On another movie, LATimes ran an article re: V for Vendetta and Allan Moore was quoted from a BBC interview as saying he couldn't have suffered worse treatment from Hollywood if he had "sodomized and murdered a busload of children after giving them heroin."

Except that the Incredible kids are shown as having the capabilities (mentally, physically, and morally) of adult superheroes at an even younger age. They come by it naturally. It's "in their blood." (squiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiick)

I don't think this is honestly something I can argue rationally, because it hits me so hard at a gut level.

It's "in their blood."

IT'S THE MIDOCLORIANS AGAIN!!!

the Incredible kids are shown as having the capabilities (mentally, physically, and morally) of adult superheroes

I disagree that they're shown to be adult -- they certainly aren't deemed able by the story to act as independent agents outside of an emergency. Their powers mean they're not an immediate liability (plus there's that whole plucky thing, but that's because they're the heroes, as I read it, not because they're plucky).

Even if chibiSyndrome had had powers, babysitting him wouldn't have been Mr. Incredible's job, AND he wouldn't at the time have done it for kids of his own either.

Jess, I understand if you can't answer this cause it's a pingy subject for you, but do you have the same issue with the kids in X-Men and the adults around them? Do the same issues ping you?

I don't see the connection. And I think I have to step away from this.

Ok.

OK, I'm trying to write a coherent essay about the politics and philosophies in The Incredibles that pinged me, but what with life and baby and stuff it's taking time. I will link it here when done.

Quick responses though: hayden, I absolutely agree that art should be enjoyed despite disagreeing with the author. In this case, I am just agog at how freaking great The Incredibles was from an art-direction standpoint. And I admire them for making a superhero movie that has a philosophical underpinning worth discussing. I'm not saying I thought it was a junk movie at all, just that it will be hard to rewatch.

And I will have to look up the exact quote, but I thought it was made quite clear that Syndrome was excluded from the Super Club because he wasn't born with powers. Quick quote from The Objectivist Center's review (a Randian source):

The one unambiguous flaw in the movie's conception of heroism lies in its portrayal of the villain. Syndrome has invented technological marvels, like boots that enable him to fly, a fortress run by computers, and a ray gun that traps its target in an anti-gravitational force field. Though he puts these tools to evil uses, they are obviously the product of exceptional mental ability that makes the superheroes' athletic gifts seem crude by comparison. By invoking the stock figure of the evil genius, the filmmakers have signed on to the conventional view that intelligence is at best amoral. Had they simply omitted any character of heroic mental powers, they would have conveyed a merely limited conception of heroism; by introducing such a character and making him the villain, they have offered a distorted conception. In an extraordinary moment near the end, Syndrome says his goal in inventing the technology was to destroy the superheroes by enabling everyone to do what they do. "Everybody will be super, which means no one will be." In that one line, writer Brad Bird managed to equate murder and invention as acts of envy-driven hatred, and to elevate native physical abilities over the exercise of man's distinctive ability to think, create, and magnify his powers through technology. The latter is an especially bizarre statement for the wizards at Pixar to make.

And another related quote, from the CSM (I think):

"I can't help thinking of [philosopher Friedrich] Nietzsche and his idea that some people are better and more deserving than others," says Mikita Brottman, professor of language and literature at the Maryland Institute College of Art in Baltimore. "The movie salutes Superman. Not the 'superman' in comic books but the one [despots] believe in. Its idea seems to be that even in a democracy some people are 'more equal' than others, and the rest of us shouldn't be so presumptuous as to get in their way."

These writers reflect my read on it.

My main essay is going to focus more on the philosophy and the politics, but I want to say one quick word about gender roles: the male supers all had dynamic attacking powers, while the female supers had assistive or defensive powers. And the little boy using his powers to kill people wasn't even a thing - he was rewarded for killing. Sic semper normalis.

One final quickie on the dash (heh) of Scientology: minor, to be sure, but Scientology says that (quoting from Wikipedia here), a person is an immortal spiritual being (termed a thetan) who possesses a mind and a body, accompanied by a lesser "genetic entity," which pings me as the born-in superpowers. And

Scientology claims to offer [a] methodology to help a person achieve ... improvement, so that he or she may achieve ... greater effectiveness in the physical world. .... The ultimate goal of Scientology is to "rehabilitate" the thetan, restoring its superhuman abilities to control "matter, energy, space and time".

You could, if you were so inclined, read the story arc of the Incredibles regaining their position as superheroes as a Scientological parable.

Scientology holds that the human mind consists of two parts: (continued...)

( continues...) the "analytical mind" and the "reactive mind". Hubbard described the analytical mind as the positive, rational, computing portion, while the "reactive mind" operates on a stimulus-response basis based on pain.

Let's put Syndrome on screen as an example of "reactive mind."

Scientologists believe that the reactive mind has a malignant effect, causing irrational behaviour and creating individual weaknesses as well as undermining efforts to create lasting, prosperous and sane societies.

Yep.

Past painful incidents are seen as acting as templates for future actions and events, which are often acted out with destructive results.

Yep.

Now, obviously Scientology is lifting most of this from mundane psychology, so that everybody can see how getting rejected by an idol would, um, make you become a supervillain. But the movie can still map to Scientology, in minor ways, including the idea that some people are more valuable than others.

THAT, of course, maps more to Objectivism, but as I said it my original post, I think the philosophy of the movie is mainly Objectivism, with maybe just a bit of Scientology thrown in.

Finally, here's what I really didn't like: the message was that Super people should be able to do whatever they want. And who doesn't think they are super? Do you see yourself as the protagonist or an extra? Do you see yourself as special? Then go ahead, do whatever you want! After all, only you are qualified to decide what's right to do! Helen advises Violet to fight to win, and win everything, but that's not the liberal Democrat stance. Liberals believe that you should accept less than you might otherwise get so that others, who otherwise wouldn't get anything, will get some. Liberals pay taxes and support social programs, they don't believe in destroying the environment to get everything out of it now, and they believe in due process and a legal system that's open to everybody.

The Incredibles did not support that message at all.

I'll most likely kill this post in the morning, but I want to end with one final quote, about the dangers of using an online translator for Chinese-English:

How wonderful it is! Today, I had seen the film - "The Incredibles" this afternoon, My father also had seen this film in this evening. This cartoon movie is powered by Disney-Pixar. In this film, I love the people's sensation, scene, bugbears. The scene is so sublime. With the great imagination.

the message was that Super people should be able to do whatever they want.

This is where my disconnect happens. I didn't get that as the message at all. I took it to be Supers should be able to use their powers, just as anyone else should be able to perform to their ability at whatever it is they choose to do, be it physically or mentally based. Syndrome could have gone in a number of directions with his genius. He chose to go evil. The Supers were quashed in what they were able to do because of their inherent powers, which, in thinking about it at length, screams to me as discrimination. Just as Syndrome should have been able to do what he was able with his genius for invention, Supers should be able to use their powers as well. For good. They use them for evil, they should be punished like anyone else.