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

Discussion in 'Art & Culture' started by madanthonywayne, Feb 28, 2011.

  1. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    You sir, spoke too soon. Only 28% of critics liked the movie, only 6% of viewers liked it (at Rotten tomatoes) from those few who actually saw it. Made only 3 million so it is questionable if Part 2 will be made.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,671
    So one can not be an atheist and against Communism at the same time? How did you figure???

    It is like saying religious countries never fight with each other...
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    and these reviews aren't just slightly negative they just panned it. take this quote from Peter Travers' review

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    I wrote "et al." that means all others...Napolitano is the et al.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_(E)

    We have competing currencies today. If you are not a gold standard bug as you claim, just what in your view are legal tender laws that you find offensive?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender
    The answer is not that hard. As previously stated a cheap currency gives them a competitve advantage. It keeps products made in their counry cheaper than competitors. This is where that education I mentioned comes in handy.

    Yes the Great Depression was pre-Keynesian. And FDR kept trying to pursue a contractionary fiscal policies as the Federal Reserve did the same - the exact opposite of that which has just occured.
    Fractional Reserve has nothing to do with the Gold Standard. Additionally, Fractional banking has been around for a very long time. And there is nothing wrong with the fractional banking system. You can not have a viable modern banking system without it. Oh yes , let's go back to the days of pre industrial revolution. Those were such good olde days...not!
    Didn't I say the Fed pursued contractionary monetary policies in the depressions of 1929 and 1920? Yes I did. The whole point I have been trying to drive home to you, without apparent success, is that some people learned from the mistakes of 1920 and 1929. Others, such as those who subscribe to your notions, have not learned the lessons of previous depressions and other economic experiences.
    ]

    A total non issue, in depressions people do loose confidence. That is like saying the sea is wet...a total non issue. The issue is what leadership/government does restore confidence when it is lost.
    Yes I am right. How is the fact that people were sent overseas relevent to the issue at hand? It isn't. The unpleasant fact for you is that when the federal government engaged in massive spending, it increased aggregate demand and boosted the economy out of the Great Depression.

    Again you are mixing and matching. I suggest you look at the definition of economy. Goods were rationed durring the WWII because of dramatic increases in demand for goods and services. That is the exact opposite of what occurs in a depression. In a depression there is an excess suppply of goods and services. In growing economies goods (supplies) can become scarce...that is a good thing. I am always suprised when people who call themselves capitalists get all bent out of shape over normal supply/demand equlibrium issues - you know free markets.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Like I said, just what is it about moral hazard, legal tender laws, and so called malinvestment you find objectionable?

    These are all nonsene talking points for the right wing extremist and totally not relevant to the current issues at hand.
    This is where a good education and an open mind comes in handy. Refusal to acknowledge fact and reason does not make your suppositions true. If you think it was baloney, then you should be able to prove it.
    Well that is because you have obviously hanging around with the wrong crowd. As a matter of fact yes the bank bailouts were very necessary. This is where a good education comes in handy again. I am going to challenge you to find a reputable economist who says otherwise.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If the bank bailouts had not occured we would have seen a massive collapse of the banking system in the US and around the globe which would have precipitated a global economic collapse and resulting social unrest...a real smart move, not!. The fact that you do not understand this gets back to that education thing.
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2011
  8. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    Everyone conveniently forgets that communism is an offshoot of Christian philosophy. "To each according to his needs, from each according to his ability," is an elaboration of Marx's favorite line in the Book of Acts. Can you imagine any self-respecting Hindu, Jew or Confucian suggesting with a straight face that an economy can survive if what a man takes from it does not have to correlate with what he gives back?
     
  9. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    The premise was that her whole philosophy was just an effort to be the exact opposite of communism. If this were true, she would go all the way.
     
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    well considering their were a fair number of Jewish communists, yes. I do not know enough of Hindu thought to take a guess but I believe one could construct a Confucian argument for such an economy. it really all depends of the framing.


    you forget that one of the very things most derided as socialism a national health care system was first introduced in a highly right-wing authoratarian monarchy in prussia/germany.
     
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,690
    But they didn't invent it.
    Confucians really believe in responsibility. But since they also believe in the authority of the elders they'd probably conform to a system in which they get back less than they give. But the elders would never tolerate a system in which anyone was allowed to give less than he takes.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Socialism is one step in the evolution to communism but by itself it is not communism.
     
