A feminist review of 'The Incredibles'

[stj]

Re The Incredibles, the family is pretty much the same "family" invented in Fifties sit-com when women were being ushered back into the kitchen after working in WWII. And that sort of stuff is still with us, in things like According to Jim and, yes, the Incredibles. Despite all the fury in the thread, she has in fact correctly read most of the subtext. The emphasis on Mr. Incredible attacking Mirage is possibly the biggest error, not just because cartoon violence is always problematic (is it really violence at all?) But in context his reaction is to loss of the (civilizing) love, not a reaction to Mirage. (Not realizing Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron is ironic is a strong contender though.)

I don't agree that this emphasis on culture or lifestyle or identity is genuinely political. The notion that all we need to do is to clean up our stinking thinking is really just another version of waiting for the Holy Spirit to change our natures. Desperately seeking the paragons in fiction to help us think straight isn't a real policy. Her perspective gives a kind of foreshortening. Conventional thinkers might notice that Elastigirl is indeed strong and that would loom larger to them than it does to someone who realizes that in most of the movie she is also indeed strong---like a workhorse.

What precisely are people so outraged about, though? The woman obviously has strong opinions, but she makes a case. About the only disagreement expressed was pointing out that it was Edith Head instead of Anna Wintour! Why didn't I think about the "hero" choking Mirage? I think I explained why above. No one else even conceded that someone could find that offensive! (I never would have realized I didn't really see that without reading this, even though some of it is just wrong. It passes the merit test of provoking real thought.)

Is it really so incredible to think that maybe all sorts of tacit assumptions prevail in most commercial movies and television? That maybe they reinforce the status quo? That maybe the status quo isn't justice? A thread dedicated to sharing the outrage (and the warm glow of a good hate session?) at such thoughts inadvertently makes a political statement of its own, I think. The idea that seeing the artistic excellence of The Incredibles being
slandered like that is an outrage meriting three pages of spluttering is a little cracked too.

Last---Briefly scanning through some of the links I ran across some research visit to a porno shop which sparked outrage about the display of "sacred" vulvas. Plainly some really hidebound religious notions are still floating around in there. Certainly there is little sign that this woman or her friends are actually leftists in the classical sense.

 

[Jack Bauer]

We obviously watched completely different films.^^^

 

[Small White Car]

What precisely are people so outraged about, though?

You seemed to explain it already:

The notion that all we need to do is to clean up our stinking thinking is really just another version of waiting for the Holy Spirit to change our natures.

You act as though you find this ridiculous. That's what we're reacting to as well.

Her entire point is the argument that certain ideas shouldn't be expressed. That is, if we just stopped making movies about some things then those things would cease to exist.

It's the idea that art does not reflect reality, but in fact dictates it. You seem to understand this, so why the confusion? Do you not find that viewpoint as infuriating as I do?

In my mind, the arguement put forth here is no different than the argument from right-wing Christians that Harry Potter should be banned for promoting witchcraft. I find that, and the review here, to be offensive because they suggest that certain aspects of our culture and our society should be banned from media.

I can't speak for everyone else, but that's what gets to me about all this.

 

[stj]

My reaction to the the woman's review was---that's an interesting thought; that's wrong; it's not really politics so why is it worth so much time? Then the hysteria in the thread seemed grossly disproportionate. We actually had someone spouting "feminazi!" Nor do I quite recall the feminazi boycott of The Incredibles.

My reaction to Christians attacking Harry Potter for promoting witchcraft was---that's wrong; that's wrong; that's only a problem if there really is a supernatural to tempt youngsters! Unlike this woman, as odd as she is, the Christian critics of Potter didn't point out anything I missed. Further, perhaps my memory is serving me badly, but I don't think people deriding this Christian position were either so enraged or so unanimously hostile. And I do seem to recall actual efforts to organize a boycott. But I can't say that I got as upset about that as people here are about Incredibles. Perhaps that's just because I think that outrage should mostly be reserved for something rather more concrete, like genuine political issues, or for new lows.

The Incredibles was fairly conservative on family values when all is said and done but there was nothing particularly extreme beyond the hero of a family cartoon choking a woman. (The taboo on violence against women is not a particularly leftist one.)The sitcom family doesn't reflect reality but it's superheroes as well as a cartoon. I'm not really sure why that one instance got under her skin, but these things do happen with people. I don't feel the freedom of art is threatened and I don't feel the review is the slippery slope to feminazi madness.

 

[wamdue]

This reminds me of a lady who called a radio talk show and criticized the show's target audience. And she actually used the following as putdowns on said audience -- they come from two-parent homes, go to church and own businesses.

wow, these femnaizs are very strange people.

