I think a better term for the philosophy of The Incredibles would be exceptionalist. The film posits that there are some people who are just inherently better than others and that that shouldn't change. It also implies that those exceptional people have a duty to help the less-exceptional. So it rejects selfishness, but implies that certain people should be the saviors of others. Which doesn't seem so bad until you remember about how historically "we're helping/saving/educating/bringing democracy to them" has been used to justify atrocities.
I think Incredibles are talking about aristocrats or high priests or competent societies that always had hierarchies and such in them. Without leaders we become the world of today, where most of us are kept ignorant and cannot even recognize wise leaders even when they're in front of us.
I think the line that destroys claims that the film is objectionist is one from Mirage. “Valuing life isn’t weakness. Disregarding life, throwing it away, is not strength.”
Also, while my viewpoint on the movie has changed thanks to this, I still wish that there were heroic characters who used technology as their powers. The only character who’s “power” lies in their intelligence and creativity is Edna Mode, and she’s support.
@@brettjohnson536 _Maybe in theory, certainly not in practise?_ The entire point of the pearl clutching about the 'virtue' of selfishness by the old bat, was that by valuing your life as an end, in and of itself, whose highest purpose was not to be sacrificed for something else, you'd prevent yourself from being dragged into committing the kinds of atrocities that only an altruist could justify. It's in line with older ideas by people like Adam Smith, who believed that men inevitably did more good by pursuing their own interests, by serving others, than they ever did or could by doing things they 'believed' were in someone else's best interests. The industrial revolution, and many similar revolutions before and after it, were primarily achieved by men who did what was best for them. Child mortality rates, maximum lifespans, and maximum sustainable populations have gone up thanks to the 'selfish' deeds of a few. The other 'selfless revolutions' (besides the American one, also driven largely by greed like the above) inevitably resulted in mass starvation and death. You only need to look at the ideologies that dominated Germany, Japan, and China during World War II, and sometimes after it, to see why. It's not a coincidence that the worst degenerates of that war were among the most 'selfless'. People cannot value the lives of others if they cannot value their own.
A problem I have with the Ayn Rand/Incredibles connection is that when you look at her philosophy and compare it to Syndrome, he is on almost every level what Ayn Rand considered the ideal human. He is a self made, super genius, industrialist who doesn't let other people impose their morality on him. Sure his goals are collective in nature, but if you view his technology as his product, and democratizing of superpowers his heroic intentions, then Syndrome is almost as good an Objectivist super-villian as Andrew Ryan.
yes! Also Mr Incredible's growth and change from being selfish to selflessness would run contrary to Randian ideology. Heroism also implies self sacrifice, empathy, and compassion and a drive to help someone suffering.
I really feel that The Incredibles has a lot of things in common with Watchmen. Think about it: 1) Superheroes has been outlawed 2) There are still several heroes who are still fighting crime, even though they are not allowed to. 3) There is a superhero who is murdering other superheroes. 4) There is a giant squid-monster at the climax. (Granted, it's a robot in the Incredibles, but still).
-Retro aesthetic that calls back to old school science fiction and pulp stories - Exceptional people being brought to a remote island by a mysterious benefactor and killed off - Main villain has Messiah complex - Old married couple composed of two former superheroes as metaphor for midlife-crisis Shit, it goes on and on
I feel like in the sea of debate between The Incredibles', and by extension Brad Bird's body of work having Objectivist themes, that a small detail gets lost in discussing Buddy/Syndrome's motivation and plan to elevate himself and others to superhuman: he still lead dozens of miserable superheroes to their deaths to develop his robot, fired missiles at Helen Parr's plane without hesitation even when she revealed through her distress call that her children are aboard, and when he executes his plan, it would cause untold damage and casualties. Then the robot grew beyond his control. So no matter how many times people debate Syndrome's motivation, his station in a world of superheroes, or Objectivist philosophy; he's still a murderer, a terrorist, and somebody who will stop at nothing to get what he wants or gets in his way.
Well then that makes him a communist although that doesn't make the Incredibles objectivists. If anything considering the communistic aspect of Syndrome and the objectivist aspect of the insurance company manager, it seems like Bird is placing the Incredibles into the role of centrists. They have gifts, but they use them to help protect people.
@@miskatonic_alumni Likely they don't. Many people who vehemently oppose Communism don't really understand the philosophy, or conflate it with Authoritarianism on a one-to-one basis.
anyone over the age of 5 knows the ends don't justify the means, and that's the entire point. Making him a murderer allows them to make it unambiguously clear that he's supposed to be the bad guy. These tragic flaws aren't supposed to form a critique of his ideology, they're signifiers that exist to tell you who to root for or against.
I always hated those lines in The Incredibles. Everyone can be special without it meaning "nobody is special", as people can all be "special" in different ways. Such a childish way to see the world.
@@kbowman772 when syndrome says the line, is that really what's being said? If that's the case, shouldn't the movie end with everyone becoming super and it not resulting in a loss of "superness" thus proving him wrong? You know, instead of it ending with the Incredibles resuming superhero work in a way that seems to reiterate how great it is that they're better than everyone else?
True, because Syndrome's intellect is a natural ability and his decisions to enact a global crisis to demonstrate his powers and sell them to the world for monetary gain would be completely within the domain of "rational self-interest." After all, he is helping others only because he is helping himself, first, to money. The Incredibles comes off more as generic neo-liberalism about embracing the strengths that individuals possess and not holding them back. It's highly individualist, but not objectivist. I think the internet's assertions just became "common knowledge" and then people didn't question whether The Incredibles could actually be labeled obejectivist.
Jared Hite Rand didn't really care if you took money from the government. As long as you created the product or service for that the government bought, that was fine by her.
Apparently Brad Bird became so irritated by people claiming that he was an Objectivist that he made the villain of the second movie an expy of Dagny Taggart from "Atlas Shrugged" (Ayn Rand's self-insert character from that book).
I like your contribution to online discussion man. Much to learn and think about... You don't seem to make a habit of omitting relevant information to topics. It's focused, yet thorough and viewed through what I'd consider to be satisfactorily wide lens. Thank you, I look forward to engaging more of your content. Your Mike Pence video essay was great, I was not aware of much of what was presented in that video.
There is also Syndrome's status as a "self made man" a genius industrialist and someone who clearly considers himself above the law. To say that a Randian reading into his character is entirely unsupported would seem a questionable claim. So then what does it mean when both hero and antagonist display elements of objectivism? Perhaps no more or less than that the movie has no single core, consistant philosophy or agenda, as Leon concluded.
So -- TL:dr version is: The Incredibles has both objectivist and ANTI-objectivist themes and morals, and is more complex than one or the other. (Also, fun fact: Spell-check doesn't recognize objectivist as a word.)
None of the villains in the Incredibles are "looters" trying to steal from the heroes, it's literally the opposite. They don't want the heroes services at all. In Atlas Shrugged the objectivist heroes went on strike to show the looters how helpless they were without them. In The Incredibles the Supers were exiled. And Syndrome's tech wasn't like, stealing their powers to give to regular people. It was just replacing them.
I just watched Incredibles 2 the other day and I actually felt like it also had some ideas in terms of "individuals should only look out for themselves, not depending on others" - very interesting stuff
Yeah i think after tomorrow land its hard to say that brad bird isnt at least very familiar with randian writing. But Iron Giant is clearly about the red scare and The Incredibles is very much a family drama. Its got elements of objectivism (some inherent to being about superheros, some not) but to say thats what the film is ABOUT is stretching. I read Atlas Shrugged in early highschool and really liked it. And though my view of it has soured over time, i still took a very valuable lesson from it, one thoroughly unsupported by the text or its fans. I realized that helping other people was actually helping me. This idea that no one does anything for anyone and selfish is good, I managed to read as "I help other people because i expect those actions to benefit me". Its a simple reframing of altruism as roundabout selfishness but it was such a formative realization. And its a really great description of how a society should function: You help others because it will improve the society you live in and help you. Its so simple that all the so called "genius special people" in rands books never realize it.
