Great post mike. I saw The Incredibles yesterday and enjoyed it, although finding Nemo was better.

About the Republicans having the wit and creativity: The Incredibles comes from Pixar. Pixar was founded and is headed by Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs is not a Republican.

The film's philosophy is rather interesting. I am still trying to figure it out.

It's great; see it. Though really, it's the villains that have me scratching my head. Mainly the <SPOILER DELETED> and the <SPOILER DELETED> line.

Not sure if it's a problem with the movie or if I'm just not thinking clearly about it.

I can understand the temptation of some to try to cast "The Incredibles" into some sort of political statement.

The opening half of the movie has some dialog and themes that one could swear came from the pen of Ayn Rand, or at the very least, Steve Ditko.

But once the action really revs up. It's more about the characters. Theme should never be pushed at the expense of the story, and it isn't done here.

Similarly one shouldn't let one's obsession with a disagreement with the theme get in the way of enjoying a good story. Some of the critics you quote here seem to be telling more about themselves in their criticism of this movie.

Shawn: Some of the critics you quote here seem to be telling more about themselves in their criticism of this movie.

That's what it looks like to me, too. But I haven't seen it so what do I know?

What is wrong with "freedom on the march"? Nothing - unless you're a modern-day "liberal" who has completely abandoned classical liberalism and doesn't even know it. Then everything is wrong with it.

Spiderman is certainly kind of Republican -- "with great power comes great responsibility." But using power has its own problems, both personal and social. (Though its hard to imagine JJJ, a Spidey-hater, as anything but Rep, too.)

One problem of the Left is that, instead of complaining about the COST of fighting evil, like many anti-state Libertarians do, they attempt to deny that fighting evil is GOOD. By denying evil exists, or blaming the rich, powerful US capitalist society victim for Islamofascist evil.

In fact, once the Left decides someting is "good", cost never seems to be an object and the intention to do the good thing becomes more important than any particular result. (Environment, helping 3rd world poor, AIDs infection rates).

(Doesn't everyone keep The Fountainhead near their bed, to remember the adulterous Rand's hot sex?)

Certain elements of the left and right commentariat will politicize anything.

Anyone who pretends to know the political affiliation of Spiderman or Mr. Incredible ought to be whupped upside the head with a rolled-up comic book.

And I did see the film, and about the only thing that could ruin it for me is to associate it with Ayn Rand or Ted Rall. Thpffft!

Sorry Geek, but Superheroes use VIOLENCE to FIGHT EVIL.

The Dem unwillingness to support fighting evil by a Rep IS the key analytic issue Michael has been focusing on.

The Dems have two main choices for change: give up being anti-War (against evil), or give up being pro-abortion (against human rights for fetal humans). Until they change one of these two ideas, they're politically dead meat.

I'm pretty sure they'll learn, again, how to support a big-gov't War machine for Human Rights & democracy, promising to "do it better" than Bush. And even finding candidates who mean it.

As more Catholics (anti-tax cuts, anti-war, should be Dem) shift towards Reps because of abortion (always a "grave sin"), the Dem vote ratios will be dropping. Though maybe an acceptance of overturning Roe, and sending abortion and gay marriage BOTH back to the states, might allow Dems to keep the rapidly growing Catholic vote.

I'm not holding my breath on either -- I see a 2006 "final wipeout" of Leftist Dems coming, while the 2008 New Dem Hawk position starts solidifying. Around a person. The Dems need, will find, a personality to "lead" them -- and when this Dem personality says the new Dems support democracy in the on-going Human Rights war, s/he will mean it. And maybe be popular enough in 2008, but certainly get back into the race.

The sure to be arrogant Reps in power will be making enough mistakes to make them vulnerable.

"Whoa. Superheroes are right-wing? Anytown USA, conformity, and charmless suburbia are left-wing? Really? When did that shit start?"

Some time prior to Vonnegut writing "Harrison Bergeron", I would imagine. The leveling aspect of leftism is not exactly new.

Gerry

I loved the Incredibles. Here's some of my observations:

- the "Mirage" character voiced by Elizabeth Pena is probably modeled after Donatella Versace (watch Maya Rudolph's SNL impersonation).

- I find Enda Mode -- the short one who designs costumes -- HI-LARIOUS.

- I thought of Beslan when I heard this post 9/11 message from Elastigirl: "Remember the bad guys you used to watch on Saturday mornings? Well, these guys are not like those guys. They won't exercise restraint because you're children. They will kill you if they get the chance."

- Love Holly Hunter's southern accent. I could listen to her talk all day.

- this movie is really targetted for adults.

