I think a better term for the philosophy of The Incredibles would be exceptionalist. The film posits that there are some people who are just inherently better than others and that that shouldn't change. It also implies that those exceptional people have a duty to help the less-exceptional. So it rejects selfishness, but implies that certain people should be the saviors of others. Which doesn't seem so bad until you remember about how historically "we're helping/saving/educating/bringing democracy to them" has been used to justify atrocities.

I think the line that destroys claims that the film is objectionist is one from Mirage. “Valuing life isn’t weakness. Disregarding life, throwing it away, is not strength.”

A problem I have with the Ayn Rand/Incredibles connection is that when you look at her philosophy and compare it to Syndrome, he is on almost every level what Ayn Rand considered the ideal human. He is a self made, super genius, industrialist who doesn't let other people impose their morality on him. Sure his goals are collective in nature, but if you view his technology as his product, and democratizing of superpowers his heroic intentions, then Syndrome is almost as good an Objectivist super-villian as Andrew Ryan.

to put it simply, its not objectivist propaganda, but it certainly has some objectivist themes.

I really feel that The Incredibles has a lot of things in common with Watchmen. Think about it: 1) Superheroes has been outlawed 2) There are still several heroes who are still fighting crime, even though they are not allowed to. 3) There is a superhero who is murdering other superheroes. 4) There is a giant squid-monster at the climax. (Granted, it's a robot in the Incredibles, but still).

I feel like in the sea of debate between The Incredibles', and by extension Brad Bird's body of work having Objectivist themes, that a small detail gets lost in discussing Buddy/Syndrome's motivation and plan to elevate himself and others to superhuman: he still lead dozens of miserable superheroes to their deaths to develop his robot, fired missiles at Helen Parr's plane without hesitation even when she revealed through her distress call that her children are aboard, and when he executes his plan, it would cause untold damage and casualties. Then the robot grew beyond his control. So no matter how many times people debate Syndrome's motivation, his station in a world of superheroes, or Objectivist philosophy; he's still a murderer, a terrorist, and somebody who will stop at nothing to get what he wants or gets in his way.

I used to think this for a while then I realized if it was actually objectivist then syndrome wouldn't be the victim

I always hated those lines in The Incredibles. Everyone can be special without it meaning "nobody is special", as people can all be "special" in different ways. Such a childish way to see the world.

None of the villains in the Incredibles are "looters" trying to steal from the heroes, it's literally the opposite. They don't want the heroes services at all. In Atlas Shrugged the objectivist heroes went on strike to show the looters how helpless they were without them. In The Incredibles the Supers were exiled. And Syndrome's tech wasn't like, stealing their powers to give to regular people. It was just replacing them.

Apparently Brad Bird became so irritated by people claiming that he was an Objectivist that he made the villain of the second movie an expy of Dagny Taggart from "Atlas Shrugged" (Ayn Rand's self-insert character from that book).

There is also Syndrome's status as a "self made man" a genius industrialist and someone who clearly considers himself above the law. To say that a Randian reading into his character is entirely unsupported would seem a questionable claim. So then what does it mean when both hero and antagonist display elements of objectivism? Perhaps no more or less than that the movie has no single core, consistant philosophy or agenda, as Leon concluded.

So -- TL:dr version is: The Incredibles has both objectivist and ANTI-objectivist themes and morals, and is more complex than one or the other. (Also, fun fact: Spell-check doesn't recognize objectivist as a word.)

I think the idea that the superheroes are “anti-objectivist” because they fight crime isn’t necessarily the case. If the name of the game in objectivism is your own interest, then there’s nothing wrong with being charitable or generous if it makes you happy, or is in your interest individually. If you really look through the objectivist lens, it entirely possible that superhero’s in the movie are doing what they do because they enjoy it, not out of altruistic desires.

