Comments on The House Next Door: Pixar's Peaks: Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles

I'm firmly in Colin's camp and want to expound a b...

2009-10-10T04:21:15.435-04:00

I'm firmly in Colin's camp and want to expound a bit on Buddy's supposed "humiliation." In the film's prologue, the problem is not that Buddy is not a Super, the problem is that Buddy is a kid. Obviously a brilliant, obsessed kid, but still a child, and one that Mr. Incredible can't take responsibility for -- as demonstrated when Bomb Voyage attaches the explosives to Buddy's cape, forcing Mr. Incredible to go to great lengths to save him. In the process, Bomb Voyage escapes and the elevated track is destroyed. Supering is, quite frankly, no place for a kid, and while Mr. Incredible could have been nicer about it, he was right to send Buddy home.

Maybe I see it that way because I am a parent. I didn't see Mr. Incredible humiliating Buddy, I saw him protecting Buddy from the consequences of his own rash actions.

Syndrome is not a stand-in for all humanity. The Incredibles go to great length to save ordinary people and help them, obviously they view "regulars" as worthy. Remember Bob's frustration when the guy was getting mugged in the alley and he couldn't go help? And Bob was sheepish and apologetic after tossing his boss through all those walls, and respectful to his government handler. Recall, too, that Violet has a crush on a regular guy. The Incredibles -- and Frozone -- just don't come off as arrogant at all. Bob's frustration comes from not being able to do the work he would be best at, not from some sense of his innate superiority.

I believe Colin addressed this in the comments to the Conversation, but I'd like to reiterate it: Syndrome is not the villain because he dared to try to improve himself and make himself Super. Syndrome was the villain because he was tremendously gifted and used those gifts only to benefit himself and no one else. He could have used his inventions to help humanity and instead he built weapons that he sold to the highest bidder, and then he murdered dozens of Supers -- this was not merely implied, it was shown in both the cave scene where Bob hid behind Gazer Beam's corpse and in the computer room where he paged through screen after screen of terminated Supers.

The Incredibles remains my favorite Pixar film, indeed one of my favorite films of all time. I appreciate having this opportunity to talk about it, and look forward to Colin's piece on Wall-E.

* Lest my objections here be misunderstood, I'm no...

2009-10-09T23:09:53.788-04:00

* Lest my objections here be misunderstood, I'm not trying to disqualify your reaction to the film, I'm truly trying to understand it. I'd like to appreciate the significance of the film; many people adore it. But I just don't get it.

I thank you for your generosity, and I'd take this opportunity too to apologise for characterising the elitist reading of The Incredibles as a "misreading" in the other thread. It's a legitimate response, especially since the movie's prologue does stand behind the humiliation of Buddy more obviously than I'd noticed before. What I'm striving for now is a more informed understanding of how people react to these movies I love, in their varied and distinctive ways, and why the movie elicited such reactions.

* I agree with you that, at its best, this is a mo...

2009-10-09T23:09:34.271-04:00

* I agree with you that, at its best, this is a movie about family. But this is actually somewhat of a cliche. A superhero's biggest vulnerability is quite often his/her relationship with someone else. I'm not criticizing The Incredibles for staying true to the tradition. I just don't see anything especially clever or new there.

In most cases, this tradition you evoke involves a superhero negotiating his relationship with family or friends who are non-super. The tropes that unfold from this tradition tend to split the narrative into the superhero's "action-mode" and "mundane-mode", and while the spheres may overlap, they usually occur when these non-super relations are taken as hostages (or learn of the super's double-identity).

I felt that The Incredibles complicates this web by making the whole family into supers. I know you found the action in the second half rather traditional, but think again about how it demands that the kids learn the extent of their powers (Dash giggles when he finds he can run on water, while Violet varies the use of her force-fields), that each of the Incredibles takes turns to save one another (the wife saves the husband, the brother saves the sister, the sister saves the family, etc.), and that they use their strengths in tandem (the glorious image of a rolling force-field ball, a creative combination that seems obvious but isn't). Compare their cohesion in these moments to the fractured, sullen individuals living in the same house at the start of the movie, and I find it highly rewarding thus to read The Incredibles not as a superhero movie that happens to involve a family, but as a family drama that happens to involve them being supers, and finding themselves and each other in the course of claiming that super-identity.

* I'm not quite following what Edna represents. She's a guide to new possibilities because the suits she designs are essentially prepared for anything? But aren't they tailored to the unique abilities of each Incredible? Sorry... I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. I'm just trying to grasp the significance.