- The Incredibles and Spiderman 2 -- they're tied for 2 of the best films of the year in my list.

- The violence in the movie can be intense sometimes. Remember the scene where violet was being shot at by the bad guys? She dove deep into the river to avoid the gunfire and you can see bullets streaking into the water ala saving private ryan.

after seeing the movie, read this spot on review.
http://www.pluggedinonline.com/movies/movies/a0001956.cfm

[spoiler]
- How did Edna Mode knew about Jack jack's powers to make a fire proof costume for him?

>>I have never, ever, not once in my life, thought of superheroes as Republicans.

Back in the late 80s/early 90s, Frank Miller was big on this in the Dark Knight Returns Batman comics. Batman became an insurgent (as did Green Arrow, who was portrayed as sort of a Weather Underground type), and Superman was a guy who'd sold out to the government and was actually using his super-powers to accomplish Reaganite military goals in the Third World.

Re: John Marzan

Regarding Edna's custom for Jack-Jack... In her long speech to Helen about the customs, she mentioned that she has no idea what kind of power the baby has, so she makes it as durable as possible.

Yep, she's much happier creating customs for the Gods, instead of the slinky supermodels.

If you're a movie reviewer you should have a strict policy of not reviewing childrens films unless you actually take a child to the theater with you. It's hard to be worried about objectivist overtones in a movie when you're son is rambling on and on about how cool the super guys were. I saw the movie with my son a week ago and he's still running throughout the house at high speed pretending to be Dash. There aren't many movies that click for kids while still being fun for adults. Compared to the dreck Disney has been pumping out lately, I don't think I would have minded if the movie was really an attempt to teach Baal worship. Who the hell cares?

Of course, I do understand why the Incredibles stick out. Like Nemo before it, the theme stands out because it's one that you don't normally see in modern children films. In Nemo I got to watch, for the first time, a story about a positive father/son relationship. in the Incredibles we see a movie where the message isn't "learn to accept your lot in life". One imagines that if this was a Dreamworks movie then the lesson learned would have been that Mr. Incredible and his family was better off not being super.

I'm just confused that we assign a politcal label to it. If the Democrats wonder where former voters like me have gone to, they might do well to remember that it's them who have pointed to movies which celebrate family, protecting the innocent, fighting bad guys and shouted loudly that those were Republican themes. Defining yourself as being opposed to such things doesn't strike me as good politics, ya know?

Damn it. I mocked those looking for greater themes by rambling on about it myself. It's like a virus. Let me try again. This is the first movie since Nemo that both kids and adults can enjoy. I don't think I've ever watched a better super hero movie in my life.

Freedom, family and fighting evil used to be liberal values..before real liberals became neo-cons, before the Dems began sliding down the slippery slope of leftism. But I'm not sure what this has to do with the Incredibles. The movie is just fun, for kids & grownups. I saw it in Jersey City, in an audience that was mostly Black & Hispanic, and they didn't seem to be offended by any 'stereotypes'. They applauded at the end.

About a year ago, some movie reviewers were complaining about the racism of Orcs and the pro-war bias of 'Lord of the Rings'. I wonder if constant overdoses of popcorn produces brain rot. What is in that 'butter', anyway?

I've not seen the film either, although I've been chuckling at the previews for months, and I definitely intend to see it. But come on Michael, it's OBVIOUSLY a republican film, their super suits are RED for gosh sakes - how much more obvious can you get.

- It's getting pretty bad when the liberals have to take a popular new cartoon (type) film and 'find' political undertones to it.

>>About a year ago, some movie reviewers were complaining about the racism of Orcs and the pro-war bias of 'Lord of the Rings'.

I think you may be referring to a parody on the website McSweeneys.net, on which they wrote an imaginary commentary track to the LOTR DVD, as delivered by Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. It was hilarious.

Of course, if I'm wrong, and someone had articulated the views in that piece seriously, that would be very, very sad.

'If that makes us “right-wing” then, well, whatever.'---MJT

Extrapolating from the specific to the general,this comment very much sums up the whole picture in these interesting times.The 'left'is seemingly determined to force everyone else into the VRWC whatever their inclinations.
I am beginning to feel like those bystanders on the ground who,when faced with someone standing on a ledge,keep encouraging the pending tragedy.Uncomfortable as I am with this position in a moral sense,in this particular case my advice to the 'left' is -----

JUMP !!!!!

Oh Goodiegoodiegoodie...

Sweetums wouldn't let me go see Team America so to retaliate, I wouldn't let her see Saw and now we may acutally be able to agree on Incredibles.

