by Tom Elrod
(Part of Pixar Week)
Earlier this year, the National Review published a list of the top 25 conservative movies. Number two on this list was Pixar's The Incredibles:
This animated film skips pop-culture references and gross jokes in favor of a story that celebrates marriage, courage, responsibility, and high achievement. A family of superheroes — Mr. Incredible, his wife Elastigirl, and their children — are living an anonymous life in the suburbs, thanks to a society that doesn’t appreciate their unique talents. Then it comes to need them. In one scene, son Dash, a super-speedy runner, wants to try out for track. Mom claims it wouldn’t be fair. “Dad says our powers make us special!” Dash objects. “Everyone is special,” Mom demurs, to which Dash mutters, “Which means nobody is.”
The Incredibles is probably Pixar's most difficult film to pin down politically, but it is not John Lasseter & Co.'s only film to be read as conservative. At Big Hollywood, John Nolte (in response to the National Review) thought of Ratatouille as another great conservative film which “examines the same theme of extraordinariness” as The Incredibles. It's interesting that both of these films are directed by Brad Bird. Bird is actually somewhat of an anomaly in the Pixar political scheme, and thus his films are the ones which are most easily read as “ideologically” conservative - that is, as part of an actual, contemporary political movement. If we step back, however, and consider Pixar's films in a more relaxed definition of “conservatism,” then a political reading of them can actually help us understand something about their art, not just act as fodder for conservative commentating.
There is something conservative about much of Pixar's output, but when I say conservative, I mean a small “c” conservative that sees the world along the same lines as Edmund Burke: “A disposition to preserve.” I'm going to call this “social conservatism,” by which I don't mean the religious or moral conservatism of modern political discourse, but a conservatism that is interested in preserving traditional social features - in particular, the idea of “family” - but which sees such preservation as ultimately futile. The family will dissolve, eventually, and so we must do what we can to keep it going as long as possible. It is a worldview based not on progression but on loss.
From the beginning, the anxiety of the loss of family has been central to Pixar. The Toy Story films are a good example of this. As one questioner put it in Roger Ebert's “Movie Answer Man” column back in 1999, “Think of the toys as symbols for parents. In the early years of childhood, we are everything to children, and they go nowhere without us. As they get older, we become less important in their everyday life. As parents, we know that will happen, but like Woody observes at the end of the movie, we wouldn't miss a single day of that period of a child's life.” Toy Story 2, in particular, focuses on the dissolution of the toy family, as Buzz and the gang attempt to rescue Woody from a toy dealer intent on selling Woody in Japan. The subplot of Jessie, a toy abandoned by her child, is the fullest expression of the abandonment feared by all the toys. Although the film ends with the toy community back together again in Andy's bedroom, the “message” of the film is essentially to enjoy the time we have with those we love, as it won't last forever.This is a surprisingly adult message, but over the years, Pixar has made a number of films which return again and again to the anxiety of familial dissolution. Monsters, Inc. does this through the small family unit of Scully and Boo; Finding Nemo is about a father's inability to let his son go; in Up, an old man learns to live after his wife's death. In the (unfortunately) much-maligned Cars, the modern world's loss of small communities (exemplified by Radiator Springs) is a tragedy, and the film (despite the restoration of the community at the end) is mostly a lament for lost values. None of these films may be overtly political, but the moral message is innate: The family (or small community) is central, and it is failing, so we must do what we can to preserve it.
Brad Bird's films, The Incredibles and Ratatouille, actually deviate from this formula a bit. Although The Incredibles is certainly about a family unit in crisis, it is also about reconciling innate talent with a mediocre existence. Mr. Incredible wants to save the world, but instead he's stuck in a dead-end job and a suffocating family life. At times, with its message that those who exhibit greatness are morally obligated to act on such greatness, the film has shades of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. This is the element celebrated by the National Review. Yes, the family unit is important in the film, but the characters are all still “super,” greater than the average citizen. The family unit ultimately sticks together because they have to, because if they don't someone who isn't actually talented (like the villain, Syndrome) could ruin the world.
Ratatouille's message - that not everyone can be a genius, but if you are one you can come from anywhere - also reflects a similar concern with the talent of the individual. Granted, in both cases that talent ultimately flourishes by placing it among a family or community (in Ratatouille, Remy's big night is assisted by the entire colony of rats), but Bird's films are ultimately a triumph of the individual, not the community. His films seem to take the inherent social conservatism of Pixar features and run with them in another direction.
