ATLAS SHRUGGED movie (part 1) Premiers April 15, 2011!

Well, I was speaking hyperbolically--but thank you for making my point for me! Now take a real philosopher, and tell me where he or she isn't taught.

The fact that wiki has to name the places where Rand is taken seriously as a philosopher says a lot, no?

I didn't suggest that she shouldn't be taken seriously now, did I? I said that her "philosophy," well, isn't really philosophy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You have to respect her atheism and pro-choice views.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dunno. That's kinda like saying you ought to respect Goebbels for the placard on his desk which read: Any person who mistreats animals is no friend of the German people (paraphrasing).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well yeah, you have to respect him for that at least.

 

It never fails to astonish me how people still fall for Rand's failed philosophies. I think her philosophy can be summed up in her approach to smoking.

Ayn Rand, life long smoker, who never believed that cigarette smoking caused cancer and lived the last years of her life fighting lung cancer [and taking both Medicaid and Social Security from the government] - what a visionary!

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/14...l_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them/

Well at least she was pragmatic enough to take welfare when she needed it. She did not allow silly things - like her ideals - to get in the way

I see the current movie [in three parts] as further brainwashing by the financial elite to convince the little people that they need the super rich - who conveniently move elsewhere for cheap labour and resources to pad their lifestyles.

Suckers!

Ah! Now if only those people who seem to admire her philosophy would emulate the examples in the book and go on strike demanding that all government handouts be taken back!

 

I tried to read this book... didn't last 10 pages.

 

Indeed.

Of course, that's fanciful thinking. Kinda like my fantasy, in which that other contemporary Russian emigre--Emma Goldman, that is--supplants Rand in the public consciousness and we'd be all about propaganda of the deed, real liberty (not that economic bullshit), and, you know, ensuring that everyone has their most basic needs in life met, regardless of station, status, work ethic, whatever.

 

So it takes just one Russian woman to bring down the entire US? With a ideology? Thats some cold war!

OMIGAWD< its a...a SOCIALIST!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I didnt read all of the book but i read part of it. The movie looks like a horrible reproduction. It should have carried the strong existentialism philosophical outlook within the film and not have taken place in modern times. The movie feels too low budget but it would be hard to make a movie like atlas shrugged have good returns. Its more meant for a book and where you can get into the character via stream of consciousness dialog and what not.

 

Most of this makes sense, IMHO. I do have a problem with including "work ethic" though.

Doesn't that tend to lead to sloth? Depending on what you define as "basic needs" of course. Let's take shelter for example. If society provides me with all the land, tools, lumber and other materials necessary to build a house, and I am perfectly qualified to do so in that I have all the skills needed, but my "work ethic" stops me from assembling said shelter even though I am physically able to do so, does that mean society is responsible for building it for me? Please...

I also need a side of beef to eat, but my "work ethic" prevents me from providing any useful services to society, so please deliver and prepare said food for me. I prefer to just sit and watch TV...

Enough with the examples, I think the point is made. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" has proven to be the most disastrous and foolish social experiment of the twentieth century, if not all of history.

Surely you believe people must at least attempt to do their best before they are rewarded, right? Now if you can't as opposed to won't contribute, that's one thing, but a piss poor work ethic is an entirely different kettle of fish...

 

I hear what you're saying, but I honestly don't know what I really believe (regarding human "nature," that is). I'm inclined to think that most people really do want to work, to be productive, to do their best, etc. and only a very small minority are inclined otherwise. But we don't really have any credible and convincing data to suggest one way or the other.

And I do agree that people ought to be encouraged to do their best, but if they are not so inclined, what is one to do? Surely such a person oughn't be showered with gifts, high praise, and every sort of "accomodation," but to deny said person the basic necessities seems "wrong" (to me) and, from what I've seen and learned, also counterproductive. Resentment bears no good fruit.

What we have seen to date IMHO bears little relation to Marx's and Engels' vision, nor any Trotskian or Frankfurtian variation/interpretation thereof. In fact, it's rather difficult to imagine how such would play out now as Marx had little foreknowledge of how the industrial and technological revolutions would inform advanced capitalism. So I don't agree that the experiment has been tried and failed.

 

It's more an attempt to convince the people that the super-rich don't need them - and so they should just get out of the way and be thankful for whatever crumbs they can get. And not, y'know, see both types as integral, valuable parts of society, to be bound and advanced by a mutually-beneficial social contract.

They're supposed to do more than go on strike and make demands - they're supposed to literally remove themselves from society entirely.

