RSS
Brad Bird is the director of three classic animated films: The Iron Giant (1999), The Incredibles (2004), and Ratatouille (2007), as well as the blockbuster sequel The Incredibles 2 (2018). The Incredibles is a superhero film that also pays affectionate homage to the spy movies of the 1960s, especially classic Bond. I also classify The Incredibles as a classic of Right-wing cinema because it is explicitly anti-egalitarian and also promotes healthy family values.
Bob Parr is a Nordic bodybuilder who dons cape and mask to fight crime and save lives as the superhero Mr. Incredible. He’s enormously strong and virtually indestructible. His wife Helen is known to the public as the superheroine Elastigirl. Her body is infinitely flexible. She can elongate her limbs or flatten out like a parachute or sail. Their superpowers coincide with traditional masculine and feminine archetypes. He’s hard and brutal. She’s soft and flexible.
The Parrs, however, are forced to hang up their capes when the public turns against superheroes and demands that they be banned. They aren’t banned for being vigilantes, mind you. Instead, they keep getting sued: sued for damages inflicted when they battle supervillains, even sued for saving a suicidal man. A sensible society would indemnify superheroes from such lawsuits, for the greater good. But instead, they are forced to stop helping society. Of course this law does nothing to ban supervillains, whose activities would inevitably increase without opposition. Before you dismiss the whole premise as absurd, ask yourself how it differs from the “defund the police” movement in major American cities.
The Parrs settle down and have three kids, Violet, Dash, and the baby Jak Jak. Both Violet and Dash have superpowers like their folks. Bob has a boring and alienating job in an insurance company. He’s gotten fat. Helen is a stay-at-home mom. Bob and his black buddy Lucius, also known as the superhero Frozone, go out once a week and listen to a police scanner, hoping to relive the old times by battling evil.
Bob gets fired from the insurance company and approached by a mysterious defense contractor who needs a superhero to subdue a rogue battle robot, the Omnidroid. Bob handily defeats the Omnidroid and is happy to be a hero again. He begins working out and getting his edge back.
Unfortunately, Bob’s mysterious benefactor turns out to be a new supervillain who has been using superheroes as test subjects to refine the Omnidroid. Most of them have been killed in the process. Once the Omnidroid has been perfected, Syndrome plans to unleash it on Metroville, then come to the “rescue” as a new superhero who styles himself “Syndrome.” (The “hero syndrome” refers to a form of manipulative behavior in which a person creates a crisis and then comes to the rescue.)
Fortunately, the whole Parr family comes together to use their superpowers to defeat Syndrome and the Omnidroid. Hence Mr. Incredible, who used to work alone, becomes part of a team, the Incredibles.
The music, mid-century modern design, sets, and gadgets of The Incredibles teem with delightful homages to the spy films of the 1960s. An homage, of course, has to fall short of an outright rip-off. But major plot elements of The Incredibles strike me as an outright rip-off of Watchmen. In both stories, superheroes are forced into retirement, hanker for the old life, and return to it surreptitiously. In both stories, the villain does not have superpowers, but he uses technological enhancements to make himself powerful and is willing to share those enhancements with anyone who can pay. Both villains also create crises to achieve their ends. Both stories even share a gag with capes. Brad Bird, however, denies having read Watchmen, a statement that I find . . . incredible.
Not only are Bob and Helen archetypically masculine and feminine characters as superheroes, they also have a traditional family in which Bob works and Helen stays at home to raise their three children. To underscore just how “problematic” this all is from a feminist viewpoint, at the beginning of the film, we see an interview clip with Helen as Elastigirl: “Settle down? Are you kidding? I’m at the top of my game! I’m right up there with the big dogs! Girls, come on. Leave the saving of the world to the men? I don’t think so! I don’t think so.” I guess she just hadn’t met Mr. Incredible yet. And although we can credit the government with forcing Helen out of the superhero profession, there’s nothing stopping her from getting some other kind of job. Are we to conclude she just preferred being a mother?
The Incredibles is most famous, however, for its frankly anti-egalitarian sentiments, and rejection of equality is the dividing line between the Left and the Right. The government has demanded that superheroes stop using their superpowers and fit in with the rest of us. This means that young Dash Parr can’t join the track team, because he is super-fast:
Dash: You always say, “Do your best.” But you don’t really mean it. Why can’t I do the best that I can do?
Helen: Right now, honey, the world just wants us to fit in, and to fit in, we just gotta be like everybody else.
Dash: Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of. Our powers made us special.
Helen: Everyone’s special, Dash.
Dash: Which is another way of saying no one is.
Bob is indignant that Dash’s elementary school now has a “graduation” ceremony for passing from the fourth to the fifth grades: “It’s psychotic. They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity but if someone is genuinely exceptional, then . . .”
Many viewers think that The Incredibles was influenced by Ayn Rand: first, because of the anti-egalitarian sentiments; second, because Ayn Rand herself makes an appearance in the movie as designer Edna Mode, who lives in a hypermodern house with monumental classical Greek décor and smokes cigarettes in a long holder. She’s absolutely hilarious and steals the whole show.
But this is a false inference. Ayn Rand is not the only anti-egalitarian thinker. Moreover, Edna Mode is not based on Ayn Rand but on Edith Head, the great Hollywood designer. (“Edna” is a contraction of “Edith Head,” and “Mode” is French for fashion.) Brad Bird admits that he read Rand when he was young but denies her influence on the film. However, he openly admits to modeling Mode on Head. Beyond all that, the movie’s philosophy isn’t particularly Randian.
The main conflict in the film is between those who are born with special gifts (including knowledge) and those who lack them. As Helen says to her daughter Violet: “You have more power than you realize. Don’t think. And don’t worry. If the time comes, you’ll know what to do. It’s in your blood.” The emphasis on heredity and instinct puts The Incredibles much closer to Nietzsche than Rand.
Ayn Rand, after all, denied that mankind has any inborn knowledge or skills. She was a firm believer in the blank slate, although with a special twist: she believed that the blank slate could inscribe itself, that “man is a being of self-made soul.” (Being one’s own cause [causa sui], is a metaphysical trait usually attributed to God, not man.)
If Rand believes that human beings are born blank slates, she is committed to the thesis that we are all born equal, i.e., blank. What, then, explains our differences? For Rand, it is will. Some people try harder than others. (Don’t ask why some people try harder than others, because the will is free.)
Thus the character in The Incredibles who is closest to Rand is the self-made superhero, Syndrome, who makes himself superior with science and technology. Syndrome recognizes, however, that science and technology are ultimately levelers:
Mr. Incredible: You killed off real heroes so that you could . . . pretend to be one?!
Syndrome: Oh, I’m real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I’ll give them heroics. I’ll give them the most spectacular heroics anyone’s ever seen! And when I’m old and I’ve had my fun, I’ll sell my inventions so that everyone can be superheroes. Everyone can be a super! And when everyone’s super . . . no one will be. [evil laughter]
Of course Rand would not endorse Syndrome’s motivations (envy) or actions (murder and mayhem).
The Incredibles really is an incredible film, and not just for kids. It is highly entertaining and often hilarious, with wholesome role models, serious themes, and useful lessons: the traditional family; a clear-cut battle between good and evil; envy, conformity, and democratic leveling versus excellence; the importance of family solidarity; and, above all, no capes. The plot may be derivative, but it is clever, well-paced, and breathes like Egyptian cotton. The dialogue is snappy. The production design and action sequences are dazzling. Michael Giacchino’s soundtrack is a note-perfect recreation of cool sixties jazz and John Barry’s Bond music.
The Incredibles was not just an artistic success. It was also a commercial and critical hit. This created enormous demand for a sequel, which Brad Bird finally delivered in 2018. Sadly, The Incredibles 2 is not incredible too. It looks great and has many funny episodes, but there’s too much going on here, and it never gels into a compelling or coherent plot. The kids might not notice, but the grownups certainly do.
Bird must have been under enormous pressure by Disney to eliminate the “problematic” elements of the first film. There’s nothing about excellence versus mediocrity here. Mom and dad briefly swap roles—then again, that’s the villain’s doing—but the family structure and norms remain unaltered. Bird could always have pled that his movie is set somewhere in midcentury, before the sexual revolution, although the technology is not always consistent with that. There’s a cynical wine-aunt, but she’s the villain. At a certain point, a whole Tumblr of diversity is dumped into the plot in the form of new superheroes, but they’re mostly villains as well. Despite it all, The Incredibles 2 doesn’t end up politically correct. Sadly, though, that’s the only incredible thing about it.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Good summary. I wonder if ‘The Incredibles’ will be banned at some point.
