In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra asks the people, "Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which you should be inoculated?" Then he proposes, "Behold, I teach you the overman: he is this lightning, he is this frenzy" (126). While I wasn't quite sure how to react to Nietzsche's bold statement, I knew it reminded me of something.
At the very end of The Incredibles, the family is faced with a new threat: the Underminer. When he first appears, he declares, "Behold, the underminer! I am always beneath you, but nothing is beneath me!" I think it was the "behold" that made me draw the parallel, but once I found the scene on Youtube I couldn't help but also notice the relation between "overman" and "underminer." The words are almost exact opposites!
Now, I know that I'm noticing what is most likely an accidental similarity, but I also can't let it go. After all, there are always "adult" references in kids movies. I can't help but wonder if the writers decided to make a clever reference. The overman is supposed to bring new meaning to life and be better than everyone else, right? Well, the underminer remarks that he's beneath you but nothing is beneath him. In a way, then, he's the exact opposite of the overman. Who knows? Maybe I'm reading too much into everything.
I'm still having an iffy time of understanding the overman, but I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation about the concept. I find the whole idea of rebelling against group think and common ideas interesting. Of course, it's good to form your own opinions and a necessity to rebel against group think. However, in rebelling against group think, what if people then have another common idea but fall into the trap of group think by thinking that it's different? We have to be careful to not fall into group rebellions just to rebel. To go back to the underminer one more time, he spends his time underground, which is a common term for where rebellions begin... I feel like my thoughts are spiraling now so I'm going to stop here. Anywaysss, I look forward to reading more!
Here's the link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkhwlcVAClk
I would just be tickled if there were some sort of Nietzschean sleeper agent working as a writer at Pixar. I sort of doubt that's the case (wouldn't they weed those sorts out in the interview process?), but I think there's definitely a connection here. While that line from the Underminer may not be a deliberate allusion to the Overman, I think there is a lot in common with the the Overman and what we perceive as the archetypal villain.
ReplyDeleteFull disclosure: I have not seen The Incredibles, but I have seen enough children's animated films to have a grasp on how villains often have to exaggerate their evilness to get the point across. So this may not be true of the Underminer, but I'm willing to say that the villain archetype is one and the same with how we would observe the Overman (unsympathetically).
Villains are evil, first and foremost. They operate on another system of morality, one that they usually do not share with anybody else. Their isolation in this regard is not troubling to them; it empowers their conviction that they are above all others. This goes hand-in-hand with their megalomania and drive for power. The villain must be defeated not because they are simply minding their own evil business but because they're broadcasting their evilness for all to see. The purpose of their display is sometimes to gather a following, but their ultimate goal is almost always a selfish.
That was fun and all to speculate, but I think it falls apart when we consider that most villains these days are written to be sympathetic in some way. Villains, unlike the Overman, are not motivated purely by a drive to define themselves from their surroundings. Villains get these backstories slapped on them like a harrowing childhood event that gives them a destructive bent. Even worse is when they seek vengeance (why, that's borderline not-evil!). When the evilness is justified this way, they are no longer trailblazers on a new moral frontier; they are "good" folks who were just led astray.
I think Nietzsche would call this attempt to humanize villains both good and bad. One interpretation: writing a villain-led-astray pacifies the notion that there could possibly be people who create their own moralities voluntarily. It's like saying that evil doesn't really exist, just people temporarily rebelling against good. Another interpretation: the villain-led-astray demonstrates how easy it is for conventional morality to become distorted. If the reason the villain is evil is out of their control, it could happen to anyone! Spooky!
To quote: "I feel like my thoughts are spiraling now so I'm going to stop here."
Did any of this make sense? This is the most deranged thing I've ever written, but I'm also really proud of it?
Love this!!!!! Going out on a limb to say that this is a deliberate reference to Zarathustra. Been a while since I've seen the movie, but, it seems to me that the whole self-conscious shape of the story--that this in all other ways "normal" family are the "Incredibles"--plays on our expectations for the "superhero." Superman, by the way, is an explicit play on ubermensch.
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear the name "underminer," it makes me think of the lion who gets stuck. The guy who thinks that the stage of the "sacred no," the slaying of the dragon "thou shalt," the rejection of all convention... is the end-all-be-all. Can't remember what happens to this character? Of course he's defeated (has to be, right? that's the essence of the superhero-villain relationship!), but does he have a change of heart? Does he realize he has to renounce his underminer ways? Do the Incredibles pull him out of his nihilism?
love thinking about the Nietzschean echoes of all of this!