 

[ex nihilo]

As has been stated many times throughout this thread, this particular woman and the community that subscribes to her belief are not feminists interested in a world of justice and equality; instead, the politically charged language and radical viewpoint is more akin to Jihadists, Crusaders, and cultural imperialists. The arguments they present are not fairly challenged since they squelch any dissenting voices, and, sadly, they are proud of that fact. Justice requires dialog, which these folks are clearly not interested in. As I learned back in grade school, if A=B and B=C, then A=B. No interest in dialog? No interest in justice.

The modern feminist ideal, so sadly influenced by the myopia of brilliant, but sadly stunted people like Dworkin and MacKinnon, has reverted into neo-Victorian dogma in which men have no other station in life but that of rutting beasts and women (because of “cultural programming”) will always be damsels in distress. In addition, the language used (once again invoking the imagery of Jihadists and Crusaders) borders on manic religious doublespeak. These folks are masters of manipulation using connotative speech and hyperbole to manipulate people that have an underlying anger they may not be able to define, and as such mitigate. They develop straw man bad guys to direct that rage at without ever really offering a way to overcome or transform those destructive feelings. They at first set themselves as simple messengers of truth, eventually gain a cult of personality that transforms them into a herald, and then, as in the case of folks like MacKinnon and Dworkin, they eventually are canonized as “saints” and “martyrs” for the cause. This path is clearly not about promoting an ideal of self empowerment and respect, but rather about promoting themselves and their egos.

I can think of many people in history that have employed the same tactics – the most infamous being the architect of the Holocaust (how’s that for invoking politically charged language and hyperbole to make a point?).

I believe the response that has been generated by this thread is not so much a rush to defend something as benign as an animated superhero film, but rather a reaction by folks that one hopes represent the majority of folks that find the ideology and hostility of people like the reviewer linked in the first post disturbing and indicative of darker forces within human nature. To this end, the commentator/reviewer and The Incredibles, as trivial they are in the grand scheme of things, have provided value beyond their original design and intention.

Lastly, if one wants to look to a cartoon that, like Star Trek, attempted to make the audience examine their concept of others, society, and justice, look no further than Fat Albert – I shit you not. This program, elegant went it obliquely addressed hot topics, but just as effective when it hamfisted its message, dealt with everything from self respect, poverty, interracial relationships, biracial children, race relations, and feminism. A myriad of other topics were addressed as well, all rolled up in what appeared to only be a kids’ show. The seventies, as much as I dislike that decade, was also one of the most progressive and hopeful when it came to the power that media could have on encouraging constructive dialogue and societal introspection.

Oh well, I digressed . . .

 

[ToddPence]

Wow. Awesome post, ex nihilo. You've completely echoed why I've always distrusted the modern political correctness movement - because the individuials behind it are not sincerely interested in making a more racially or socially equal world, they are merely seekers of political clout and power for their own purposes.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html

She's indeed way off the mark--not only on that scene you mentioned, but on the show overall.

However, her reviews are a credit to humanity by virtue of inspiring an absolutely hilarious parody.

Because there isn't enough males to push around on the ship, the young Mechanic goes fishing for some more. She easily ensnares a black man. I BET THAT THIS IS RACIST SOMEHOW!!

 

[Derishton]

Her review was already off to a bad start when she somehow comments that the nuclear family is a bad thing. What did she want? A broken, disjointed family where one of the kids was a crack addict?

Agree with it or not, it's pretty clear from the moment where she defines what she might have wanted, in the review. While I question the commercial viability of depicting a family with a gay couple, or even a single mom, you really can't accuse her of wanting a "crack addict" family without creating an inadvertent straw man.

I think her point about the mother fitting into non-superheroics while the man suffers is decently argued, if not fully persuasive. And the Firefly review is alarming, to say the least.

But the real issue is one of fans versus critics, and it will probably always be that way. Critics are not obligated to follow the interpretation of the film set down by its creators or by its fans; they're trained to look for the cracks. That is sometimes itself destructive, of course.

(I find myself in agreement with stj on much of this - disproportionate anger in the review, and in the thread. People still use the word "feminazi"? Really?)

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

It's really very funny that folks post the most ridiculous and extreme opinions about movies and their directors on the Internet - see almost any thread about Michael Bay, for example - without regard to any criteria other than the assumption that their own personal tastes should inform and direct the course of the film industry - and then frantically slam anyone who does the same thing from a point of view that they consider "extreme."

Most all film "commentary" among fans on the Internet is ridiculous to one degree or another. This woman's opinion is no more or less so than most of what goes on.