Post Election Detante in this mixed political relationship may be secure.

But I'm still seeting TA on video when she's out of town... And the Thunderbirds too just to rub it in. (I don't care if they reduced it to kiddievid. Besides, I already know she's seen F9/11.)

This is all about the triumph of the free market.

The animators and writers aren't left-wing or right-wing, they're just responding to parents (like me) who are tired of taking their kids to movies that feature smart-ass kids and doofus parents. The pent-up demand for non-ironic fare that actually shows a difference between good and evil is fueling the success of this film.

If the Left really considers a loving family working together to fight evil to be reactionary, then the Democrats better settle in for permanent minority status.

if I'm wrong, and someone had articulated the views in that piece seriously, that would be very, very sad

Lots of people were making the racist-LOTR connection. And it is sad.

An American academic, who teaches at the Warwick University in the United Kingdom, has described J R R Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy as an 'epic rooted in racism'.
Dr Stephen Shapiro, an expert in cultural studies, race and slavery, said the author used his novels to present bigotry through a fantasy world.
Following the release in UK of the film The Two Towers, the second in the series, Dr Shapiro told rediff.com that the books represent anxieties about immigration in mid-1950s Britain.
He said: "Put simply, Tolkien's good guys are white and the bad guys are black, slant-eyed, unattractive, inarticulate and a psychologically undeveloped horde."

Author Michael Moorcock said the same thing:

"It has the same discomfort with cities, the same 'volkishness' you get in proto-Nazi stuff. It scares me a bit, but not that much because times have changed. It would have scared me more if it had been published the year it was conceived."

Instapundit had this post that said “SOME RACIST TWIT IN PARIS thinks that the Uruk-hai in Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings look like American Indians.”

The racist twit in Paris was here, on French indymedia:

On the other hand, I loved the real parodies, especially the McSweeny one. The film noir parodies are also good. I wonder if the crazy film critic problem is from wine & cheese overdoses.

Uh, pdf:

Anyone who read Frank Miller's [i]Dark Knight[/i] should be aware that Batman was not exactly portrayed as a "liberal". Practically every other TV commentator in [i]Dark Knight[/i] accuses Batman of being a "fascist" for fighting the mutant gang.

Good post and commentary. I do love thinking about this sort of thing and while understanding that the writer of the book, movie, or screenplay may be trying to make some sort of point - rather than simply tell a story - I think it is often done best subtley, unlike, say, "The Day After Tomorrow".

I always find it useful to remember what Groucho Marx said (albeit in a different context):

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

It truely is ironic that the left accuses the superheros of being "right-wing".

The first great super hero, Superman, was created by two rather left wing Jewish kids from Cleveland who embodied all their pentup angziety and fear of the rampant Anti-Semitism they felt.

Between that and the 60's (called the Golden Age), superhero comics where fairly neutral. You could make a case that the simplistic "family first" aspect was socialy conservative, but I think that was more a product of their simplistic storylines aimed at younger kids.

With the birth of the Fantastic Four, comics moved into the "Silver Age". The target audiance was moved from kids to teens. Teens in the 60's. Marvel continued to pritty much work through Stan Lee's teenage hangups, and this had a minor shift to the left (Hulk comics = military bad, Xmen = oppression but mostly of the teenage type). However, DC made a concious effort to move to the political left with books like Green Lantern / Green Arrow. Editors and writers of the time freely admit that they where going where they where, and where the target audiance was (teens in the 60's).

In the 80's we had a move tward a grimmer and grittyer era (one that noone agrees on a name for, btw). This era was ushered in by two of the greatest comic stories ever told 1)The Dark Knight Returns and 2)Watchmen. TDKR was a story of a distopic Republican future, where mentioned above, a Regan placeholder is in office spreading the horror and tyrany all Republicans lust after. Watchmen was a story about a super-smart buisness man/former hero who saw the nucular arms race of the time as armagedon, set about a plan to save the world from M.A.D.

To this day, the left has had much more of a hold on comics than the right ever will, and there is a very simple reason for this. Superheros come from comics. Comics come from writers and graphic artist. Modern day artists are, by and large, left wingers. This isn't news.

Todays comic market is alot more open, however, and you can find stuff that doesn't seem to have a left wing bend to it. The oustanding (and recently canceled) Stormwatch: Team Achillies was an exelant book that felt right leaning to me (written by a former SpecOps guy, from what I understand), and it came from the very left wing Stormwatch studio.

But what, exactly, is the problem with showing the family as a foundation of society?

Bingo Michael. You've just unintentionally stumbled into it. Welcome to the culture wars.