“If Rand believes that human beings are born blank slates, she is committed to the thesis that we are all born equal, i.e., blank. What, then, explains our differences? For Rand, it is will. Some people try harder than others. (Don’t ask why some people try harder than others, because the will is free.)”
That is not what “blank means”.
Anyway! I got a huge kick out of this movie. Can’t help falling for that Miss Holly Hunter deep, sloght twang. Yummy.
The second movie fell all over itself with diversity and universalism and that was too bad. One of the most effective motifs in the first was rooted, not only in its playfulness but in the genuine compact dynamics of husband wife, child to child parent to child relations. The compact nature and the appeared sincere bonds and threads throughout. Including the stereotypical inclusions of african american hero (still over the top in my view).
The entire production was clever, fun, provocative and even impactful. The second in my view just tried to hard to incorporate too many needless sermons.
though Miss Hunter is one those actresses one is irritated with because she is in the arms of someone else in screen or off.
Laugh.
And it posited a very important discussion — the meaning, place and value of special and the juxtaposed burdens of responsibility, accountability and privilige/merited compensation or not
Or gun control.
Just like the Matrix I never saw the need for another Incredibles. Why can’t they leave well enough alone?
Ratatouille was also very entertaining and delivers a message about the virtue of striving for excellence over mass market mediocrity.
The closest thing to a villain, the mediocrity of a chef who runs the restaurant had one cool thing about him. If you look closely, he drives a Facel Vega II, so at least he has good taste in cars if not in cuisine.
The Incredibles (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) playlist:
Incredibles 2 (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) playlist:
Ayn Rand? Not that I agree with everything, but …..
Video Link
I enjoyed watching the movie with my children. Like classic 1950s-1960s tv, it appeals to children because it is fun and uplifting. The cinema photography, scripting, and other movie arts are very advanced in today’s newer movies, but the stories in modern films are usually dark and not suitable for families. The Incredibles, though, are suitable and very enjoyable.
Black best friend is really the ultimate subversion, IMO, as it maximizes the level of cucking without strongly triggering the evolutionary biology of disgust. 100% of normies are willing to accept it, without realizing or understanding the cultural damage it does.
he’s literally jewish. the whole family is jewish. did you miss that part? the incredibles is not a very good movie anyway, and it goes to show how cringey people like you are when you say that it’s “right wing cinema”.
I don’t like rubber-ball animation but watched INCREDIBLES at recommendation of many. It’s done superbly with loads and loads of wit and ingenuity. Fun while it lasted but, when it was over it was really over, like a rollercoaster ride.
Was there enough material left for a sequel?
DESPICABLE ME was fun but the sequel ran out of ideas.
Same with THOR and ANT-MAN. Just enough material for one bang movie but sequels were dreary.
Things have gotten so batty that even an image of a normal family could today be construed as ‘right-wing’ or ‘fascist’.
But then, all the globo-homo new normal isn’t leftist. It’s just capitalist decadence, rather like degeneracy among Roman elites prior to the Fall. What’s sickening is that the decadence today is ‘moralized’ and even ‘sacralized’. It’s not just queers acting weird but Limp-Wristianity, the new faith or gaith.
Btw, Jews can be right-wing. It’s just that their tribalism is at odds with the tribalism of others.
Black Best Friend misleads the white race given the general nature of the black race, but there are decent righteous Negroes… just not enough of them to make a difference.
Greg, please do The Wild Bunch.
A nice little animation, if I well remember, but “a classic of right wing cinema”, really? LOL.
As the fellow says, I guess anything not featuring queers or interracial sex is “right wing” or “conservative” now.
Actually, there’s a bit of sly satire in the notion of superheroes being sued. After all, superhero movies are really power-porn for kiddies. Though ostensibly about good guys vs bad guys, much of the thrill derives from wanton destruction with lots and lots of collateral damage. In the melee, half the city is often laid to waste, and superhero movies almost NEVER show the human cost of these conflicts. Rather, we are supposed to feel good that the Good Guys beat the Bad Guys, and it was all worth it. It’s sort of like the Narrative of the Good War or any war that Americans are so gung-ho about. Never mind all the people killed by invasions and bombs. Just tell yourself that Americans are the Good Guys, and if a whole bunch(even millions) of civilians perished in these wars…. well, that’s too bad. Same with sports culture in the US. Americans worship athletes as akin to superheroes. So, if the team wins, it’s cause for celebration for the great heroes…. and if violence and riots break out, well, who cares about those civilian losers.
Superhero and Action-Hero movies aren’t really selling Good v Evil tales but the spectacle of destruction, which is why the villains are as popular as the heroes. BATMAN fans love the Joker as well. And the Terminator became like a folk anti-hero. And who really watched RAMBO for morality or politics regarding the P.O.W? No, they just loved to see Stallone blow things up.
Same with monster movies. There’s usually the good monster and the bad monster, but who really cares about all the millions of people who get destroyed in the mayhem? I recall watching KING KONG VERSUS GODZILLA(the original) on TV as a child and had a blast. It never occurred to me that countless Japanese were being demolished at the feet of the giant beasts. It was just one big riot.
Video Link
So, to the extent that superhero movies make us focus on the cool heroes & badass villains and regard rest of humanity as mere backdrop, they do indulge in nihilism of violence, not unlike video games. And just like American Wars, superhero movies are supposed to be about Good Guys saving humanity but the ensuing violence ends up killing countless people. Of course, because no one really dies in the movies, we can just laugh and take it in stride. Still, it is a childish fantasy of power.
Another joke inherent in the premise of INCREDIBLES is how the superheroes comply to social norms. Being superheroes, why not just kick ass? Why not just tell off humanity, “We saved your ass, but all you do is bitch like pussies!!” In the Bible, God punishes the complaint-some Jews. When Greek gods are angry with ungrateful humanity, they kick butt as well. As superheroes are indestructible, they don’t have to take this shit from mere humans. Sued? Who cares? How can cops arrest them when they can kick human butt? How can any prison hold them when they knock down walls? And yet, the superheroes in INCREDIBLES comply because they are oh-so-virtuous or weak-willed despite their amazing powers… maybe like the Big Fella in OF MICE AND MEN.
But that’s what makes INCREDIBLES so funny. These superheroes subordinate their powers to human demands even though humans can’t force them to. They are SO GOOD that they don’t think to use their powers to lord over mankind. One thing for sure, the goy superheroes in INCREDIBLES are not MORE intelligent than humans. If anything, the father seems rather dim, like Moose in Archie’s Comics.
In this sense, the movie becomes like a Jewish Neocon War Porn. In the movie, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, American men return home as heroes. In war, they could drop bombs and blow things up and kill many. Still, as it was about Good vs Evil, Us vs Them, they could be violent warriors and praised as heroes and patriots. But upon returning to civilian life, they must conform to peacetime norms. There is no place for heroism, for action.
Jews know that many white goy men are more about action than thought. They’d rather do things with hands and feet. They’d rather hunt and fight than think and write. This is useful to Jews who want more Wars for Israel. So, when the ‘wholesome’ family re-enters the War against Evil, it’s like Jews manipulating white men to become heroes once again and go fight and kill all those Arabs and Mooslims.
Also, the notion that the WHOLE FAMILY takes part in the fight can be taken two ways. It’s funny and cute. Some families go camping together, but this superhero family saves the world together. But there is a dark subtext to this as well, the militarization of white family to do the bidding of Jews. In the US, so many white conservatives raise their kids to handle guns and to pledge allegiance to ‘Muh Israel’. Turn white kids into Warriors for Israel from cradle. After all, superheroes never fight for their own superhero kind; no, they always serve humanity.
As for Defund the Police, it isn’t really about crime or police. It’s about idolatry of the Negro. After all, no one cares about police killing ‘white trash’ or ‘brown trash’. Indeed, most Americans, libs and cons, don’t care about US military killing countless innocents abroad.
But Black Lives Matter mattered because of the special idolatry of the Magic Negro as America’s god, superhero, saint, and etc. And BLM had special significance in 2020 because Jews feared that Trump might win over sufficient black vote to win. So, to keep blacks on the Democratic column and to disgrace Trump’s America as ‘racist’, Jews and libby-dib mandatorians pulled all the stop to make a big issue of Innocent Blacks.