Excellent analysis. In the end, I only see the Randian argument of the film only when you bring certain points to the extreme in the argument. The Superheroes in the film aren't being regulated. They are being outright banned. So, the film is pro-Randian in the lightest sense, but as soon as you start digging below surface level of Rand's philosophy of "Pro-Assholitarianism" (and this is coming from someone who identifies as overall moderately libertarian-leaning) the propaganda argument falls apart. People are not equal. People have special talents (developed or natural) where in various areas they are "better" than others (and who is better than who can switch based on the talent in question). Letting people use those abilities is a plus. Denying them that just to make everyone feel equal is a net loss for the individuals and society. BUT... that does not mean that someone who excels at something shouldn't be culpable for their actions or not kept within reasonable restrictions to prevent others from being wronged or exploited. Hell, in some cases oversight could lend to someone using their talents better in the long run. Also, wealth is a piss-poor way to judge who is better than who. There are way too many factors that can affect personal wealth beyond talent (which I'd say is a minor factor overall). Syndrome's plot to give everyone superpowers itself didn't seem bad to me either. It was more his execution of previous heroes and releasing the robot in the city just so he could be the hero in the limelight. Hell, technically Syndrome built himself up to be in charge of a multi-billion dollar business all for the point of putting himself on a pedestal. With his seeming plan to give people superpowers to benefit them, even his "altruism" was truly just something to serve his self-interests. Change the lens a little, and he becomes the Randian hero. Anywho, ending my rambling here before I muddle my intended meanings further. Hope everyone enjoys the sequel. :)
I agree. If you take a look at the plan of Syndrome, it really isn't to give powers to every person. That's one thing that he will do after he has had his fun saving the world from threats the first his creation. There could also be an argument made that Mr Incredible does not turn Buddy away at the start becuase he has no powers, but instead becuase he is a child and inexperienced. Mr Incredible enjoys the limelight at least a little, and his wording was bad. But if Buddy is the ubermensh of Rand an extremely smart person who deserves to be on top and he was denied that right.
I mean, once you have a guy with a lot of muscles lifting up a sphere, the comparisons to Greek mythological figure Atlas making a nonchalant shoulder gesture become harder to dodge than to invoke. As for Ayn Rand, she was like 8 when commies took her family's small-middling dentistry practice, so she spent every year after that saying "actually the exact polar opposite of communism is always good all the time." That kind of exaggerated worldview is not uncommon among exiles or refugees from, well, basically any society.
I think the idea that the superheroes are “anti-objectivist” because they fight crime isn’t necessarily the case. If the name of the game in objectivism is your own interest, then there’s nothing wrong with being charitable or generous if it makes you happy, or is in your interest individually. If you really look through the objectivist lens, it entirely possible that superhero’s in the movie are doing what they do because they enjoy it, not out of altruistic desires.
I kinda dreaded this review because the aforementioned hot-takes kinda made sense (haven't seen the film in a while), but you were kinder to the film than I expected. A fair essay.
something that I always thought was odd was that Dash was doing track meets. If he wanted to play sports, why not basketball, football, baseball, or lacrosse? These all involve teamwork, strategy, and other skills beyond running fast.
Thank you for confirming what I said to my wife when we first watched this years ago. She said, "Shut up and just enjoy the movie." She knew I was right.
I realized that major point about heroes still being altruistic last night after watching the sequel. But again, perhaps the series isn’t one to one in line with objectivism. Rand is notorious for making her ideology as contradictory as possible. Similarly there are a large amount of libertarian deontologist Kantians I personally know who share some of her ideas about government, but are less motivated by selfishness as a virtue vice having a different interpretation of fairness and freedom I do. They would likely still view the Incredibles helping out normal people as to how they view corporations and rich people doing charity work, not wanting the government get in the way of doing good. Many of these specific types of libertarians hate government assistance programs that they don’t necessarily feel their taxes should go to and instead feel it should be up to individuals and religious institutions to instead help the downtrodden without forcing all of us to assist. I fundamentally disagree with these people, but they are much nicer for conversation than dedicated Rand followers or protofascists.
How? He’s nihilistic, jealous, and full of spite. He wants to be a superhero and Mr. Incredible’s sidekick. But when he’s denied that, he doesn’t use his intelligence to compete with the superheroes, or make something so revolutionary that it helps millions of people (and make him rich at the same time), he straight up kills several superheroes. He wants to make superhero tech available for everyone, because “if everyone’s super, no one will be”. This idea of taking away the things that make people unique individuals (in this case super powers) goes against objectivism. An objectivist would cherish uniqueness in between people, not force them to be alike. Syndrome is not a person who cherishes individuality and individual rights, freedom, peace and prosperity. He wants murder, power and most of all revenge.
@@ziggysaurusrex1581 Well, Syndrome is not doing it for the goodness of his heart first of all, he says that he will only sell his inventions once he had fun, and not to be good, but as a way to get back at supers in general He is a capitalist, literaly in an island that he control. He is the smart rich guy. However, as you said, he is not completely objetivist, and that is because that is not the point, but I think he is a lot closer than the incredibles to that
I honestly feel like the Spider-Man approach to superheroes is the best one. The idea that if you have the ability to be altruistic and help someone then you have the responsibility to. I also would be really interested in seeing a superhero movie that explores the idea that one person alone can't make that much of a difference without the help of others. Like maybe a hero who realized that advocating for better infrastructure is just as important as saving people from buildings that are already burning
I really sympathize with your second paragraph. Superheroes are typically depicted as über-first responders whose only utility is in extreme life-or-death emergencies or who solve issues with their fists. This is compelling and dramatic, but it's the type of thing that can create power-fantasies and self-importance in the minds of young, impressionable audiences. It's good to lift people out of a crisis, but if that's you're default position in life, you're just living in survival mode (and very likely unable to help others outside of life-threatening situations). It's worth acknowledging that those who can maintain peaceful, stable environments are also heroic.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs. - John Rogers
The thing I remember most about Rand's books are how 1 dimensional and preachy they were. And so boring. John Galt has a 63 page long monologue about something (I counted the pages after I skipped ahead). Why write a novels if they're just going to be political treatises?
Steve Ditko's efforts with The Question aside (which would be an idea for another video along these lines, hint hint), super-heroes in the modern definition of them would never be Objectivists. They defend and stick up for the common people, and put their own 'specialness' at continuous risk, even sacrificing it when necessary, for the good of the so-called 'looters.' Even the Punisher, one of the most Randian and right wing darling of modern superheroes, goes out of his way to avoid killing inoocents (or those he sees as innocent at least) I think Bird's interpretation of 'specialness' in the Incredibles didn't have a randian origin, but just happened to parallel it in some ways. In fact, it pretty such seems to stem almost exclusively from Bob's character and him being frustrated at being forced to not use the special powers that once allowed him to help people.
Also his most famous creation is Spider-Man whose entire story is defined by the famous line "With great power, there must also come great responsibility" and let's face it,you can't be more altruistic than that. Oh the sweet, sweet irony.
@@VicEntity but Ditko wrote that with the help of others. His more blatantly objectivist heroes, like the Question mentioned above, were ones he did on his own. He's kinda got a reputation for needing a co-creator to rein in his weirder impulses. Heck you might know one parody of Mr. A, a objectivist hero like the Question created by Dikto: Rorschach. I don't know if RC has done a video on watchmen or Rorschach specifically (trying to play catch up on the last couple years of content right now). If he hasn't I'd recomend it.
This is hilariously late but... I doubt many people know this, but in the first issue of Action Comics, the first appearence of Superman, on the VERY FIRST PAGE Superman breaks into a governor's house...to stop an innocent women from being executed. It's believed by some that Superman's creators, Siegel and Shuster, were aware of the Nitzchean ubermensch, a man who does not care for current morals but makes his own, and how other groups took the concept to mean that there were "superior" beings who had the right to impose thier will on "inferior" people. Superman, in this interpretation, was Siegel and Shuster's response - a man who is objectively physically superior, and is willing to do things like BREAK INTO A GOVERNOR'S MANSION, but he does it for the purpose of helping others. A ubermensch who protects the weak and tries to make a better world. This idea of a benevolent ubermensch is sort of baked into the Superhero genre, which is why the Incredibles can have the Objectivist themes of some people having innate superiority, while at the same time rejecting part of Objectivism by having the heroes embrace altruism. It all dates back to Superman.
Another thing to point out about "Tomorrowland" - you mentioned at the beginning that the core premise was superficially similar to "Atlas Shrugged" in the sense that they both have an elitist paradise separate from the rest of humanity and its limitations, but it's safe to say that Tomorrowland is more of a deconstruction of that ideology than anything else. The Objectivism in that movie is pretty explicitly negative in the story's world, being the main reason why the villain does what he does and wants the rest of the world to die. In the end, the secrecy of Tomorrowland is even pulled back, with invites going out to people based on their passion more than their intelligence, class, or ethnic background. I know it's a little point in the context of the rest of the video. I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Honestly, I think the themes in Bird's works are so muddled I don't think he has any philosophical underpinnings... save for being obsessed with the idea of Specialness. Tomorrowland is absolutely laughable as they assemble the best and brightest to make a brighter future... and not only fail to share with the world, but turn their own city into crap. Then at the end, they appear to have learned nothing as they headhunt the best and brightest at the expense of the world to start the cycle again.
Love your content, been really getting into it lately. Another cinematographer mentor of mine tuned me on to you. Now it’s time for me to apply it and grow.
syndrome kind of fits the etymology of villain, as in 'of the village'. The underclass who threathens 'noble' hero, who belongs in the aristocracy. It's a pattern that exists in literature beyond Rand.
