Comments on: Red Film, Blue Film

Red Film, Blue Film

Zed_Lopez — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:13:48 -0800

What do The Passion of the Christ, Hero, Team America, and The Incredibles have in common? They're all among the Top 20 Conservative Films of 2004 according to the Liberty Film Festival. Naturally, they have a blog. Recent entries include free advice for the Oscars, like having Rush Limbaugh emcee.

By: AlexReynolds

AlexReynolds — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:30:30 -0800

(Clint Eastwood won a fair number of Oscars last night. I wouldn't necessarily call him or his oevre liberal by any means. Just sayin')

By: edgeways

edgeways — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:30:55 -0800

One way to make the evening even more boring then previous

By: fenriq

fenriq — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:34:14 -0800

Um, yeah, the embedded video stuff? Its always a good idea to warn people. And having Rush Limbaugh emcee the Oscars would be hilarious. Only because he'd get heckled, ruffled and would, ultimately skulk off the stage like the misbegotten moron he is. Though I don't think there's enough money on the planet to make me sit down and listen to or watch an utter fool like Michael Savage. Why not get Ann Coulter to emcee? She's in the news alot, right?

By: Slothrup

Slothrup — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:37:08 -0800

So, exactly how were the Oscar-nominated films "liberal"? And what makes _Passion_ a "conservative" film?

By: pandaharma

pandaharma — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:37:26 -0800

How could 'Hero' be considered a capital 'C" conservative flick, when the movie is all about abandoning your quest for justice and freedom and surrendering to a ruthless dictator? As much as I dislike the right, I don't believe they stand for that.

By: Zed_Lopez

Zed_Lopez — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:37:59 -0800

(Sorry, fenriq. I've got FlashBlock, and no speakers attached anyway, and didn't think about the embedded video being a problem for anyone.)

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:38:42 -0800

(Clint Eastwood won a fair number of Oscars last night. I wouldn't necessarily call him or his oevre liberal by any means. Just sayin') Clint (like Stallone and even Schwarzenegger) is far more liberal than these folks would imagine. As for nominating team America, poking fun at the excesses of some leftists does not neccessarily make one a conservative.

By: Saydur

Saydur — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:40:26 -0800

This kind of thing is getting sadly predictable. It's even worse, because these pseudo-conservative moralists have no sense of web design whatsoever. It's like they assume anyone with a sense of taste must be "one of them there queer eye guys" or something, and actively attempt to burn their retinas out with horrible layout. It is amusing to see conservatives support a drug abuser in the entertainment industry though.

By: xmutex

xmutex — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:41:26 -0800

Was Orson Welles famously conservative or something?

By: sbutler

sbutler — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:42:34 -0800

Forget Hero, I want to know how Team America made the list. Did they even watch the movie?

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:44:39 -0800

I like that The Incredibles made the list, just because it's a family film. Because, ya know, only conservatives care about "family values".

By: Tullius

Tullius — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:46:32 -0800

Why not have someone truly funny - like Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, or Michael Savage - emcee the awards? That would turn around sagging viewership in an instant! Ho! Ho! Ho! Ha! Ha! :::wipes tear::: Best line ever!

By: carmen

carmen — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:46:36 -0800

pandaharma: Another take (I'm not saying its the correct one) on Hero is that the main character recognizes the need for a strong unifying leader and abandons his (terrorist) cause because he realizes it will ultimately hurt the people he has sworn to avenge. The film also has a leader who "appears" bad but has a greater vision for the future of his country and people that the populace are unable to see.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:47:56 -0800

Why not have someone truly funny - like Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder, or Michael Savage... I knew those guys were doing satire!

By: InnocentBystander

InnocentBystander — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:11 -0800

pandaharma Because it's about a rebel (TERRORIST!) abandoning his quest for bloody murder and anarchy, thus accepting the supremacy of the State and its ability to shower Order down upon the masses. At least, that's my reading.