Excellent analysis. In the end, I only see the Randian argument of the film only when you bring certain points to the extreme in the argument. The Superheroes in the film aren't being regulated. They are being outright banned. So, the film is pro-Randian in the lightest sense, but as soon as you start digging below surface level of Rand's philosophy of "Pro-Assholitarianism" (and this is coming from someone who identifies as overall moderately libertarian-leaning) the propaganda argument falls apart. People are not equal. People have special talents (developed or natural) where in various areas they are "better" than others (and who is better than who can switch based on the talent in question). Letting people use those abilities is a plus. Denying them that just to make everyone feel equal is a net loss for the individuals and society. BUT... that does not mean that someone who excels at something shouldn't be culpable for their actions or not kept within reasonable restrictions to prevent others from being wronged or exploited. Hell, in some cases oversight could lend to someone using their talents better in the long run. Also, wealth is a piss-poor way to judge who is better than who. There are way too many factors that can affect personal wealth beyond talent (which I'd say is a minor factor overall). Syndrome's plot to give everyone superpowers itself didn't seem bad to me either. It was more his execution of previous heroes and releasing the robot in the city just so he could be the hero in the limelight. Hell, technically Syndrome built himself up to be in charge of a multi-billion dollar business all for the point of putting himself on a pedestal. With his seeming plan to give people superpowers to benefit them, even his "altruism" was truly just something to serve his self-interests. Change the lens a little, and he becomes the Randian hero. Anywho, ending my rambling here before I muddle my intended meanings further. Hope everyone enjoys the sequel. :)

I just watched Incredibles 2 the other day and I actually felt like it also had some ideas in terms of "individuals should only look out for themselves, not depending on others" - very interesting stuff

I mean, once you have a guy with a lot of muscles lifting up a sphere, the comparisons to Greek mythological figure Atlas making a nonchalant shoulder gesture become harder to dodge than to invoke. As for Ayn Rand, she was like 8 when commies took her family's small-middling dentistry practice, so she spent every year after that saying "actually the exact polar opposite of communism is always good all the time." That kind of exaggerated worldview is not uncommon among exiles or refugees from, well, basically any society.

Yeah i think after tomorrow land its hard to say that brad bird isnt at least very familiar with randian writing. But Iron Giant is clearly about the red scare and The Incredibles is very much a family drama. Its got elements of objectivism (some inherent to being about superheros, some not) but to say thats what the film is ABOUT is stretching. I read Atlas Shrugged in early highschool and really liked it. And though my view of it has soured over time, i still took a very valuable lesson from it, one thoroughly unsupported by the text or its fans. I realized that helping other people was actually helping me. This idea that no one does anything for anyone and selfish is good, I managed to read as "I help other people because i expect those actions to benefit me". Its a simple reframing of altruism as roundabout selfishness but it was such a formative realization. And its a really great description of how a society should function: You help others because it will improve the society you live in and help you. Its so simple that all the so called "genius special people" in rands books never realize it.

Really loving that you're injecting more of your humor and personality into your videos lately, keep up the great work Leon!

I kinda dreaded this review because the aforementioned hot-takes kinda made sense (haven't seen the film in a while), but you were kinder to the film than I expected. A fair essay.

I like your contribution to online discussion man. Much to learn and think about... You don't seem to make a habit of omitting relevant information to topics. It's focused, yet thorough and viewed through what I'd consider to be satisfactorily wide lens. Thank you, I look forward to engaging more of your content. Your Mike Pence video essay was great, I was not aware of much of what was presented in that video.

I realized that major point about heroes still being altruistic last night after watching the sequel. But again, perhaps the series isn’t one to one in line with objectivism. Rand is notorious for making her ideology as contradictory as possible. Similarly there are a large amount of libertarian deontologist Kantians I personally know who share some of her ideas about government, but are less motivated by selfishness as a virtue vice having a different interpretation of fairness and freedom I do. They would likely still view the Incredibles helping out normal people as to how they view corporations and rich people doing charity work, not wanting the government get in the way of doing good. Many of these specific types of libertarians hate government assistance programs that they don’t necessarily feel their taxes should go to and instead feel it should be up to individuals and religious institutions to instead help the downtrodden without forcing all of us to assist. I fundamentally disagree with these people, but they are much nicer for conversation than dedicated Rand followers or protofascists.

Steve Ditko's efforts with The Question aside (which would be an idea for another video along these lines, hint hint), super-heroes in the modern definition of them would never be Objectivists. They defend and stick up for the common people, and put their own 'specialness' at continuous risk, even sacrificing it when necessary, for the good of the so-called 'looters.' Even the Punisher, one of the most Randian and right wing darling of modern superheroes, goes out of his way to avoid killing inoocents (or those he sees as innocent at least) I think Bird's interpretation of 'specialness' in the Incredibles didn't have a randian origin, but just happened to parallel it in some ways. In fact, it pretty such seems to stem almost exclusively from Bob's character and him being frustrated at being forced to not use the special powers that once allowed him to help people.

