The Incredibles vs The Fantastic Four

Comic book superheroes are meant to be archetypal and iconic, that is, to stand as symbols for our deepest thoughts and desires. Superman embodies our dream of being immune to harm and more powerful than our foes. Batman allows us to explore the darkest recesses of our psyches and still assure ourselves that we are good. Spider-Man represents the ultimate adolescent, an almost-adult on the cusp of change in every imaginable way – mentally, physically, emotionally and even spiritually. The Fantastic Four was emblematic of the new American family – one brought together by forces not recognized by previous generations; a family in constant peril of separation, disintegration and the highest levels of dysfunction.

The first three heroes have been well portrayed in the movies. Superman I, Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins nailed just what makes these heroes the icons they have become. Now there is a movie about the archetypal super family. It explores what makes a family, how the interaction between the parental figures sets the standard for the entire family’s health and well-being, and the gee-whiz wonder of having super powers.

The name of this movie is The Incredibles.

Unfortunately, the eponymous movie about the Fantastic Four does not explore any of these themes. Instead, it is bogged down in minute details and sacrifices everything, even story telling. The movie is called the Fantastic FOUR and yet at no time did I feel that we had four fantastic individuals or even one fantastic family.

Instead, we had Michael Chiklis in heavy latex darkly lamenting his fate as the ugly and brutish Thing. When the love of his life runs off in the middle of a Brooklyn Bridge crowd just as he’s saving an engine full of firefighters from plunging off the side, I felt not pity but amazement at the stupidity of the director. The unreality of a woman dumping a man in the middle of a heroic rescue before TV cameras – by leaving his engagement ring on the blacktop no less – outweighed the unreality of a man lifting a truck.

As a foil to the Thing we have the Human Torch who is so full of zippy, fun adventures that he seems to be in a different movie. So what if he catches on fire in the middle of an extreme skiing adventure? Instant hot tub for Torchy and the babe du jour. In addition, he’s pulling shaving cream pranks on the Thing – who we witness in a previous scene as being barely able to feed himself.

At least these two “children” have personalities. The parental figures, Mr. Fantastic aka Dr. Reed Richards and Susan Storm aka the Invisible Woman, aren’t much more than attractive forms for skin-tight body suits. We are told that Sue is a doctor of genetics, but she does little beyond play mother hen and defer to her genius boyfriend. She has the power to contain a supernova (a supernova!) with her invisible force field – and yet she can’t keep the bad guy from punching her in the face. The only emotion she stirred in the audience the night I saw it was nervous giggles – it seems that the woman could become invisible by bending light waves but somehow failed to make her clothing disappear. What should she do? Why strip in a crowded public street, of course!

Equaling her in bland fussiness is Reed. Rather than being a bold leader with an incisive mind as in the comics, this Reed is just a science geek who can’t seem to succeed at anything. He hems and haws, he dithers and dallies. Through most of the movie he acts like an extra from the research department who was standing in for the star during lighting rehearsals. And he had so little romantic chemistry with the lovely Sue, he couldn’t even make my 10-year-old son squirm at the “mushy stuff.”

The Fantastic Four should be about what holds a family together and what tears it apart. That was the essential theme in the original comic books that made them so compelling. And that is what made The Incredibles, well, incredible. By the end of The Incredibles, we were uplifted at the prospect of what a group of related individuals could accomplish through acceptance, teamwork and a mutual celebration of their individual abilities.

It’s a sad day when the homage to the icon does it better than the original.

The Old Double Standard Still Thrives

Back when we were growing up, our mothers, who were involved in varying degrees in the "Women's Lib" movement, taught us that there is a double standard about sex for men and women. We were taught that men and women should be equally accountable for their actions. That the idea that something is okay for a man but not for a woman is hypocritical and grossly unfair.

Recently we were a bit shocked to learn that Medicaid was paying for Viagra for sex offenders, while little or no effort is made to develop effective birth control for women, which shows us that the double standard is alive and well.

Katha Pollitt, in the The Nation, provides thought-provoking insight. Read her commentary here:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/227076_focus05.html

The "secret Downing Street memo"

Recently the text of a previously-secret memo regarding war in Iraq, written by a foreign-policy aide in Britain Prime Minister Tony Blair's office providing a summary of a meeting of the prime minister with his foreign secretary, the attorney general and senior defense staffers, was made public.

We find particularly disturbing the second paragraph, which we quote here:

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Here is the link to The [London] Times's publication of the entire memo: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

We should all be this lucky

For almost 70 years, Ted and Fern Hanwick were inseparable. Now, they're that way forever. In the end, they didn't even spend a day apart.