TOMORROWLAND also excels in this.
It’s not that simple. Anti-egalitarianism can be based on merit or privilege. The aristocratic order was about inequality based on inheritance. So, if a smart and capable boy was born serf, he remained a serf. But an idiot son born into an aristocratic family enjoyed special privileges.
Leftism at the outset was about meritocratic equality of opportunity. It said all people should have equal chance at life, success, happiness, and power. It didn’t seek to flatten the curve but offer opportunities to those who’d been denied it. This was the appeal of the French Revolution but also of National Socialism that provided opportunities for those of humble backgrounds.
Of course, there’s a radical strain of leftism that demand equality not of means but results. Old leftism was associated with bourgeois liberalism. It argued against aristocratic privilege that favored idiot sons of aristocrats over smart sons of peasants, workers, and merchants. But over time, the bourgeois liberal order that emerged from the French Revolution and British Industrial Revolution led to a new hierarchy. The smarter, more cunning, more industrious, and more resourceful rose to the top and became even richer and more powerful than kings and noblemen of old. And the radical left argued that the capitalists, though having risen through real talent and smarts, were utterly ruthless, greedy, and unscrupulous. Therefore, the state must level the field so that everyone would be equal and no one could exploit another. Only then, could society be free once again.
At any rate, the Left could be for natural hierarchy against traditional hierarchy: Favor the smart sons of the working class over the idiot sons of the upper class. But this was bound to leave some in the dust as well, as explored by Charles Murray in COMING APART, all the more troubling as it leads to smart men mating with smart women at the top and hogging most of the smart genes. In the aristocratic past when even smart peasants remained as peasants, smart genes were found in all classes(and dumb genes existed plenty among the aristos). But in the liberal order, smart men and women(especially with feminism) rise to the top and marry one another. Over time, most of the smart genes end up at the top while the social bottom becomes dumber and dumber. For all their ‘wokeness’, part of the reason why Jews and white elites look down on white Deplorables is because the latter are seen as DUMB and inferior.
At any rate, ‘wokeness’ isn’t really about equality as a generic ideal but the idolatry of blackness. After all, who complains that blacks dominate sports and pop music? Who complains that jungle fever is about white women going with black men as superior studs? Black Idolatry > Equality for all. Inequality is a problem in the West ONLY WHEN blacks are underrepresented. Whites are so enthralled with blacks as the god race that they can’t tolerate the notion of blacks as inferior in anything. If US was really about total quality, Los Angeles would be calling for more Mexicans in the NBA.
The Right has been for hierarchy, but this could favor mediocrity. Tsar Nicholas II was a total mediocrity, a dumbass. But he was emperor due to his birth. Spain remained more aristocratic and conservative relative to other European nations, but the result was power and privilege remaining in the hands of idiot aristocrats and their inbred kids. Ancient Egypt was deeply conservative, but the end-result was insularity and slow decay of the upper caste. When hierarchy is enshrined by inheritance, there’s loss of vitality and vigor. Why struggle when your power and privilege is inherited and taken for granted.
Also, hierarchy of mind is what really controls society. The family in INCREDIBLES have incredible physical powers but aren’t special intellectually. The smart control the dim. It’s like blacks have superior ability as athletes, but Jews control them because Jews got the media and sports franchises. Jews got the big money. Likewise, white men may make great soldiers and be good with their hands, but such folks are always controlled by people of superior intelligence and greater will.
If physical prowess determined outcome of power, horses and cows would rule over us. Rather, smart humans use big powerful animals.
If she said that, she was lying. It’s clear in THE FOUNTAINHEAD that Howard Roark is a man of superior intelligence and ability. While he is a hard worker, he takes his genius for granted. He is always at peace. There is no struggle or effort in him. Also, Roark’s good looks and stature are the result of genes. No way Rand really believed in the blank slate.
Technology is a leveler for the users/consumers, not for the inventors. While any idiot white guy, imbecile Asian, or moron Negro can use a smart phone and play video games — technology sure made so many things simple for the simple-minded who merely need to push a button or flip on a switch — , it takes real smarts, brilliance, and talent to master science and come up with new technology. The practice of science separates the smart wheat from the dumb chaff.
Also, we don’t live in a superhero world. The ONLY way humanity can expand its power is through science and technology that allows us to fly and communicate in ways impossible to imagine in the past.
To be sure, technology allowed mankind to ‘cheat’. Before technology, mankind was part of nature. It hunted and devoured animals but was also hunted and devoured by other animals. As humans were smaller and/or weaker than many animals, they were vulnerable. But humans invented tools that leveled the field between man and beast. Man could defend himself against predators and even kill animals much bigger and stronger than himself.
Also, technology made certain people artificially superior to other peoples. Once white folks gained superior technology, they invaded and dominated other lands. Runty Japanese were first to adopt Western technology and stomped all over China. Was this a kind of cheating?
Today, some whites feel this way. After all, why did whites gain power over blacks? Superior technology. Black man is more muscular and tougher. One on one, black guy can beat up a white guy like Joe Frazier destroyed Jerry Quarry… and Larry Holmes beat Gerry Cooney. But because whites had guns, they enslaved blacks. But now, many whites feel that naturally inferior whites gained dominance over naturally superior blacks who are tougher and more manly, i.e. blacks are the natural superheroes, and inferior whites gained dominance over blacks by relying on the artifice of technological advantage. Whites cheated.
And there’s a similar logic with Jews. It says Jews are the natural god-geniuses with their superior intelligence, but whites kept the Jews down with the prejudice of antisemitism that favored dimwit whites over smart Jews. And Jews keep reminding us that Nazis lost because they kicked out all the smart Jews, the race that made the Atomic Bomb in the US while less intelligent Aryans hardly got anywhere with nuclear power. As Jews are naturally smarter, they deserve to rule over dumber whites. According to this view, National Socialism was about guarding white mediocrity against the threat of superior Jewish intelligence and superior black athleticism. Jews never tire of reminding people that Jewish scientists were better than Aryan scientist and that Jesse Owens and Joe Louis beat the Aryan athletes.
White conservatives rather like the leveling effect of technology. Without guns, blacks can invade white homes and beat up white guys and rape white women. White men cannot defend home and hearth from stronger and tougher Negroes. But with the gun, the white guy can kill the black intruder. And the white guy with a gun is equal to the black guy with the gun. Guns level the field of violence between whites and blacks.
It was also a homage to the Fantastic Four: Dad is The Thing (uber strong, resilient to pain), Mom is Mr. Fantastic (stretchy/elastic), and daughter is Invisible Girl. Son is not the Human Torch, but his speed is so fast he can leave fire streaks, so that’s probably the best they could do.
Anyway, I think the movie can called “noblesse oblige”, as most superhero movies can be. The Incrediblea are noble-blooded due to their super powers, and want to show their greatness, but also yearn to protect the lower castes with it. Remember, the Dad gets off not on being admired/having groupies but on saving the day— its the honor, not the fame that drives him and his buddy to sneak out at night.
Pakula’s finest hour
Video Link
“Ayn Rand herself makes an appearance in the movie as designer Edna Mode,”
I don’t know about Ayn Rand, but I thought the visual character is based on a women in one of those interminable & indistinguishable NCIS type “dramas”.
Incidentally, I liked the “Incredibles” also.
At the risk of howls of screaming rage, I’d suggest that the “Harry Potter” books & films are also moral exemplars — they demonstrate a commitment to friendship, loyalty, courage & decency. Harry is not great b/c he’s the best wizard, but b/c he has courage & an unwavering commitment to friends & aversion to “evil”. Nothing comes “easy” to Harry.
Those who wish to mine the political substructure will, no doubt, find plenty to hate.
The third movie in the series was just announced, with the title changed to “The Equitables.”
The “differently-abled hero” named Bobba can change into any one of thousands of potential genders at will. Its spouse Pastatwirl feeds thousands of homeless each day from an electric food truck. Their pal Growzone is half-plant, half-animal, metabolically carbon neutral, androgynous, and invented a serum that turns hemoglobin into chlorophyll.
Which excludes the reviewer 🙂
Cartoon movies? Man, come on. The Incredibles isn’t even a movie for adults.