My favorite part when I was learning about Rand, was hearing her surviving friends/peers/students talking about how she fell in love with one of them and became completely irrational about it when he broke it off to remain faithful to his wife. They all knew it, and it really bothered them, but it didn't lead them to reject the philosophy even tho it really underscored how unrealistic it is. Also learning about all the right wing "Christians" who adore her, without actually reading her work I guess. She HATED Christianity specifically because Christ's teachings about loving your neighbor and charity and all that. She actually said she wanted to destroy Christianity, which blew my mind.
It's like secular Prosperity gospel. Not sure if replacing "God's will" with "inherent superiority" is any better though. They're both equally unquantifiable.
The ultimate irony of "Randian Superhero Stories" (aside from missing that 'with great power comes great responsibility' is the foundational basis of the best superheroes) is hyper-rationalism. Superheroes are typically god-like beings with completely fantastical powers, i.e. something that doesn't gel with the "no gods or kings, only man" spiel.
5:15 since Critical Race Theory became the boogyman of the Right early this year [2021] I went and looked into what it really was all that about and acording the The Experts™ it was an obscure discipline within another obscure discipline (critical legal studies) in legal philosophy, but aparently it wasnt THAT obscure because here it is in 2018 in a discussion film analysis
a lot of the time people who make those "what ___ is really about" articles or videos usually seem to mean "it has themes of ___" but i'm just a peabrained person so who knows
John, I know the basics. I've seen most of the movies (meh) and watched the cartoon. It's 2018. We don't live in a world where people haven't heard of the X-Men or can't Google it. I just haven't given it enough thought (again, meh) to do an impromptu philosophical reading in my comments section.
Dude, could you give your two cents on "The Prisoner" tv series by Patrick Mcgoohan sometime? Like, in a modern world where everyone is essentially lo-jacked via their smartphones, I think it'd be interesting to talk about a story where the main character quietly rails against authoritarianism in every form whether unjustly or reasonably applied.
What’s interesting about Bird and whole host of other artists is that their films reflect their upbringing, rather than their explicitly held ideology. Bird, iirc was raised in a Randian environment, with a family that was undoubtedly very fun at parties. The incredibles, from my own viewings as well as the content of this video, seems to be a more modernist moral tale built upon a very Randian framework. Ultimately, you never really forget what you were taught when you were younger
In the American experience, the people who supported Rand and Anarcho-Capitalism started to call themselves "libertarian" because It sounded better and distinguished themselves from Objectivism from which many Libertarians were refugees. Rand essentially excommunicated these people for straying from the ideology. Some time along the line, corporate entities also bounced into the Libertarian tent as a cover for their interests due to the support for "free markets." The idea of "liberty" put a positive spin on their goals, so they also emphasized the name as synonymous with their economically right-wing ideas so anything opposed to it automatically could be defined linguistically as "against liberty." American Libertarians also have all the States Rights people in their tent; also not fitting the liberal label because they don't really give a shit about freedom in general, but rather just freedom from Federal rules. They have no problem with oppressive state rules. Left and Right in general aren't very useful terms, since every side tends to combine elements of both. Liberals used to be known as Progressives in the 19th and early 20th century, but the right demonized the term, resulting in the adoption of different terminology that retained a positive element. Progressive was decried as "socialist" because of the adoption of some socialist ideas to ultimately combat actual socialism, so the term could not be used.
I think you need to go no further than Ratatouille to debunk Bird as a deconstructionist of Objectivism: Where the exceptional artist as well as the biggest critic come from poor/simple backgrounds, where the female character acknowledges an unjust system, where the exploitative egoist "chef" is the bad guy and a poor simpleton still finds his place in life... Sure, that might be only one movie, but it shows that he outsmarts Ayn Rand by a longshot.
Randian reading of the Incredibles is interesting, I wonder how Syndrome's island being called Nomanisan Island relates to it. "No man is an island" being a reference to John Donne's Meditation 17 and standing in stark contrast to Objectivist ideology.
It would be interesting if someone compared Randian ideology with the way action heroes have been portrayed in Western culture. It seems like they're drawing on some of the same themes (naturally gifted, perfect moral compass, and, as later deconstructionists point out, makes the world depend on them), but there are so many differences (especially when it comes to altruism and the superior individual sacrificing himself for the greater good).
To me saying that "The incredibles" is randian is like saying "X-men" is randian. They might have powers that outmatch non-supers but they don't see themselves as inherantly better except a megalomaniacal villain and a petulant child. Also I wouldn't call syndrome non-super either in the sense of comic villains or randian heros, there are no shortage of superheros/villians where their power is superior intelligence and/or money (batman, constantine, midnighter, Iron-man, Doc Oc, Forge, bruce banner, moon knight , kingpin) and that is usually a staple of randian heroes. Syndrome also fits when it comes to his company, he sells weapons to other countries with no discreation, sees his employees as expendable, plans to profit off his evil plan (he never said buying superpowers would be cheap, and he still doesn't relinquish his position of superiority because his devices have fail-safes that he controls
Because he decided to be. He didn't want everyone to be special for the sake of it, he wanted to destroy a paradigm that didn't bend to his childish will. He had every chance in the world to be his universe's equivalent of Batman or Ironman as an adult. Instead he nursed his grudges and killed good people to create an unstoppable thread he had on a leash for his own aggrandizement. He never wanted to be a hero. He wanted glory. And when he was tired of it he would put the role of hero aside like a tiresome toy.
I think the influence Watchmen had on the Incredibles should be noted. Alan Moore specifically said he wrote Watchmen in part as a criticism of Steve Ditko's (co-creator of Spider-Man and others) objectivist philosophies. Moore deconstructed superheroes and put them in the real world in a similar way the Incredibles did, except Moore's superheroes didn't have powers and were basically crazy vigilantes in suits (with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, who was fucked up in his own way). The Incredibles has a set up similar to Watchmen (retired golden age supes come back after being forced into retirement by the government because someone is killing them off, etc) but they kept the powers and the morality of classic superheroes. Maybe that's why it feels like a mishmash of ideas. Great video as always
Rand had unrealistic expectations. Humans are emotionally wired first and then BECOME "rational" over time. So we would have to learn how not to empathize for those who suffer ie. The poor.
I'd argue that superheros in general have an Objectivist undertone, but never really stray hard into the philosophy because, superheros do things in an altruist fashion. Saving the day and helping others without the prospects of wealth and fame as a driving force
After watching this video, an idea comes to mind that Ready Player One could be analyzed from a Randian perspective... just with toxic geek culture instead of superpowers. Although, I'm sure there's a much more interesting read of the text of the book and the movie adaptation that I'm not thinking of.
+SmithDanigans[THoM] Ummmmmm Ready Player One is the direct opposite of Randian world views lol. For one Halliday creates the Oasis for the people and doesn't want to profit that greatly from it. He wants to create a world where rich and poor can come and play. Its twisted by the capitalist villains like Sorrento who only want to take the Oasis and twitst it into a profit generating machine with Ads, DLC, loot boxes etc etc. Sorrento would be an objectivist Hero while Wade is basically an Altruist who hunts for the Easter egg solely for his love of video games and in the end to keep the Oasis a place for all gamers rather than a profit generating machine. That said that movie is really not deep at all and just a fun popcorn OMG I GET THAT REFERENCE type movie haha.
One thing that comes to mind: its socially positive to 'play nice' with people or 'take it easy' on others if you are better at certain things than them.
Never got the linking of The incredibles and Obejctivism. But "Meet the Robinsons" is very close to Objectivist thinking, tho it does not portray bad ideas or lessons per se
I find the question wether you should or shouldnt analyse a movie under X lens very intresting and worth a video itself. One could argue, that if it is not a main theme, the analyzed topic might be underrepresented, missused to fit a plot, ... Then again it might show the directors/writers views eventhough it wasnt something he tried to concentrate on
Great video, but I found it odd that towards the beginning you never mention Ratatouille which is also heavily criticized for being Randian and was directed by Bird. Why didn't you meantion it?
No special reason. I didn't like it when I saw it years ago, and nothing about it sticks in my memory. Didn't even think to add it or examine it. Besides, this isn't about Bird.
Part 2 : Ayn Rand's Philosophy is mean and Dumb. Possibly the most accurate and concise rebuttal to her worldview ever put to the internet. Kudos to you :D
I would love to hear your opinion on BioShock, which critiques Randian objectivism quite a bit. It’s a video game I watched (not my type to play), but I was drawn into that particular theme, and this reminded me of that.