Wall-E is another interesting exception. The film is certainly an attack against environmental destruction and excessive consumerism, and it is also the Pixar film which drew the most ire of conservative commentators for its depiction of capitalism as inevitably leading us towards a future of obesity and laziness. At the end of the film, the world is saved by society's (the whole of society, not just a small portion of it) decision to return to the site of disaster and rebuild. Wall-E himself is the impetus for this change, but ultimately humanity can only be saved if it decides to work together. This, of course, is quite different from a message about a small family unit. The vision of a society working together to achieve its common goals is really a liberal vision, a progressive vision.It is not that the other Pixar films don't feature cooperation, but it is usually among smaller groups (a few toys, a circus troupe of bugs, a tank full of fish) that such cooperation typically takes place. This is consistent with the continuing theme that one can only flourish and be saved when a part of the family unit. Wall-E is the great exception to this rule, and even in this case, the film's heart is in the romance between Wall-E and EVE, a budding robot family.
Obviously, as a film studio making what are nominally “family films” in a category that in America is traditionally pitched to children, Pixar's focus on the family should not be a complete shock. However, the imagination factory at Pixar is renowned for its work ethic and coherent creative vision, and the fact that their films consistently tackle anxiety about the family is more than just a quirk of their medium. It's part and parcel of their creative vision. The exceptions to this trend - most notably in the films of Brad Bird and in Wall-E - also remind us that Pixar, though it sometimes resembles an auteur in and of itself, is in fact a collection of artists with unique and separate visions, and not all of their films are going to cohere in some thematically satisfying way.
However, if Pixar has developed a reputation as a socially conservative (with a small “c”) film studio, it's not unwarranted. Such conservatism is also not antithetical to great art. Recent cinematic attempts at creating a “conservative cinema” have been overly ideological and political and thus failures as art (An American Carol comes to mind, as does the continuing conservative love for Red Dawn), but the same can be said for ideologically liberal films (Crash, any number of recent films about the war in Iraq).
A sympathetic artist, regardless of politics, is going to connect. Clint Eastwood is famously conservative, yet many of his films (Unforgiven, Gran Torino) explore with great artistry and craft the intersections of violence and community. If Pixar trends conservative, let it stay that way. The occasional exception (Wall-E) or variation (Ratatouille) makes the studio that much more interesting to watch, and when a Pixar film really nails the emotion and fear inherent in a family's breakdown, as in this summer's Up, it can often be transcendent.
Tom Elrod is a graduate student at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He blogs at thomsbelrod.blogspot.com.
Pixar Week will run Oct. 4-10 at the House. For more information on the event, please see here.
Posts
18 comments:
Actually, what I find interesting in Pixar's films is the weird intersection between conservative and liberal ideals. Pixar celebrates the family and traditional values, yes, but they also celebrate the far more traditionally liberal idea that it takes a community to get much of anything done (like raise a child). Finding Nemo is probably the best example of this. It's primarily about one father trying to preserve what's left of his traditional family, but it BECOMES a film about the whole of the ocean gathering up this lost child in its embrace. It's, perhaps, the Pixar film that is the most perfectly balanced between both poles of the political spectrum, which may be why it was so popular with just about everyone.
(It's also interesting that Pixar is now rather accepted as fairly conservative politically when all indications from interviews, etc., is that they're fairly liberal -- living in the Bay Area and all. Then again, the labels "conservative" and "liberal" have basically ceased to have any meaning in the last 20 years.)
Such conservatism is also not antithetical to great art.
Well, that's a relief.
Todd, I submit that Finding Nemo is consistently conservative. The father strikes out on his own and makes friends who help him -- notice he didn't file a Missing Fish report. Extended family, neighborhood and faith communities are essential institutions that do not need the government or a non-profit organization to get things done.
Then again, the labels "conservative" and "liberal" have basically ceased to have any meaning in the last 20 years.
True, which is why I tried to distance my discussion from any ideological or self-conscious political movement.
Perhaps I should have invented a new term all together instead of "conservative," since it always feels too connected to Movement Conservatism. However, the word's actual meaning and its older political manifestations seem to capture what I'm talking about, so I kept it.
This post is good and sensible - however nontraditional Pixar's myriad adoptive families are, starting with avatar of nontraditional family Ellen DeGeneres as a ditzy fish-friend - but it begins by considering a claim that I don't quite get.