Speaking of which, a classic:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Have you even ever read the book? That cartoon is so bass ackwards that it is hilarious. Here is a "Cliff notes" version for you:

Fictitious or not, does this really sound like the description of someone unwilling to "till the soil"? For real?

 

Yeah - pretty much. You don't need a cartoon to tell you the state of the US economy do you?

 

looks like this move is going to be a flop


http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=atlasshrugged.htm

 

To be fair, the character in the novel did seem the sort who would be willing to "till the soil"; in spite of being even more one-dimensional than the typical Louis L'amour character. But this is one of many areas in which Rand's fiction couldn't be further removed from reality. Sure, there are plenty of self-made zillionaires who are not afraid to get their hands dirty; but there are plenty more so-called "self-made" sorts, i.e. hedge fund managers and brokers, who wouldn't know (or care) when to use a sickle, and when to use a machete.

As the esteemed Wheelchairman Wyatt put it:

"Alliance"

 

The operative word here is fiction. Rand's work is a fiction. How many people do you know who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps to become uber rich? My guess is probably none. It is my experience that those few who have gone through that experience are few and far between and they do not share Rand's vision or philosophies.

For those who are born to wealth on the other hand, it is a completely different story. The myth also plays with certian aspects of a stressed middle class.

What Randian's fail to understand is that the sloth sword cuts both ways. It is not only the poor and disenfranchised who can be slothy. The uber rich can be slothy and decadent as well. They can and have used their wealth to create oligopolies and monopolies that they no longer need to compete in free markets or take risks that could ultimately benefit society.

The real world is much more complex than the simple notions put forth by Rand allow. Some level of income redistribution by government is necessary and desirable in order to keep all levels of society competitive. And it is just not the lower classes, the worker bees, who can be guilty of slothful behavior.

Each social economic class needs the other. They are in this venture together. Each has value to society and each are subject to the same vagaries and frailties as the other. It is arrogance and ignorance to point the finger only at one social economic class and ignore the transgressions of another.

 

3

That's why we call them "guesses".

True, few and far between, but treasured nonetheless...

Not so true, in my experience.

Here we can agree. While I'm sure that their are exceptions, I haven't encountered any yet and I totally disdain those that I have met with "old money".

Fail to understand? As one dimensional as the characters may be, read the novel again. There are quite a few slothful and decadent "uber" rich characters.

I totally agree, and in the case(s) that you are outlining such traits are completely unacceptable, both to you and I, as well as to Randian "philosophy". That is the concept that seems to evade most critics of Rand - work for your money? Work for that privilege? Work for your station? For real?

Is this somehow wrong on a moral basis?

I agree. But just as you learn math or physics from a simplified, almost childish start, Rand attempts to convey economic and philosophical ideas at a elementary level, using fiction to appeal to the masses. If one finds resonance therein, investigate her nonfiction works. Pretty simple...

Absolutely. Some people just prefer to redistribute that income through a system known as "work". While this concept may be foreigh to many, it does allow for fair and equitable wealth redistribution, especially if you allow for care of those who can't as opposed to those who won't. This system actually works quite well and has a lot of historical data to support its success.

Did someone state differently?

Again, absolutely true. The really cool part is that a member of one economic class has the ability to progress to another "class" through dedication, innate ability, and hard work! What a novel concept! It's almost as if everyone was entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... Hmmmm...

True. I wish everyone would refrain from doing this, at least to the extent evidenced on this thread to date.


Thanks!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Did the Big, Bad Critics Hurt the Poor Producer's Feelings?

Objectivisim and Feelings

The way I figure this, it has to be some kind of joke:

Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.

"Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2."

"Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.

Aglialoro attributed the box office drop-off to "Atlas Shrugged's" poor reviews. Only one major critic—Kyle Smith of the New York Post—gave "Atlas" a mixed-to-positive review, calling the film "more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item." The movie has a dismal 7% fresh rating on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes thanks to critics like the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips, who said "Atlas" is "crushingly ordinary in every way." Roger Ebert called the film "the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone's vault," while Rolling Stone's Peter Travers said the movie "sits there flapping on screen like a bludgeoned seal."

"The New York Times gave us the most hateful review of all," said Aglialoro, who also has a writing credit on the movie. "They didn't cover it."

(Keegan)​

Aglialoro expects to recoup his $20m investment, but his ego is so wounded that he has threatened to "go on strike".