Just off the top of my head, about 4 minutes in, I don't recall John Galt or Howard Roark suffering any of the self doubts, paroxysms of conscience, or moments of confession and humility that seem to occur to Bob Parr at regular intervals. I see...if I may borrow from Holy Writ...similar to when Elijah fleeing Jezebel's threat hard on the heels of his victory over the prophets of Baal...or David confronted by Nathan. Bob bared his soul...twice...in the presence of his family. That's some admirable stuff
It's hard talking about Ayan Rand's philosophy in anything especially since people have different interpretations on her philosophy.I did enjoy the video by the way.
a very on the side comment but a really in depth discussion of the iron giant through a lefty lens would be absolutely worth a watch. its by far Bird's best work imo and possibly one of the best disney movies.
The thing is, Syndrome's plan that he's been building up for fifteen years wasn't just to sell his equipment, he just says that's what he'll do once he's bored playing hero. His plan was to kill off other heroes, and finally play hero himself. It's said in the video, but the Incredibles isn't American Libertarian propaganda, its theme is about certain people being better at certain things. If the film was trying to push superheroes as inherently superior to normal people, they would have it so that they are superior in every way. However, while Mr. Increadible's abilities make him a great hero, he was a terrible office worker. What I think what the film was trying to say was that Syndrome wouldn't make a terrible hero because he doesn't have any powers, it's that he wasn't heroic. While he may seem innocent in the flashback, it's easy to see Mr. Increadible turning him down because he didn't want to be a hero for the sake of helping others, it's so that he could be worshiped like the other heroes in the golden age. (However, if this isn't the case, it's fine to say Syndrome did start with heroic intentions but later warps those desires. Point is, once he does gets powers, it's clearly not just for saving others.) But assuming his plan was to sell his equipment, I have seen many people defending the movie break down why that's a bad idea. First, he's selling it. Not everyone will be able to afford the new powerful technology, especially the poor. Second, having such a broad access to these superpowers will create a very high chance of someone misusing it... just like how Syndrome uses his robots to attack the city. What made the superheroes special wasn't just that they had powers or that they were heroic, it was a combination of both. They could have used their powers to make bank in specific work fields, but they decided to devote their lives to save others (partially covered in the video).
Fundamentally objectivism is extremely flawed, it works well as a critique of altruism but doesn't stand out well on its own. A critical point from Atlas shrugged that the video missed however was the idea of wealth being synonymous with virtue in rand's view. The freedom to create was the overriding motivation. Galt himself was an engineer in a motor company. A well payed position certainly but far from the best paid. Atlas shrugged went out of it's way to potray poor and working class people in the utopian area. Rand's views are extreme and problematic in many respects but I don't think you can describe them as classist. Elitist certainly but that elitism doesn't really come from wealth or money
Thank you for your balanced view of the film and its messages. As you mentioned, in some ways, both films upend the concepts presented in "Atlas Shrugged." In Rand's novel, John Galt initially appears mysterious and sinister, making the rich and powerful disappear, until Dagny discovers that he was actually doing "good" (from Rand's perspective) by creating Galt's Gulch. In the first "Incredibles," the exact reverse happens: Syndrome's island is presented as a sort of Galt's Gulch where Mr. Incredible can still be super in secret, however, it turns out that Syndrome is actually luring supers there so he can kill them. In the second film, the Deavor siblings initially appear to be like James and Dagny Taggart: he's a clueless man-child and she's the self-sufficient brains of the operation. However, it's Evelyn Deavor's refusal to accept help from anybody that leads her into supervillainy and ultimately, to her downfall.
I feel that it's pretty fair to call the film libertarian (American style) and anti-regulation; in particular, it seems specifically tailored to fit a certain suburban opposition to public schools, bureaucracy, and regulation. The altruistic desire to be a superhero is presented as a natural quality of the exceptional, such that the exceptional would in fact work for the greater good if they were only allowed license to do as they will. This precisely tracks with American libertarianism, which (unlike Rand) believes in charity and certain forms of altruism, but also specifically cares about them as individual virtue and not on the scale of government. It's more an anti-tax manifesto than a Randian one, but the two are not totally distinct; Rand's watered-down ideas underlie the libertarian philosophy, which is mean and dumb but less intensely focused than Rand's. That philosophy seems to be pretty well expressed in the film. Basically, I think the Incredibles is quietly in support of charter schools and reduced taxes, and the altruism of its superheroes goes to support that as much as the pressures of its mediocrities. Middle management like Huff are often presented as the epitome of mediocrity in that sort of story; they exist within a bureacracy that libertarianism believes is solely the result of government and regulation.
I rewatched the film earlier this week, both to prepare for the sequel and this video, and this was practically identical to my take, you are just more educated than I and can say more about it. It is unfortunate, as the reviewer you quoted whose name escapes me said, that the libertarian bent of the film cannot be un-noticed no matter how much I otherwise enjoy it, but the same can be said of the original Ghostbusters film, and many others. I suppose The Incredibles is technically the best "conservative" film by default, though that label doesn't quite work either. Anyway, I'm rambling. Great work as usual.
I was always puzzled by the claim that the Incredibles had an objectivist view, because while the supers DO have their powers, they freely use them to benefit others and its not clear that they ask for or receive any kind of payment for doing so. And at the beginning of the film, the supers still operate inside and in service to the law, Mr Incredible hands ties up the purse snatcher for the police to collect and process, and he cooperates with them in the search for Bomb Voyage, I would think that in an objectivist tale, Mr Incredible would unilaterally dispense justice and not consider himself answerable to society at large or the government.
If we account for both an Objectivist and Altruistic story, what we have is a central theme of "Those that have the power to help people and protect them are morally obligated to do so." Mr. Incredible's most base desire through the film is to help people. He's locked in figurative cages created by both the government and the capitalists that stifle his desire to do good for the world.
I am so happy you decided to make this video! I always gave the side eye when people insisted the films are objectivist propaganda, and although the film definitely has a lot of clear objectivist themes, It's not explicit in the text. I was going to make a video about the sequel and the gender dynamics in the story because I think these films are rich with subtext about American ideals. Even the fact it's set in a 50s futurist setting is very telling.
I buy the movie and rip the footage. Miscellaneous clips (stock footage, etc.) are usually downloaded from TH-cam. Same as any TH-camr with a video essay channel. Google can probably give you links to the basic software.
I think a better term for the philosophy of The Incredibles would be exceptionalist. The film posits that there are some people who are just inherently better than others and that that shouldn't change. It also implies that those exceptional people have a duty to help the less-exceptional. So it rejects selfishness, but implies that certain people should be the saviors of others. Which doesn't seem so bad until you remember about how historically "we're helping/saving/educating/bringing democracy to them" has been used to justify atrocities.
It's better "Incrediblimism".
@@iblard lol that’s a funny joke but exceptionalism is the commonly accepted term for this.
I don’t think I disagree with you. But is it the correct term to use when doing a Randian study on this film?
Thaaaaaat's capeshit!
I think Incredibles are talking about aristocrats or high priests or competent societies that always had hierarchies and such in them.
Without leaders we become the world of today, where most of us are kept ignorant and cannot even recognize wise leaders even when they're in front of us.
I think the line that destroys claims that the film is objectionist is one from Mirage.
“Valuing life isn’t weakness. Disregarding life, throwing it away, is not strength.”
Also, while my viewpoint on the movie has changed thanks to this, I still wish that there were heroic characters who used technology as their powers. The only character who’s “power” lies in their intelligence and creativity is Edna Mode, and she’s support.
That's totally in-line with objectivism though.
@@bird4816 exactly
@@bird4816Maybe in theory, certainly not in practise
@@brettjohnson536 _Maybe in theory, certainly not in practise?_
The entire point of the pearl clutching about the 'virtue' of selfishness by the old bat, was that by valuing your life as an end, in and of itself, whose highest purpose was not to be sacrificed for something else, you'd prevent yourself from being dragged into committing the kinds of atrocities that only an altruist could justify.
It's in line with older ideas by people like Adam Smith, who believed that men inevitably did more good by pursuing their own interests, by serving others, than they ever did or could by doing things they 'believed' were in someone else's best interests.
The industrial revolution, and many similar revolutions before and after it, were primarily achieved by men who did what was best for them.
Child mortality rates, maximum lifespans, and maximum sustainable populations have gone up thanks to the 'selfish' deeds of a few.
The other 'selfless revolutions' (besides the American one, also driven largely by greed like the above) inevitably resulted in mass starvation and death.
You only need to look at the ideologies that dominated Germany, Japan, and China during World War II, and sometimes after it, to see why.
It's not a coincidence that the worst degenerates of that war were among the most 'selfless'.
People cannot value the lives of others if they cannot value their own.