I remain perplexed by the common characterization of The Incredibles as 'conservative.' I don't imagine anyone regards Spider-Man as a conservative hero for espousing the philosophy that 'with great power comes great responsibility,' which after all sounds a lot like 'to each according to his needs, from each according to...'
Then again, Peter Parker is given his powers. Mr Incredible and his family are born with theirs, right? And the whole idea of being born with exceptional ability is a bit of a third rail in American progressive politics at the moment, modern neuroscience notwithstanding. This is childish but understandable. Yet I don't see The Incredibles saying 'This family is entitled to the role of protectors,' so much as 'Power should be apportioned, among those with the means to grab it, to those who would serve the most of their fellow citizens by wielding it.' If the story were about a schoolkid with exceptional ability, unrecognized because of societal preconceptions about what he 'should' be doing, presumably we'd all know whom to vote for, right?
Or what if the story were about a supernaturally powerful teenage girl, whose birthright is unholy strength and an obligation to take part in a cosmic religious war - kept from her job by ignorant 'norms' too blind to see what's bad about the world? Is Buffy the Vampire Slayer conservative for its celebration of a 'gifted and talented' lead character?
i.e. I reject the idea that the 'theme of extraordinariness' has anything to do with political reaction or traditionalism - and insist that smart progressive art (like Buffy, BTW) grapples with the obligations of people who perceive themselves as exceptional. Which is everyone, after all.
I actually think I can contest every point this article makes
Toy Story 2, in particular, focuses on the dissolution of the toy family ... Although the film ends with the toy community back together again in Andy's bedroom, the “message” of the film is essentially to enjoy the time we have with those we love, as it won't last forever.
Ah, so not wanting your family to break above and enjoying "the time we have with those we love" are conservative values now?
, Pixar has made a number of films which return again and again to the anxiety of familial dissolution.
Yes, because they are also aimed at children and family break down is a good driving point for a story that isn't inappropriate for young people. Also, the importance of family is something even young children can appreciate.
n the (unfortunately) much-maligned Cars, the modern world's loss of small communities (exemplified by Radiator Springs) is a tragedy, and the film (despite the restoration of the community at the end) is mostly a lament for lost values
This could also just as easily be an anti large corporations message.
The family (or small community) is central, and it is failing, so we must do what we can to preserve it.
Not failing, challenged in some way, but none of these films speak of the long term moral decline he's implying here.
At times, with its message that those who exhibit greatness are morally obligated to act on such greatness, the film has shades of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. This is the element celebrated by the National Review. Yes, the family unit is important in the film, but the characters are all still “super,” greater than the average citizen.
Ahaha, calling the Incredibles an example of Objectivism because the characters are superheroes is drawing a very long bow indeed. By this logic isn't say, Spiderman (and almost every other superhero movie) an Objectivist tale? After all, Spiderman has a family he protects and Spiderman realises he must use his powers for good (his uncle died when he failed to do this, and in Spiderman 3 crime soared when he quit).
Ratatouille's message - that not everyone can be a genius, but if you are one you can come from anywhere - also reflects a similar concern with the talent of the individual
Once again, thinking that great people can do great things is NOT a solely conservative value by any means.
The author of this piece has tried to hijack a respect for the value of the family as something inherently conservative.
I think the author has written a thoughtful piece here, and as he clearly states, he is not trying to equate Pixar with Movement Conservatism or to say that Pixar is right-wing. I do, however, get a little frustrated with the idea that family and exceptionalism are even considered conservative values at all. This not the author's thesis, but rather a combination of a traditional definition of the term, the misrepresentation of liberalism, and the right's non-stop and highly effective PR campaign.
they also celebrate the far more traditionally liberal idea that it takes a community to get much of anything done
Actually most traditional conservatism has a strong communitarian element, which traditional liberalism (Locke, Mill, et. al) largely ignores.
Extended family, neighborhood and faith communities are essential institutions that do not need the government or a non-profit organization to get things done.
I beg to differ. Extended families need infrastructure, transportation, public schools and a little government subsidy program called a home mortgage.
Neighborhoods get grants and "faith communities" are big ol' non-profit organizations in and of themselves (now with extra government money thanks to the "conservatives" in congress).
Is that the kind of conservatism that you mean? The kind that requires government subsidies and non-profit corporations?
Didn't Brad Bird direct The Iron Giant (1999)? The movie that made fun of Cold War paranoia and military right-wing extremism? Case closed.