I think a good White Nationalist movie, (((right wing))) vs. (((left wing))) is for sheeple, would be, “No Country For Old Men.” The White population of America is growing older and we are seeing the country we grew up in rapidly going downhill. This movie is supposed to be taking place in 1980, can you imagine someone who died in 1980 and waking up in 2021? That person would crawl back in his or her grave, you thought the early 1980s were bad?
Anyhow an aging Texas lawman played by Tommy Lee Jones is a character that many older Whites, especially older blue collar White males, can relate to, I know I can. The acting in this movie is superb. Probably the only post 1990s movie made that was even watchable IMO.
Incredibles? “Come on, man.”
“I wonder if ‘The Incredibles’ will be banned at some point.”
It is better to teach people what garbage they are and why.
See if you like:
Spirited Away by Hayao Miyazaki
It is hand drawn animation and is worth your time. I bought it.
Ha!
And Mark Cuban is repellent.
If Rand believes that human beings are born blank slates, she is committed to the thesis that we are all born equal, i.e., blank. What, then, explains our differences? For Rand, it is will. Some people try harder than others. (Don’t ask why some people try harder than others, because the will is free.)
This has long been a contradictory position of Ayn Rand that she never explained.
Genetic traits don’t exist but society is completely dependent on the capitalist genius.
Well where does the genius come from? If genes don’t matter then how do we make more geniuses?
It doesn’t add up but as with liberalism she hopes you just go with it and don’t ask questions about genes or race.
I too detected a bit of Randian influence in the Incredibles but only to a superficial degree and I thought the writer overall sided with liberal egalitarian society. I think he tries to explore individualism but then reverts to what he feels is an inescapable reality of modern society where those with talents must suppress them at times for the common good.
As far as kid movies go I really liked Despicable Me 3. The 80s villain is hilarious. I really don’t like politics in kid movies even if they are a break from the liberal norm.
A good movie to review would be Get Shorty. It parodied a lot of Hollywood without them realizing it. A lot of critics reviewed that movie without realizing that the joke was on them.
Leftism at the outset was about meritocratic equality of opportunity. It said all people should have equal chance at life, success, happiness, and power. It didn’t seek to flatten the curve but offer opportunities to those who’d been denied it. This was the appeal of the French Revolution
That was only half of it.
The French revolutionaries believed that anyone in power was there by collusion.
So anyone shoveling horse sh-t could just as well run a government department as someone from the upper class if given the right upbringing/training/etc.
Yes this is in fact possible but highly unlikely.
That was the start of blank slate which simply isn’t true.
This was carried into Marxism where Karl basically said the same thing. The workers could just as well run the factories.
Anyone that has managed basic labor doesn’t believe this for one second. The Marx/French view sounds nice but simply isn’t true.
White conservatives rather like the leveling effect of technology. Without guns, blacks can invade white homes and beat up white guys and rape white women.
An interesting point but the truly leveling technology is the internet. It takes collegiate theories whereby the government has investment millions and levels them where they belong which is at the equal of some random drunk dyke at a bar ranting about White men with d-cks as the cause of all the problems.
But was the Left ever really about “equality”, of any kind?
Martin Luther (the first leftist?) and the Reform allied with Kings, and it was about removing privileges and land from the Catholic Church and get it for themselves.
The French Revolution was about the new bourgeois class taking privileges and land from the aristocrats and get it for themselves.
The Russian Revolution was about Jews taking the power from the Czars and land from the kulaks to themselves.
The new “Woke Revolution” is also about a new multicultural globalist elite (mostly Jews, but also some Whites, Indians and others) taking all the power and richness for themselves, under the banner of a “blank slate equality” in which no one really believes. Or they wouldn’t be zilionnaires trampling over everyone.
Definitely some truth to this. BBF is always provides the moral compass for our conflicted hero, and always possess the utmost in rationality and integrity.
The two Incredibles movies provide a very good example of the difference between telling a story and grinding an axe.
The first one, for the most part, is the validation of strong family formation. Yes the tiresome display of the mythological moral superiority of minorities is present, with the black sidekick Frozone and the ambiguous ethnicity of the redeemed femme fatale Mirage.
The sequel is pure marxist claptrap. It may has well have been called Mrs. Incredible and Friends, or Girls Rule! (With the Help of Some Queers). Consider:
Mrs. Incredible is awkwardly shoved center stage in most of the action and plot development.
Genius female super villain.
The child Jack Jack, reminded me of a child who isn’t sure what he really is (gee I wonder what that’s a metaphor for?)
The gang of retard supers is pretty much a metaphor for the promotion of homosexual and minoritarian degeneracy.
Mr. Incredible stays home with the kids and they basically Homer Simpson him.
There were more examples but I only saw it once when it came out. I won’t waste my time to see it again.
Same reason Americans can’t leave well alone.
In a strange coincidence, Japanese people say “Be careful enough!”
A sequel would have been good if it was a decent movie. But Incredibles 2 was simply a load of crap.
When I saw there was a sequel to the Incredibles I looked forward to it, as the first movie had been very good.
Major dissapointment.
Like with Jurassic Park. Thoroughly enjoyed the first movie and looked forward to the sequel. Jurassic Park 2 utter, utter complete drivel.
Alan j Paula? Boy he made a few political films in the 70s didnt he? I think with Warren Beatty or Robert Redford not really sure. What sticks in my mind when I hear his name is how he died. It was a very bizarre death.
Hollywood may be running out of stories for movies. Or rather, must be running out or has run out. Being clever people they realise there is no point in making good movies for the intelligent few, but utter rubbish for the multitude.
Incredible 1,2 and no doubt all the way to 35 is just more Hasbara shit from the Hollywood outhouse. No doubt the critics will compare the characters to those in a work by Shakespeare akin to a fertiliser company pimping their shit as gold nuggets.
I would not waste my time on the rubbish if the ticket, popcorn and soda was free. These stupid movies make the dumb dumber. They hand over their precious money to look at shit all the while stuffing the pockets of the degenerates with more shekels…..for the production of more crap.
Incredibles is a fairly enjoyable animated movie. Nothing more. But if one has to give meaning to the movie, the little people are both fly over country and the villains. The Incredibles are the unappreciated urban elite.
Trinity, a friend of mine who worked for the oil industry and saved every penny moved to rural Brazil in the mid 70’s. He returned to the US for a visit Summer of ’19 and was appalled at the condition of the country and the psychological make up of his relatives and old friends. They were like caged animals . While he planned to spend 3 months touring after two weeks he paid a penalty on his airline reservation and fled utterly depressed.
Your observation is so astute. The change in this country over the past 50 years has seemed gradual to those who live here. Often we are too busy to even notice and when we do we sigh “Oh well………”
However, being away for a long time and then returning is a shocker. That said one can only imagine with horror what it is going to be like 50 years from now.
Love the Action Hero.
Check out Action Hero by Fountains Of Wayne on Amazon Music
Check out Action Hero by Fountains Of Wayne on Amazon Music
Fucking cartoon.
When will Trevor Lynch reveal some anime? Fucking Patlabor 2 was prophetic in predicting 9/11.
I have been here the whole time and I can’t believe the changes. The fact that grown adults even watched a movie like “The Incredibles” would have been laughable in 1990, much less in 1970. I remember working with a couple of guys in their 50s, this was back around 2005 and they would talk about playing video games. The sad part is these guys were married and had families and would waste their hard earned money buying this stupid shit instead of clothes, food, etc.
The sequel is pure marxist claptrap. It may has well have been called Mrs. Incredible and Friends, or Girls Rule! (With the Help of Some Queers).
This has been the trend lately in kid movies. The women do everything and the men are total boobs.
In Croods 2 the men are tied up for most of the movie. They actually just sit there and talk about how they need to improve themselves.
Liberals in Hollywood seem deeply insecure about the world these days.
If they truly believed that race and gender were social constructs then they wouldn’t be trying so hard to manipulate children.
It all reeks of compensation by egalitarians that are not as confident in their beliefs as they would like to think.
I have been here the whole time and I can’t believe the changes. The fact that grown adults even watched a movie like “The Incredibles” would have been laughable in 1990
Ah had no idea that was a cultural peak for America. Let’s see what happened in 1990:
Home Alone is released. It spends twelve consecutive weeks at number one on the United States box office, becoming both the highest-grossing film of the year and the highest-grossing comedy of all-time.
So grown adults watching a kid hit burglars in the balls with various objects was the cultural event of the year.
Got it.