  12. Robert70 Registered Member

    Messages:
    7
    "We have competing currencies today. If you are not a gold standard bug as you claim, just what in your view are legal tender laws that you find offensive?
    "

    We do not have competing currencies today. We have a multitude of fiat currencies backed by their respective legal tender laws. Essentially government money monopolies.

    "The answer is not that hard. As previously stated a cheap currency gives them a competitve advantage. It keeps products made in their counry cheaper than competitors. This is where that education I mentioned comes in handy."

    You didn't answer my question. I asked why they send us stuff in exchange for paper. Seems like a silly thing to do. I think they're waking up to this as we see them purchasing fewer treasuries and instead investing in natural resources.

    "Fractional Reserve has nothing to do with the Gold Standard." That's true, but only because fractional reserve banking is counter to a fully redeemable currency. I recommend you research the Real Bills doctrine and how the financial system functioned with a proper clearing system.

    "Didn't I say the Fed pursued contractionary monetary policies in the depressions of 1929 and 1920? Yes I did. The whole point I have been trying to drive home to you, without apparent success, is that some people learned from the mistakes of 1920 and 1929. Others, such as those who subscribe to your notions, have not learned the lessons of previous depressions and other economic experiences. "

    Explain what the mistake of the 1920 depression was? Not sure you mentioned that.

    "A total non issue, in depressions people do loose confidence. That is like saying the sea is wet...a total non issue. The issue is what leadership/government does restore confidence when it is lost. "

    In my humble opinion the true issue is why the people lost confidence in the first place, not how the gov can restore it.

    "Yes I am right. How is the fact that people were sent overseas relevent to the issue at hand? It isn't. The unpleasant fact for you is that when the federal government engaged in massive spending, it increased aggregate demand and boosted the economy out of the Great Depression.

    Again you are mixing and matching. I suggest you look at the definition of economy. Goods were rationed durring the WWII because of dramatic increases in demand for goods and services. That is the exact opposite of what occurs in a depression. In a depression there is an excess suppply of goods and services. In growing economies goods (supplies) can become scarce...that is a good thing. I am always suprised when people who call themselves capitalists get all bent out of shape over normal supply/demand equlibrium issues - you know free markets. "

    I believe the issue with sending people overseas is the effect this has on the unemployment rate. The Great Depression didn't end until 1946 -when the troops came home, government spending was reduced by about two thirds, and investment in civilian goods returned.

    "In a depression there is an excess suppply of goods and services."

    Yes and no. There is an excess, but it is an excess of the wrong stuff. The artificially low interest rates of the boom fool businessmen into thinking there are more resources being saved than there actually are. In turn, they invest in higher order goods. Imagine a home builder building a large house, thinking he has 10,000 bricks, when in reality he has only 7,500. He will keep on building until he realizes that he was too few resources, at which point he will have to disassemble the house and start from scratch.

    "In growing economies goods (supplies) can become scarce...that is a good thing."

    I'm sorry but I'll have to call you out on this one! Are you really saying that scarcity is good for the economy? Does that mean that abundance is bad for the economy?

    "Like I said, just what is it about moral hazard, legal tender laws, and so called malinvestment you find objectionable?

    These are all nonsene talking points for the right wing extremist and totally not relevant to the current issues at hand."

    I'll assume that you don't know what I'm talking about. I already explained malinvestment. Legal tender laws outlaw payment in other forms of money. The problem is government is allowed to force debased currencies onto the people, instead of allowing the people to demand honest money.

    If you don't find moral hazard objectionable I doubt you understand the implications of it. Moral hazard is essentially private profit and public risk. I explained this in my previous posts. Banks made riskier and riskier loans because the fed is the lender of last resort, shifting the burden of any failures onto the tax payers, thus, bailouts.

    "I am going to challenge you to find a reputable economist who says otherwise. "

    How about an entire school of economics that saw the whole thing coming?
    Watch "Peter Schiff was right" on youtube if you find the time.
    Of course he doesn't have a degree in economics, so he's lacking that almighty 'education' you keep going on about.

    "If the bank bailouts had not occured we would have seen a massive collapse of the banking system in the US and around the globe which would have precipitated a global economic collapse and resulting social unrest...a real smart move, not!. The fact that you do not understand this gets back to that education thing. "

    I don't think teetering on the brink of disaster is a resounding endorsement of the federal reserve system. The truth is the system is flawed, and the dollar is doomed.
     
  13. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    What the hell are you talking about? You are way out there?