I agree with many on this post that the issue is with right-wingers basically trying to claim every worthwhile moral value (family, responsibility, individualism, etc) as exclusive to the conservative dogma.
Having said that, this is a wonderfully literate and thoughtful essay which ennobles the whole 'is this film liberal or conservative' discussion that seems to come about anytime a hit film comes out. If you're liberal, you'll see Finding Nemo as a celebration of non-traditional families (ie - Dora joining Nemo's family by the film's end), but if you're conservative then you'll see the individual pursuit to maintain family as a conservative idealogy.
I do think it's interesting that Brad Bird gets tagged as a conservative, when his first film - The Iron Giant - was as overtly liberal in its anti-gun, anti-fear/hysteria, pro-peace leanings as anything I've seen in the last ten years.
Conservatives' embrace of The Incredibles always strikes me as profoundly missing the point of the movie. The only characters who say "If everyone's special, no one is" are the villain and a child who learns better by the end of the movie. The Incredibles does not celebrate extraordinariness for its own sake -- again, that's something the villain wants. He wants to be regarded as special and super simply because he's designed technology that gives him super-powers. And, you know, that's a swell thing, but he stops there. He doesn't actually want to help anyone, he creates a menace he thinks he can control and thus defeat without endangering himself.
Our heroes, on the other hand, aren't heroic simply because of what they are but rather because of what they DO. Their gifts require them to act on behalf of others. In other words, extraordinariness carries a positive obligation to use that extraordinariness on behalf of others without expectation of reward. Ayn Rand would roll over in her grave to have that described as Randian.
This arguing over the nature of conservatism and liberalism is completely missing the point of the article.
No matter how you define the two, the fact remains that Pixar consistently shown a great deal of social flexibility when it comes to traditional value systems. They have made movies that successfully give nods to all sides of the spectrum, and should be commended for that. It is one of the many reasons why so many of their films are so accessible by such a wide swath of demographics.
Great article. I never thought about Pixar movies in this light before.
Matter-Eater Lad beat me to it. While Dash comments that if everyone is special then no one is, so does the villain of the piece. The Incredibles actually pokes at BOTH extremes, decrying the suppression of skills as well as using them to disadvantage everyone else. There's no way that would intersect well with Rand, though no doubt she'd like aspects of it.
I think part of the problem some may have with this post is how American forms of liberalism and conservatism have diverged from traditional definitions. In this country, we tend to use the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as short-hand for "left-wing" and "right-wing," but this is rather different from the older conceptions of the terms. To illustrate the point, Edmund Burke had something of a communitarian bent, and was rather fond of the idea of noblesse oblige. His communitarian leanings can also be seen in his conception of rights--i.e. that the rights to which an individual is entitled are those that have been traditionally granted to him/her by the community.
It's been a while since I ready any political philosophy, but I think the author is hearkening back to the older definition of conservatism. We should be careful not to project our own conceptions of what liberal and conservative mean onto this post, and work within the framework the author provides.
I think something that contributes to conservatives' perspective that Pixar films share their sensibility is the lack of snarky Hollywoodiness. Virtually all other children's films are infected with smirking, silly pop culture references, and other inane attempts at hipness. Part of the brilliance of Pixar films is that they are earnest. I think conservatives read the earnestness as conservativism -- I think they're right in a way, but I also think it's most just superior artistic sensibility.
I agree that Pixar tends to be "pro-family", but what kind of family? Definitely not a "Father Knows Best", hierarchical family where every member learns to properly assume their roles. Instead, doesn't the egalitarian solidarity of the Pixar family stand for the liberal idea of the People?
The exception is, of course, the Incredibles. Not only is Mr. Incredible the head of the family, Mrs. Incredible is a liberal ex-feminist who once opposed marriage, but has now returned to her proper role as a homemaker. To further cement this movie's conservatism, Syndrome, the villain, attempts to subvert the "natural" order by making superpowers available to all via technology -- a democratic move. What if Syndrome's foiled plan to murder Mr. Incredible is a conservative, alternate history of the French Revolution in which partisans of Ancien Regime put down the insurrection?
When discussing Brad Bird, don't leave out The Iron Giant, in which the chief antagonist is a McCarhtyite G-man, and the most sympathetic adult is a beatnik (albeit a successful small businessman). At the climax the Giant overcomes his programming for violence and sacrifices himself to save the town. Not exactly National Review material.
I love the Toy Stories but always noticed - where's the kid's dad?!?
Post a Comment