By: InnocentBystander

InnocentBystander — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:49:55 -0800

Whoops, Carmen beat me to basically the same punch.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:50:35 -0800

Also, Ray is family friendly according to their blog? To the conservatives? Was it the heroin, the womanizing, or the perverting of the Lord's song?

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:59:02 -0800

I can imagine the opening monologue now. "you have actors like Sean Penn and Edward Norton. They can't act, those bunch of liberals. If you want to make a movie, and can't get Jim Caviezel or Ron Silver..... wait." At least the people attending won't have trouble finding dates.

By: unreason

unreason — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:59:55 -0800

As a side note, am I correct in thinking that Hero didn't win anything at the Oscars? If so, that's just shameful.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:02:18 -0800

Ha! Delusion is funny. Silly Conservatives. Comedy is for people with senses of humor.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:05:57 -0800

The Incredibles struck me as very Nietzchean (sp?) and Rand-ish too. It showed terrible family values as well, except at the end. The father's off "cheating" and lying to the family, and no one helps the mother at all with raising the kids. Team America was also very Republican--we're assholes, and you need us because you're pussies, so too bad if people die and things get destroyed for no reason.

By: Arch Stanton

Arch Stanton — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:06:49 -0800

The Incredibles is on the list because it's a pro-Tort Reform movie. The nomination has nothing to do with being a family film.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:14:39 -0800

It showed terrible family values as well, except at the end. The father's off "cheating" and lying to the family, and no one helps the mother at all with raising the kids. I can see where that would fit into George W. Bush's America, though. I'm sure I'm not the only one... As for Team America, well, it goes to show that the judges of this competition are delightfully unaware of the irony (which would itself be ironic, I suppose).

By: euphorb

euphorb — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:15:08 -0800

Also, Ray is family friendly according to their blog? To the conservatives? Was it the heroin, the womanizing, or the perverting of the Lord's song? Ray was funded by billionaire Christian Phil Anschutz.

"Phil consults with a lot of people, but at the end he liked Ray, and he made the decision to put his own money in," says David Weil, CEO of Anschutz Film Group, which is making family-oriented films with several studios. "It was inspirational, and Phil thinks we need inspirational films." Still, Anschutz had certain conditions that had to be met: No foul language, and a PG-13 rating that forced Hackford to soften scenes showing Charles as a womanizer and drug user. That pushed Hackford to redo some scenes and rethink location shooting, but he got the job done. Anschutz, though a spokesman, declined comment for this column. ... Ray is by far Anschutz' greatest success, although he has a couple of large-budget projects in the works, including one for Disney based on the C.S. Lewis classic The Chronicles of Narnia. Until now, his only other film that approached the "hit" standard was a Disney 2003 film, Holes, which cost $30 million and grossed $67 million.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:15:10 -0800

Forget Hero, I want to know how Team America made the list. Did they even watch the movie? Wingnuts don't do nuance. Nuance is effete. Even saying "nuance" or "effete" is effete.

By: flashboy

flashboy — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:20:21 -0800

Funny thing is, the writer of that blog (assuming it's just one guy) actually has pretty good taste in movies, an obvious love for the form, and fairly interesting things to say about them. There just seems to be some massive cognitive dissonance going on in his head, where his fondness for such well known conservative, family-friendly works as American Beauty, Blue Velvet and Do The Right Thing in no way seems to connect to his view of Hollywood liberals sending out evil messages in everything they say and do. It's as though he only woke up to the vile propaganda-machine that is Hollywood in the past few years, and anything he already liked before then gets a pass. In fact, that's probably quite close to what the situation actually is.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:28:46 -0800

As a side note, am I correct in thinking that Hero didn't win anything at the Oscars? If so, that's just shameful. It was nominated for Best Foreign Film in 2002. The nomination rules dictate that since it was nominated as a 2002 film, it's not eligible for any 2004 awards.