I mean, seriously, this has to be some sort of joke. Except, like most things tied to Rand and Objectivism, I don't expect anyone will get it.
____________________

Notes:

Keegan, Rebecca. "'Atlas Shrugged' producer: 'Critics, you won.' He's going 'on strike.'". 24 Frames. April 26, 2011. LATimesBlogs.LATimes.com. April 27, 2011. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/mov...ucer-critics-you-won-hes-going-on-strike.html

 

Something about reviews

Did I Mention the Bad Reviews?

Okay, so considering reviews of Atlas Shrugged: Part I is probably more fun than enduring the movie.

Think of it this way: Paul Constant excoriates a review of the film that The Seattle Times actually wasted its editorial board for. Yet even for Bruce Ramsey, the Rand fan on the Times editorial board who wrote the piece, it's hard to find something good to say about the film. From the beginning and end of his review:

"Atlas Shrugged, Part I" comes to the big screen April 15. I've seen the picture on an advance DVD, and for fans of Ayn Rand--and she was one of the heroes of my youth--it is well worth seeing. They will like it, mostly. It is Rand's world, and remains true to the book. The movie falls short of the book, but given what sort of book it is, and that the movie was financed by a fan, and done in a hurry by a less-experienced director with non-famous actors on a limited budget, it is a creditable effort ....

.... A final note: of all the things that are, by necessity, telescoped and truncated, several with Lillian Rearden are not. Especially the Reardens' 10th anniversary party. The camera lingers, and the story is told well. It is too bad time and money did not allow the whole story to be done that way.

Still, I think most of Rand's fans will enjoy having 110 minutes. They've been waiting for a movie for more than 50 years.​

The paradox of Rand fans making excuses that blame everyone and everything else for the film being bad would be hilarious if ... um ... well, actually, it's just sad.

For his own part, though Constant offers up a scathing review:

It struck me last Saturday at the Regal Meridian 16 that I was probably sitting in a roomful of assholes. We were all—all 18 of us, including me and the three snickering college kids looking for a so-bad-it's-good experience—waiting for Atlas Shrugged: Part I to begin, and because of how we decided to spend our afternoon, we were pretty much all guaranteed to be jerks. I'm a critic for The Stranger, so my bona fides are established right there, of course. The first one in the theater was the old lady in the American flag T-shirt who was pecking furiously at her Kindle. A parade of assholes followed: the goateed paunchy guy (10 bucks says he works in tech, 20 bucks says he works at Amazon) dragging his sulky girlfriend to the center of the auditorium; the six dour gray-haired men who each came in alone (one, bless his heart, rocking a pleather fanny pack) and frowned at the screen, waiting for the movie to start; the two sloppily dressed mouth breathers (literally; at quiet points during the movie, their gasps—fwhooo, fhwheee—filled the silence like a malfunctioning air-conditioning system) who apparently couldn't find any friends or family to accompany them; and so on. (I'm sure it goes without saying, but in case you have any doubt: We were all white.)​

The whole review is hilarious, and built around a rectal theme:

If you're a sociopath, and you really, really, really hate humanity, and you believe in an absolute good and an absolute evil against all the staggering amount of evidence to the contrary (that is to say, after living in the real world for however long your life has been), you'll probably agree with this movie's political philosophy. Also: You are an asshole.​

Well, okay, there's a phallic theme, as well, that some might take to suggest a buggering subtext, but pausing to wonder about that only interrupts the delight of the savagery Constant unleashes on the film. "The ethos," he explains, "that Atlas Shrugged hammers into its audience is that something is either worth doing to the absolute best of your ability or not worth doing at all."

Yet between bad furniture, poor wardrobe, stock footage, and inept editing, just for starters, it would seem the film fits into that category of things not worth doing at all. "In fact," Constant concludes, "it's exactly the movie that that roomful of assholes deserved."

I think the greatest danger of someone like me actually going out of my way to see the film is that, given all the hype and the astoundingly bad reviews, there's no way the film can live up to its reputation as an abomination of American art.

Kind of like Battlefield Earth. It wasn't as spectacularly bad as I had been led to believe. It was just awful.
____________________

Notes:

Constant, Paul. "Seattle Times Allows a Precocious Child to Review the Atlas Shrugged Movie". Slog. April 12, 2011. Slog.TheStranger.com. April 27, 2011. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...ious-child-to-review-the-atlas-shrugged-movie

—————. "Asshole's Paradise". The Stranger. April 19, 2011. TheStranger.com. April 27, 2011. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/assholes-paradise/Content?oid=7770095

Ramsey, Bruce. "'Atlas Shrugged,' the movie". Ed cetera. April 9, 2011. SeattleTimes.NWSource.com. April 27, 2011. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/edcetera/2014733078_atlas_shrugged_the_movie.html