A feminist review of 'The Incredibles'

[suarezguy]

I'd heard the criticism about the boy saying "You look different" (more like everyone else) and that being good before. She does have a bit of a point that Mr. Incredible jeopardized his life and therefore his family's fortunes, and that films (and most people) always act outraged at countries wanting to get nukes, without even considering that powerful countries already do (the implication is that they should).

The film also somewhat mocks Helen's initial independent stance by how quickly she abandons it. The inventive person turning evil is a bad message, but made for a good story; the critic just doesn't accept the assumption that in action movies the heroes can do somethings and it has a different perception than if the bad guys do it.
It's true that Helen is the more serious of the two, but the film somewhat respects her for wanting to move on. Bird does sympathize with Incredible's impulsiveness and seems to like women having to stretch and men, despite (because of) their goofy sides, getting more respect (they have the will to win love or arguments by being dominant).

 

[Dusty Ayres]

I await the WALL-E review where they complain that the two central robots have distinctive male and female personalities and thus the film is heteronormative.

"EVE, on the other hand, is slightly more gendered, subtly reinforcing the patriarchal notion that male is normal, female abnormal. At least there are no eyelashes on this curvaceous, high-voiced robot. It seems that accepting robot love is wacky enough, but apparently Pixar thought that as long as it was obviously opposite-sex love, audiences would catch right on."

http://www.thefeministreview.com/2008/07/wall·e.html#more-36

She didn't use the word heteronormative, but you pretty much got it spot on there Hermiod.

Oh, and I'm only trawling feminist websites for the lulz and because I'm bored.

This lady's review pissed me off almost completely, so much so that I wrote a response in kind. I almost used the most nastiest words, but I didn't:

Lady, you are so full of shit, it is funny.
WALL*E is a movie that conveys a environmental message that all should like. Instead, you’ve decided to act like the typical antitechnological asshole that exists on the ‘Net and everywhere else. Plus, you still have to bring in critiques about the gender of the characters, like a lemming going off of a cliff, or a religious leader stuck in a miasma of dogma.
It seem to me that you think that you can do better than Disney. So why don’t you get off of your ass and make it happen, then? Why not try to write a script that you think is better than this movie? (And please don’t give me that bullshit about how The Man doesn’t let voices like yours in-that excuse is too old for words.)

The Feminist Review: WALL*E

With these blogs spouting these reviews, the ladies don't have to worry about The Man destroying feminism-they're doing it already, giving The Man the rope by which the movement will be hung. Sad, really.

 

[wamdue]

there is nothing sexist about WallE, notice its the male robot doing the dirty work, where as the female robot is all shiny, new & modern, when was the last time you a) saw a female bin operative or b) heard a feminist complain about the lack of women in that area of work?

 

[firehawk12]

So, the whole life giver thing is psychoanalytical drivel, but the idea of gendered robots is kind of silly I suppose.

But then again, so are cars that talk and drive themselves. So what the hell.

 

[Hermiod]

Zombie thread!!!!! /passes out shotguns

there is nothing sexist about WallE, notice its the male robot doing the dirty work, where as the female robot is all shiny, new & modern, when was the last time you a) saw a female bin operative or b) heard a feminist complain about the lack of women in that area of work?

Bingo. The mentality here is "we want the same opportunities as men as long as it doesn't involve anything where we might get our hands dirty, have to carry anything heavy, do anything dangerous or - heaven forbid - fight on the ground in a war".

All these people do is set their own cause back over and over again.

 

[wamdue]

the problem with feminists right now, is that women are not in the same place they were even 20 years ago, the hard line feminists just are not required. There is always going to be the need for people to push for equality, but not in such hard line ways.

 

[Hermiod]

the problem with feminists right now, is that women are not in the same place they were even 20 years ago, the hard line feminists just are not required. There is always going to be the need for people to push for equality, but not in such hard line ways.

There's still a need for people to push and push hard, but from both sides. Men need to push just as hard to do something about the areas where they are disadvantaged and treated inequally too.

What doesn't help anyone, however, is people looking for problems in family movies that don't exist.

 

[wamdue]

the problem with feminists right now, is that women are not in the same place they were even 20 years ago, the hard line feminists just are not required. There is always going to be the need for people to push for equality, but not in such hard line ways.

There's still a need for people to push and push hard, but from both sides. Men need to push just as hard to do something about the areas where they are disadvantaged and treated inequally too.

I agree, I think it speaks volumes that mens rights groups are starting to pop up, ive made a few complaints to OFCOM about men in the media (more so the TV adverts) in my time.

 

[Hermiod]

I agree, I think it speaks volumes that mens rights groups are starting to pop up, ive made a few complaints to OFCOM about men in the media (more so the TV adverts) in my time.