By: matteo

matteo — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:33:24 -0800

I'm with amberglow -- Team America can certainly be viewed as a fundamentally conservative work because it's built on the premise "strong vs weak" -- the strong are dimwitted assholes, of course. but the alternative's lamer, and strength is needed to fight a war, so it's better win with the murderous assholes than to lose with other side. which, in nuce, seems to be Karl Rove's recipe for political success. but then as AO Scott (I think) pointed out, if you consider a puppet movie as a political work, then the joke's on you

By: thethirdman

thethirdman — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:33:27 -0800

I love the confusing statement about Ichi The Killer: It strikes me that this kind of “entertainment” in some way betrays those who really have suffered inexpressible pain at the hands of others – the tens or hundreds of thousands who were boiled, crushed, burned, eviscerated, etc., in the dungeons of Saddam Hussein, for example. Is it possible to take pleasure in the spectacle of other people’s pain, however contrived, without also sanctioning something dark in the world? I have my doubts. I love how he had to bring up Saddam Hussein. I think it's an interesting point- whether enjoying fake violence means implicitly condoning violence elsewhere- but I don't see that this movie has anything to do with the Iraq war directly.

By: Axaxaxas Mlö

Axaxaxas Mlö — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:47:03 -0800

The Incredibles may be pro–tort reform, but isn't that canceled by its also being anti–insurance company?

By: skallas

skallas — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:48:03 -0800

I feel sorry for people who make these lists. Its like every experience these people have go through a simple filter. This is either CONSERVATIVE or LIBERAL. Then they apply the typical rhetoric to the object, its creators, the industry, etc. What a horrible way to go through life. Its practically paranoia to see the so-called liberal or gay or whatever agenda everywhere.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:51:52 -0800

Wingnuts don't do nuance. Nuance is effete. Even saying "nuance" or "effete" is effete. Worse, it's French! Its like every experience these people have go through a simple filter. Agreed. I have zero patience with people of any political stripe who feel they have to consult their "ism," before deciding what to think or feel about something. especially art.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:01:50 -0800

"Gary! I am not from Hollywood!"

By: gompa

gompa — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:06:07 -0800

Ray was funded by billionaire Christian Phil Anschutz. Well, this helps explain why Ray was so preachily, simplistically anti-drug, anyway. And I'm with jonmc - if your primary gauge for the quality of a work of art is the perceived political persuasion of its creators, then you know nothing about art and have probably never really gained anything from it. But then, we kind of knew that about these shrill, joyless ideologues already, didn't we?

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:07:01 -0800

tens or hundreds of thousands who were boiled, crushed, burned, eviscerated ...boiled? Anyone have more info on Saddam boiling people?

By: crunchburger

crunchburger — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:16:19 -0800

Kaazakhastan, a US client, is the home of teh dissident boiling: you have got your atrocity stories all mumbled up.

By: crunchburger

crunchburger — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:17:18 -0800

Uzbekistan.

By: asok

asok — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:42:29 -0800

Questionable Kazakhstani. Sorry for the facile facetious frippery.

By: CaptMcalister

CaptMcalister — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:46:50 -0800

Everyone must watch Fellowship 9/11 now. Genius parody.

By: xammerboy

xammerboy — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 17:47:48 -0800

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

By: Ndwright

Ndwright — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:16:11 -0800

Hero? WTF?! It strikes me hilarious that conservatives are condoning a film that I saw as a glorification of Communism, albeit with gorgeous visuals. That whole thing about sacrificing your own personal agenda and allowing people to suffer for the sake of nationalism seems contrary to the conservative. . . Well, contrary to the message of the Incredibles at least, another "conservative" film. What a joke.

By: dougunderscorenelso

dougunderscorenelso — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:38:41 -0800

Someone sent me this today, and I thought it was a perspective with some insight into some of the issues Liberty Film Festival has. Apparently, some conservatives really do feel that the Oscars are a fuck-you to families and Real America, so LFF is their answer.