Thank you so much, what a great piece of work you've made (as in every video you upload).

"...Rand's philosophy is mean & dumb." (*hits subscribe button*)

something that I always thought was odd was that Dash was doing track meets. If he wanted to play sports, why not basketball, football, baseball, or lacrosse? These all involve teamwork, strategy, and other skills beyond running fast.

I'd argue that Syndrome fits the objectivist philosophy far better than the Incredibles family.

I think the influence Watchmen had on the Incredibles should be noted. Alan Moore specifically said he wrote Watchmen in part as a criticism of Steve Ditko's (co-creator of Spider-Man and others) objectivist philosophies. Moore deconstructed superheroes and put them in the real world in a similar way the Incredibles did, except Moore's superheroes didn't have powers and were basically crazy vigilantes in suits (with the exception of Dr. Manhattan, who was fucked up in his own way). The Incredibles has a set up similar to Watchmen (retired golden age supes come back after being forced into retirement by the government because someone is killing them off, etc) but they kept the powers and the morality of classic superheroes. Maybe that's why it feels like a mishmash of ideas. Great video as always

Ayn Rand is best read at 14, 15, or 16, when one is young enough to miss the point.

Wait, you people there's people that DON'T love The Iron Giant?

Very good video essay - you did a nice job dissecting Objectivism as it relates to the movie.

Damn! This is by far your best analysis yet! How do you not have more subs?! Kepp up the good work :)

I honestly feel like the Spider-Man approach to superheroes is the best one. The idea that if you have the ability to be altruistic and help someone then you have the responsibility to. I also would be really interested in seeing a superhero movie that explores the idea that one person alone can't make that much of a difference without the help of others. Like maybe a hero who realized that advocating for better infrastructure is just as important as saving people from buildings that are already burning

The ultimate irony of "Randian Superhero Stories" (aside from missing that 'with great power comes great responsibility' is the foundational basis of the best superheroes) is hyper-rationalism. Superheroes are typically god-like beings with completely fantastical powers, i.e. something that doesn't gel with the "no gods or kings, only man" spiel.

Another thing to point out about "Tomorrowland" - you mentioned at the beginning that the core premise was superficially similar to "Atlas Shrugged" in the sense that they both have an elitist paradise separate from the rest of humanity and its limitations, but it's safe to say that Tomorrowland is more of a deconstruction of that ideology than anything else. The Objectivism in that movie is pretty explicitly negative in the story's world, being the main reason why the villain does what he does and wants the rest of the world to die. In the end, the secrecy of Tomorrowland is even pulled back, with invites going out to people based on their passion more than their intelligence, class, or ethnic background. I know it's a little point in the context of the rest of the video. I just thought I'd throw it out there.

The small woman, Olga i think is her name, looks exactly like Ayn Rand

This is hilariously late but... I doubt many people know this, but in the first issue of Action Comics, the first appearence of Superman, on the VERY FIRST PAGE Superman breaks into a governor's house...to stop an innocent women from being executed. It's believed by some that Superman's creators, Siegel and Shuster, were aware of the Nitzchean ubermensch, a man who does not care for current morals but makes his own, and how other groups took the concept to mean that there were "superior" beings who had the right to impose thier will on "inferior" people. Superman, in this interpretation, was Siegel and Shuster's response - a man who is objectively physically superior, and is willing to do things like BREAK INTO A GOVERNOR'S MANSION, but he does it for the purpose of helping others. A ubermensch who protects the weak and tries to make a better world. This idea of a benevolent ubermensch is sort of baked into the Superhero genre, which is why the Incredibles can have the Objectivist themes of some people having innate superiority, while at the same time rejecting part of Objectivism by having the heroes embrace altruism. It all dates back to Superman.

Honestly, I think the themes in Bird's works are so muddled I don't think he has any philosophical underpinnings... save for being obsessed with the idea of Specialness. Tomorrowland is absolutely laughable as they assemble the best and brightest to make a brighter future... and not only fail to share with the world, but turn their own city into crap. Then at the end, they appear to have learned nothing as they headhunt the best and brightest at the expense of the world to start the cycle again.