Bird's biggest achievement in The Incredibles is to have inflated family stereotypes to parade-balloon size.

Lefties on ocassion let slip. To them, the nuclear family IS a stereotype.

Welcome to the culture wars.

The film's philosophy is rather interesting. I am still trying to figure it out.

Yes, to many of you, the country your parents grew up in, the country you grew up in, is all but unrecognizable.

I have never, ever, not once in my life, thought of superheroes as Republicans.

Superheroes don't ask for permission to use force. Democrats do. And have you seen any gay or transgendered superheroes yet? Of course not. If they were Democrats, the "alternative" lifestyles would be well represented. Surperheroes represent all that is good and wholesome in America. Courage, honor, strength, justice. Democrats don't.

Analyzing the death out of things like animated films used to be the fruit of post-modern nut-jobs and Ivory Tower loons with little connection to reality and nothing else better to do. With election season over, perhaps we should rejoin the reality based community.

>>Anyone who read Frank Miller's [i]Dark Knight[/i] should be aware that Batman was not exactly portrayed as a "liberal". Practically every other TV commentator in [i]Dark Knight[/i] accuses Batman of being a "fascist" for fighting the mutant gang.

Sure, but those news commentators were caricatures of whiny liberalism. Batman used brutal tactics to achieve just ends, but he wasn't a tool of the (obviously Reaganite) administration, like Superman. He was, to use an odious example, a rather McVeigh-esque figure.

"And have you seen any gay or transgendered superheroes yet? Of course not. If they were Democrats, the "alternative" lifestyles would be well represented."

No. I believe there is only one gay superhero and one transgendered superheroine, but comics aren't an unstained world where homosexual or other un'wholesome' characters don't exist. They are portrayed honorable and their lifestyles are protected.

"Surperheroes represent all that is good and wholesome in America. Courage, honor, strength, justice. Democrats don't."

I don't know how old you are but judging by the portrait you painted, I'd gather it's been a looooong time since you've followed comics. This isn't 1947 anymore. Comics portray worlds where things like homosexuals and prostitutes and domestic violence exist! (gasp!) and superheros and heroines that deal with things like impotency, narciccism, masterbation, depression, cowardice and regret over excessive use of force. The good news is that comic purchase isn't mandatory. And as long as you prevent your children from buying them, than the evil Democrats who run Marvel and their unwholesome Marvel universe will be thwarted in their dastardly plot to turn your kids into socialist homosexuals.

It's a great film, Michael. You should go see it right away.

FWIW, I thought there were pretty clear objectivist themes to the whole thing. The villain's goals are explicitly to make sure that "no one will be super", and over the course of the movie, society re-discovers that it's better off when superheroes are free to be super. Not too hard to see the shades of Atlas Shrugged there!

Didn't really see any "right-wing" themes, in the sense that critics in the linked article were talking about. The heroes certainly respond to violence with violence, but they don't seek violence for its own sake or use it to gain power over those without super-powers.

So libertarian movie? almost certainly. Facist? nope. Great movie all around? definitely!

Saw The Incredibles last night, loved it.

As for its politics, well, it's a friggin' cartoon, people. You can't even see a damned cartoon anymore without having to hear tinpot political analysis, or having half a dozen political sects standing up an either denouncing it, or claiming that it affirms their philosophy.

Movies play on shared stereotypes. They have to, because nuanced character development takes too long and is too difficult. So, to the extent that's true, movies are an inherently reactionary medium. And the right knows how to use reactionary sentiment the best.

I'm also gonna have to side with those who saw several culturally conservative themes running through "The Incredibles". The high value placed on decisive action and individual initiative, the focus on family (Ebert refered to it as "dysfunctional" and a "parody". I'm not sure I've seen a family depicted more truthfully or strongly, or which I wanted to belong to more), the mocking of tort-driven policy-making, the complete unwillingness to give any sympathy to the (grasping, brutal, envious, and leveling) villian. It's all there.

[Minor spoiler alert]
After the Incredibles defeat the main villian, a new villian shows up for the final scene, signalling the Incredibles will keep fighting the good fight at least through one lucrative sequel.
The last frame is the family gearing up to battle this subterranean villian, "The Underminer". If that's not a big ole' sloppy wet kiss to cultural conservatism I don't know what is.

Me: But what, exactly, is the problem with showing the family as a foundation of society?

David: Bingo Michael. You've just unintentionally stumbled into it. Welcome to the culture wars.

Did you just tune out the next thing I said? I'll remind you: It is at least one of the foundations, whether that family is nuclear (2.5 kids and all that), single-parent, double-lesbian, or whatever.