Kyotskete? As close as I can get with romaji. Im only guessing
My wife wanted to go see Home Alone and so I obliged her and we went. I hated it. Sat there and thought the punk kid was an irritating brat and his family and relatives were repulsive. I never watched it again.
And that was before the whole covid thing. Now they are really caged animals.
Having lived overseas for a number of years, and returning once my work was done, i can say that America looks to be more and more of a movie set and we, the people who navigate the highways and byways of this oversized backlot, are really nothing more than extras in this scripted horror show.
Trevor Lynch, if you feel like watching a new high budget film that is quite original, not overwrought in its politics, and fun, you can watch “Free City.”
It has plenty of “it is 2021” elements, but it is 2021 so that’s to be expected, and it isn’t fanatical about them.
I won’t give away it’s influences, they are clear after a while, and I suggest you don’t read about it first, bit if you want a popcorn film with deeper ideas and surprising contemporary relevancy then you could do worse.
My wife wanted to go see Home Alone and so I obliged her and we went. I hated it. Sat there and thought the punk kid was an irritating brat and his family and relatives were repulsive. I never watched it again.
That’s nothing. I had to watch the sequel.
The point I was trying to make to Trinity is that most Hollywood movies have long been garbage.
Even though I have kids I would still take a date to a movie like The Incredibles if I was single.
It’s not that I would seek out kid movies. I could just see a situation where you want to take a woman out and you have to pick between The Incredibles and some lame comic book movie or rehashed horror flick.
I’ve walked out on movies numerous times so a kid or family movie can be safe bet. A bad kid movie is usually more tolerable than a bad adult flick. If there are a lot of kids you can surf on your phone and no one cares. With early showings they won’t even darken the theater.
“So grown adults watching a kid hit burglars in the balls with various objects was the cultural event of the year.
“Got it.”
For some reason, your comment struck me as hilarious. Thanks, I needed that. 🙂
So Judeofascist ((Ayn Rand)) believed in Triumph of the Will? But Nazis are the most evil creatures to ever have existed, according to the Judeofascist/Zionist/Marxist narrative. “Evil” then, for ((Jews)) and their lackeys, is a rival who is capable of beating them.
It explains a lot about the Zionist and ((Marxist)) war on Whites. It explains why Zionist Trump failed to rally to his White base. It explains a lot about the Judas treachery of the Neocon GOP. It explains a lot about who and what the fake-“Christians” are. It explains a lot about why pseudo-“Christian” America is a doomed and failed state at war with itself, destined to resemble the doomed and failed Mideast unless the Judeofascists are routed.
No Magic Negros, trannys, dykes or anal ponders??? What’s up with that?
They better to get with the times or die.
Review Manderlay (2005) – it should generate a lively debate, being about slavery, race and all that.
This is cultural Marxist-Zionist modus operandi, especially in ((Hollywood)): take a movie or concept with Christian and conservative undertones, put it through the Marxist grinder — with ((Jewish)) writers, producers, etc — and the message gets completely transformed to one of subversion.
That so many artists go along with all of it goes to their low character. That so many “Americans” go along with it goes to the entire nation’s degraded character.
Same with the NWO wars. ((Jews)) and Zionists exploited Americans’ instincts to “do good” in order to transform them into stooges for international Zionism, the MIC, and war crimes.
These creatures are pure evil. People that get into bed with them become pure evil. No wonder so many troops end up committing suicide.
The review of The Incredibles is really good, although it skips over quite some important details (Mirage, Bob Dick, to a lesser degree Mr. Huph, insurance, and the legal system in general, not just tort law.)
I personally find The Incredibles the second best Pixar animated movie, right after Monsters Inc. (a/k/a how to control people/monsters purely by instilled fear.)
But at the sequel, Trevor completely loses any insight.
The Incredibles 2 was a complete disaster from beginning to end. A few good jokes inside it couldn’t change that.
The philanthropic pair is an obvious cartoon image of Larry/Sergei/Zuck/Jack (or even Bill G.), but purposely fails to put any deeper reflection on questions such as: the “good intentions” paradox, can lots of money do any good at all, and “lying for the betterment of things?”
Due to diversity/equity, Elastigirl had to (temporarily) become stronger and more important than Bob, that one I could foresee before watching the movie.
The overload of Jack-Jack’s abilities becomes a complete self-immolation of the script writer, just as the (in)famous Superman comics phase, where he could withstand nukes. Maybe it’s Brad’s way of ensuring there won’t be another sequel, but as a viewer I feel laughed-at for that.
And finally we get to the whopper nobody ever spoke about:
The hypno-goggles.
Seriously now, you Brad Bird are telling us, and to all the children watching, that there is a (simple) thing that even superheroes are completely helpless against, not just at their limits bodily, but in mind and will??
This is the inversion of the (tribal) Initiation, which was to show that you [the tested] can get (mostly) by yourself through some very bad things. Here it’s the opposite, make your growing-up children become/stay mentally weak.
And -sorry to say so-, that must be jewish thing. I had exactly that experience myself, in early 1970’s in a particular scene of Sesame Street (of all places). Gave me reoccurring nightmares for many years, before I was able to slowly overcome that. Another example: how was it that Palpatine gets to Anakin – repeatedly demonstrated helplessness maybe? (to do something against the periodic torturing of his mother)
So we adults need to call out this shit!
No, she detested Fascism for much the same reason she detested communism. It suppressed the individual whose will was bent to serve either the ‘common good’ or collective destiny. She hated the sight of mindless German masses shouting Heil Hitler like so many drones.
But here’s the thing. If Rand is really about the Individual Uber Alles, why did she caricature all Arabs as savages who deserve to be trampled by Jews? Shouldn’t she have been in favor of individualist Jews who rose above Jewish Identity and Arab individualists who rose above Arab identity?
Video Link
But in her discussion of Israel and Palestinians, Jews as a collective have a right to crush and trample on Palestinians because Jews as a people are modern and free whereas Arabs as a people are backward and savage. So, her supposed individualism had its limits. What’s truly incredible is she denounced US foreign policy as not being pro-Zionist enough when, in fact, the US aided and abetted Zionist destruction of Palestinians from the outset. It’s never enough for Jews. They are like god that can never be appeased by enough or even by more than enough. (But then, there are so many idiot goy white conzos who attack the Democratic Party for throwing Israel under the bus when the Dems are total shills of Zionist supremacists while most Jews are totally anti-white).
Also, even if she was sincerely committed to individualism, one wonders if she subconsciously pushed that stuff on white goyim because it would encourage atomization among them, making them weaker in relation to more tribal-minded Jews.
My experience was pre-kids. I simply couldn’t understand the fascination people had with it. People are easily amused it seems and lackluster and limp wristed affairs are touted as being far greater than they really are. Im amazed at the how many films are fawned over and are pure crap while many others are deservedly worth the accolades, and get them, but sit quietly off to side. It’s a business… I get it… but occasionally some diamonds can be found amongst the crap even if they’re by accident.
Miyazaki is the best. I bought a bunch of his stuff for the kids since I’m not at all keen on the vast majority of the Pixar/ Disney slop. It’s real art.
If you may recall in the film ‘Idiocracy’ one of the big TeeVee shows for the future dimwits was called ‘Ow. My Balls’
I caught it on cable TV at my friend’s house long ago. What I found surprising was it was more violent than STRAW DOGS. How times had changed.
These are the movies that to me as an adult were nothing less than prophetic. Perhaps they were all predictive programming but they all gave us a glimpse as to how things really worked.
In no particular order. And if you know of others that are in the same vein then by all means please add to it
1) Network
2) The Parralax View
3) Three Days Of The Condor
4) The Formula
Interesting that they’re all 70s and 80s flicks but I’m certain there are others here and there I’ve simply forgotten or was never aware of
LOL…Honorable Mention…. Capricorn One
Yeah, grown men playing video games is apparently some sort of norm now.
I’m 36 and I haven’t played them in about 20 years. It just seems vaguely yet deeply pathetic to be devoted to video games into adulthood, just like grown women who still obsess about Disney.
Yet, that is the world we find ourselves in.
That’s not true. Disney movies were big hits with children and adults. Of course, parents mainly saw them cuz they took their kids to the movies, but the great thing about Disney was there was something for everyone. Indeed, what makes a truly great children’s movie is even adults can enjoy them whereas crappy kiddie movies are liked only by kids.
Miyazaki’s LAPUTA: CASTLE IN THE SKY is one of those children’s works that is awesome for adults as well.
