Political Superheroes
As someone who loved The Incredibles and has been known to spend way too much time analyzing pop culture (and comic books in particular), I gotta say this whole line of criticism is completely absurd :
But it?s hard not to be suspicious of the winners. Any winners, for that matter, and that includes The Incredibles. While The Incredibles? battle against conformity and mediocrity screams anti-oppression to some, it?s obviously Randian to others.
. . .
The message of The Incredibles?reported everywhere!?was that the chosen few should have the right to exercise their powers over a wide, bland majority of fans and mediocrity-worshippers, and save the world from a bitter, deadly evil.It?s very much in the eye of the beholder, but at the moment, to the butt-kicked, discouraged liberal team, the Pixar-built shiny, muscle-bound cartoon characters seem to come very much from the other team.
“And what is The Incredibles?” said Richard Goldstein, author of The Attack Queers: Liberal Society and the Gay Right. “It?s really a movie about people sort of bursting out of this model of decency and concern for others, and all of those values that now get labeled politically correct, and bursting forth with their true strength and power, like an animated Hobbes. I guess the bet is that the rest of the world, looking at this spectacle, will actually just say, ?Holy cow?we?d better do what they say!? And this Hobbesian idea will be proven correct.”
“It?s kind of ironic that superheroes now have these fascist, right-wing connotations,” said Ted Rall, the editorial cartoonist for United Press Syndicate and author of Wake Up, You?re Liberal! How We Can Take America Back From the Right. “The right has stolen the flag and our superheroes, too.”
. . .
The Incredibles? storyline, not unlike most current superhero storylines, will warm the hearts of the Republican elite, and also the scared, ordinary moviegoing folks emboldened by America?s long-time military prowess. Mr. Incredible could be Dick Cheney himself, or Donald Rumsfeld, big-bellied and in mothballs during the Clinton years, watching the world go to hell while nobody needed them, tortured and beat up by the little people and the bureaucrats all around them.
I honestly don’t see how these weak-ass complaints about The Incredibles wouldn’t apply to the entire superhero archetype itself. The cynical view that superheroes are simply powerful individuals who use their power to try to make the world fit their vision may seem like a right-wing value now, but five years ago (when this movie was written) it was seen as a liberal value. Should I bother trying to dredge up one of Bush’s “nation-building” quotes?
If you really want to over-think The Incredibles, the movie is a satirical look at the superhero genre sprinkled with little lessons about being true to yourself, the importance of family, etc. Pretty non-controversial stuff if you ask me. Apparently though, somebody still reeling from last week’s election results and unfamiliar with how long it takes to make animated movies decided that The Incredibles is a right-wing fantasy about neoconservative supremacy.
Despite the giant chip on the shoulder of the writers, which pretty much ruins the article, there is a great examination of my favorite superhero courtesy of the always-great Chip Kidd :
What is a liberal superhero? The last time anyone looked, superheroes were serving the weak and the helpless, not themselves.According to Chip Kidd, the co-author of The Golden Age of DC Comics: 365 Days, Superman?created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1938, during the Great Depression?was a liberal hero in his original incarnation, shy about his abilities and eager to do social good during the New Deal, when the general ethic sought a strong man willing to protect the weak, not so much to show off his powers as to serve the general welfare.
“The charming thing about the basic superhero myth, as it was conceived during the Depression, was if you?re an omni-powerful being or something like it, your responsibility is to serve the world, not to rule it,” said Mr. Kidd. “The United States, as Bush runs it?he probably thinks he?s doing that, but he?s not. He is trying to rule it, in a way. And that?s where it differs from what I would call a superhero ideal.”
Mr. Kidd may be partisan, but he?s not wrong in the sense that it?s almost impossible to image Superman as a Republican in the 1930?s or 1940?s. Superman was definitely a Roosevelt man. Batman may have been more up for grabs; it?s possible Commissioner Gordon was in close contact with gangbusting D.A. Tom Dewey.
Even then, though, I think it’s a mistake to let partisan politics get too wrapped up into superheroes. Just as it’s wrong for some on the right to lay exclusive claim the the flag, neither side should claim that Superman is the epitome of their political beliefs. Superman may embody ideals that are almost entirely absent from our current President, but that doesn’t mean that he somehow stands against traditional (as opposed to modern) conservatism any more than he’s a liberal everyman. Superman, in my view, stands as a patriotic ideal in much the same way that Uncle Sam does.