There are different kinds of families these days. I'm still waiting for the political right to acknowledge reality.

Michael cites a Nation reviewer who writes: "Helen mouths one or two semi-feminist wisecracks but readily gives up her career for a house and kids; women are like that."

I think that reviewer needs to get out a little more. If that's the way the mom is portrayed in the film, it's not because the film is a deliberate (or even unintentional) vehicle for conservative propaganda, but because the mom's attitude is one being adopted by increasing numbers of young, educated women these days. The movie reflects an actual movement in American society--and, in a wise marketing move by Pixar, it appeals to the parent who's more likely to take the kids to see the flick in the first place.

"The Underminer". If that's not a big ole' sloppy wet kiss to cultural conservatism I don't know what is.

I prefer 'The Culture Destroyer,' but The Underminer will do just fine.

Jeff: I think that reviewer needs to get out a little more. If that's the way the mom is portrayed in the film, it's not because the film is a deliberate (or even unintentional) vehicle for conservative propaganda, but because the mom's attitude is one being adopted by increasing numbers of young, educated women these days

Not according the US Department of Labor figures.

MJT: I have never, ever, not once in my life, thought of superheroes as Republicans. Although I guess I can sort of see it now. John Kerry wanted to do many things in office, but saving the world wasn’t one of them.

I kinda identified the Buddy Pine character (Syndrome) with GWB. Not only wants to save the world, but in all the wrong ways, and when he finally tries, messes up at it.

In reverse order:
Double-Plus-Ungood, that's straight projection on your part. That could easily be someone else's view of say Hillary Clinton or Carl Marx

Dave: The Underminer is a wink and nod to the Fantastic Four's first villian, the Mole Man. The Incredibles are an alagory (or ripoff, this kind of thing has been popular in the last 10 years) the FF. I would be supprized if the next movie has the Underminer as a major villian.

Epitome:Your absolutely right, there are alot of social issues being looked at Right Now in major comics. Xmen has domestic violence, Identity Crisis (DC's major miniseries) has rape/murder/facism, Green Arrow has an AIDS infected former prostitue, etc, and those are all on the top 25 selling list (two in the top 10) last month.

That being said, there's a spate of gay hero, not just one or two. Midnighter/Apollo (who are married), Northstar, Maggie Saweyer (ok, no real powers, but she's a lead in a comic), a couple from said Watchmen, etc, etc

I really enjoyed The Incredibles--and politics never occurred to me while watching this movie. Just go and enjoy it. If you want to look at its political message, see it a second time--don't let politics ruin your first time seeing it!

DrObSo: Double-Plus-Ungood, that's straight projection on your part. That could easily be someone else's view of say Hillary Clinton or Carl Marx.

..and that was the point. All of this other projection is equally facile. Especially the whole "nuclear family" thing, as while in that role, the family is totally dysfunctional, and only develop healthy relationships when they reject the traditional family roles. It's a movie, guys, don't go looking for validation of your beliefs in a cartoon.

And BTW, that would be Karl Marx. For a minute I thought you were referring to one of the less-known Marx brothers.

My wife and I have seen it three times, and plan on seeing it a couple more times when it hits the dollar theater. With that, my response to Hansen/Kolhatkar is:

How. Bloody. Stupid.

It's a movie. A very, very good movie, but a movie nonetheless. Can't The Nation, Ted Rall, et al just leave well enough alone?

drank: "The villain's goals are explicitly to make sure that "no one will be super", and over the course of the movie, society re-discovers that it's better off when superheroes are free to be super."

Yeah. That was what bothered me. Remove the indiscriminate slaughter and destruction (which wasn't necessary) and the villain could have directly achieved his final ultimate goal -- and if he'd done so, it would be really hard to see how he would be in any way villainous. The "levelling" he threatens is generally the one that we'd ordinarily cheer and strive for. Of course, this is in part because I think he's wrong about the consequences of his final phase, but I can't say much about this because it strikes me as bad form to spoil movies for the person whose site you're commenting on.

The thing is, I look at that and think "Oops, minor plot hole," not "Great Scott, a conspiracy by my political opponents!"

Michael Martin: "The 'levelling' he threatens is generally the one that we'd ordinarily cheer and strive for."

I think you're right. If the villain had sought his ends non-violently, we'd have probably cheered for him. However, as written, he strikes me as a dead ringer for a stereotypical Ayn Rand mediocrity-turned-bad. Think of Wesley Mouch or Ellsworth Toohey.

I trust we haven't spoiled anything for Michael T.