Same with Looney Tunes. They never get old. And those were meant for adults and kids(who hardly got the allusions to stuff like Wagner, Noir, history, etc.)
I would say the problem today isn’t that adults still watch kiddie movies with their kids but fail to grow up and remain fixated on kiddie culture as mainstay of culture. Adults without kids still playing video games. Adults without family who are still fixated on superhero movies… or STAR WARS or STAR TREK, a true cultural disease.
Even weirder trend is to solemnize pop culture, somewhat akin to turning ‘gay’ culture into spirituality. BLADE RUNNER is a great film but not a deep work of art, but the sequel 2047 would have us believe Rachel died as saint while giving miracle birth. The latest TERMINATOR would have us believe the Terminator gained psychological complexity and moral sense and gave up killing and took to family life and changing diapers. It’s total MAD Magazine parody stuff but done so straight and earnest and so gravely.
This is why I don’t like Nolan’s BATMAN. I mean a superhero tale of some guy running around in bat costume doesn’t merit ART treatment. What was good about ANT-MAN was the light sense of fun along with the sheer ingenuity of conception.
Negative stereotypes galore. Compared to rats.
An admirable rant, but I must pick a few nits.
“But because whites had guns, they enslaved blacks. ”
I think the consensus at Unz is that it was the Arabs (and other blacks) who did the enslaving. The idea of White guys sailing over to Africa and “capturing” blacks is a myth. The superior tech was sailing ships, not guns; Whites sailed to West Africa and bought slaves at the markets run by Semites.
“And there’s a similar logic with Jews. It says Jews are the natural god-geniuses with their superior intelligence, but whites kept the Jews down with the prejudice of antisemitism that favored dimwit whites over smart Jews. And Jews keep reminding us that Nazis lost because they kicked out all the smart Jews, the race that made the Atomic Bomb in the US while less intelligent Aryans hardly got anywhere with nuclear power. As Jews are naturally smarter, they deserve to rule over dumber whites. According to this view, National Socialism was about guarding white mediocrity against the threat of superior Jewish intelligence and superior black athleticism. Jews never tire of reminding people that Jewish scientists were better than Aryan scientist and that Jesse Owens and Joe Louis beat the Aryan athletes.”
Actually, what made the difference was that the Jewish scientists had no problem with designing a goyim-annihilating weapon, whereas Aryan scientists in Germany balked and deliberately delayed the research. Jews are “smarter” but, being sociopaths, are dangerous rather than helpful. I like to compare them to Hannibal Lechter in Manhunter:
Will Graham:
I know that I’m not smarter than you.
Doctor Hannibal Lecktor:
Then how did you catch me?
Will Graham:
You had disadvantages.
Doctor Hannibal Lecktor:
What disadvantages?
Will Graham:
You’re insane.
Jewish director Michael Mann also wrote the screenplay, and you’ll note he changed the spelling of Lechter’s name, to hide his Jewish background.
Anyhow, as Dr. Goebbels pointed out at the time, that’s not how science works. It doesn’t matter if Einstein is in Berlin or Buenos Aires, he publishes his research and anyone can use it (Dr. G’s own example).
Your point about meritocracy was also made by Robert Penn Warren about segregation: it kept the smart blacks in their own communities; as he predicted, if a smart black could go to Harvard Med and set up shop in the Hamptons, he would, and the black community would be left behind. That seems to be how it worked out, though I’m sure he’ll be cancelled if anyone finds that essay today.
Anyway, you poison the well by making it an issue of favoring “white dumbasses.” There’s plenty of White geniuses, and you only need a handful to make significant discoveries. Reserving White countries for White people just ensures that they get a chance to rise to the top, rather than being blackballed by Jews (as in today’s Ivy League).
The idea that a nation of Jews would dominate the world is refuted by Israel; indeed, historically, Jews have never been able to create a successful state; their much vaunted “survival” is that of a cockroach or other parasite. Plus, the sociopathy leads to the frog/scorpion story.
Back in the 30s, a Romanian fascist explained why he wanted to keep “superior” Transylvanian athletes off their Olympic team: “It is not a question of winning; it is a question of winning with your own people.” Contrast French soccer.
The “hero syndrome” refers to a form of manipulative behavior in which a person creates a crisis and then comes to the rescue.
Paging Dr Fauci!
Sigh. Where are all these sensible societies with superheroes we keep hearing so much about? Like are we talking Afghanistan or Uganda?
And I’m not so much interested in a sensible society as one that can produce a Lynyrd Skynyrd.
This of course is the standard delusion/fantasy of most UNZ writers. That they have been forced (by the Jews) to stop helping society.
She detested Germano-ascism, but supported Judeo-fascism (to whit, from what you wrote):
Or do you take ((Rand)) at her word that she is “for the individual”? Do you take ((neocons)) at their word that they’re “for democracy”?
((Jews)) lie to the goyim as easily and naturally as they breath. You, of all people, should know that. Why would you ever trust the grand pose and method acting of a ((Jew))?
Nazism paled in comparison to the ambitions of Judeofascism.
The 70s were the Golden Age of Cinema Paranoia.
The boomers were finally finding a place in Hollywood as producers.
The Nixon presidency put Hollywood Jews in anti-government mode. (It’s like the Bush II years had V FOR VENDETTA and BOURNE movies.)
Jews had yet to take total power from the Wasps and had no qualms about subverting trust in the system.
The Cold War was still on, and there were many sincere leftists around, Jewish and goyim, who believed in the radical cause.
Liberals couldn’t believe that a Marxist(Oswald) killed Camelot and a Palestinian(Sirhan) killed Camelot II. They wanted to believe in some vast right-wing conspiracy.
And all those drugs made boomers hallucinate all sorts of possibilities. (Oliver Stone came of age later but is part of this legacy.)
The new freedoms in movies allowed for more violence and anti-establishment attitudes.
So, the era produced movies like KILLER ELITE, CONVERSATION, NIGHT MOVES, THE GODFATHER PART 2(which is more cynical than the first one), DAY OF THE DOLPHIN, THX 1138, CHINATOWN, THE CHINA SYNDROME, SOYLENT GREEN, EIGER SANCTION, STEPFORD WIVES, and others.
https://parallax-view.org/2009/08/14/the-pakula-parallax/
I wonder if PARALLAX VIEW partly inspired Beatty to do HEAVEN CAN WAIT. In PARALLAX, Beatty’s character is thought dead and he goes about his investigation as someone else. Similar scenario in HEAVEN.
(To be sure, the 60s had its share of Cinema Paranoia. Especially ADVISE AND CONSENT, DR. STRANGELOVE, MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, PRESIDENT’S ANALYST, SEVEN DAYS IN MAY.)
If those movies were thought to be on the Left, some anti-establishment movies were seen as right-wing, even fascist. If the Paranoid movies said conspiracies are afoot to protect the Power from the people, Cinema Vigilante said the System does nothing to protect the people from street thugs and arch-criminals. DIRTY HARRY and DEATH WISH movies.
Both sets of movies attacked the system but for different reasons. For the average Joe, the Vigilante movies were more relevant as they could be victims of street crime. For the educated types(who lived in safe neighborhoods), the Paranoid movies were more relevant because it seemed like powerful forces above were hiding the truth from them… which is why ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN was such a hit. Two smart educated journalists dig for truth hidden by the Nixon Machine.
TAXI DRIVER sits somewhere between Paranoia movies and Vigilante movies. It says the Killer could be a mad loner. If there is a conspiracy, it is psychological, happening in Bickle’s fervid imagination of the intersection of solitude, sexuality, frustration, rage, and confusion. So, it has certain tropes of Paranoid movies but says a Nobody or Loser(like Oswald) can kill a Somebody. And even though it has Vigilante tropes as well, Bickle is hardly a Callahan-like hero but a demented soul despite his war against urban depravity, but then, his neurosis, essential to what he is, can only thrive in a sordid world. NY of the mid-70s really seem shitty.
He’s wallows in what repulses him. He’s like a maggot that is allergic to shit. (Robert Altman’s NASHVILLE has a liberal vibe and parodies the country music industry, but its most sympathetic characters are the simpletons while the hipsters and sophisticates come across hypocritical or smarmy. Also, like TAXI DRIVER, it says a loser-nobody can be the killer. It’s not always a conspiracy.)