Edna's main contribution to the Incredibles isn't her provision of the super-suits; the movie portrays those as natural off-shoots of her talent. What's more important is that she talks circles around Bob and Helen to get them (and the children) to fully reclaim their identities as supers. She maneuvers Bob into "convincing" her to create a new suit for him, which means that he isn't just "re-living the glory days" but pursuing himself anew. She refuses to acknowledge Helen on the phone until the latter identifies herself as Elastigirl. She insists that Helen show up at her place (for the costume showcase, although she doesn't reveal that yet) without leaving her any room to stammer her hesistant replies. She awakens Helen to the fact that Bob may not be doing what Helen has convinced herself he is doing, and then offers Helen the means to lead her to him. She gets indignant when Helen weeps like a hapless housewife, thwacking her and telling her to buck up and take Bob back. And she creates costumes for the children (and, it is implied, insists that Helen take them), despite Helen's reluctance to let the kids have them, thus creating opportunities for the kids to find out for themselves and claim their super-identities as well.

Her natural confidence and knowing side-glances suggest to me that Edna is aware of her own maneuverings, and the contextual use of Brad Bird (the director) to voice her implies as much. Due to these cues, I took the movie as supporting Edna's views more than any other character, in her demands that the Incredibles not squander their talent. I hope this clarified my stand on Edna; I realise that my review wasn't clear on these points.

Colin: OK, as promised, some thoughts on The Incre...

2009-10-09T09:20:52.724-04:00

Colin: OK, as promised, some thoughts on The Incredibles...

* The tropes of the superhero movie offers a sheen of invulnerability to these characters that, at its keenest, the movie strips away by pointing out that this is a family.

I agree with you that, at its best, this is a movie about family. But this is actually somewhat of a cliche. A superhero's biggest vulnerability is quite often his/her relationship with someone else. I'm not criticizing The Incredibles for staying true to the tradition. I just don't see anything especially clever or new there.

* Edna thus represents Helen’s guide into a new realm of possibilities, one in which the Incredibles can at least fully realize their own potentials, even if Edna doesn’t know what else might happen beyond that.

I'm not quite following what Edna represents. She's a guide to new possibilities because the suits she designs are essentially prepared for anything? But aren't they tailored to the unique abilities of each Incredible? Sorry...I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. I'm just trying to grasp the significance.

* As you know from the Conversations piece, I've never grasped the adulation for The Incredibles, in large part because I find the second half of the film empty and rather boring. Lots of traditional action. Not much depth. Lest my objections here be misunderstood, I'm not trying to disqualify your reaction to the film, I'm truly trying to understand it. I'd like to appreciate the significance of the film; many people adore it. But I just don't get it.

Ok, thank you for the reply. I really like the mo...

2009-10-09T05:29:20.759-04:00

Ok, thank you for the reply.

I really like the movie for the reasons I mentioned, but there are some things (like you said) that are complicated and never really dealt with. It's not that democratic for not being able to involve everyone, but I think it was very bold and generous for making a rat its protagonist.

@Eriol: Due to the demands of length, I had to cut...

2009-10-08T23:09:28.936-04:00

@Eriol: Due to the demands of length, I had to cut my analysis of the last four Pixar movies into summary statements, but I did not intend to argue that "Anyone Can Cook" is the movie's thesis. It most certainly is Gusteau's, though, and Colette repeats it at one point as a challenge against Skinner's blank assertion that Linguini cannot cook. Throughout the movie, Gusteau remains Remy's idol and (imaginative) guardian angel, and the movie so readily champions Remy's self-expression that we're likely meant to treat Gusteau as Remy does.

What I'm saying here is that the democratic implications of "Anyone Can Cook", which we are either meant to take as a given from Gusteau or be convinced is true after Colette and Anton defend it, are far more charitable than the movie ever tries to achieve. Remy achieves his goal to be a chef at the expense of Colette, whose similar ambitions we never see being realised; and all the other kitchen staff of Gusteau's, whom we never see again after they walk out on Remy and Linguini. Committing to the ideals of "Anyone Can Cook" would have demanded, I think, at least a cursory glance at how all these talented cooks were doing, instead of the movie's diminished focus on Remy's and Anton's satisfaction as it draws to an end.

I don't think "Anyone Can Cook" is Ratatouille's t...

2009-10-08T19:15:22.682-04:00

I don't think "Anyone Can Cook" is Ratatouille's thesis (and when did fiction become college essays?). If the movie does have a thesis, it's that talent can come from the most unexpected sources. But that's just one of the movie's themes. Other themes include the dilution of dream (Anyone can cook) into a empty money maker (anyone can microwave, you could say), or being willing to recognize garbage as garbage and be willing to live better. Also, the critic doesn't apologize for anything. Instead he says that it is best not to be closed-minded, brilliance can come from unexpected places.

Again, this is fiction, and doesn't resemble any of the crap I wrote for classes, and so I don't understand why you're using the word thesis or why others are using the word "ideology." These are films and so they change with perception and contain nooks and crannies that resist math.