Atlas Shrugged Part 1

Tools    





I find it interesting how times have changed over the Centuries. In the modern age it seems that the "intellectual elite" are more leftest while the right has had to defend itself throughout most of the 20th Century, and even in the present. The farthest I can think back to a "reverse example" is between teacher and pupil Plato and Aristotle. An example of one debate is their discussion on private property, which Aristotle proposed existed, (because he pointed to the ground) while Plato said it couldn't, (because he pointed to the heavens). It would seem much of general populace's attitude changed for a couple of reasons. One such event was in mainland Europe throughout much of its age where wealthy families, (who owned property), demanded that their "serfs" pay them a fee, thus Robin Hood could be seen as a liberator to all who were oppressed by such men. Canterbury Tales even coined the philosophy, "Money is the root of all evil", due to the fact the perception, (and rightfully so), was the "serfs" worked as slaves to feed the rich aristocracy above them. To add to this, a few centuries later, Adam Smith produced the groundbreaking economic book The Wealth of Nations. It supported a system of "markets", (what Marx would later coin as capitalism), however, there is a inherent flaw within its text and that is by its analysis of "singular games" and "labor", (labor theory of value), someone will loose. The labor theory of value was later discredited due to the "equilibrium point", however during its day, Marx saw this game where people could be potential "losers" to the economic game as a potential threat to man and asked for revolt under new economic terms. It would seem much of the problems on man within the Centuries plus has been a battle for the "idea" (planning or markets). It doesn't seem likely to end soon, with much regret.
__________________
Imagine an eye unruled by man-made laws of perspective, an eye unprejudiced by compositional logic, an eye which does not respond to the name of everything but which must know each object encountered in life through an adventure of perception. How many colors are there in a field of grass to the crawling baby unaware of 'Green'?

-Stan Brakhage



Yeah, I'm plenty familiar with Adam Smith and the competing ideologies inherent but -- not to be pedantic -- I'm not sure how much of that directly relates to ideology in film and its subsequent quality. If you're interested in discussing capitalism and communism, we've got about a half-dozen ongoing discussions on the topic floating around. Say the word and I can move the post and/or point you to them.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
It also probably depends on what you mean by "political." There are many films I've enjoyed that were, in a very broad sense, political, in that they mirrored reality in some way or contained politics. It's when the films have some simplistic agenda whose airing is more important than the film itself, that they seem to turn to dreck.
I see a lot of "third cinema" as holding pretty "simplistic" agendas in that the issues are pretty clear-cut and the messages are not ambiguous. This is, of course, a good thing and what makes these films so accessible/powerful. Specifically it champions anti-colonialism, removing traces of colonialism, opposing interventions of neo-colonialism, "the colonized personality", racism, apartheid, and the economic/social/sexual emancipation of women. I also want to point out that these issues, because of their pertinence, find presentation largely without metaphor or allegory (often in an almost documentary style); Atlas Shrugged is first a tale about the salvation of a fictional dystopia and second an implied (however obvious) allegory about individualism and laissez-faire capitalism.

I imagine the things that motivate someone to fight on film for a controversial position are different than those that motivate someone to make a film about an undeniably noble struggle.
Well, I don't see how something being controversial makes it any less "undeniably noble", but in the case of this film I think it's largely the result of the parties involved in its creation being "ignoble" in both motive and work ethic.

That being said I am highly disappointed that, as Dog Star Man said, this was not an adequate portrayal of Rand's philosophy, because I can't imagine conceiving of her ideas as being acceptable in any other form. It is also often the case that an allegory or "exemplary" case manages to capture the truth of an idea better than, let's say, a purely theoretical work.