    Yeah, governments issue currency. There is nothing stopping you from printing your own currency except for the small fact that no one will accept it...one of those minor details again.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Now you cannot print your own currency and represent it as being issued by another...that is counterfeiting and is against the law.

    The currencies of nations are actively traded on exchanges every day Monday through Friday around the globe. And the price for those currencies with a few exceptions (e.g. Yuan) are set by the free market. The value is what a buyer and a seller are willing to make the exchange. It really is not that hard. And it is not a conspiracy...despite what you may think.

    You are spoutting off nonsense friend. You have been spending too much time listening to the previously mentioned nutcases in the media.

    In order for me to answer a question you first have to ask a coherent question. As previously mentioned you have spouted off a bunch of disconnected nonsense.

    Now if you are asking why people across the globe accept the dollar in exchange for goods? It is because they want the dollars and the "value" the dollar brings to them. People across the globe are not forced to use the US Dollar, yet they do. Again, it is not that hard. Unless of course your theory of the world does not match reality and you are trying to force square pegs into round holes. And that is exactly what you are trying to do.

    Two, please prove that Treasury buyers are purchasing fewer and fewer Treasuries as you have claimed. You cannot because like all of your other claims it is not true. Treasury auctions have been doing quite well. You are just repeating unfounded nonsense you heard in the right wing media. You do know that Treasuries are sold at auction don't you? If there were no buyers or few buyers interest rates would rise dramatically. Yet interest rates for Treasuries remain quite low. Again, your view of the world does not comport with observed realtity. A rational person would deduce that there is something wrong with their theory of the world rather than invent excuses.

    You are not making any sense again. Please try to support your claims with proof and reason.
    I am sorry but I have to laugh. You say you are not in support of the Gold Standard and then you go cite a commodity back system of currency in which each bank prints its own money.

    The "Real Bills" doctrine has been thourghly discredited for more than a century. You know there was a time in this country when banks and states did print their own money and it didn't work out so well.

    We did something you seem incapable of doing, we learned from history. There is nothing you are proposing here that has not been done before and discredited.
    I have explained it several times. The 1920 depression was caused by a post war realignment of resources. The nation should have pursued expansionary fiscal and monetary policies. It didn't.
    People can loose confidence for a variety of reasons. A giant rock might fall on Wall Street tomorrow causing confidence to wavier. You cannot write a full list of things that may cause confidence to wane. What matters is how you restore confidence in the system.
    Wrong again. Your statement begins with "I believe" and basically ends with that as well. This is not a church. Economics and fiscal policy are too important for belief. I could believe that tomorrow I am going to win the lottery, but that does not make it true. Where is your evidence to support your claim that the Great Depression ended in 1946? You cannot cite a credible source because none exists. Where is your proof that sending troops overseas had some impact on unemployment? You have none as your claim is untrue. And the measure of a depression is GDP not unemployment. And when government started employing people directly and indirectly in WWII that effectively ended the Great Depression. Government spending created the missing aggregate demand that resulted from the Great Depression.
    There is no yes and no about it. In a Depression there is an excess of goods and services because aggregate economic demand is severely reduced. It is just that simple. Your example is totally incoherent. Again, where is your proof? Businessmen are not fooled by low interest rates or government. Wall Street and investors are always speculating on what is going to happen down the road. The only person getting fooled here are people like you.

    A misallocation of resources occurs in a hyper inflationary environment, something we have not seen for a long time. Booms are not "bad" investment. It is the old supply and demand function in motion. The only malinvestment here is in your head. Again, your response here is just complete nonsense. It makes no sense.
    Call all you want it won't help you. Scarcity caused by growth is a good thing as opposed to too much supply because of insufficient demand. Because scarcity is a temporary event in a free market economy and does not produce high unemployment as does a depression. In a healthy economy supply and demand are always in motion and reacting to the realities of the market.

    A depression is a severe reduction in aggregate demand for all goods and services in an economy and ususally results in excess labor. A depression is negative economic growth.

    A economy growing but restricted by a supply constraint is still growing. But at a reduced rate. Some countries fighting inflation (e.g. China) try to induce supply constraints on certian commodities (e.g. currency) in order to control growth and inflation.


    No you have not explained any of this nonsense. You have repeatedly glossed over it and not connected the dots. Because you cannot rationally explain it and how it is relavant to the issues at hand. It is just complete and utter nonsense.

    Where is your proof that the Fed is causing banks to make more hazardous loans? The Fed may be the lender of last resort to banks. But that does not mean the Fed props up ailing banks. Because it does not.