The "levelling" he threatens is generally the one that we'd ordinarily cheer and strive for.

Only if you're a Liberal that celebrates mediocrity in the name of "equality".

We don't all want a "leveling", unless by leveling you mean equal opportunity, not equal outcome.

The villain in this movie is the ultimate Liberal, and quite evil from what I've heard so far.

I look forward to seeing the Incredibles smash The Underminer too.

It is at least one of the foundations, whether that family is nuclear (2.5 kids and all that), single-parent, double-lesbian, or whatever.

Why, how politically correct of you Michael. Give yourself a pat on the back.

Lesbian, single-parent, or whatever marriages/relationships will NEVER be the foundation of a society, whether you or I approve of them or not. Unless of course you'd like to begin importing your populations like the Europeans have to. Not to mention other types of social dysfunctions which I won't trouble you with right now.

"But what, exactly, is the problem with showing the family as a foundation of society? It is at least one of the foundations, whether that family is nuclear (2.5 kids and all that), single-parent, double-lesbian, or whatever. What’s the complaint? "

Simple Winston, the family is purveyer of values. In order to create a new socialist man you must smash the family unit. Orwell explained it in a critical way. For a positive (re: pro attack on the family) check out Wilhelm Reich.

David: The villain in this movie is the ultimate Liberal, and quite evil from what I've heard so far.

Thomas: Simple Winston, the family is purveyer of values. In order to create a new socialist man you must smash the family unit.

Liberal and leftist strawmen flying all over the place.

David, sometime you simply must reveal your source of knowledge (in such great detail, too) about the sinister workings of the black heart of the liberal.

And Thomas, what a laughable statement. Every socialist I know values their family above all else, so I'm not sure where you're getting that nonsense from. And seeing from the recent hubbub about the red state divorce rate compared with those in the blue states, I'd say that liberals seem to value family quite highly too.

As for Orwell writing about crushing the family, he did so in the novel 1984 under a totalitarian government, not a socialist one. If in doubt, remember that Orwell was a socialist until his death, and it's unlikely that he would have remained a proponent of a philosophy that espoused destruction of the family.

Double,

I've read 3 of Orwell's books, so I think that gives me the right to bloviate on the subject. If by "socialist" you mean he was an idealist in his desire to see more equitable society, then you are correct. But he wasn't a believer in the Socialists, nor was he one to tow their party line about "the New Man", etc. He was under no illusion about the Socialists. Just read Homage to Catalonia to see what clowns he thought they were. Sure, he wished that socialism could work, and that by rebooting the world we could eliminate poverty and "level" society, but he was too honest to believe that the Intellectuals (and social engineers) should be allowed to test their experiments upon an England which he considered to be more good than evil. You will see this reluctance in his dystopian novels like 1984 and Animal Farm, which are set in societies where those social experiments are tested out, with results far from those he desired, but apparently those which he considered would logically follow-- soul-crushing tyranny.

Re evil Liberals, I was referring to the villain. Libs are good peeps, but they're silly. But I'm more concerned with the results of their worldview than I am with the state of their hearts.

It wasnt the superheros that changed with was the left that changed:

In Australia:

"POLICIES which ban children from wearing superhero costumes to child-care centres in Hobsons Bay could be the subject of a review.
(...)
As reported in last week's Advertiser, children masked as crime-fighting superheroes have been banned from the Altona Meadows Child Care Centre, sparking a nationwide debate.

Superman, Batman and Spiderman are no longer welcome as alter egos for role-playing youngsters at the centre for fear they encourage aggressive behaviour such as wrestling, karate-style kicking and leaping off equipment. It was revealed the Hobsons Bay Council-run centre had adopted a war free toy and clothing zone policy, instructing parents not to dress children in camouflage clothing, superhero suits or clothing depicting aggression or violence.

(...)

http://www.williamstownadvertiser.com.au/read.asp?article=001n2068020.txt&s=news

lucky,

thanks. A funny example of how Libs celebrate mediocrity.

"It wasnt the superheros that changed with was the left that changed:"

correction:

It wasnt the superheros that changed, it was the left that changed:

I don't see how someone could say the Incredibles are right-wing when Hollywood is so far left that it makes the earth tilt on it's axis.

political,

Anything that isn't radical Left today is accused of being "rightwing."

You certainly have a talent for hyperbole.

David: "Only if you're a Liberal that celebrates mediocrity in the name of "equality"."

No -- and the fact that that's "no" is exactly why it's interesting. You clearly haven't seen the movie yet, or you slept through the entire latter half. Can't say more without spoilers.

So go watch it already.