By: missbossy

missbossy — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:43:26 -0800

It's just possible they're confusing Hero with Crouching Tiger... OK different year different director but you know... they all look alike. Plus CTHD was about how a nasty old lesbian tries to turn a sweet young thing against men and then they kill her. That's gotta rate with the Liberty Film Fest...

By: InnocentBystander

InnocentBystander — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:50:04 -0800

doug - I can't help but laugh at that guy's sense of self-importance. "Hmmm," he says, "Whatever movies most offend me, I shall vote for them!" *time passes* "I was right! I have proven that Hollywood is deliberately trying to offend me!" And it's like, he won the contest. What's he got to complain about? :-)

By: The Great Big Mulp

The Great Big Mulp — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:02:50 -0800

I had always figured that the policies of the dictator in Hero were somehow changed by the viewpoints brought to him by his assassin. And Team America, in my opinion, could go either way ... I'm not sure. It could be a satire. But, then again, it does make the best possible argument for this current administration's actions. Its tone is certainly poking fun at this country, what with all the cock rock and Pearl Harbour bashing. Yet, while I wholly disagree with it and see its flaws, the point made (assuming "freedom" for all humankind is penciled into the DayRunner of the elite) is a strong and understandible argument -- assuming Team America contains a right-wing agenda. I dunno. Maybe I just shouldn't comment while drunk.

By: TetrisKid

TetrisKid — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 19:45:49 -0800

The Incredibles may be pro–tort reform, but isn't that canceled by its also being anti–insurance company? I think the reason The Incredibles was nominated was for advancing Randian principles of Objectivism. The "If everyone is special no one is" theme was a hit with National Review and the WSJ.

By: jonp72

jonp72 — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:30:31 -0800

Was Orson Welles famously conservative or something? Welles was a staunch New Deal liberal. However, the photo is from Orson's portrayal of Harry Lime in the Third Man. Perhaps they like the Harry Lime speech on the Ferris wheel about how war is necessary for cultural greatness, pointing to the Italian Renaissance and that the only thing the Swiss civilization has ever produced is the cuckoo clock. If so, that's a pretty bad precedent for a conservative hero, since Harry Lime was responsible for selling vaccines that actually killed people.

By: gompa

gompa — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:43:09 -0800

From dougunderscorenelso's link: Born into Brothels won for best feature, and for that I am glad - the sex trade is a blight upon our collective souls and raising awareness can only help eradicate it. Never mind his self-importance, IB, check out his absolutely jaw-dropping naivete. That's right, buddy boy, just a little more Christian awareness in the world, and you'll have that pesky ole sex trade eradicated - just like back in Biblical times, when Jesus cast the prostitutes out of the temple to make way for the moneychangers. The creepiest part of that link, though, is how fully this guy has internalized the red-state-blue-state thing. Also that he calls Che Guevara a "despicable Stalinist thug" and then in the very next sentence feels the need to add that he was a "Communist murderer." Actually, there's lots of creepy shit about that link. American Thinker indeed.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:54:34 -0800

Also that he calls Che Guevara a "despicable Stalinist thug" Well, the Cult of Che™ has gotten to be a bit much. An antidote is in order, even if that guy is a bit extreme.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:46:01 -0800

I think the reason The Incredibles was nominated was for advancing Randian principles of Objectivism. The "If everyone is special no one is" theme was a hit with National Review and the WSJ. Which just goes to show, you can take a pundit to the movies, but you can't actually make them watch. I personally find the Randoid interpretation to be wishful thinking, especially given that the moral of the story is shouted out in the first 10 minutes.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:48:21 -0800