A problem I have with the Ayn Rand/Incredibles connection is that when you look at her philosophy and compare it to Syndrome, he is on almost every level what Ayn Rand considered the ideal human. He is a self made, super genius, industrialist who doesn't let other people impose their morality on him. Sure his goals are collective in nature, but if you view his technology as his product, and democratizing of superpowers his heroic intentions, then Syndrome is almost as good an Objectivist super-villian as Andrew Ryan.
p
Andrew Ryan is pretty much a male version of Ayn Rand.
@@Yes_Fantasy_419 You only have to take away 3 letters: ANDrew RYAN.
yes! Also Mr Incredible's growth and change from being selfish to selflessness would run contrary to Randian ideology. Heroism also implies self sacrifice, empathy, and compassion and a drive to help someone suffering.
@@wpaunan valuing ones family isn't selfless.
to put it simply, its not objectivist propaganda, but it certainly has some objectivist themes.
I really feel that The Incredibles has a lot of things in common with Watchmen. Think about it:
1) Superheroes has been outlawed
2) There are still several heroes who are still fighting crime, even though they are not allowed to.
3) There is a superhero who is murdering other superheroes.
4) There is a giant squid-monster at the climax. (Granted, it's a robot in the Incredibles, but still).
-Retro aesthetic that calls back to old school science fiction and pulp stories
- Exceptional people being brought to a remote island by a mysterious benefactor and killed off
- Main villain has Messiah complex
- Old married couple composed of two former superheroes as metaphor for midlife-crisis
Shit, it goes on and on
I feel like in the sea of debate between The Incredibles', and by extension Brad Bird's body of work having Objectivist themes, that a small detail gets lost in discussing Buddy/Syndrome's motivation and plan to elevate himself and others to superhuman: he still lead dozens of miserable superheroes to their deaths to develop his robot, fired missiles at Helen Parr's plane without hesitation even when she revealed through her distress call that her children are aboard, and when he executes his plan, it would cause untold damage and casualties. Then the robot grew beyond his control. So no matter how many times people debate Syndrome's motivation, his station in a world of superheroes, or Objectivist philosophy; he's still a murderer, a terrorist, and somebody who will stop at nothing to get what he wants or gets in his way.
Well then that makes him a communist although that doesn't make the Incredibles objectivists. If anything considering the communistic aspect of Syndrome and the objectivist aspect of the insurance company manager, it seems like Bird is placing the Incredibles into the role of centrists. They have gifts, but they use them to help protect people.
Also notable, he specifically says that when he puts his inventions on sale, he'll keep the best stuff for himself.
@@miskatonic_alumni Likely they don't. Many people who vehemently oppose Communism don't really understand the philosophy, or conflate it with Authoritarianism on a one-to-one basis.
anyone over the age of 5 knows the ends don't justify the means, and that's the entire point. Making him a murderer allows them to make it unambiguously clear that he's supposed to be the bad guy. These tragic flaws aren't supposed to form a critique of his ideology, they're signifiers that exist to tell you who to root for or against.
I always hated those lines in The Incredibles. Everyone can be special without it meaning "nobody is special", as people can all be "special" in different ways. Such a childish way to see the world.
Yeah, it's almost like the only two people who say it are a literal child and a man-child villain.
@@kbowman772 when syndrome says the line, is that really what's being said? If that's the case, shouldn't the movie end with everyone becoming super and it not resulting in a loss of "superness" thus proving him wrong? You know, instead of it ending with the Incredibles resuming superhero work in a way that seems to reiterate how great it is that they're better than everyone else?
I used to think this for a while then I realized if it was actually objectivist then syndrome wouldn't be the victim
I think you mean wouldn't be the villain.
nicht öffentlich I blame my phone's dictation feature which randomly replaces words that it's heard for no reason
True, because Syndrome's intellect is a natural ability and his decisions to enact a global crisis to demonstrate his powers and sell them to the world for monetary gain would be completely within the domain of "rational self-interest." After all, he is helping others only because he is helping himself, first, to money.
The Incredibles comes off more as generic neo-liberalism about embracing the strengths that individuals possess and not holding them back. It's highly individualist, but not objectivist. I think the internet's assertions just became "common knowledge" and then people didn't question whether The Incredibles could actually be labeled obejectivist.
I mean, in the end, she got money from the government too...
Jared Hite Rand didn't really care if you took money from the government. As long as you created the product or service for that the government bought, that was fine by her.
Apparently Brad Bird became so irritated by people claiming that he was an Objectivist that he made the villain of the second movie an expy of Dagny Taggart from "Atlas Shrugged" (Ayn Rand's self-insert character from that book).
Source? I wanna check this out 👀
I like your contribution to online discussion man. Much to learn and think about... You don't seem to make a habit of omitting relevant information to topics. It's focused, yet thorough and viewed through what I'd consider to be satisfactorily wide lens. Thank you, I look forward to engaging more of your content. Your Mike Pence video essay was great, I was not aware of much of what was presented in that video.
There is also Syndrome's status as a "self made man" a genius industrialist and someone who clearly considers himself above the law. To say that a Randian reading into his character is entirely unsupported would seem a questionable claim. So then what does it mean when both hero and antagonist display elements of objectivism? Perhaps no more or less than that the movie has no single core, consistant philosophy or agenda, as Leon concluded.
So -- TL:dr version is: The Incredibles has both objectivist and ANTI-objectivist themes and morals, and is more complex than one or the other.
(Also, fun fact: Spell-check doesn't recognize objectivist as a word.)
None of the villains in the Incredibles are "looters" trying to steal from the heroes, it's literally the opposite. They don't want the heroes services at all. In Atlas Shrugged the objectivist heroes went on strike to show the looters how helpless they were without them. In The Incredibles the Supers were exiled. And Syndrome's tech wasn't like, stealing their powers to give to regular people. It was just replacing them.
I just watched Incredibles 2 the other day and I actually felt like it also had some ideas in terms of "individuals should only look out for themselves, not depending on others" - very interesting stuff
Yeah i think after tomorrow land its hard to say that brad bird isnt at least very familiar with randian writing. But Iron Giant is clearly about the red scare and The Incredibles is very much a family drama. Its got elements of objectivism (some inherent to being about superheros, some not) but to say thats what the film is ABOUT is stretching.
I read Atlas Shrugged in early highschool and really liked it. And though my view of it has soured over time, i still took a very valuable lesson from it, one thoroughly unsupported by the text or its fans. I realized that helping other people was actually helping me.
This idea that no one does anything for anyone and selfish is good, I managed to read as "I help other people because i expect those actions to benefit me". Its a simple reframing of altruism as roundabout selfishness but it was such a formative realization. And its a really great description of how a society should function: You help others because it will improve the society you live in and help you. Its so simple that all the so called "genius special people" in rands books never realize it.
Really loving that you're injecting more of your humor and personality into your videos lately, keep up the great work Leon!
Excellent analysis.
In the end, I only see the Randian argument of the film only when you bring certain points to the extreme in the argument. The Superheroes in the film aren't being regulated. They are being outright banned. So, the film is pro-Randian in the lightest sense, but as soon as you start digging below surface level of Rand's philosophy of "Pro-Assholitarianism" (and this is coming from someone who identifies as overall moderately libertarian-leaning) the propaganda argument falls apart.
People are not equal. People have special talents (developed or natural) where in various areas they are "better" than others (and who is better than who can switch based on the talent in question). Letting people use those abilities is a plus. Denying them that just to make everyone feel equal is a net loss for the individuals and society. BUT... that does not mean that someone who excels at something shouldn't be culpable for their actions or not kept within reasonable restrictions to prevent others from being wronged or exploited. Hell, in some cases oversight could lend to someone using their talents better in the long run. Also, wealth is a piss-poor way to judge who is better than who. There are way too many factors that can affect personal wealth beyond talent (which I'd say is a minor factor overall).
Syndrome's plot to give everyone superpowers itself didn't seem bad to me either. It was more his execution of previous heroes and releasing the robot in the city just so he could be the hero in the limelight. Hell, technically Syndrome built himself up to be in charge of a multi-billion dollar business all for the point of putting himself on a pedestal. With his seeming plan to give people superpowers to benefit them, even his "altruism" was truly just something to serve his self-interests. Change the lens a little, and he becomes the Randian hero.
Anywho, ending my rambling here before I muddle my intended meanings further.
Hope everyone enjoys the sequel. :)
I agree. If you take a look at the plan of Syndrome, it really isn't to give powers to every person. That's one thing that he will do after he has had his fun saving the world from threats the first his creation.
There could also be an argument made that Mr Incredible does not turn Buddy away at the start becuase he has no powers, but instead becuase he is a child and inexperienced. Mr Incredible enjoys the limelight at least a little, and his wording was bad. But if Buddy is the ubermensh of Rand an extremely smart person who deserves to be on top and he was denied that right.