As others have noted, the Incredibles is basically a riff on the Fantastic Four, nothing more.

Whats more interesting is the somewhat infantile approach most Comics have towards superhero "use of force" ... the current comics have the superheroes fairly well impotent to ever actually ... win against any villain. DC's "Identity Crisis" and Batman "War Games" being two prime examples of a refusal to actually consider something realistically human in the application of force against bad guys.

Sadly most of the Comics creators are removed from the first generation "Golden Age" creators like Kane, Schuster and Siegel, Kirby, etc; or the second wave "Silver Age" folks like Ditko, Lee, etc; or even the 80's "Grim n Gritty" folks ... Moore, Miller, etc. who all had a more diverse set of life experience that they brought to their creations and stories.

Instead you have (with a few exceptions) writer/creators who have led incredibly sheltered lives, no real experience of violence or loss, leading to a very derivative style based on angst=character development and shock "reveals."

Penn Gillete (of Penn and Teller) was on the local radio recently, and said he attended a few Hollywood events (and taping of the West Wing) and noted that it was like a funeral after the election, everyone wearing black and acting grief stricken. Most of Hollywood is so removed from any semblance of real life as Gillette (and South Park's guys have acidly noted) that their work doesn't resonate with people any more.

Part of this is the fetishization of violence (when done by the "unstoppable serial killer" or some variant) or an infantile over-reaction "that bad man used force on the villain!"

Look at the Die Hard movies. Except for the second one, Jane Smiley would be rooting for the stylish European villains instead of the earthy McClain.

The corollary to this is that the arts/entertainment is a very closed off, nepotistic environment. Which accounts for the hothouse environment, lack of real life experience.

This isn't a new phenomenon, it's what liberals are cursed with instead of people talking about how Harry Potter promotes witchcraft. "Babar is an apologia for French imperialism" blah blah blah. Whatever.

If they start quoting Rand or are really heavy handed about it I'm sure I'll be annoyed, but these complaints sound fairly silly to me and I plan to see the movie anyway.

Please stop making sweeping statements about "the left" in every comment until you can tell me who's in it and who's not, or otherwise give a working definition. And whatever you do, please PLEASE stop capitalizing it if you want lefties* to take you seriously. I cannot emphasize this enough.

*I think I count as a lefty, but I'm not even sure since the definition seems to shift from "fringe Stalinists" to "everyone who voted for John Kerry" according to the writer's convenience.

Gay super-heroes? We knew there was something funny about Batman and Robin even before the TV show came out. A confirmed bachelor with a twink for a ward?

David: I've read 3 of Orwell's books, so I think that gives me the right to bloviate on the subject.

Three of them? I've read all of his books, and most of his essays, letters, and other writings. Some of his books I've read many times, including Homage to Catalonia, Animal Farm, 1984, and Down and Out in Paris and London. Orwell had a great influence on my politics, and if I had to put my finger on a single reason why I became a socialist, it would be Orwell (hence my nom de blog).

I suggest that you re-read Homage to Catalonia. Orwell had no love for the Stalinists (nor do I), but he was fighting in POUM, a Trotskyist/Anarchist brigade. I also suggest that you take a glance at The Road to Wigan Pier for a good look at the reasons he wasa socialist, or Burmese Days for his thoughts on imperialism.

And while I realise that you have a strongly partisan view of politics and may not fully buy this, being critical of one's own side is does not imply that one is switching sides. Orwell remained a commited social democrat until his death.

In one of Orwell's last letters to a friend, he noted that he was saddened by the right wing's use of his books as a bludgeon against all socialism, rather than against totalitarianism. That bludgeon is still being used in the same way.

double-plus-ungood: I agree. No non-socialist should read Orwell. To be fair, let's all agree that no socialist or Leftist should read FA Hayek (who said basically the same thing as Orwell).

But since they don't read him anyway, what would be the point?

Have fun in your echo-chamber, pinhead. You make me sick.

I agree. No non-socialist should read Orwell.

Where did I say that?

Have fun in your echo-chamber, pinhead. You make me sick.

I think that speaks for itself.

What a bizarre reply.

Yes, that was rather a strange reply.

That's great Double. I guess you're the official Orwell authority on this blog and I'll concede that I'm not worthy.

I know Orwell fought with POUM, etc.; and in his book (which I'll admit I read many many years ago) he had very little good to say about them, as well as all the other power mad socialist klutzes stepping all over each other for control. My point still stands. He liked socialism, not Socialists.

Regarding his deathbed regrets, could he really blame the rightwingers for using his books when the Left was so good at being totalitarians?

