Escape to the Movies: Atlas Shrugged
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
People are very black and white when it comes to things such as this. I find her to have some valid points, but to be too heavy handed and too close minded to criticism.ArBeater said:
Yes, but a true objectivist wouldn't pass on their inheritance to a family member just because they are a family member. They'd pass it onto the person who is the most deserving and most capable of making whatever the inheritance is, a success, and they most certainly wouldn't pass on money, as that'd encourage the very behaviours objectivists oppose. An objectivist would also refuse any such offer of a gift as they'd feel they have to earn whatever it is they gain.Agospy said:
It is a ridiculous theory in essence, as it negates the very concept of human kindness and giving selflessly, Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged buys Dagne some clothing, and in the style of a true gentleman makes sure to tell her that he didn't buy it for her because he thought she'd like it, he bought it for her because he liked how it looked on her. Classy.
That would be the best idea, even if you disagree with the philosophy, the over arching story is actually quite interesting.Arkynomicon said:
Love the Ergo Proxy avatar by the way.
Just saw it with my 2 friends, we all dig Ayn Rand's works. If you like Rand, and can excuse some of the poor cinematography and questionable casting choices, it's a really enjoyable flick. If your not a fan of Rand or Objectivism this film will do little for you.
I will say we had a blast, and made Bioshock references to each other through out. Oddly enough, we're all fairly liberal too. It all just comes down to weather you dig the source material or not.
"They think all you care about is making money"
"But... that is all I care about!"
Love that line
I will say we had a blast, and made Bioshock references to each other through out. Oddly enough, we're all fairly liberal too. It all just comes down to weather you dig the source material or not.
"They think all you care about is making money"
"But... that is all I care about!"
Love that line
Very nice balanced review. You made sure to cover your bases on philosophy before ripping the movie to shreds. Objectivists and Libertarians can't call you on that at least. I am actually quite surprised to hear you say that you like that philosophy though, good stuff.
Anyway, Bob is pretty much spot on for most of the review, though I wouldn't agree that it looked like a cheap TV movie. It had a much larger scope than most TV movies, and even though it was obviously shot digitally, I never got the feeling that this was a film that was plagued by a crisis in budget. Where it does feel cheap are in the performances though, and I agree with just about everything he said in that regard. The characters do their part well enough to be likable if you can sit through the soulless corporate speak without nodding off, but some strong performances to either add subtext or another rewrite to make these characters speak plain English for those who don't read the Wall Street Journal on a weekly basis would have been a pleasant touch.
There's also the sex scene... I'm not going to say that the movie was entirely about fucking, but almost the entire film is running on the eventual romance of Dagny and Hank Reardon, so the point that I would be tempted to make a parody called "Courtship Rituals of the Rich and Famous", only it would be the exact same movie. Anyway, it finally got to the pivotal love scene of the movie, and it was filmed from the neck up with lots of fade outs. Total bummer there, as it could have felt like a pretty profound scene. And just for note, this is coming from someone who HATES sex scenes in movies.
Anyway, I would actually give it a mild recommendation if you are used to siphoning through business lingo at the news level on a regular basis at least. It's interesting to see the ideas played this way. I won't give a recommendation just because of Libertarian or Objectivist status though, because it's not going to be digestible for most people. Also, as Bob said, a few unintentionally hilarious moments might take you out of the film.
Anyway, Bob is pretty much spot on for most of the review, though I wouldn't agree that it looked like a cheap TV movie. It had a much larger scope than most TV movies, and even though it was obviously shot digitally, I never got the feeling that this was a film that was plagued by a crisis in budget. Where it does feel cheap are in the performances though, and I agree with just about everything he said in that regard. The characters do their part well enough to be likable if you can sit through the soulless corporate speak without nodding off, but some strong performances to either add subtext or another rewrite to make these characters speak plain English for those who don't read the Wall Street Journal on a weekly basis would have been a pleasant touch.
There's also the sex scene... I'm not going to say that the movie was entirely about fucking, but almost the entire film is running on the eventual romance of Dagny and Hank Reardon, so the point that I would be tempted to make a parody called "Courtship Rituals of the Rich and Famous", only it would be the exact same movie. Anyway, it finally got to the pivotal love scene of the movie, and it was filmed from the neck up with lots of fade outs. Total bummer there, as it could have felt like a pretty profound scene. And just for note, this is coming from someone who HATES sex scenes in movies.