25 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Well said. What’s happened to the world that a kids’ movie has been politicized?
Comment by keith — November 12, 2004 @ 10:32 am
Keith, you’d love what people have managed to read into the Wizard Of Oz (the book series, not the films). According to some interpretations (with which I personally disagree), the entire series is supposed to be a polemic metaphor for populist politics during the progressive era. (When, presumably, everyone listened to nothing but Journey and Pink Floyd).
Comment by Ross A Lincoln — November 12, 2004 @ 10:52 am
jeez… i’ve been having this argument all week with some of my fellow indie-cartoonists. they’re all up in arms about the uber-PC-white-suburban-fascist message of the movie. it’s fucking ridiculous. it’s people with a chip on their shoulder digging for something bad to say about a movie they wanted to hate before they even bought their popcorn. fucknuts.
super-heros are supposed to appeal to the best in all of us. they represent all of us. a big boy-scout, like superman or mr. incredible, are often misinterpretted as some sort of fascist tool of an oppressive society.
hell- even captain america, who was designed as a fascist tool of an oppressive government, became something much more than that. he became a very complex character who has questioned America’s authority as much as he has stood for it.
the best super-hero stories, and i think the Incredibles ranks up there with the best, are parables that are meant to appeal to the best elements of all people: our hopes, our dreams, our ideals, our fears, our individuality, and our humanity- no matter what your politics, these things are all represented in super-heros for all of us.
oddly enough Brad Bird was asked several months ago, if the villain, Syndrome- a wealthy arms dealer who fabricated a robotic-terrorist-threat to elevate himself as a hero, represented anyone in our government. along that line of thinking, then Syndrome would have to be Bush, who fabricated a war on terror to keep himself in power, and the Incredibles might represent the rest of us who need to break free of the societal norm, fight back and save us from this megalomaniacal, incompentent buffoon.
you can find a similar message in just about any story if you dig deep enough.
but let’s not politicize this great movie. it’s fucking great- go see it now.
Comment by tom — November 12, 2004 @ 11:01 am
Oh, I know. And being the big fat dorky Harry Potter fan that I am, you should hear some of the satanic-conspiracy-theory BS I hear about those books.
I make no apologies…that’s some good story telling.
Ps…Dark Side and Oz…kinda works.
Comment by keith — November 12, 2004 @ 11:16 am
Thom-
I’m just wondering if the chip for some of them is that they wish they’d worked on the movie?
Read here my criticism of George Lucas and his revisionist “Grand Scheme” theory of Star Wars. “I planned that all along to mirror Homer” or whatever. Puh-lease. They’re great stories (SW, comics, etc.). Its really not necessary to pump them up with a bunch of BS “message” that isn’t really there.
Ps…we’re gonna go see the movie this weekend. Can’t wait.
Comment by keith — November 12, 2004 @ 11:43 am
Wait, weren’t we Northeast Liberal Elites the ones who were trying to impose our values on others? “The chosen few should have the right to exercise their powers over a wide, bland majority of fans and mediocrity-worshippers, and save the world from a bitter, deadly evil” — wouldn’t that be the Kerry-Edwards team and their Activist Judges trying to save Midwesterners from heterosexuality?
It’s so hard to keep track of conventional wisdom!
Comment by Anno-nymous — November 12, 2004 @ 12:14 pm
I, too, am a comics dork of old and while I think it’s bull to read all that crap into The Incredibles, there’s no doubt in my mind that a political war is being waged on the pages of comic books.
Anybody’s whose read The Authority or Stormwatch knows there’s quite a few backhanded swipes at the idea of the powerful deciding they know enough that they should be able to make decisions for the masses.
But those are comics for grown-ups (or as grown-up as comic book dorks get) and not a children’s cartoon. I think the message, and there’s always one in cartoons anymore, is that you shouldn’t hide your gifts away just because somebody else doesn’t like them. I’m sure that’s political somehow, but I just like the pretty pictures.
p.s. For a really smart comic dealing with the role of corporations in the life of the world and politics, check out Wildcats 3.0, which was recently cancelled but should be out in trades. No black or white answers there.
