel walls.

Great quote. :-D

Being provocative again: But ... in terms of family roles (what the dad does, what the mum does, etc), isn't it highly conformist? In fact, isn't that the point--that all their superpowers are related to who they are? (Except possibly Jack-Jack. :)

(alright, there's probably no meaning to this name)

Yeah, but he is Black and Cool. D'you see?

[snowking.livejournal.com]

(Except possibly Jack-Jack. :)

Well, yes, Brad Bird uses the stereotypical family to base the powers of. But Bob has to admit he's not strong, Helen has to stand up for herself, Dash slows down to fit and Violet asks a boy out on a date. See?

Yeah, but he is Black and Cool. D'you see?

Frozone is metaphorically Samuel L Jackson (who is a shepherd).

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Bah, forgot to emntion Jack-Jack is tied in as he's meant to be unrealised potential.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Oh, I got that bit. I just wondered if there was some cunning way that he's still metaphorical at the end of the film. Can't really see one, though. :)

[snowking.livejournal.com]

Well, he can still be many things, see?

[pikelet.livejournal.com]

He's a little monster. A dead weight sometimes. A devil, even. But he's still wanted.