I don't have a great deal of faith in OFCOM or the ASAs abilities to do much about that.

I was one of many people who complained to OFCOM many years ago when Channel 4 began showing Angel with large amounts of the episode cut in order to make it suitable for the timeslot.

They wrote back and explained that they can only deal with what is actually broadcast and as long as what Channel 4 do show is within their guidelines, they could not act. They did however say that they had received a large volume of complaints on the subject and while they could not do anything about it, they would pass them on to Channel 4. It wasn't long after that the show got moved to a late night timeslot.

So, while OFCOM and the ASA may have the will to correct the portrayal of men in the media they have no power to do so.

I agree, however, that there are a growing number of adverts shown on UK television that portray men negatively either through subtle or distinctly less than subtle means in order to sell a product.

An example of the less than subtle - last year's "Here Come the Girls" advertising campaign for Boots showed an office full of women putting on make-up they'd purchased from Boots en masse and then marching out of the building. The only problem with that was a brief shot of their male colleagues standing around in geeky looking clothing, waiting at the staff Christmas party not knowing that the women had all left. That's because a bit of cheap make up makes you too good for the men you already know.

 

[wamdue]

I hadnt even considered that ad in that respect, the song is just something im really fed up with hearing, the Sugarbabes doing a cover didn't help matter.

As for Angel, OFCOM are useless, but it is C4 decision when they show a program, other than then it contains content not suitable for before the water shed, the problem with a show like Angel being the audience it was aimed at, would not have supported a 9pm airing. The move to the later time slot, was more to do with ratings, but the show was never suitable for 6pm, like Buffy was.

As for OFCOM not willing to deal with sexism against men, that is society, society (or more importantly men themselves) is not willing to accpet that sexism can cut both ways, and men are too proud to make a big fuss of it.

Whilst we have a feminist as equality minister, that will not change any time soon.

as to women doing something en masse, pretty much anyone doing anything en masse like that scares me a bit.

 

[suarezguy]

Just because you're not a filmmaker yourself doesn't mean you can't criticize films, including the messages that you think they send out.

The mentality here is "we want the same opportunities as men as long as it doesn't involve anything where we might get our hands dirty, have to carry anything heavy, do anything dangerous or - heaven forbid - fight on the ground in a war".

I think many feminists are for ending the draft period, but admit that if it exists it should be equal, although there are inevitably some hypocrites in any type of people.

What doesn't help anyone, however, is people looking for problems in family movies that don't exist.

Family movies are where kids get a lot of negative (and positive) ideas. I haven't seen Wall-E, but I found some of her critiques of The Incredibles (equality being evil, Bird liking women have to stretch & sympathizing with Bob's impulsiveness, flippancy and dominant behavior) pretty reasonable, especially if you choose not to accept the norms of the action movie.

 

[Hermiod]

Just because you're not a filmmaker yourself doesn't mean you can't criticize films, including the messages that you think they send out.

And not being a feminist myself that doesn't mean I can't criticise them.

I think many feminists are for ending the draft period, but admit that if it exists it should be equal, although there are inevitably some hypocrites in any type of people.

Nobody is protesting outside Army recruiting offices, construction sites, council refuse dumps or anywhere else demanding that women be allowed to do the same nasty, dangerous, dirty, ugly work that a lot of men are employed to do. Hell, we've got a massive labour shortage in the construction industry in Britain. We're filling those jobs with Polish workers because the construction industry's entirely voluntary effort to recruit more British women failed horribly. We're talking skilled, high paying jobs here, not carting bricks around either.

Employment equality runs out as soon as you stop talking about high paying jobs. As long as we're talking about women becoming Doctors, Lawyers, Scientists, Software Engineers and so on then that's okay, isn't it ?

Fight our wars, clean up our trash, build our homes, give us your sperm and then go commit suicide.

Family movies are where kids get a lot of negative (and positive) ideas. I haven't seen Wall-E, but I found some of her critiques of The Incredibles (equality being evil, Bird liking women have to stretch & sympathizing with Bob's impulsiveness, flippancy and dominant behavior) pretty reasonable, especially if you choose not to accept the norms of the action movie.

Right off the bat I'm going to say that I have not seen The Incredibles or Wall-E.

However, as I only half seriously said a few months ago when this thread was raised, the title character is a "male" robot designed for manual labour. The female robot is shiny and clean. If children get negative ideas from family movies then that's one right there.

They can watch The Simpsons and watch Homer and Bart fail while Marge and Lisa succeed.

The Incredibles is, quite obviously, based on the Fantastic Four - also the subject of family movies. The movie interpretation of Reed Richards is distant and obsessed with his work. Then you've got the hot headed, dumb himbo Johnny and the big dumb oaf Ben. The only one treated positively is Sue - who commits more than one act of domestic violence against her partner during the two films.