If I may: Pro Tort-Reform is simply not a conservative-only stance. Furthermore, while I can't prove it, I'd wager that 10% or less of the people that worked on The Incredibles are conservative. I think it's worth bearing in mind that Tort-Reform is an issue that a lot of the politicians arguing about it don't even fully understand. IANAL, but family members are, and when this issue is brought up, it's universally agreed on by a room full of both conservatives and liberals that current lawsuit regulations need reform. Where they disagree is on precisely how. Even in this clear-cut disagreement, the lines are not divided along party lines, but rather based on the intricacies of law practice. That's a room full of lawyers, though. A room full of politicians would no doubt be divided along party lines for no other reason than knee-jerk contrarianism. It's important to remember that Democrats oppose Republican initiatives (when they have the cajones to do so. read: not recently) often enough because they don't want to give Republicans a success to stand on in future elections. The same is true in reverse. (I'm a democrat, btw.) Right now there are a lot of Republicans with doctor friends trying to secure more money for their rich friends and their lobbying interests, so they support sweeping reform at the expense of the little guy who still needs defense against charlatanism and malpractice. The Democrats are unfortunately opposing reform unilaterally NOT because of an understanding of the law (for most of them) but rather because they feel opposing the whole of the republicans initiative sends a stronger message than something like "I agree with a cap on mental anguish awards, but not an entire revision of tort laws," etc... So I think it's unconvincing to say that Incredibles is a specifically conservative movie. I think it far more likely that it was written by someone who recognized an issue in the country that he felt strongly about. But I also think that, given a through understanding of the nature of TORT debate, he'd side with a more liberal (iow, more careful and less drastic reform) of the current laws. I mean, the bad guy is a billionaire who puts the people of the world at risk with a false unknowable enemy to further his own petty goals. The liberal connotation is obvious.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:18:40 -0800

shmegegge: Thank you. It should also be noted that poking fun of the "ambulance chaser" lawyer is an old tradition in cartoons going back at least to the 40s. And I must question if the people who consider The Incredibles such a conservative film awake during the extended scene when Mr. Incredible plays consumer rights advocate by giving a client inside information about how to negotiate the red tape of the insurance company? Or did they just step out for popcorn?

By: dame

dame — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 22:25:24 -0800

Nice en-dashes, Axaxaxas. And Mulp, it's Pearl Harbor because it's in America, and we have dispensed with extraneous u's, as they are socialist.

By: Kleptophoria!

Kleptophoria! — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:03:55 -0800

P.S. Team America was one long satire of America. The whole damn country. That's the way we [me and a bunch of fellow Canucks] saw it, at least.

By: eatitlive

eatitlive — Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:13:17 -0800

I find myself wondering what would Armond White say.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 03:01:16 -0800

seriously, I honestly have to wonder if this site is a hoax because of the mention of Team America. I mean, I know that, as bill hicks says "That’s what fundamentalism breeds, though - no irony," but this is insane. The movie has a line something like "If you really loved America you'd get down on your knees and suck my cock right now." I may have the precise wording wrong. Now, how can that POSSIBLY be seen as genuine sentiment?!

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 05:52:17 -0800

And I must question if the people who consider The Incredibles such a conservative film awake during the extended scene when Mr. Incredible plays consumer rights advocate by giving a client inside information about how to negotiate the red tape of the insurance company? Or did they just step out for popcorn? That's just one small scene and demonstrates how out of step he is with the wider society and how he can't fit in pretending to be normal tho. That's why some of us call that movie Randian or Niezchean. Team America played it both ways tho (and not skillfully enough)--mocking heroic blockbusters and the whole genre, while totally getting off on the power and freedom those kinds of characters have. Think about it--was there any character in the movie--that wasn't part of the Team--that counted at all or was treated sympathetically or as more than a one-dimensional stereotype? It was very Us v. Them, but the entire world outside the Team was Them. Even Bruce Willis movies have a love interest outside the team or a family that matters or something.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 05:54:52 -0800

Basically, Team America left out the humanity and the reasons the heroes in blockbusters do what they do--whether it's for love or because they actually care about the planet surviving, etc.

By: njm

njm — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 07:37:04 -0800

Michael Atkinson at the Village Voice is the only critic who saw Team America: World Police as I did: Like South Park, TAWP seems to me a fairly consistent attack on Middle American slope-headedness, reproaching the millions of Bush voters for their love of balls-out martial power, their gut-level xenophobia, their suspicion that "durka durka!" is an accurate-as-far-as-it-matters facsimile of how Arabs speak, their instinctive hatred for outspoken liberal celebrities, and of course, their ardor for Jerry Bruckheimer movies." I think it's hilarious that

By: njm

njm — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 07:38:31 -0800

...anyone could see this movie as being conservative.