Comment by Elwell X — November 12, 2004 @ 12:18 pm
One of the main sub-themes of The Dark Knight Returns (see: best comic book EVER) is that a crusading but dim American Icon like Superman can easily be duped by conniving politicos; that doesn’t mean that Superman is inherently good or evil, or left or right, it just means that he’s kind of dumb, which, let’s face it…
Meanwhile, it becomes exceptionally hard to see Mr Incredible as A Tool of the Right Wing when there’s a fairly involved scene in which he gets fired for helping little old ladies collect insurance payouts, and beats the shit out of his boss… oh yeah, can’t get much more Righty than that!
Comment by jwer — November 12, 2004 @ 1:14 pm
no- these are hardcore underground comics artists. staunchly anti-corporate. i suspect some of them scoff at me because i work in the “industry” as well as the indie comics world. they prefer to keep shitty jobs at coffee shops to keep their art pure… chips on their shoulders, indeed.
by the way- i’m kinda sick of people referring to The Incredibles as a “kids movie.” It’s not. It’s a movie. It would appeal to anyone. I think, for the first time, Brad Bird was able to elevate the American animated film beyond the realm of “kiddie movies” and he did it brilliantly without resorting to sarcasm, cynicism or fart-jokes like the bullshit Shrek movies. It also is appealing to kids without pandering to them, or talking down to them. It’s the only American animated film, since the golden age of Looney Tunes, to achieve this so masterfully. It really did push beyond the boundaries of American Animated films. So, stop callling it a children’s movie and writing off the “message” and saying “it’s pretty and fun.” This movie dealt with very adult themes, and had plenty of subtext that can be interpretted by the subjective viewer. But it’s also enjoyable purely as an action movie. anyway… blah blah blah.
animation geek moment- the Frank and Ollie cameo was great! They were the two old men at the end saying “that’s old school…” Frank and Ollie are two of the greatest animators that ever lived. Brad Bird may well be one of the greates animation directors who ever lived.
Comment by tom — November 12, 2004 @ 1:42 pm
There may be a reason that some of those right/left views seep into this movie, but I haven’t been able to verify it yet. You see there is a graphic novel (or a comic for adults if you want to be mean) called Watchmen, which actually did deal with those kinds of issues. The basic storyline of Watchmen is that real super heros came about in the 1930’s and 40’s and eventually were outlawed so had to go about living normal lives. Later some of them go back to their prior jobs.
I haven’t yet seen The Incredibles (i planned to go last weekend but car trouble kept me from it), but The Incredibles sounds like it may have been inspired by Watchmen; if not literally perhaps subconsiously. It wouldn’t be difficult to think that some of those themes did make it into the final work, even if they were unintentional.
That being said, I don’t think it’s a good idea to try to argue about The Incredibles having a liberal or conservative bias because it obviously wasn’t intended to. Now when the Watchmen gets made (and hopefully Warner will let Arfnosky do it like he wants) we can argue about the liberal and conservative values of superheros because that is what the story is about.
Comment by Andrew — November 12, 2004 @ 2:04 pm
Good point to bring up the Watchmen. Perhaps that influenced the critics’ perspective of the Incredibles, as well as possibly influencing Brad Bird in the writing. Though the only similarity is that of Super-heros being forced into “normal” lives. That’s where the similarity ends, i think.
Comment by tom — November 12, 2004 @ 2:32 pm
This is a great thread for myself, as these issues have been bouncing around my head for weeks, lonely for validation or confrontation.
I heard a radio interview with creator Bird where he was asked about the premise of the Incredibles being forcibly retired due to bureacracy, the interviewer positively dripping with awe at his creativity.
He said something like this: “well, i always wondered what it would be like if superhereos were real. i mean, it’s great to see these guys throw a bad guy throw a wall and everything, but whose going to pay for that [heh-heh]?”
I, in the middle of my dingy apt., yelled out loud: “Yeah, so did Alan Moore about 15 years ago, you conceited fuck!”