"They were soul mates, and they were linked at the heart," says their daughter, Linda Putnam. "They could just never be apart."

They were 95, and Ted went first. Went ahead, that is. The family says Ted would want to be sure everything was ready before Fern came along.

This is a beautiful story about a married couple who were soulmates. Nick Coleman, columnist for the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, has written a wonderful tribute to the first chairman of the Physics Department at Augsburg College in Minneapolis, and his wife. Embedded is a reminder that science and a strong faith do not have to be mutually exclusive. Please take the time to read this touching story: http://startribune.com/stories/357/5281377.html

Freedom of the Press?

We at The Thinking Woman are disturbed by the unfolding reports about a person named James Guckert was frequently admitted to White House press briefings with daily press passes under the alias of Jeff Gannon, representing a "news agency" that wasn't founded until a month after he started attending briefings. Keith Olbermann has an insightful commentary: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

There are several disturbing things about this:

1. A person with close ties to the Republican Party was allowed in to ask highly biased questions, some of which were derived from statements made by Rush Limbaugh on his radio program that were not independently verified before "Jeff Gannon" stated them as fact.

2. That a person with an assumed name could get himself admitted to the White House, close to the president and his staff. Since we assume that anyone entering the closely-guarded White House is checked out pretty thoroughly before being allowed to enter in any capacity, how could there be such a security lapse? And repeatedly? No one found out he was not who he said he was?

3. That we as citizens are expected to consider this trivial news.

4. That it is possible that Karl Rove was the person who cleared Jeff Gannon, instead of the usual channels.

We rely on the free press to give us as much information as we can get in order to make informed decisions. The free press is at the heart of our nation's uniqueness. So this particular story is especially disturbing given the recent news about columnists being paid by departments of the federal government, which are directly under the authority of the executive branch, to write favorable columns about programs supported by the president.

Why does this particular administration feel it is so important to try to control the information we as citizens receive? If possible, it seems this administration is even more secretive than the Nixon White House.

Certainly there are matters of national security that cannot be freely spoken about to the press. But the function of the press is to find the truth, not to act as a mouthpiece for the government.

As you make up your own mind about this story, think about how much you really want information filtered for you. We think that Americans can take information and make up their own minds.

What Roosevelt Really Said About Social Security

Lately there has been a lot of talk about the state of Social Security. And naturally Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who was the "grandfather" of Social Security, has been widely quoted and misquoted about privatization of accounts.

As you listen to analysts, pundits, and even news anchors claim that Roosevelt himself proposed private accounts, it's important to read exactly what he wrote to Congress. The entire letter is titled Message To Congress on Social Security January 17, 1935 and is found at the Social Security Administration's website: http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#exec

Here is the section that is being widely cited, in complete:

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps thirty years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Three things about this are critical to the discussions taking place right now.

First, Social Security is an insurance plan. The president proposes in the complete text of the letter that the money put toward the insurance should be a separate tax, to avoid it being at the whim of the tax code, or even at the whim of the market.

Second, Roosevelt thought it was critical that people too old to contribute or contribute sufficiently to the insurance should be provided for by separate annuities. He projected that they would be somewhat temporary, only necessary for about thirty years. By that time, subsequent pensioners would have contributed enough to the fund to receive back a sufficient payment.

Third, he offers the idea that separate annuity accounts, above and beyond what is contributed to Social Security, should be available. He suggests that they should initially be supplemented by the federal government, but as time went on they would become self-supporting. Today we see that kind of additional fund as 401K plans and other tax-deferred plans.

This issue is obviously a bit complicated than this. So as you make your decision whether or not to support privatization, really examine all sides of the issue. Ask the hard questions: Who will manage the money while it is in the market? Why does the president consider Social Security in crisis, when Ronald Reagan worked so hard to provide a good fix to it? What other reforms can be applied to the program? What does the raw data really say?

Every one of us has worked hard, and contributed toward Social Security. We all know people who have benefited -- orphans who were able to afford college because of federal funding and go on to lead productive lives, contributing back into the fund that supported them. Seniors who have a small pension of their own able to pay for life's basics because of the money they faithfully paid being returned to them. Everyone who has contributed to and benefited from an IRA or other tax-deferred plan.

Remember, Social Security is not welfare. It is an old-age insurance policy. There are many ways to fix it. Privatization is not the only way, and the idea should face careful scrutiny.