 

[Demiurge]

Most all film "commentary" among fans on the Internet is ridiculous to one degree or another. This woman's opinion is no more or less so than most of what goes on.

If everyone is ludicrous, then no one is? LOL.

No, I think you can point to some things as being considerably more obtuse than others.

 

[Nedersong]

Well, I've read that Feminist review of Firefly, and while I'm not all that impressed with Firefly, that review made me go . Feminists are batshit iinsane.

I really enjoyed that movie the incredibles. However, while I do understand it was lighthearted in some respects, I never knew it was suppsoed to be a parody. What exactly is it supposed to be a parody of?

And the only thing I was kind of miffed at was that line "Letthe men save the world? I don't think so." Honey, if it weren't for men saving the world there'd be no world for you to have second ammendment rights to say that kind of sheer crap you just spouted out of your ass.

Now, I do believe that women shouldn't be discriminated against because of gender, but Feminism these days is just all about hatred of men, period.

And all they do is drive a wedge between real men and women, which is one of their goals.

We can't let them win. Period.

Oh hell, maybe we should be a segregated society. After all, people really don't want to learn to live with each other and overcome their petty differences anyway.

 

[stj]

What are "real men and women" as opposed to the fake ones?

Dworkin and MacKinnon's pursuit of power would be vastly more successful if they took a job in a Republican think tank in the Beltway. In practice, they are nobodies. They are just held up as boogey(wo)men.

The only part of political correctness that really impacts people is a disdain for people who use openly bigoted language. Chafing at that restriction is pretty touchy and gives others a bad impression.

Get serious, still ranting about this one review after all this time? Do you people really think there's nothing odd about a family cartoon showing the hero strangling a woman? That some woman with a bee in her bonnet over that should be condemned as a conspirator against humanity?

 

[Nedersong]

I sure as hell don't consider feminists real women.

My take is not based on superficial things like "real men don't eat quiche" and the like. In my mind, the vast majority of all behavior is learned and not instinctual.

Real men and women have substance to them and are not superficial and shallow.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Do you people really think there's nothing odd about a family cartoon showing the hero strangling a woman?

No, I don't; he's angry at her (and she's a villain, albeit a soon-to-flip one). There's nothing gender-based about it other than what the author chooses to impose on it. Standard stuff in a superhero story.

Actually, she seems astonishingly ignorant of genre conventions; like, for example, saying Mr. Incredible must have killed a bunch of people in the various improbable stunts of the film, which might be true in reality, but ignores that this is an escapist action fantasy; she also disturbingly doesn't see a difference between Syndrome killing for the hell of it and Mr. Incredible "killing" in self-defence.

 

[ancient]

He he, it's like in those shows where the black hero beats up the black punk while the white hero beats up the white punk.

Now that's when PC becomes a good source of humor.

BTW, I'm getting serious deja vu here. How old is this thread?

 

[Australis]

Their premise is that in a patriarchal society, any expression of interest from men is pressure, which is coercion, which is rape.

Well summarized, CC.

Hoist on her own Picard, though, so to speak: Were she to successfully implement the matriarchal society she so desperately craves, any expression of interest from a woman for a man would be pressure, which is coercion, which is rape.

Either way, it's gon' be a short-lived civilization.

And to take it one step further: Were she to successfully implement the separatist lesbian state (women only), any expression of interest from a woman for a woman would be pressure, which is coercion, which is rape.

And an even shorter lived civilisation.

 

[Hermiod]

I thought this whole business had been thoroughly debunked and the author of the article that generated it denounced as a crazy person.

 

[Nedersong]

Something like that is never debunked in the never say die true believers. People like her with that strong of belief will never change their minds under any circumstances. Same thing for partisan hacks. Most people with any sense of objectivity will see that she has no absis in reality.

And I haven't seen the article that debunked that insane woman's review. I'd like to see it though. Is there a link?

 

[Hermiod]

Something like that is never debunked in the never say die true believers. People like her with that strong of belief will never change their minds under any circumstances. Same thing for partisan hacks. Most people with any sense of objectivity will see that she has no absis in reality.

And I haven't seen the article that debunked that insane woman's review. I'd like to see it though. Is there a link?

I meant we had debunked it here in this thread.

She may find The Incredibles portrayal of a "nuclear family" offensive. I, on the other hand, find the restriction of artistic freedom based on political correctness doubly offensive.

I realise that people like the author of this article will not be happy until no man is the main breadwinner in his family and are unable to be anything more than manual labourers and sperm donors, nobody marries anyone of the same skin colour, everyone's gay and every child is raised in a lesbian commune but until that day comes, films will continue to portray some sort of reality.