Thanks for this in-depth analysis. I've never seen the movie in this way.

syndrome kind of fits the etymology of villain, as in 'of the village'. The underclass who threathens 'noble' hero, who belongs in the aristocracy. It's a pattern that exists in literature beyond Rand.

How does this formula work when applied to the X-Men movies?

Love your content, been really getting into it lately. Another cinematographer mentor of mine tuned me on to you. Now it’s time for me to apply it and grow.

Dude, could you give your two cents on "The Prisoner" tv series by Patrick Mcgoohan sometime? Like, in a modern world where everyone is essentially lo-jacked via their smartphones, I think it'd be interesting to talk about a story where the main character quietly rails against authoritarianism in every form whether unjustly or reasonably applied.

Objectivism is so cartoonishly bizarre that Rand herself could be depicted as an animated arch villain.

Your videos are great!

In retrospect, the theme most strongly conveyed is that we are tiny. That some people are superior, and those people alone know what's best for us.

Really starting to dig the new intro. What's the music from?

It's like secular Prosperity gospel. Not sure if replacing "God's will" with "inherent superiority" is any better though. They're both equally unquantifiable.

My favorite part when I was learning about Rand, was hearing her surviving friends/peers/students talking about how she fell in love with one of them and became completely irrational about it when he broke it off to remain faithful to his wife. They all knew it, and it really bothered them, but it didn't lead them to reject the philosophy even tho it really underscored how unrealistic it is. Also learning about all the right wing "Christians" who adore her, without actually reading her work I guess. She HATED Christianity specifically because Christ's teachings about loving your neighbor and charity and all that. She actually said she wanted to destroy Christianity, which blew my mind.

It's crazy how America warped the meaning of political views, liberal means left and libertarian means right. What happened??

I was always puzzled by the claim that the Incredibles had an objectivist view, because while the supers DO have their powers, they freely use them to benefit others and its not clear that they ask for or receive any kind of payment for doing so. And at the beginning of the film, the supers still operate inside and in service to the law, Mr Incredible hands ties up the purse snatcher for the police to collect and process, and he cooperates with them in the search for Bomb Voyage, I would think that in an objectivist tale, Mr Incredible would unilaterally dispense justice and not consider himself answerable to society at large or the government.

a lot of the time people who make those "what ___ is really about" articles or videos usually seem to mean "it has themes of ___" but i'm just a peabrained person so who knows

And this is where Bioshock came from. Atlas Shrugged, I mean, not the Incredibles...though you do get superpowers in Bioshock...hmm...

I've watched Fight Club on a phantom screening last year.Still just as great as I remember it.

Randian reading of the Incredibles is interesting, I wonder how Syndrome's island being called Nomanisan Island relates to it. "No man is an island" being a reference to John Donne's Meditation 17 and standing in stark contrast to Objectivist ideology.

Does the underminer being a underground mutant/moleman count as a superpower?

When I first watched 'The Incredibles', I wondered to myself "Why is Syndrome the bad guy?"

I would love to hear your opinion on BioShock, which critiques Randian objectivism quite a bit. It’s a video game I watched (not my type to play), but I was drawn into that particular theme, and this reminded me of that.

I'm never gonna unnotice it

Fight Club. Still as good as I remember it, and getting better every time I watch it!

Part 2 has the best title.

I bet you will love my hero academia

07:51 - although we all have to agree, Apple is not meeting the same standards now as it did under Jobs.

5:15 since Critical Race Theory became the boogyman of the Right early this year [2021] I went and looked into what it really was all that about and acording the The Experts™ it was an obscure discipline within another obscure discipline (critical legal studies) in legal philosophy, but aparently it wasnt THAT obscure because here it is in 2018 in a discussion film analysis

It would be interesting if someone compared Randian ideology with the way action heroes have been portrayed in Western culture. It seems like they're drawing on some of the same themes (naturally gifted, perfect moral compass, and, as later deconstructionists point out, makes the world depend on them), but there are so many differences (especially when it comes to altruism and the superior individual sacrificing himself for the greater good).

I'd argue that superheros in general have an Objectivist undertone, but never really stray hard into the philosophy because, superheros do things in an altruist fashion. Saving the day and helping others without the prospects of wealth and fame as a driving force

Might try to make my own philosphy

When he first said parasite in this video, who else thought of Bioshock?