All in all I too see no need to connect political films with bad filmmaking. This film easily could have been good, and I very much hope that some competent filmmaker attempts a remake in the future.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
The problem with Ayn Rand is her rugged individualist heroes are amoral. In the real world the individual cannot be completely selfish because society won't let them, but Rand was such a warped lover of people who operated outside the law she wrote glowingly in her diaries about a child murderer as a "real man" (he wasn't, he later was executed and behaved like a coward) and also romanticized a rapist swindler (Rand loves rape) in her courtroom play of the thirties. She is such a disgusting person I am amazed she has so many cult like followers.
__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula



Yeah, I'm plenty familiar with Adam Smith and the competing ideologies inherent but -- not to be pedantic -- I'm not sure how much of that directly relates to ideology in film and its subsequent quality. If you're interested in discussing capitalism and communism, we've got about a half-dozen ongoing discussions on the topic floating around. Say the word and I can move the post and/or point you to them.
Do as you will, however, don't expect me to participate in the thread(s) really. I have my own political thoughts, as does everyone I believe, but I'm not so militant in discussing them or championing them outside my close circle of friends. If you must know, I'm a libertarian, and I'll leave it at that.

The problem with Ayn Rand is her rugged individualist heroes are amoral. In the real world the individual cannot be completely selfish because society won't let them, but Rand was such a warped lover of people who operated outside the law she wrote glowingly in her diaries about a child murderer as a "real man" (he wasn't, he later was executed and behaved like a coward) and also romanticized a rapist swindler (Rand loves rape) in her courtroom play of the thirties. She is such a disgusting person I am amazed she has so many cult like followers.
It seems easily understandable why this phenomenon occurs. Just as perfectly sane people can forgive "Fatty" Arbuckle for killing Virginia Rappe due to his comedy, people can forgive Rand for her bouts of irrational sadism for her more legitimate philosophy. Its not necessarily right or wrong, it just how the human populace operates. The "Individualist" philosophy she proposes is no less right or wrong then within the certain eyes of the individuals themselves who are aware of her work. Therein comes the very concept of "The Individual Man" which seems as debated and torn as "Free Will" vs. "Determinism".



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Fatty Arbucle didn't kill Virginia Rapp in any way, shape, or form. The overwhelming evidence is he didn't even have sex with her. He should never have been arrested.



Fatty Arbucle didn't kill Virginia Rapp in any way, shape, or form. The overwhelming evidence is he didn't even have sex with her. He should never have been arrested.
According to autopsy, her bladder was beaten with either a coke bottle or a large chunk of ice. This occurred at the time she was alone with Arbuckle in the hotel suite. This is the evidence I have, what's yours?

If it was a bad analogy I could refer to some of our highest leaders who might as well be regarded as mass murderers.



Fatty Arbucle didn't kill Virginia Rapp in any way, shape, or form. The overwhelming evidence is he didn't even have sex with her. He should never have been arrested.
I retract my statement: I just delved more deeply into the case Here. I think you will enjoy the read as well.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
For me, Rand is simply a fundamentalist instantiation of Nietzsche who was the first to tie conservatism with a militant atheism/materialism.

But you are greatly simplifying the playing field if you believe that the debate is limited to, as you say, market/planning or free will/determinism. For example, the Objectivist conception of "free will" or "freedom" is directly transcribed from Nietzsche's own conception which is realized within a fully determined subject. It was merely Rand's own "eccentricity" or bias that lead her to champion laissez-faire capitalism as the fully determined space of maximum "freedom".

This was, as Deleuze showed, a major mistake for laissez-faire capitalism---in its purity, in its perfection as a system---still contains certain injunctions in order to operate as a system at all. Before all of Marx's social critiques about proletarization, there is first his critique of the commodity as such which is the backbone of any market. In other words, even in a "just" capitalist framework, we are still not "free". And this is true even in the Objectivist sense.

In other words, Rand herself was not living up to her Objectivism or her Nietzchian roots by declaring solidarity with laissez-faire capitalism.

It is absolutely possible to be a Communist and also be an Objectivist barring certain misinterpretations resulting from Rand's "botched" Objectivism (I fully understand the irony in the fact Rand herself did not live up to her own philosophy).

In the end, to be an anti-statist is to be either a Communist or a Libertarian/Anarchist. But to be pro-market is to not be an Objectivist or a Nietzschian. It is merely a mistake to claim that the market is a free space or even a freer space than any other space.