Very ambitious work but I don’t care for Miyazaki beginning with MONONOKE HIME. His best works are NAUSICAA and especially LAPUTA, one of the greatest movies ever. TOTORO is wonderful kiddie movie but only for kids(and adults watching with kids).
MONONOKE is too violent and grim for animation. It should have been live-action.
SPIRITED AWAY is insane. It is also overly grotesque. It does have its moments and had a moving ending, but too much phantasmagoria.
HOWL’S MOVING CASTLE was more insane than SPIRITED AWAY if such thing is even possible. Critics were more divided on that one.
https://jonathanrosenbaum.net/2020/10/where-the-kids-are-2/
As for WIND RISES, it should have been live-action. Fascinating story but flattened by visual style suitable for children’s movies.
Im amazed at the how many films are fawned over and are pure crap while many others are deservedly worth the accolades, and get them, but sit quietly off to side. It’s a business… I get it… but occasionally some diamonds can be found amongst the crap even if they’re by accident.
What I don’t get are the people that go to the movies all the time.
It could be a line up of total crap and you will see rural Americans lining up for some liberal narrative feature where White men are depicted as total dopes.
I have some conservative relatives that will go to the movies and then complain to me about some offensive scene. So stop giving them money???
Hollywood really doesn’t make anything from digital rentals. I’ll rarely pay for a full feature simply because I don’t like the industry. I haven’t been to the theater in a couple years but they might get me with Dune.
There were some great movies from the 70s but can you explain Killing of a Chinese Bookie? I don’t see why it is so highly rated. Was it considered edgy for the time? It has some good scenes and overall I liked it but I would never put it in the same category as Chinatown or Godfather.
Well I can think of a couple of movies that were decent in the 1990s, one example would be “Silence Of The Lambs.” I think it would be more acceptable for an adult to waste their money on a movie like SOTL than comic book movies, “The Incredibles” or Fast & Furious 27.
Also, even if she was sincerely committed to individualism, one wonders if she subconsciously pushed that stuff on white goyim because it would encourage atomization among them, making them weaker in relation to more tribal-minded Jews.
I have asked libertarians many times about her positions on Israel and they just want to avoid the subject. But I don’t know why they still follow her around when in that single interview it was clear that her claim of individualism being everything doesn’t apply to Israel. In just a few minutes she drops her basic principles cause it’s Israel and that is different. Ok so why should anything that she said be taken seriously?
Also, even if she was sincerely committed to individualism, one wonders if she subconsciously pushed that stuff on white goyim because it would encourage atomization among them, making them weaker in relation to more tribal-minded Jews.
Well we know that if a country like Germany said they are an advanced country and won’t be taking savage immigrants she would have been incensed. She would have called that racist and collectivist. But when she ran her mouth in that interview it was clear that she doesn’t view Arabs in Palestine as individuals. It’s really amusing as to how fast she loses her composure and in the full clip you can tell she realizes that she said too much.
My guess is that she had two parts of her brain that were constantly spilt. One one level she wanted America to be an individualist utopia with open borders and on the other hand she was Jewish and could see that it wouldn’t be a good idea to flood Israel with Arab individualists.
I’m not going to spend too much time on what she really believed and if she was in fact trying to destroy the West through legal drugs and open borders. I think she really did hate Communism but also seemed to hate Christian Whites. It’s pretty extreme that she didn’t even support giving to Christian charities. I’m more concerned with people that currently follow her teachings and believe it is a rational alternative to socialism.
Ayn Rand said; The reason dictators hate free speech is because their arguments can not stand up to reason.
She certainly spoke the truth there.
I have hopes for Dune and hope that there will be a follow up to finish up the story. Denis did a decent job with 2049 and so while I dont expect perfection I see that it’s in pretty good hands.. My son is a geek like me and can’t wait.
One of the things that constantly irks me about people who complain about this or that in a movie is that no matter what you complain about, to the studio it’s a “win”! Why? Because they got your money. Any bitching about it after the fact is just bitching. It’s when they never get that initial dollar is when they panic.
The Conversation was depressing as hell. Funny that Hackman returns in Enemy Of The State. French Connection. Godfather, Chinatown… thats cinema. Good memories
“But major plot elements of The Incredibles strike me as an outright rip-off of Watchmen. In both stories, superheroes are forced into retirement, hanker for the old life, and return to it surreptitiously. In both stories, the villain does not have superpowers, but he uses technological enhancements to make himself powerful and is willing to share those enhancements with anyone who can pay. Both villains also create crises to achieve their ends. ”
Well, not even addressing the comics, but the original Superman movies had Superman fighting Lex Luther, a mortal superpowerless human, who used technology and crisis to achieve his goals. In Superman II, Superman abandons his powers, effectively going into retirement for a time.
I know the Watchmen draw a huge cult following, but I thought the movie was kind of dull. None of the good guys were really all that likeable.
It’s highly rated among a small circle of cinephiles. I don’t think most critics really care for it.
Cassavetes lost me after HUSBANDS, his greatest work. Granted, I haven’t seen MINNIE AND MOSKOWITZ but beginning with WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE, it’s all downhill as far as I’m concerned.
It happens in cinema that some artist becomes fixated on some misguided concept or goes against his natural instincts(as challenge or diversion). It’s like, at some point, Godard and Pasolini totally abandoned what made their reputations in the first place.
SHADOWS, his first movie, is crude but very happening from start to finish. It’s zany and restless.
FACES gets up close with Middle Class America. It’s raw and rough around the edges but with the unfiltered vitality of cinema verite, which is the point. With HUSBANDS, he preserved the slice-of-life vitality but also gained mastery as film-maker. Very great work. It was as if Cassavetes created a new style of cinema made from scratch than one owing to classic conventions.
But I’ve never been able to sit through WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Cassavates had a knack for certain things but was not an artist of depth. His best works are like a game of pool. It is in the collision of personalities that they come alive.
However, when a film has a central character, it calls for depth, penetration into the person’s psyche and soul. And Cassavetes was simply numb to this. The camera stares and stares but only captures the outward signs of neurosis without ever digging in. WOMAN is like dreary humorless version of I LOVE LUCY. And KILLING OF CHINESE BOOKIE is one of the dullest things I’ve ever seen. It’s like staring at a stationary billiard ball in a dark room. There is some action at the end, but it’s dull and flat. At least, Jim Jarmusch got the deadpan thing down pat. With Cassavetes, it’s just dead.
Perhaps, Cassavetes wanted to move beyond clash of personalities of his earlier works and sought to delve deeper into his characters. He simply didn’t know how. LOVE STREAMS had its defenders, but it took me three viewings to finish the thing.
Nothing is either-or. She certainly was right about many things.
But, her work as a literature is third rate; as philosophy- it is not a philosophy, any meaning of the word considered.
Well-made but trash. Totally sleazy trash.
Sad when one considers Demme made MELVIN AND HOWARD and one of my favs, SOMETHING WILD. Though lesser works, CITIZEN’S BAND is lots of fun and LAST EMBRACE is provocative.
SILENCE made him and unmade him. He became a star director much in demand, but his sensitive wiberal soul wilted under pressure from the ‘gay’ lobby that denounced the work as ‘homophobic’ or ‘transphobic’. So, rest of his cinema is like doing penance and lost the charm and humor of his earlier works. He became dreary.
One look at how dumb the characters look would’ve turned me off as a kid and would turn me off now as an adult. One of the reasons I could never get into the Simpsons. The best animated series for kids was Jonny Quest (1964) and I use that as the standard to which I judge all others. The junk that passes for children’s entertainment today doesn’t even come close.
It isn’t so much that she was right but provided a blueprint or template for us to think about things. If one approaches her works as heroes vs villains, it’s too simple-minded. But if we approach her worldview as a Theory of Power, it has its rewards. So, even though Toohey is the grand villain in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, there is much to learn from his mastery of power. Rand gives the devil his due. As an idealist of individualism, Randism is limited. But as a neo-Machiavellian mapping of power — the politics of money, morality, merit, and myth — , THE FOUNTAINHEAD is as useful as THE GODFATHER and THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY.
In a way, one might argue that, consciously or unconsciously, her books have served as the pillars of Jewish Power.
1. Power of Money, as represented by Gail Wynand. Yep, Jews got lots of money.
2. Power of Morality, as represented by Toohey. Jews control the gods of sanctimony: Globo-Homo, Magic Negro, Muh Holocaust.