I'm getting a weird thing where the beginnings of sentences are way quieter than what comes after(ex 11:55). Is there an issue with my speakers or is that in the video?

One thing that comes to mind: its socially positive to 'play nice' with people or 'take it easy' on others if you are better at certain things than them.

whats the intro song you used?

"In 'The Iron Giant' -- which is a great movie - don't @ me!" haha! Thanks for the vids.

This is probably a really simple question, but how do you generally get the footage for your videos?

I always wondered why the Bioshock mov... sorry, Tommorowland did go with the bad ending. Well, you gave me a hint here ;-)

I find the question wether you should or shouldnt analyse a movie under X lens very intresting and worth a video itself. One could argue, that if it is not a main theme, the analyzed topic might be underrepresented, missused to fit a plot, ... Then again it might show the directors/writers views eventhough it wasnt something he tried to concentrate on

I was about to go to bed, but I decided to stay up for an extra 20 minutes to watch this instead, and I have no regrets. Excellent work!

"Six years ago" YOU AND ME BOTH BROTHER.

It's hard talking about Ayan Rand's philosophy in anything especially since people have different interpretations on her philosophy.I did enjoy the video by the way.

7:52 They also nuke everyone else, explicitly because otherwise they'd just be replaced. I feel this should be mentioned more.

Ayn would hide a zombie bite

a video on the anime mob psycho 100 would be super interesting

I always saw the form as more a Utilitarian movie (like most superheroes, now that I think about it).

Great video, but I found it odd that towards the beginning you never mention Ratatouille which is also heavily criticized for being Randian and was directed by Bird. Why didn't you meantion it?

The UKs current home secretary states Rand as his favourite author. It got surprisingly little comment in the UK press.

Oh boy Ayn Rand!

I like this video. Thanks.

Never got the linking of The incredibles and Obejctivism. But "Meet the Robinsons" is very close to Objectivist thinking, tho it does not portray bad ideas or lessons per se

a very on the side comment but a really in depth discussion of the iron giant through a lefty lens would be absolutely worth a watch. its by far Bird's best work imo and possibly one of the best disney movies.

Damn I really love this movie now this is all I’m gonna think about lol

After watching this video, an idea comes to mind that Ready Player One could be analyzed from a Randian perspective... just with toxic geek culture instead of superpowers. Although, I'm sure there's a much more interesting read of the text of the book and the movie adaptation that I'm not thinking of.

Very good

Anyone else think Ayn rand looks like a vampire?

Ayn Rand makes me want to use swear words.

Just off the top of my head, about 4 minutes in, I don't recall John Galt or Howard Roark suffering any of the self doubts, paroxysms of conscience, or moments of confession and humility that seem to occur to Bob Parr at regular intervals. I see...if I may borrow from Holy Writ...similar to when Elijah fleeing Jezebel's threat hard on the heels of his victory over the prophets of Baal...or David confronted by Nathan. Bob bared his soul...twice...in the presence of his family. That's some admirable stuff

I base this purely on reading Atlas Shrugged a few years back (I was curious) but I feel like if it was purely Objectivist then Mr. Incredible's exploits would be viewed exclusively as a good thing.

Part two title card: so much yes. Have a like.

Thank you for confirming what I said to my wife when we first watched this years ago. She said, "Shut up and just enjoy the movie." She knew I was right.

i’ve been putting watching this video off for such a long time bc my love for both pixar & superheroes is as big a part of my identity as my hatred for ayn rand & objectivism.

Also, you showed Superman. And Superman contrasts those randian ideas in a neat way. Setting aside what Snyder did to the character, Superman, while being more powerful, doesn’t view or treat his powers as something that make him more deserving than others of praise or power, but rather more responsible. He has the ability to do good, and therefore has to, and to fail to do so makes him more accountable precisely because of his extra powers. Superman is interested in protecting and helping people, normal people, from both incredible evil and cruelty, and from simple mundane things (“saving the cat”), simply because he can. And throughout his run has been shown to be conscious of lines he cannot cross, being willing to sacrifice himself or his powers if ir means helping others. And of course, he is primarily Clark Kent. A normal guy. Superman is just a facade he wears to help people while allowing his real self to remain incognito and unseen. So he also eschews the idea of deserving or even wanting praise.

It’s one hell of a stretch to call Iron Giant objectivist. He sacrificed himself, that’s as altruistic as it gets.