I've got a thousand of these. Men and especially boys are so rarely portrayed positively in the Western media these days, even less so in "family" productions than anywhere else, that I am positively stunned when it does happen.

 

[FordSVT]

Well, I did think the overall message of the film (that if everybody is equal, nobody is special) was rather pointless and spoke to really nobody in particular (except people who are really against superheroes). But I didn't think the film was sexist in particular.

I've heard that claim, but never really agreed with it. While they do say "if everyone is equal, no one is special", but I took it to mean that if everyone is the same, if everyone simply blends in and fits the mold and never strives to be better than they were yesterday, we're collectively diminished. At least that's what I chose to take away from it. I don't buy the Ayn Randian/Nazi/Eugenics spin I've seen some people try to put on it.

 

[Neroon]

That was my interpretation as well, FordSVT. Eliminating those ways in which people excel essentially removes vital and important aspects to our world. What makes us who we are. What we can do to make the world and life better for each other.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

The rediculous notion in this woman's review is that by portraying the nuclear family, it is automatically pro-that and anti-everything else. Or that just because there are no obvious homosexuals in the movie, that means it's anti-gay. Just because something isn't represented in a piece of art doesn't mean that the artwork is automatically against that thing. Is the Mona Lisa an anti-male painting because it doesn't have a token man in it?

Frankly, I found The Incredibles to be surprisingly refreshing (as well as a bit foreign to me) because it was a depiction of a strong nuclear family, something that hasn't been particularly prevalent in popular culture for decades. It seems like most media families in recent memory have involved divorce or widowers. And the ones that have the traditional two parents often depict the two of them as being in a kind of war with each other, constantly trying to trick each other or put one over on each other. That trend goes all the way back to the Ricardos & the Mertzes on I Love Lucy (which is why my mother blames that show for being the source of the increasing divorce rate over the last 50 years).

Having a movie where each member of the family is a dynamic character in his/her own right and working hard to work together is quite rare indeed. I don't see why such an anomaly should offend anyone, particularly someone who, ostensibly, would be concerned with diversity.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Men and especially boys are so rarely portrayed positively in the Western media these days, even less so in "family" productions than anywhere else, that I am positively stunned when it does happen.

So long as we're on the subject, I remember for a long time the dominant portrayal of fathers in family movies was as obsessive workaholics. While I'm sure such a thing does occur, I always found that an odd pattern since I never knew a single such workaholic father IRL. (In my day, if parents ignored their children, it was usually because, in retrospect, the children were obsessing over completely trivial things that no one over the age of 14 could possibly find the capacity to care about.)

 

[Hermiod]

^That's one of the standard ones. I don't know if it's a purposeful effort to undermine the role of fathers or just extremely lazy writing, but either way it needs to stop.

 

[Orintho]

I just came across this a few minutes ago:

OK, I admit it: I went to the cinema with my mind already made up about this film. I was not initially excited by the reports of the new cartoon with the amazing special effects, as you’d expect from a childless twentysomething. What drew my attention was a Times feature (my dad reads it) on the director, Brad Bird, which read as follows:

“a smart, knowing and funny parody of the superhero genre that contains a strong family message… perhaps Bird’s most inspired decision was to give his superheroes powers that reflect their place in the family unit. So Mr. Incredible is your traditional strong dad, except that he can lift cars with one hand; while his wife is the former Elastigirl… because, notes Bird, ‘moms have to stretch in 100 different ways each day’.

Oh god, here we go: “the family unit”. Not even “their family unit”, which might involve admitting that gay, single-parent and extended families exist, but THE family unit, i.e. the heterosexual nuclear family. Since few things rankle more with dykes than the reminder that for over 15 years our family units were officially “pretend”, I set off for the cinema faster than a speeding bullet and roughly as agreeable. I had decided in advance that the film would be sexist (which it was) and overtly right-wing (which it sort of was) and would have no Black characters (I was wrong, there were four). I eat my words. Not.

Wow! Reaching much, Ms. Razorblade?

A feminist review of 'The Incredibles'

Regarding the Elastagirl character, Hollywood has a tendency to put women back into the kitchen regardless of the decade. This is because Hollywood is male-dominated. But this review (and more obviously - the linked Joss Whedon review article) is written to present the writer's opinion on feminism - not review the film. The writer has issues and is using the film as an excuse to express them.

For purely mysogonistic fare, I am surprised the radical feminists missed a movie like 'Super Bad' which coomits far more many sins towards women.

 

[Hermiod]

^They were probably too busy praising the misandrist size queen movie that did fairly well at the box office.

 

[wamdue]

^ ive seen 5 minutes of the TV recently, it confirmed everything I had guessed about it, the first being "its total crap"