I know Orwell fought with POUM, etc.; and in his book (which I'll admit I read many many years ago) he had very little good to say about them, as well as all the other power mad socialist klutzes stepping all over each other for control.

He actually had a lot of nice things to say about POUM, he seemed to get on well with anarchists, who shared his distrust of the state (even when left wing) and Troskyists. As far as "power mad socialist klutzes", Catalonia was running itself quite well as a vast anarchist collective until Stalin put an end to it. I'd say that Stalin and his followers in the Spanish communist party were the power mad ones.

Regarding his deathbed regrets, could he really blame the rightwingers for using his books when the Left was so good at being totalitarians?

Well, Orwell had just lived through five years of total war with a totalitarian government of the right, and was wounded in the Spanish Civil War, where he was fighting another right-wing totalitarian government, so I wouldn't point fingers. I believe that he had a greater distrust of leftwing dictatorships because he'd been fooled into early support of them and felt betrayed (as had many other leftists, see Emma Goldman's My Disillusionment in Russia or Alexander Berkman's The Bolshevik Myth, for example). The right wing dictatorships were regarded as less sneaky because it's exactly what Orwell expected from the extremists on the right.

The right wing dictatorships were regarded as less sneaky because it's exactly what Orwell expected from the extremists on the right.

But we know better now. And having lived under two different rightwing dictatorships myself, as well as under a one-party system, it's my belief that there's a good reason why they're referred to as "authoritarian" instead of "totalitarian."

Leftist tyranny (as demonstrated during the Cold War) is far greater in the scope of its control than rightwing tyranny. The former demands a total conformity and transformation of the person, while the latter merely restricts your freedom/narrows your options.

A good example of this is found in 1984 itself. It wasn't good enough that Winston admitted to seeing 3 fingers (when there was only 2); they wanted him to BELIEVE there was 3 fingers.

THAT'S totalitarianism. That's the Left. Rightwing tyrranny would have been satisfied with his mere confession. But a Leftwing tyranny demands more than that. They demand your very mind. This mentality spawned pc codes of speech and thought. Libs are soft totalitarians.

Batman a centrist. I think not.

Do you think the Left woudl tolerate superhero militias? Approve education vouchers for Doctor Xavier's students? Give Wonder Woman's invisible plane FAA approval?

Do you think the Left woudl tolerate superhero militias? Approve education vouchers for Doctor Xavier's students? Give Wonder Woman's invisible plane FAA approval?

And on that silly supposition about the "Left", we reach the bottom of the barrel. Goodnight folks.

Granted, screwing up the air transportation industry is a bipartisan effort (re: Norm Mineta). And Xavier never accepted vouchers - but if he wanted to, he wouldn't get them since, IIRC, he lives north of the Mason-Dixon Line in blue-state territory.

But does anybody remember when the militia movement was big in the news? Who was it that went into full paranoia mode? Not the right wing. Superheroes are the epitome of the "cowboy unilateralism" that the Left despises - and would despise even more when it's private sector. And even more so when it's a superbeing private sector.

People forgot about the Michigan Militia because those guys aren't doing anything other than holding private meetings. They're not skulking around the world looking for bad guys to fight. Superheroes do that. And would drive the appeasenik wing of the Left nuts. "How can we negotiate peace with the Palestinians if you keep knocking off members of Hamas?" "You can't go around wrecking nuclear labs in North Korea without IAEA approval!" "Who are you to threaten the sovereignty of Sudan?"

It should be said that governments of any political stripe would be quite rankled with the unpredictability of superheroes jacking around in foreign affairs (which they would do, since the big crimes are there) without advanced warning. (Heck, some of them are queasy with the unpredictability of private-sector TV ads during elections, even when it's their political opponents being denounced.) The private sector is a different matter. If a government invasion of a genocidal regime in Iraq feeds controversy, imagine what divisions the exploits of superheroes would generate.

David wrote:

And have you seen any gay or transgendered superheroes yet? Of course not. If they were Democrats, the "alternative" lifestyles would be well represented.

Gay Superheroes – Northstar (Alpha Flight), Rawhide Kid, Rainmaker (Gen 13), Fighting Yank and Ms. Masque (Tom Strong’s Terra Obscura), SCU Officer Maggie Sawyer (Superman), Apollo and the Midnighter (Authority), Rush (Ultraverse), Jet Boy (Top 10), and possibly the Beast (X-Men).

Transgender Superheroes – Mantra (Ultraverse), Officer Erin Schaughn (Legion of Super Heroes), and IIRC Mr. Majestic (Image Comics).