Comments on: An Unnecessary Inquiry: Nietzsche and Superhero Films

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:49:36 +0000

As far as Brad Bird's intentions, I'm afraid you will have to ask him. My objective was not to attribute a philosophy to Bird but rather to diagnose a possible social problem based on what the entertainment industry seems to think we want and how we respond to such themes in its movies once exposed to them. It is a common folk sociological assumption that you can learn a lot about a society by observing what entertains its constituents. While the above article only discusses THE INCREDIBLES (and it is the main focus of my article as well) my article in the collection also deals with graphic novels such as THE WATCHMEN, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS, and other comic book canons (e.g. Superman). So, if you get a chance to read it, I would love to hear what you think about my views on a more global level of entertainment.

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:49:00 +0000

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:47:16 +0000

However, as Julian's above statements concerning the conclusion of the movie seem to suggest, the present outlook seems dismal. When I see terrible singers on "American Idol" insult and berrate the judges for not *recognizing* their obvious talent, I begin to worry that our commitment to valuable and just practices such as "Equal Opportunity"' has instead morphed into an irrational belief that we are all equal in every way. If I see Susan Boyle give a flawless performance (making it look easy), then I immediately form the judgment "That doesn't look so hard. I could do that!" But this thinking is flawed. Just because SOMEONE can do something impressive with ease does not mean that EVERYONE can achieve a similar feat with the same facility. I worry that we forget this. That being said, I do conclude my article with a somewhat hopeful plea to continue the social experiment by trying to exercise our power (i.e. our free will–something in which Nietzsche did not believe) to change our ways once we recognize them for what they are: "…either our resentment or our will to power will win this fight. And there is only one way to find out…"

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:47:00 +0000

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:33:15 +0000

(Audrey Anton part 3)
My final conclusion is more like a worry, really. I worry that once mediocrity sets in, it is self-perpetuating. But this worry is one based on a relatively short social experiment (i.e. my lifetime) where experiences beyond mediocrity were not available. I would like very much for it to be the case that a celebration of true talents and greatness be socially acceptable.

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:33:00 +0000

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:31:59 +0000

(Audrey Anton–part 2)
For example, in the final section of my article (Mediocrity: is it a glass ceiling?) I discuss the present societal expectaton that talented people be almost embarrassed by their strengths and that such people are obligated to only appear "slightly above average" even though their greatness might be superlative. One example might be how, towards the end of the movie, Dash is allowed to compete in races on the condition that he runs more slowly than he is capable and he ends up letting someone else win (it appears that he earns second place). Clearly, he could have smoked the other runners. Syndrome was one symptom of a more fundamental disease; if society returns to its normal operations, it is only a matter of time before the next man of ressentment causes trouble.

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:31:00 +0000

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:30:50 +0000

Hi Joshi!

I find your comment interesting and worth significant attention. Sadly, the website only allows me to write so much in an individual comment. Please bear with me as I will post multiple comments so as to provide a complete response.

By disagreeing with Julian, you are also disagreeing with me (Audrey Anton). I just came across Julian's article. While I appreciate the publicity this article gives the collection, the article essentially conveys all of the main points of my article. Still, I think you might like to read the entire thing because there are very good reasons to agree with Julian and my analysis of the ultimate message.

By: Audrey Anton

Audrey Anton — Fri, 15 May 2009 02:30:00 +0000

Hi Joshi!

By: Julian Dean Shapiro

Julian Dean Shapiro — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:43:21 +0000

I feel ya!

By: Julian Dean Shapiro

Julian Dean Shapiro — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 05:43:00 +0000

I feel ya!

By: Will Schiffelbein

Will Schiffelbein — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:26:07 +0000

I love applying philosophy to modern bits of culture, regardless of whether or not it was intended to be applied in the first place. I tend to relate enlightenment philosophers to everything, from "The Godfather" to "Harry Potter". They're all apparitions or constructs of what's been previously said by a great thinker.

By: Will Schiffelbein

Will Schiffelbein — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:26:00 +0000

By: Joshi

Joshi — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:50:59 +0000

Well that was an unnecessary inquiry, surely…oh wait.

But lets say we were to follow that the Incredibles followed a Nietzschean Influence, then I would have to disagree (slightly) with your final paragraph. The Incredibles defeat of the giant robot (and Syndrome) may have, in the short term, been to protect the common people, in the long term, had syndrome not been defeated, he would inevitably attempted to kill more supers in order for his plan to succeed. Thus, they were in fact working for the greater good of the supers when they not only defeated the robot, but Syndrome himself.

That said, I doubt any of this was Brad Bird's intention.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 22:50:00 +0000

Well that was an unnecessary inquiry, surely…oh wait.

That said, I doubt any of this was Brad Bird's intention.