I have no problem with derivation with credit paid, but this guy somehow managed to gloat through the radio, revelling in his omnipotent brilliance, without once footnoting his obvious (to cursory comic book fans) influence.
Later I read a review of the movie and the first thing that popped into my head was Ayn Rand. I mean Bird not only is ripping off Moore, but he’s apparently lifting large swaths of philosophy from Atlas Shrugged too.
Nevertheless, I can’t wait to see the Incredibles because I really like the premise, even if it is un-original, and everyone I respect has said it rulz. So while Bird might be a talented thief (like most of my favorite artists) i’m a complete hypocrite (like most of my favorite friends).
Comment by jmlockery — November 12, 2004 @ 3:02 pm
and Lee/Kirby about 20 years before that. This movie borrows from every comic book ever made. Alan Moore does the same thing in everything he’s written. While the Incredibles may owe a lot to recent writers like Moore, and even moreso to Kurt Busiek, it owes the most to Lee/Kirby era of the Fantastic Four comics. Not just in the powers of the characters, but in the family dynamic, and the realism of Super-heros living in the “real” world- which has been highly credited to Stan Lee andJ ack Kirby.
I think you have to consider the audience of the Brad Bird interview. I think if he were intereviewed in something like Wizard or Comics Illustrated, he would talk more about his direct influences from specific comics throughout history. But if he’s being interviewed in a more “mainstream” non-comic-geek arena, he’s going to talk in more general terms without making reference to things that most people aren’t going to “get.”
I don’t think that Bird is any more of a thief than the often over-rated Alan Moore (don’t get me wrong, Moore is great, but the comic-geek-world sometimes puts him on too high of a pedestal).
Comment by tom — November 12, 2004 @ 3:46 pm
If I recall, the major right wing value in play is conformity–the liberals were voted against because we’re all smarty pants and think life can be better instead of just giving in and conforming. Seems like the movie is pushing liberal values like diversity to me.
Comment by Amanda — November 12, 2004 @ 3:53 pm
Can’t we all just be nice fanboys and hope that brian singer makes a superman that doesn’t suck, x-men 3 actually gets made, christian bale works as batman, arfnosky doesn’t let go of watchmen, and will someone for godsake make the green latern.
Comment by Andrew — November 12, 2004 @ 3:59 pm
tom -
all good points to your credit.
I do disagree with your views on the interview though, i mean it would take 30 seconds for Bird to illuminate the audience on his influences. that’s what real fans of the craft do, if they aren’t hopelessly self-absorbed (or, to cut him some slack, probably on his 4,000th interview).
if the interviewer had not asked a direct question about what inspired Bird’s central theme, i wouldn’t be upset that he didn’t list some obvious sources. it was the way he sort of seemed just so smugly confident about his oh-so-post-modern commentary about superheroes. it has been done, admit it at least a little you pompous ass!
sure, most artists are facing the cold hard reality that at this point there really isn’t anything very original left to say. they can only hope to state it genuinely and with panache, which seems to be what Bird has done, and he deserves all the plaudits that come his way.
my deal was mainly a personal peeve that obviously isn’t going to carry over into me boycotting the film or anything as i can’t wait to see it.
Comment by jmlockery — November 12, 2004 @ 4:07 pm
When oh when will they make a movie of Deathlok versus Ghost Rider? I’m not kidding.
Comment by dAnimal — November 12, 2004 @ 5:12 pm
i agree… i didn’t hear the interview, nor have i read any of the many interviews he’s been giving lately. i just know that sometimes you go in depth about influences, whereas other times its easier to just gleam the surface. but again, i didn’t hear the interview and maybe he was being pompous. on the other hand, he may genuinely believe that he invented the idea of superheros living in suburbia and working as an insurance claims officer. now that i think of it, i can’t think of that ever being in comics before. but anyway…
As for comics-to-film- more than anything else, i’m looking forward to Dan Clowes’s “Art School Confidential” directed by Terry Zwigoff.