Anyway, I would actually give it a mild recommendation if you are used to siphoning through business lingo at the news level on a regular basis at least. It's interesting to see the ideas played this way. I won't give a recommendation just because of Libertarian or Objectivist status though, because it's not going to be digestible for most people. Also, as Bob said, a few unintentionally hilarious moments might take you out of the film.
Considering how atheism was a large part of Rand's philosophy, I don't see how they could do a faithful adaptation of the movie and still target it towards conservatives.
As for Rand's philosophy, it's as outdated as dualism. Our current knowledge about how and why people behave the way they do is pretty much in opposition to her beliefs.
As for Rand's philosophy, it's as outdated as dualism. Our current knowledge about how and why people behave the way they do is pretty much in opposition to her beliefs.
I suppose Atlas Shrugged might have been interesting if it weren't so poorly written. Rand's writing was wooden and the book suffers from severe page bloat. Rand certainly was not the level of artist she lauded.
I had actually beaten Bioshock again recently. Simply the idea of Rapture alone is good enough to be made into a movie, god that game was fun.
Based on what we know about the evolution of altruism and social species, objectivism's view on morality is objectively wrong, but truthfully that is neither here nor there. I'd be more than happy to bring up a debate in regards to morality with you Bob. I think you might be in the rut of not understanding what morality actually is, where it comes from, or its applications and being from the U.S., you're used to hypocritical religious conservatives proclaiming themselves and their religions to be the epoch of morality. Trust me, they're not. And actual morality is not arbitrary.
I find it rather ironic that a type of political philosophy that stresses what can be objectively viewed to the best of our ability to objectively view things dives deep into promoting untested, and truthfully untestable political and social values, as if opinions have objective values.
Objectivists are akin to Christian creationists in a way. When you state that, based on what objectivism preaches, that the closer civilizations are to anarco-capitalism the better off we should expect to see their societies in regards to wealth and the like. We don't. No country on earth has ever possessed a truly free market and the countries that are closest to it are all third world nations. But objectivists, like creationists, constantly move the goal posts. Its a constant barrage of "Oh if we took what little was keeping them from a free market, those third world countries would overtake the rest of the world's economies!" and the like.
I think the biggest issue with objectivism is that under it, being an educator is evil. Under said system, possessing special knowledge and giving it away under any circumstances is wrong because it is in your best interest to keep knowledge to yourself and use it for your own self interest. Educating others in every single regard is only giving your livelihood more competition. If Ayn Rand's philosophy had any grounds, not only was it wrong of her to write about it, her special knowledge on the topic could have allowed her to reach wealth and levels as a businesswoman well beyond any profit she made as a writer.
You can see the failings of objectivism in how absolutely absurdly written her villains and universes are just so that she can make her philosophy work. She can't realistically make a human acting for the benefit of other evil so the villains in her book just have absurd motivations that make absolutely no sense.
I find it rather ironic that a type of political philosophy that stresses what can be objectively viewed to the best of our ability to objectively view things dives deep into promoting untested, and truthfully untestable political and social values, as if opinions have objective values.
Objectivists are akin to Christian creationists in a way. When you state that, based on what objectivism preaches, that the closer civilizations are to anarco-capitalism the better off we should expect to see their societies in regards to wealth and the like. We don't. No country on earth has ever possessed a truly free market and the countries that are closest to it are all third world nations. But objectivists, like creationists, constantly move the goal posts. Its a constant barrage of "Oh if we took what little was keeping them from a free market, those third world countries would overtake the rest of the world's economies!" and the like.
I think the biggest issue with objectivism is that under it, being an educator is evil. Under said system, possessing special knowledge and giving it away under any circumstances is wrong because it is in your best interest to keep knowledge to yourself and use it for your own self interest. Educating others in every single regard is only giving your livelihood more competition. If Ayn Rand's philosophy had any grounds, not only was it wrong of her to write about it, her special knowledge on the topic could have allowed her to reach wealth and levels as a businesswoman well beyond any profit she made as a writer.
You can see the failings of objectivism in how absolutely absurdly written her villains and universes are just so that she can make her philosophy work. She can't realistically make a human acting for the benefit of other evil so the villains in her book just have absurd motivations that make absolutely no sense.