3. Power of Merit, as represented by Roark. Yes, plenty of Jews have superior talents as individual innovators.
In the book, 3 is at odds with 2 and 1. Eventually, 3(Roark) and 1(Wynand) form an alliance against 2(Toohey), but Toohey commands the loyalty of the public because his politics of moralism sways public passions. So, 1 betrays 3 and goes with 2. But 3 brilliantly makes his case and wins over the public and triumphs.
But as Jews see it, there is no reason 1, 2, and 3 should be at odds with one another. They should all work together for Jewish supremacist power. That is power in America today.
Incidentally, as unrealistic as Roark’s victory is at the end of THE FOUNTAINHEAD, it’s true that the Jewish power of words have persuaded the world to submit to its vision. Who would have thought US would be okay with something nutty like ‘gay marriage’? But Jews convinced so many Americans to cuck to globo-homo. So, Rand understood how the power of rhetoric by one person can sway the minds of millions.
Still, the reason why Jews succeeded was because Jewish individualists formed a pact with Jewish money and Jewish moralizers. Unlike Roark who triumphs all alone, Jewish individuals had the support of Jewish who got the dough and Jews who control the gods.
She was as right as she was wrong. In the US, Jews used free speech to spread not reason but unreason.
While free speech can be used to speak truth to tyrannical power, it can also be used to speak falsehood to righteous power.
A lot of people are dummies. They are not swayed by truth or reason but by passion and prejudice.
Take BLM. It’s utter BS but free speech allows its expression, and it spread the crazy lie that innocent blacks are targeted by evil white supremacist police.
Also, what is of real consequence isn’t free speech but favored speech. If there are a 1000 people in a community and each person can say whatever, that’s not what matters. What matters is which group has the power and which speech does it favor. So, suppose 999 people’s free speech are ignored while one person’s free speech is favored by the power and disseminated all around. That one favored speech becomes more consequential than the free speech of 999 who remained ignored.
Take Robin DiAngelo. She has free speech to express her ideas about ‘white fragility’ like the rest of us has free speech to say whatever. But what made the difference? Why is her ideas so widespread while the ideas of race realists are so unknown and suppressed? Because Jews got the power of the megaphone and place it next to her mouth. So, the real power isn’t about the freedom to say whatever but the power to control whose speech is amplified.
Prior to the internet, Jews hardly feared free speech because they controlled the media, the megaphone. But the internet changed the rules of the game and memes hated by Jews could suddenly spread far and wide. Someone like ‘Ricky Vaughn’ could matter in the discourse and gain megaphone power on his own via the internet.
And so, Jews are now against free speech itself and using monopoly power to shut down free speech on the internet and using finance power to deny basic economic activity to Americans.
Jewish Supremacists are the enemy
Tombstone was a good movie – if there’s globobhomo influence in it, I can’t spot it. They even downplay the role of the jewess that Wyatt Earp falls for. Val Kilmer’s Doc Holiday is one of the greatest performances of all time.
Master and Commander is a superb movie. Not one line of dialog spoken by a female. No cucking, and the one rebel is given his piece to speak but put in his place.
Payback was a good movie – the jew bookie and his obese negro bodyguard get their comeuppance, as do the asian gang and the negro cop. In fact, this is one of the few movies that does not engage in one bit of negro idolatry.
I actually enjoy the fantastical aspects of Spirited Away and Howl’s Moving Castle, though the latter has some major flaws in the plot. It’s a visual and experiential accomplishment, but is kind of a muddle.
Most old “fairy tales” are really quite grotesque and I thought that Miyazaki does a fine job translating that onto the screen.
Haven’t seen “Payback” but I will try and watch it. I did enjoy Tombstone and Master and Commander.
Two of my favorite movies from the Nineties would be Sling Blade & Leaving Las Vegas with Elizabeth Shue and Nick Cage. You had decent movies in the 1990s, not as good as the Seventies or earlier IMO, but not the garbage we see today. The Nineties was the last decade for decent music as well. Sure you had the Grunge garbage and (c)rap, but still some decent tunes by various artist were not half bad. Good music after 2000 exists but it is super rare, same with movies IMO.
Cue: Leaving Las Vegas by Sheryl Crow
Rand was a Judeofascist fifth columnist, writing to encourage American individualism and enterprise, but knowing that the Judeofascists would succeed in controlling American capitalists, and would use that control to advance international Zionism and ultimately Judeofascist triumphalism. They need American capital and empire as the money, propaganda force, and temporary whip hand to drive their ultimate vision of Moshiacism (collective Judeofascist tyranny and totalitarianism over the world).
Thus are they programmed from birth, each to play a role. Top ((Jews)) run the machine but all play a part, most as mere plebes. The “intellectuals” all know or eventually learn the score and take their place keeping at the machine running, grinding forward.
In One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest, Kesey described the machine as the Combine. He just didn’t know Judeofascists were driving it. Or maybe he did.
https://allisoneames.weebly.com/symbols.html
And what role, if any, do you think her own Jewish background and her and her family’s firsthand experience with Bolshevism played in her development of Roark as the embodiment of the ideal man and Toohey as the personification of evil? She wanted no part of her given name, Alisa Rosenbaum, when she began her writing career in the U.S., and what I have read of her fiction and nonfiction gives no indication that she self-identified as Jewish.
Home Alone hasn’t got a rape scene has it?
In the uncut director’s version, the kid realizes his true sexual orientation and hog-ties the two men and sticks beer bottles into all their orifices. It’s called HOMO ALONE.
I am 36 almost 37 and all I do is play games. I dream of playstation 5 and spend 2 hours arranging my game collection every 3 days. That’s because I think we live in a simulation and I’d rather live in a simulation where I can be boss.
How Movies Became Cinema: Andrew Sarris in Seattle Part
https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/andrew-sarris-university-of-washington-talk-march-1987-part-one/
https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/andrew-sarris-university-of-washington-talk-march-1987-part-two/
Harry Potter was written specifically because of the dearth of super hero role models for boys.
Thought that “Wind Rises” contained something of barb against Germans. As such, though I can maybe think of one or two other examples in Japanese culture, it struck me as very non-Japanese, and I even wondered if there was some back-channel influence, as I believe Disney was dubbing and distributing the Ghibli movies in the West.
My favorite Miyazaki movie might be Lupin III. Very cartoonish, but I feel like it resonates a bit more with adults. Also believe it has a crypto message against both inflation and materialism in general.
It isn’t so much that she was right but provided a blueprint or template for us to think about things.
She didn’t want anyone to think about race or genetics which is why she shouldn’t be taken seriously.
If race is more of a factor than economic theory then just about everything she said was Grade A bullsh-t.
There is some quote where she says that race doesn’t exist but if it does then we should pretend it doesn’t. This is rationalism?
Her philosophy of individualism is also deeply suspect when she publicly expressed all her double standards for Israel. You see individualism is everything but Arabs are savages that Israel should keep out. That’s not collectivism because…….????
Rand was just plain full of crap and not worth referencing for anything but revealing her destructive lies. I’ll try to find the full video where she runs her mouth calling Arabs savages and then has this look like oh sh-t I messed up.
Brad Bird introduced a nice subversive wrinkle into Incredibles 2.
He featured a villain — Screenslaver — who exploits an uncomfortable truth about her victims: They are screen-addled zombies.
About half-way through the movie, Screenslaver broadcasts the following monologue, wherein she gives a spot-on critique, one that targets both the audience characterized in the movie as well as the viewing audience (beyond the fourth wall).
==========
Screenslaver interrupts this program for an important announcement.
Don’t bother watching the rest. Elastigirl doesn’t save the day. She only postpones her defeat.
And while she postpones her defeat, you eat chips and watch her confront problems that you are too lazy to deal with. Superheroes are part of your brainless desire to replace true experience with simulation.
You don’t talk, you watch talk shows.
You don’t play games, you watch game shows.
Travel, relationships, risk.
Every meaningful experience must be packaged and delivered to you to watch at a distance so that you can remain ever-sheltered, ever-passive, ever-ravenous consumers who can’t bring themselves to rise from their couches, break a sweat and participate in life.
You want superheroes to protect you and make yourselves evermore powerless in the process.
While you tell yourselves you’re being looked after, that your interests are being served, that your rights are being upheld, so that the system can keep stealing from you, smiling at you all the while.
Go ahead. Send your supers to stop me.
Grab your snacks. Watch your screens and see what happens.
You are no longer in control. I am.
==========