"...Rand's philosophy is mean & dumb." (*hits subscribe button*)
Seething slave moralists
I mean, once you have a guy with a lot of muscles lifting up a sphere, the comparisons to Greek mythological figure Atlas making a nonchalant shoulder gesture become harder to dodge than to invoke.
As for Ayn Rand, she was like 8 when commies took her family's small-middling dentistry practice, so she spent every year after that saying "actually the exact polar opposite of communism is always good all the time." That kind of exaggerated worldview is not uncommon among exiles or refugees from, well, basically any society.
I think the idea that the superheroes are “anti-objectivist” because they fight crime isn’t necessarily the case. If the name of the game in objectivism is your own interest, then there’s nothing wrong with being charitable or generous if it makes you happy, or is in your interest individually. If you really look through the objectivist lens, it entirely possible that superhero’s in the movie are doing what they do because they enjoy it, not out of altruistic desires.
But wouldn't that _still_ prove problematic for that "philosophy"?
@@sonicboy678how do you mean?
I kinda dreaded this review because the aforementioned hot-takes kinda made sense (haven't seen the film in a while), but you were kinder to the film than I expected. A fair essay.
something that I always thought was odd was that Dash was doing track meets. If he wanted to play sports, why not basketball, football, baseball, or lacrosse? These all involve teamwork, strategy, and other skills beyond running fast.
Thank you for confirming what I said to my wife when we first watched this years ago. She said, "Shut up and just enjoy the movie." She knew I was right.
I realized that major point about heroes still being altruistic last night after watching the sequel. But again, perhaps the series isn’t one to one in line with objectivism. Rand is notorious for making her ideology as contradictory as possible. Similarly there are a large amount of libertarian deontologist Kantians I personally know who share some of her ideas about government, but are less motivated by selfishness as a virtue vice having a different interpretation of fairness and freedom I do. They would likely still view the Incredibles helping out normal people as to how they view corporations and rich people doing charity work, not wanting the government get in the way of doing good. Many of these specific types of libertarians hate government assistance programs that they don’t necessarily feel their taxes should go to and instead feel it should be up to individuals and religious institutions to instead help the downtrodden without forcing all of us to assist. I fundamentally disagree with these people, but they are much nicer for conversation than dedicated Rand followers or protofascists.
I'd argue that Syndrome fits the objectivist philosophy far better than the Incredibles family.
How? He’s nihilistic, jealous, and full of spite. He wants to be a superhero and Mr. Incredible’s sidekick. But when he’s denied that, he doesn’t use his intelligence to compete with the superheroes, or make something so revolutionary that it helps millions of people (and make him rich at the same time), he straight up kills several superheroes. He wants to make superhero tech available for everyone, because “if everyone’s super, no one will be”. This idea of taking away the things that make people unique individuals (in this case super powers) goes against objectivism. An objectivist would cherish uniqueness in between people, not force them to be alike. Syndrome is not a person who cherishes individuality and individual rights, freedom, peace and prosperity. He wants murder, power and most of all revenge.
@@ziggysaurusrex1581 Well, Syndrome is not doing it for the goodness of his heart first of all, he says that he will only sell his inventions once he had fun, and not to be good, but as a way to get back at supers in general
He is a capitalist, literaly in an island that he control. He is the smart rich guy.
However, as you said, he is not completely objetivist, and that is because that is not the point, but I think he is a lot closer than the incredibles to that
I honestly feel like the Spider-Man approach to superheroes is the best one. The idea that if you have the ability to be altruistic and help someone then you have the responsibility to.
I also would be really interested in seeing a superhero movie that explores the idea that one person alone can't make that much of a difference without the help of others. Like maybe a hero who realized that advocating for better infrastructure is just as important as saving people from buildings that are already burning
I really sympathize with your second paragraph. Superheroes are typically depicted as über-first responders whose only utility is in extreme life-or-death emergencies or who solve issues with their fists. This is compelling and dramatic, but it's the type of thing that can create power-fantasies and self-importance in the minds of young, impressionable audiences.
It's good to lift people out of a crisis, but if that's you're default position in life, you're just living in survival mode (and very likely unable to help others outside of life-threatening situations). It's worth acknowledging that those who can maintain peaceful, stable environments are also heroic.
Funny thing that Spidey was co-created by a hardcore objectivist.
Advocacy for better infrastructure is something that is explored in The Batman (2022).
Funnily enough Spider-Man was co-created by a hardcore objective (Dan Ditko) and yeah, you can tell in the early comics.
Ayn Rand is best read at 14, 15, or 16, when one is young enough to miss the point.
i read it at thirteen and thought they were all just gay
Manny Espinola I had to read Anthem when I was 15 and I hated it. Lol.
Yeah - I read Anthem at 16 and just enjoyed the vague lesson against conformity I got from it. Would probably not enjoy her now, lol
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
- John Rogers
The thing I remember most about Rand's books are how 1 dimensional and preachy they were. And so boring. John Galt has a 63 page long monologue about something (I counted the pages after I skipped ahead). Why write a novels if they're just going to be political treatises?
Steve Ditko's efforts with The Question aside (which would be an idea for another video along these lines, hint hint), super-heroes in the modern definition of them would never be Objectivists. They defend and stick up for the common people, and put their own 'specialness' at continuous risk, even sacrificing it when necessary, for the good of the so-called 'looters.' Even the Punisher, one of the most Randian and right wing darling of modern superheroes, goes out of his way to avoid killing inoocents (or those he sees as innocent at least)
I think Bird's interpretation of 'specialness' in the Incredibles didn't have a randian origin, but just happened to parallel it in some ways. In fact, it pretty such seems to stem almost exclusively from Bob's character and him being frustrated at being forced to not use the special powers that once allowed him to help people.
Also his most famous creation is Spider-Man whose entire story is defined by the famous line "With great power, there must also come great responsibility" and let's face it,you can't be more altruistic than that. Oh the sweet, sweet irony.
@@VicEntity but Ditko wrote that with the help of others. His more blatantly objectivist heroes, like the Question mentioned above, were ones he did on his own. He's kinda got a reputation for needing a co-creator to rein in his weirder impulses.
Heck you might know one parody of Mr. A, a objectivist hero like the Question created by Dikto: Rorschach. I don't know if RC has done a video on watchmen or Rorschach specifically (trying to play catch up on the last couple years of content right now). If he hasn't I'd recomend it.
I'm never gonna unnotice it
Very good video essay - you did a nice job dissecting Objectivism as it relates to the movie.
This is hilariously late but...
I doubt many people know this, but in the first issue of Action Comics, the first appearence of Superman, on the VERY FIRST PAGE Superman breaks into a governor's house...to stop an innocent women from being executed.
It's believed by some that Superman's creators, Siegel and Shuster, were aware of the Nitzchean ubermensch, a man who does not care for current morals but makes his own, and how other groups took the concept to mean that there were "superior" beings who had the right to impose thier will on "inferior" people.
Superman, in this interpretation, was Siegel and Shuster's response - a man who is objectively physically superior, and is willing to do things like BREAK INTO A GOVERNOR'S MANSION, but he does it for the purpose of helping others. A ubermensch who protects the weak and tries to make a better world.
This idea of a benevolent ubermensch is sort of baked into the Superhero genre, which is why the Incredibles can have the Objectivist themes of some people having innate superiority, while at the same time rejecting part of Objectivism by having the heroes embrace altruism. It all dates back to Superman.
Damn! This is by far your best analysis yet! How do you not have more subs?!
Kepp up the good work :)
The small woman, Olga i think is her name, looks exactly like Ayn Rand
Another thing to point out about "Tomorrowland" - you mentioned at the beginning that the core premise was superficially similar to "Atlas Shrugged" in the sense that they both have an elitist paradise separate from the rest of humanity and its limitations, but it's safe to say that Tomorrowland is more of a deconstruction of that ideology than anything else. The Objectivism in that movie is pretty explicitly negative in the story's world, being the main reason why the villain does what he does and wants the rest of the world to die. In the end, the secrecy of Tomorrowland is even pulled back, with invites going out to people based on their passion more than their intelligence, class, or ethnic background.
I know it's a little point in the context of the rest of the video. I just thought I'd throw it out there.
Thank you so much, what a great piece of work you've made (as in every video you upload).
Wait, you people there's people that DON'T love The Iron Giant?
DOS Bibletech It is a dark world we live in
Honestly, I think the themes in Bird's works are so muddled I don't think he has any philosophical underpinnings... save for being obsessed with the idea of Specialness.
Tomorrowland is absolutely laughable as they assemble the best and brightest to make a brighter future... and not only fail to share with the world, but turn their own city into crap. Then at the end, they appear to have learned nothing as they headhunt the best and brightest at the expense of the world to start the cycle again.