Comment by tom — November 12, 2004 @ 5:28 pm
I think it’s very acceptable that these people have a “chip on their shoulder” as you like to perjoratively term it. We live in a culture that is increasingly bowing its head to the “Randian” brand of misanthropy. To put it lightly, it doesn’t advance a progressive agenda — and it certainly didn’t help us in this past election. If you’re interested in learning about the “value of family”, or “being true to oneself”, etc. then why don’t you pick up a book — one with explicit and substantive argumentation about both the particular subject and the subject’s relation to a larger political vision. The fact that there is currently a discussion on this blog about the party affiliation of comic-book heroes reflects poorly on the condition of cultural discourse in this country. The fact that these superhero images are, arguably, fascists, doesn’t bode any better. This last election, millions of culturally bankrupt Americans finally found a reason to tear themselves away from their televisions and to vote. Unfortunately, it was so that they could participate in the denial of civil rights to another group of Americans. If, after this, you don’t have a chip on your shoulder, then I guess we’re not on the same side, superhero.
Comment by Christopher — November 13, 2004 @ 8:07 am
Good luck getting your kids to read that book.
Comment by greg — November 13, 2004 @ 10:55 am
chip on your shoulder indeed… You want me to read a book? Currently on my bedside table- the books i’m reading right now: Walden by Thoreau; Don Quixote by Cervantes; People’s History of the United States by Howard Zinn; Bone by Jeff Smith; Tom Sawyer by Twain; McSweeney’s # 14 by various; Sartre- Biography by Hayman; Hollywood Flatlands: Animation, Critical Theory and the Avant Garde by Esther Leslie; The Savage Dragon #115 by Erik Larsen; and the essential Spider-man vol. 4
Don’t try to get all high and mighty about reading just because we may choose to discuss comics and animated films occasionally. I’m not trying to impress you with the books i’m reading, but don’t assume that i’m some illiterate moron because i choose to discuss cartoons or comics.
There’s nothing wrong with critically discussing subjects such as comics or cartoons. Maybe you deem them unnecessary, kiddie-stuff and beneath you. But there’s a lot of people who take them seriously. And there are plenty of comics comparable to the greatest works of literature, and some animated films are among the greatest films ever made.
Also- I think that talking about the Incredibles is a welcome break from the current hell our country is facing. We can’t be serious all the time.
Comment by tom — November 13, 2004 @ 12:56 pm
Tom…glad to hear you say this. VERY glad.
Thank you.
Comment by keith — November 13, 2004 @ 2:07 pm
second that, good job tom.
Comment by jmlockery — November 13, 2004 @ 4:15 pm
The intention of my previous entry was not to insult anyone for reading comic books or for critically discussing popular culture — that perception is the result of some unnecessary interpretive work. The question I posed was addressed in reply to the original post’s rebuttal to the criticisms of the film. As I said, I support the critics’ attempts to root out and expose antidemocratic/misanthropic themes in popular culture. We are not just fighting against a group of people. I think that the more important aspect of what we are fighting against has to do with “ideas”. I understand the weariness associated with what some apparently consider to be a pressure to be “serious” all the time. But I don’t feel that pressure anymore because I’ve given up the belief that we can compromise our efforts and still get to where we want to be — both in my individual life and as a member of society. Compromising our resistance to the sort of hate and ignorance that served as the fuel behind the results of the 2004 election will always prove too costly. It is our responsibility to identify and criticize those elements when we see them. And I think the question about why to seek answers from cartoon movies aimed at catering to the most profitable common denominator as opposed to investigating the history of philosophy/literature is a legitimate question. But if the answer is that Batman, He-Man, G.I. Joe, — or Roseanne or Three’s Company for that matter — are sources of insight comparable to the efforts of thinkers, say, like Goethe or Habermas, then you will have a terribly difficult time convincing me — And to say that non-believers are simply “uppity” is to take recourse to the same strategies that we ought to be fighting against.
Comment by Christopher — November 13, 2004 @ 7:46 pm
As someone who wrote for the comics industry at one time, I think I can speak with some authority on the subject.
the superhero archetype has always been a modern extension of our need for gods, and is best correlated with the gods of mythology. They were Symbols of man’s conquest over what he couldn’t control… the weather, the crops, the forces of gravity. Gods — and superheroes — included both fascist and progressive figures in their pantheons. To assign one view or the other to the whole is missing the point.
Comment by Mark Spittle — November 14, 2004 @ 6:58 am