While I thought the way Bioshock handled its twist very well, one thing I don't get is why the bad guy had to make you save his 'family' and then get revenge when he could have easily just said from the very beginning "Would you kindly kill Andrew Ryan?"AnythingOutstanding said:
I have to say this is one of the biggest disappointments in in movie history as far as I'm concerned. That is to say, it was third (to me alone perhaps) in the dubious honor of being a movie that had the potential to be brilliant and was somehow destroyed and is beaten only by the film that nearly destroyed my love of the Alien's franchise (Alien Resurrection) and the absolutely dreadful Battlefield Earth.
I love Atlas Shrugged for the most part. Indeed I had always thought it would make for an epic film and yet for some reason or another that movie was never made. I had wondered just how one would deal with the latter third of the book given it is little more than an extended monologue where the ideas of Objectivism are explicitly laid out (and, as far as I'm concerned at least, the weakest part of the book). Given that so much of the book did the same thing tangentially through archetypal characters and whatnot, it always seemed weird that the book would conclude by assuming you never got any of that and just beat you over the head with the ideas directly.
That said, while I am conservative, I am conservative in the sense that I generally don't think most issues are worth intervening in to include sexual proclivities, morality of marriage and a whole host of other issues. To divorce Atlas Shrugged of the parts that dealt with these things is very nearly funny. I know why they did it of course. Because this is a work that is supposed to appeal to the traditional "right". Several years ago, when there was extensive talk about "Going Galt" (spearheaded by Fox News) I thought it enormously curious. While the purely business related aspects of Objectivism are certainly a suitable mantra for those who genuinely believe the story that Fox News depicts, there is a great deal in Atlas Shrugged (and indeed in her other works) that would be widely objectionable to such a crowd. Among these, adultery , the pursuit of happiness as an overriding goal in life, a disregard for authority both mortal and divine, a distaste for government in general, the belief that property rights supersede the good of the republic and a great many others.
I love Atlas Shrugged for the most part. Indeed I had always thought it would make for an epic film and yet for some reason or another that movie was never made. I had wondered just how one would deal with the latter third of the book given it is little more than an extended monologue where the ideas of Objectivism are explicitly laid out (and, as far as I'm concerned at least, the weakest part of the book). Given that so much of the book did the same thing tangentially through archetypal characters and whatnot, it always seemed weird that the book would conclude by assuming you never got any of that and just beat you over the head with the ideas directly.
That said, while I am conservative, I am conservative in the sense that I generally don't think most issues are worth intervening in to include sexual proclivities, morality of marriage and a whole host of other issues. To divorce Atlas Shrugged of the parts that dealt with these things is very nearly funny. I know why they did it of course. Because this is a work that is supposed to appeal to the traditional "right". Several years ago, when there was extensive talk about "Going Galt" (spearheaded by Fox News) I thought it enormously curious. While the purely business related aspects of Objectivism are certainly a suitable mantra for those who genuinely believe the story that Fox News depicts, there is a great deal in Atlas Shrugged (and indeed in her other works) that would be widely objectionable to such a crowd. Among these, adultery , the pursuit of happiness as an overriding goal in life, a disregard for authority both mortal and divine, a distaste for government in general, the belief that property rights supersede the good of the republic and a great many others.
I guess they just wanted to make the player think they had some sort of motivation so they wouldn't suspect they were just subconsciously being forced to do it.AnythingOutstanding said:
One reason for me to not get too much into any comments here is that I find Rand, aka:Alisa Rosenbaum, to be an insufferable bore whose pseudo-intellectual philosophy is easily boiled down to five words: "I got mine, screw you."
However, if you'd like an particularly interesting take on Rand, read this:
http://www.thenation.com/article/garbage-and-gravitas
However, if you'd like an particularly interesting take on Rand, read this:
http://www.thenation.com/article/garbage-and-gravitas
God the willful ignorance in this thread is choking me.
Firstly, the (what I would laughably call) themes in Bioshock are nothing more than second-rate caricatures of Objectivism inserted into the (again) second-rate story to give some cheap scandal that people would talk about. The developers themselves barefacedly told everyone that they inserted these themes for no other purpose than to gain attention.
Secondly, you people know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about Objectivism proper.
Firstly, the (what I would laughably call) themes in Bioshock are nothing more than second-rate caricatures of Objectivism inserted into the (again) second-rate story to give some cheap scandal that people would talk about. The developers themselves barefacedly told everyone that they inserted these themes for no other purpose than to gain attention.
Secondly, you people know abso-fucking-lutely nothing about Objectivism proper.