By: orange swan

orange swan — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:07:31 -0800

These lists make me think of Stalin. He loved Westerns and watched many of them - and he criticised them for failing to accord with Communist principles.

By: bigbadem

bigbadem — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:21:12 -0800

That's why some of us call that movie Randian or Niezchean. I don't buy it. I would consider The Increadibles to be much more along Barthesian lines. Atlas Shrugged claims that the strong and brilliant are always stuck pulling the dead weight of the weak and stupid, which pretty much exactly describes the main villain in The Increadibles who seeks to use his own talents to manipulate regular human beings without any concern for their well being (like when he saves a woman and her baby just for show, but ends up wreaking absolute havok in the process). The Superheros have a very strict, very liberal moral code, where they are sworn to protect the public at all costs, summed up perfectly in Dash's close second place finish in the race at the end. If it were truly Randian, he would have finished first because he couldn't give a sh*t about those other slow pokes.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 08:36:58 -0800

amberglow: That's just one small scene and demonstrates how out of step he is with the wider society and how he can't fit in pretending to be normal tho. That's why some of us call that movie Randian or Niezchean. That's about like saying that Hamlet is a play about a functional family on a picnic together. We are not talking about a small scene here, we are talking about a huge scene in terms of establishing character and motivation. The movie champions altruism over self-interest and Mr. Incredible is repeatedly shown as unhappy because he has to work through the cracks of the system in order to help people. bigbaddem: The Superheros have a very strict, very liberal moral code, where they are sworn to protect the public at all costs, summed up perfectly in Dash's close second place finish in the race at the end. If it were truly Randian, he would have finished first because he couldn't give a sh*t about those other slow pokes. Well, another reason I have a lot of doubts about the whole Randian thing is what is this guy doing just rolling over and working in a cube? Syndrome seems more classically ubermench because he just takes his talents offshore and builds a world in his image.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:22:07 -0800

I don't agree with the Randian or Nietzschean analysis, either. The problem with our interpretations of Rand and Nietzsce is that we find clever little bits to cling to while ignoring the context of the whole work. Yes, Ayn Rand (I hate her, btw. If I were to meet her in hell, I'd be all like "you deserve to be here!") wrote about the individual refusing to curb their exceptional nature, but let's remember somethign very important: The Entire Incredibles Family Were Altruists. It wasn't just a desire to use their powers that motivated them. They legitimately believed in the virtue of helping the less fortunate. Furthermore, if there IS a Randian aspect to the movie, I posit that the suicidal man who sued Mr. Incredible would be the representativer of the Randian ideal. He rejects Incredible's altruism and even sues him out of a twisted devotion to his own interests. He is painted negatively in this respect. I'll leave the Nietszchean aspect to someone more versed in philosophy.

By: codger

codger — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:02:36 -0800

If you strip away the connotations we've given it, the word "conservative" can easily mean "wanting to keep things the same" and to make a movie glorifying what's going on, even exaggeratedly so, could well fall under that more-of-the-same idea. Or not, since there aren't *that* many marionette movies out there.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 10:10:53 -0800

The Entire Incredibles Family Were Altruists. It wasn't just a desire to use their powers that motivated them. They legitimately believed in the virtue of helping the less fortunate. I don't think that's true at all. None of them were altruists--the father missed being special and super, and ran off to do just that. The mother only went after the father, and the kids snuck along--none of them were looking out for anything other than their own self-interest, except for the mother, and she was only looking out for her husband and to keep the family together. They certainly didn't set out to save anyone. Defeating the villain doesn't even help humanity except in a twisted and secondary way, because the villain wasn't out to get humanity, but out to get superheroes.