Personally I would like to one day prove somehow that Communism is the epitome of Objectivist principles for the irony of this fact alone.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
There is no way communism is the epitome of Objectivist principles because the way to get to the state free capitalist society Marx wants you first must have dictatorship of the photoletariat and of course in practical terms no dictatorship willingly gives up its power. The problem i have with objectivism it is hard to separate the philosophy with its author who really is creepy. Libertarianism is similar to objectivism, but is broader and doesn't incorporate atheism and Nietzschean Superman concepts.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Dog Star Man, I am currently an undergraduate, so things are still very fluid. But as of now I am much like you in that I too want to combine one of the sciences with one of the humanities: in my case not mathematics and film but physics and philosophy.

Only time will tell though.

There is no way communism is the epitome of Objectivist principles because the way to get to the state free capitalist society Marx wants you first must have dictatorship of the photoletariat and of course in practical terms no dictatorship willingly gives up its power. The problem i have with objectivism it is hard to separate the philosophy with its author who really is creepy. Libertarianism is similar to objectivism, but is broader and doesn't incorporate atheism and Nietzschean Superman concepts.
As I keep trying to tell you, your obsession with the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is unfounded. It was never a metaphysical proclamation by Marx. Only the Communist society itself was. Everything else was just a procedure he outlined for implementation in the now-long-gone situation of his time. Do you really think a philosopher of history in the tradition of Hegel would look at the social landscape of today and attempt to claim that the same procedures he deemed relevant almost two centuries ago would apply here?

===

In general, every society seeks to obtain maximum freedom for its citizens. Moderate Liberals (like Will) today believe that government intervention can, by taking control of certain social processes and guiding them in a rational way, enable greater freedom for all. Moderate Conservatives (like Gunny) take the direct route and believe that people are most free without government intervention except in times of crisis or in national defense. Anarchists believe that any amount of government prevents freedom. Communists too believe this. Their only difference with Anarchists is that there is no method of representationalist capital exchange, which---we claim---has its very own way of usurping freedom. Marx/Engels focused on worker oppression. Deleuze/Guattari focused on psychological castration.



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
'The Fountainhead' was a fine, fine film. This however... I dunno...

Ayn Rand's recent popularity scares me though.
Why is that? Have you looked at your paycheck recently. Look at your November December pay stub and compare them to January and February. Tell me more about all this good hope, change, and forwardness. Oh but hey, it's OK if we're broke and our nation is in debt, at least we have a president who worries about the real issues facing this nation like climate change, gun control, and gay marriage.

Back on topic, I'm watching the film now... nice atmosphere to it.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
The problem with Ayn Rand is her rugged individualist heroes are amoral. In the real world the individual cannot be completely selfish because society won't let them, but Rand was such a warped lover of people who operated outside the law she wrote glowingly in her diaries about a child murderer as a "real man" (he wasn't, he later was executed and behaved like a coward) and also romanticized a rapist swindler (Rand loves rape) in her courtroom play of the thirties. She is such a disgusting person I am amazed she has so many cult like followers.
All great points. And all anecdotal evidence. Discuss the ideas and philosophy, not the person behind it. Also remember it's OK to work outside the law, if the law is corrupt.



I saw this when it came out and the movie is just poorly made.

I like some of Ayn Rand's ideas on limited government but as a Voluntaryist I see many flaws and contradictions in objectivism, liberalism, and conservatism.
__________________
D5K



I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. They were good, entertaining novels.

The 30 page speeches in Atlas Shrugged added to the ironic charm of the novel. From reading Atlas Shrugged the best thing was approaching it from a sarcastic point of view and from The Fountainhead I actually got a good novel with very interesting characters and the movie was good. Ayn Rand's work was very original and very interesting, though, obviously not masterpieces of pure literature.

However, the Atlas Shrugged movie was horrible. Very amateurish.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
All great points. And all anecdotal evidence. Discuss the ideas and philosophy, not the person behind it. Also remember it's OK to work outside the law, if the law is corrupt.
It is not okay to swindle people or rape or kill children or blow up buildings no matter how corrupt the system is, The person behind Objectivism either expressed support for people who did such things or wrote novels and plays where her heroes did such acts and depicted these vile things as virtues.