Love your content, been really getting into it lately. Another cinematographer mentor of mine tuned me on to you. Now it’s time for me to apply it and grow.
syndrome kind of fits the etymology of villain, as in 'of the village'. The underclass who threathens 'noble' hero, who belongs in the aristocracy.
It's a pattern that exists in literature beyond Rand.
My favorite part when I was learning about Rand, was hearing her surviving friends/peers/students talking about how she fell in love with one of them and became completely irrational about it when he broke it off to remain faithful to his wife. They all knew it, and it really bothered them, but it didn't lead them to reject the philosophy even tho it really underscored how unrealistic it is.
Also learning about all the right wing "Christians" who adore her, without actually reading her work I guess. She HATED Christianity specifically because Christ's teachings about loving your neighbor and charity and all that. She actually said she wanted to destroy Christianity, which blew my mind.
In retrospect, the theme most strongly conveyed is that we are tiny.
That some people are superior, and those people alone know what's best for us.
It's like secular Prosperity gospel. Not sure if replacing "God's will" with "inherent superiority" is any better though. They're both equally unquantifiable.
Your videos are great!
The ultimate irony of "Randian Superhero Stories" (aside from missing that 'with great power comes great responsibility' is the foundational basis of the best superheroes) is hyper-rationalism. Superheroes are typically god-like beings with completely fantastical powers, i.e. something that doesn't gel with the "no gods or kings, only man" spiel.
5:15 since Critical Race Theory became the boogyman of the Right early this year [2021] I went and looked into what it really was all that about and acording the The Experts™ it was an obscure discipline within another obscure discipline (critical legal studies) in legal philosophy, but aparently it wasnt THAT obscure because here it is in 2018 in a discussion film analysis
a lot of the time people who make those "what ___ is really about" articles or videos usually seem to mean "it has themes of ___" but i'm just a peabrained person so who knows
Does the underminer being a underground mutant/moleman count as a superpower?
How does this formula work when applied to the X-Men movies?
I don't know. I don't read comic books, and I'm not a big fan of the movies outside of Logan.
John, I know the basics. I've seen most of the movies (meh) and watched the cartoon. It's 2018. We don't live in a world where people haven't heard of the X-Men or can't Google it. I just haven't given it enough thought (again, meh) to do an impromptu philosophical reading in my comments section.
Dude, could you give your two cents on "The Prisoner" tv series by Patrick Mcgoohan sometime?
Like, in a modern world where everyone is essentially lo-jacked via their smartphones, I think it'd be interesting to talk about a story where the main character quietly rails against authoritarianism in every form whether unjustly or reasonably applied.
What’s interesting about Bird and whole host of other artists is that their films reflect their upbringing, rather than their explicitly held ideology. Bird, iirc was raised in a Randian environment, with a family that was undoubtedly very fun at parties. The incredibles, from my own viewings as well as the content of this video, seems to be a more modernist moral tale built upon a very Randian framework. Ultimately, you never really forget what you were taught when you were younger
Objectivism is so cartoonishly bizarre that Rand herself could be depicted as an animated arch villain.
07:51 - although we all have to agree, Apple is not meeting the same standards now as it did under Jobs.
Part 2 has the best title.
It's crazy how America warped the meaning of political views, liberal means left and libertarian means right. What happened??
In the American experience, the people who supported Rand and Anarcho-Capitalism started to call themselves "libertarian" because It sounded better and distinguished themselves from Objectivism from which many Libertarians were refugees. Rand essentially excommunicated these people for straying from the ideology. Some time along the line, corporate entities also bounced into the Libertarian tent as a cover for their interests due to the support for "free markets." The idea of "liberty" put a positive spin on their goals, so they also emphasized the name as synonymous with their economically right-wing ideas so anything opposed to it automatically could be defined linguistically as "against liberty."
American Libertarians also have all the States Rights people in their tent; also not fitting the liberal label because they don't really give a shit about freedom in general, but rather just freedom from Federal rules. They have no problem with oppressive state rules. Left and Right in general aren't very useful terms, since every side tends to combine elements of both.
Liberals used to be known as Progressives in the 19th and early 20th century, but the right demonized the term, resulting in the adoption of different terminology that retained a positive element. Progressive was decried as "socialist" because of the adoption of some socialist ideas to ultimately combat actual socialism, so the term could not be used.
I was about to go to bed, but I decided to stay up for an extra 20 minutes to watch this instead, and I have no regrets. Excellent work!
Really starting to dig the new intro. What's the music from?
All my music comes from Epidemic Sound. I have a subscription which provides me with tracks for my videos.
Well its really dang neat!
It's called Awoken, by Purple Drive ; )
I think you need to go no further than Ratatouille to debunk Bird as a deconstructionist of Objectivism: Where the exceptional artist as well as the biggest critic come from poor/simple backgrounds, where the female character acknowledges an unjust system, where the exploitative egoist "chef" is the bad guy and a poor simpleton still finds his place in life...
Sure, that might be only one movie, but it shows that he outsmarts Ayn Rand by a longshot.
Randian reading of the Incredibles is interesting, I wonder how Syndrome's island being called Nomanisan Island relates to it. "No man is an island" being a reference to John Donne's Meditation 17 and standing in stark contrast to Objectivist ideology.
It would be interesting if someone compared Randian ideology with the way action heroes have been portrayed in Western culture. It seems like they're drawing on some of the same themes (naturally gifted, perfect moral compass, and, as later deconstructionists point out, makes the world depend on them), but there are so many differences (especially when it comes to altruism and the superior individual sacrificing himself for the greater good).
At the end of the film, Dash wins second and the family is happy with that. A clear example of the family putting aside ego for the greater good.
And this is where Bioshock came from. Atlas Shrugged, I mean, not the Incredibles...though you do get superpowers in Bioshock...hmm...
To me saying that "The incredibles" is randian is like saying "X-men" is randian. They might have powers that outmatch non-supers but they don't see themselves as inherantly better except a megalomaniacal villain and a petulant child. Also I wouldn't call syndrome non-super either in the sense of comic villains or randian heros, there are no shortage of superheros/villians where their power is superior intelligence and/or money (batman, constantine, midnighter, Iron-man, Doc Oc, Forge, bruce banner, moon knight , kingpin) and that is usually a staple of randian heroes. Syndrome also fits when it comes to his company, he sells weapons to other countries with no discreation, sees his employees as expendable, plans to profit off his evil plan (he never said buying superpowers would be cheap, and he still doesn't relinquish his position of superiority because his devices have fail-safes that he controls
When I first watched 'The Incredibles', I wondered to myself "Why is Syndrome the bad guy?"
Because he decided to be. He didn't want everyone to be special for the sake of it, he wanted to destroy a paradigm that didn't bend to his childish will. He had every chance in the world to be his universe's equivalent of Batman or Ironman as an adult. Instead he nursed his grudges and killed good people to create an unstoppable thread he had on a leash for his own aggrandizement. He never wanted to be a hero. He wanted glory. And when he was tired of it he would put the role of hero aside like a tiresome toy.
I think the influence Watchmen had on the Incredibles should be noted. Alan Moore specifically said he wrote Watchmen in part as a criticism of Steve Ditko's (co-creator of Spider-Man and others) objectivist philosophies. Moore deconstructed superheroes and put them in the real world in a similar way the Incredibles did, except Moore's superheroes didn't have powers and were basically crazy vigilantes in suits (with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, who was fucked up in his own way). The Incredibles has a set up similar to Watchmen (retired golden age supes come back after being forced into retirement by the government because someone is killing them off, etc) but they kept the powers and the morality of classic superheroes. Maybe that's why it feels like a mishmash of ideas. Great video as always
I am addicted to this channel...I hate a lot of things about TH-cam, but their recommendations are always on point for me.
Rand had unrealistic expectations. Humans are emotionally wired first and then BECOME "rational" over time. So we would have to learn how not to empathize for those who suffer ie. The poor.
I'd argue that superheros in general have an Objectivist undertone, but never really stray hard into the philosophy because, superheros do things in an altruist fashion. Saving the day and helping others without the prospects of wealth and fame as a driving force
After watching this video, an idea comes to mind that Ready Player One could be analyzed from a Randian perspective... just with toxic geek culture instead of superpowers. Although, I'm sure there's a much more interesting read of the text of the book and the movie adaptation that I'm not thinking of.
+SmithDanigans[THoM]
Ummmmmm Ready Player One is the direct opposite of Randian world views lol. For one Halliday creates the Oasis for the people and doesn't want to profit that greatly from it. He wants to create a world where rich and poor can come and play. Its twisted by the capitalist villains like Sorrento who only want to take the Oasis and twitst it into a profit generating machine with Ads, DLC, loot boxes etc etc. Sorrento would be an objectivist Hero while Wade is basically an Altruist who hunts for the Easter egg solely for his love of video games and in the end to keep the Oasis a place for all gamers rather than a profit generating machine. That said that movie is really not deep at all and just a fun popcorn OMG I GET THAT REFERENCE type movie haha.
One thing that comes to mind: its socially positive to 'play nice' with people or 'take it easy' on others if you are better at certain things than them.
Never got the linking of The incredibles and Obejctivism. But "Meet the Robinsons" is very close to Objectivist thinking, tho it does not portray bad ideas or lessons per se
I bet you will love my hero academia
"In 'The Iron Giant' -- which is a great movie - don't @ me!" haha! Thanks for the vids.
I find the question wether you should or shouldnt analyse a movie under X lens very intresting and worth a video itself. One could argue, that if it is not a main theme, the analyzed topic might be underrepresented, missused to fit a plot, ...
Then again it might show the directors/writers views eventhough it wasnt something he tried to concentrate on
Thanks for this in-depth analysis. I've never seen the movie in this way.
Great video, but I found it odd that towards the beginning you never mention Ratatouille which is also heavily criticized for being Randian and was directed by Bird. Why didn't you meantion it?
No special reason. I didn't like it when I saw it years ago, and nothing about it sticks in my memory. Didn't even think to add it or examine it. Besides, this isn't about Bird.
That makes sense
Might try to make my own philosphy
Part 2 : Ayn Rand's Philosophy is mean and Dumb. Possibly the most accurate and concise rebuttal to her worldview ever put to the internet. Kudos to you :D
I would love to hear your opinion on BioShock, which critiques Randian objectivism quite a bit. It’s a video game I watched (not my type to play), but I was drawn into that particular theme, and this reminded me of that.
Just off the top of my head, about 4 minutes in, I don't recall John Galt or Howard Roark suffering any of the self doubts, paroxysms of conscience, or moments of confession and humility that seem to occur to Bob Parr at regular intervals.
I see...if I may borrow from Holy Writ...similar to when Elijah fleeing Jezebel's threat hard on the heels of his victory over the prophets of Baal...or David confronted by Nathan. Bob bared his soul...twice...in the presence of his family. That's some admirable stuff
It's hard talking about Ayan Rand's philosophy in anything especially since people have different interpretations on her philosophy.I did enjoy the video by the way.
a very on the side comment but a really in depth discussion of the iron giant through a lefty lens would be absolutely worth a watch. its by far Bird's best work imo and possibly one of the best disney movies.
The thing is, Syndrome's plan that he's been building up for fifteen years wasn't just to sell his equipment, he just says that's what he'll do once he's bored playing hero. His plan was to kill off other heroes, and finally play hero himself. It's said in the video, but the Incredibles isn't American Libertarian propaganda, its theme is about certain people being better at certain things. If the film was trying to push superheroes as inherently superior to normal people, they would have it so that they are superior in every way. However, while Mr. Increadible's abilities make him a great hero, he was a terrible office worker.
What I think what the film was trying to say was that Syndrome wouldn't make a terrible hero because he doesn't have any powers, it's that he wasn't heroic. While he may seem innocent in the flashback, it's easy to see Mr. Increadible turning him down because he didn't want to be a hero for the sake of helping others, it's so that he could be worshiped like the other heroes in the golden age. (However, if this isn't the case, it's fine to say Syndrome did start with heroic intentions but later warps those desires. Point is, once he does gets powers, it's clearly not just for saving others.)
But assuming his plan was to sell his equipment, I have seen many people defending the movie break down why that's a bad idea. First, he's selling it. Not everyone will be able to afford the new powerful technology, especially the poor. Second, having such a broad access to these superpowers will create a very high chance of someone misusing it... just like how Syndrome uses his robots to attack the city.
What made the superheroes special wasn't just that they had powers or that they were heroic, it was a combination of both. They could have used their powers to make bank in specific work fields, but they decided to devote their lives to save others (partially covered in the video).
Oh boy Ayn Rand!
Fundamentally objectivism is extremely flawed, it works well as a critique of altruism but doesn't stand out well on its own. A critical point from Atlas shrugged that the video missed however was the idea of wealth being synonymous with virtue in rand's view. The freedom to create was the overriding motivation. Galt himself was an engineer in a motor company. A well payed position certainly but far from the best paid. Atlas shrugged went out of it's way to potray poor and working class people in the utopian area. Rand's views are extreme and problematic in many respects but I don't think you can describe them as classist. Elitist certainly but that elitism doesn't really come from wealth or money
When he first said parasite in this video, who else thought of Bioshock?
Ayn would hide a zombie bite
Thank you for your balanced view of the film and its messages. As you mentioned, in some ways, both films upend the concepts presented in "Atlas Shrugged." In Rand's novel, John Galt initially appears mysterious and sinister, making the rich and powerful disappear, until Dagny discovers that he was actually doing "good" (from Rand's perspective) by creating Galt's Gulch. In the first "Incredibles," the exact reverse happens: Syndrome's island is presented as a sort of Galt's Gulch where Mr. Incredible can still be super in secret, however, it turns out that Syndrome is actually luring supers there so he can kill them. In the second film, the Deavor siblings initially appear to be like James and Dagny Taggart: he's a clueless man-child and she's the self-sufficient brains of the operation. However, it's Evelyn Deavor's refusal to accept help from anybody that leads her into supervillainy and ultimately, to her downfall.
I feel that it's pretty fair to call the film libertarian (American style) and anti-regulation; in particular, it seems specifically tailored to fit a certain suburban opposition to public schools, bureaucracy, and regulation. The altruistic desire to be a superhero is presented as a natural quality of the exceptional, such that the exceptional would in fact work for the greater good if they were only allowed license to do as they will. This precisely tracks with American libertarianism, which (unlike Rand) believes in charity and certain forms of altruism, but also specifically cares about them as individual virtue and not on the scale of government. It's more an anti-tax manifesto than a Randian one, but the two are not totally distinct; Rand's watered-down ideas underlie the libertarian philosophy, which is mean and dumb but less intensely focused than Rand's. That philosophy seems to be pretty well expressed in the film.
Basically, I think the Incredibles is quietly in support of charter schools and reduced taxes, and the altruism of its superheroes goes to support that as much as the pressures of its mediocrities. Middle management like Huff are often presented as the epitome of mediocrity in that sort of story; they exist within a bureacracy that libertarianism believes is solely the result of government and regulation.
I rewatched the film earlier this week, both to prepare for the sequel and this video, and this was practically identical to my take, you are just more educated than I and can say more about it. It is unfortunate, as the reviewer you quoted whose name escapes me said, that the libertarian bent of the film cannot be un-noticed no matter how much I otherwise enjoy it, but the same can be said of the original Ghostbusters film, and many others.
I suppose The Incredibles is technically the best "conservative" film by default, though that label doesn't quite work either.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Great work as usual.
It’s one hell of a stretch to call Iron Giant objectivist. He sacrificed himself, that’s as altruistic as it gets.
I literally say it's a stretch in the video.
to me, this is one of your best videos so far. thank you so much for these analyzing thoughts!
I was always puzzled by the claim that the Incredibles had an objectivist view, because while the supers DO have their powers, they freely use them to benefit others and its not clear that they ask for or receive any kind of payment for doing so. And at the beginning of the film, the supers still operate inside and in service to the law, Mr Incredible hands ties up the purse snatcher for the police to collect and process, and he cooperates with them in the search for Bomb Voyage, I would think that in an objectivist tale, Mr Incredible would unilaterally dispense justice and not consider himself answerable to society at large or the government.
If we account for both an Objectivist and Altruistic story, what we have is a central theme of "Those that have the power to help people and protect them are morally obligated to do so." Mr. Incredible's most base desire through the film is to help people. He's locked in figurative cages created by both the government and the capitalists that stifle his desire to do good for the world.
I am so happy you decided to make this video! I always gave the side eye when people insisted the films are objectivist propaganda, and although the film definitely has a lot of clear objectivist themes, It's not explicit in the text. I was going to make a video about the sequel and the gender dynamics in the story because I think these films are rich with subtext about American ideals. Even the fact it's set in a 50s futurist setting is very telling.
I'm sorry, and I do agree with your "Incredibles" take, but FIGHT CLUB is just as good as I remember it.
This is probably a really simple question, but how do you generally get the footage for your videos?
I buy the movie and rip the footage. Miscellaneous clips (stock footage, etc.) are usually downloaded from TH-cam. Same as any TH-camr with a video essay channel. Google can probably give you links to the basic software.
Renegade Cut thanks
Syndrome is a self-made-man he is the Ayn Rand ideal, he isnot autruistic, he acts just for his own good, and got his power with his own work
I've watched Fight Club on a phantom screening last year.Still just as great as I remember it.
Part two title card: so much yes. Have a like.