    The Comptroller of the Currency oversees banking operations in this country and shuts down insolvent banks. And the FDIC insures bank deposits, not the Federal Reserve. So your allegation that the Fed is responsible for irresponsible banking practices is just sheer fiction.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    An entire school that has been discredited; an entire school that does not believe in scientific method; an entire school that does not believe in using data; it really isn't much of a school at all but rather an excuse for insane and inane ideas.

    Yes I am well aware of Peter Schiff. He is a clown who makes money catering to people like you. How much money did his clients in make following his recommendations in 2008, 2009, 2010 and year to date? Maybe I should have said lost.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here are the things Schiff does not want to talk about:

    12 Ways Schiff Was Wrong in 2008

    Wrong about hyperinflation
    Wrong about the dollar
    Wrong about commodities except for gold
    Wrong about foreign currencies except for the Yen
    Wrong about foreign equities
    Wrong in timing
    Wrong in risk management
    Wrong in buy and hold thesis
    Wrong on decoupling
    Wrong on China
    Wrong on US treasuries
    Wrong on interest rates, both foreign and domestic

    http://selfinvestors.com/tradingstocks/news/peter-schiffs-euro-pacific-capital-down-40-70-in-2008/

    Then there was his prediction for a bear market in 2009...oops got that one wrong. And then there was Schiff's prediction of a bear market in 2010...oops got that wrong too. He is a fast talker just like other purveyors of fiction and nonsense...attempting to control conversation and keeping others from pointing out the serious holes in his claims.

    And Schiff was not the only one calling for a collapse before the 2008 Great Recession. Schiff was right about a market collapse but for the wrong reasons...one of those minor details. Schiff can be summed up in this little video. Pay close attention to the marijuana dowser example.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k

    Schiff is a one note kind of guy and makes his money not by investing but by catering to people like you.

    Yeah, now how about answering my challenge? Find a credible economist who will go on record saying that the bank bailouts were not necessary. You did not answer the challenge.

    The fact that we did not go off the clift was a resounding endorsement of the actions taken by the Fed to prevent same. The Fed did not cause the Great Recession of 2008, repeal of Glass-Stegal, deregulation and the failure to enforce existing law did cause the Great Recession of 2008.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2011
  14. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No. The premise - which was my own, and so not for you to speak for - was that her output is a revenge fantasy premised on inverting communist ideology. And it is. I didn't say that she managed to turn every individual piece of Soviet Communism upside-down, nor ever imply that she had a particularly strong grasp on such issues to begin with. Again: emotional response, not rationally-constructed criticism. She picks out the topics she feels strongly about, and masturbates to the spectacle of inverting those aspects of Communism. There should be no expectation that she isn't ultimately half-assing such, or being a hypocrit. Those are normal, expected features of emotional responses to political propositions.

    Possibly as an atheist of Jewish extraction, she sympathized with the anti-Church aspects of Soviet Communism. I can't say that I'm interested enough to find out, for sure, but it seems pretty clear that the part that really interested her had to do with Bolsheviks taking away her daddy's wealth. And not, necessarily, any deeper principled opposition to whatever other aspects of Soviet Communism.
     
  15. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Ironically, what Rand called "reason" seems to me very much akin to that bastardized sort of "reason" one encounters in many post-Enlightenment thinkers and movements--most especially over the past century or so; that is, it serves more as an instrument of domination and alienation. From what I recall, besides her misreadings of Kant and Nietzsche, she also made so scathing remarks about Hegelian dialectics that were so far off the mark, and frankly incoherent. It's not all that surprising that her forays into metaphysics and epistemology are taken seriously by so few academics, but it's also not all that surprising her forays into ethico-political matters (which are somehow supposed to follow from the preceding) are taken seriously by a not insignificant portion of the American public.

    I think that many of the more astute former Bolsheviks reacted by turning towards either Trotskyism or some sort of anarchism. IOW a "deeper principled [and more considered, and less reactionary] opposition to whatever other aspects of Soviet Communism
     
  16. Robert70 Registered Member

    Messages:
    7

    Since we're talking about the US here's a look at the United States Code.

    "Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

    Nothaus' Liberty Dollar was shut down and he was convicted of "making, possessing and selling his own coins."



    I can't post links yet so google "bill gross treasuries fed"... he says that since QE began the Fed has purchased 70 percent of the Treasuries issued. You're probably familiar with PIMCO and how they've stopped purchasing US debt.

    As for what I said about China, Premier Wen Jiabao told reporters last year: "We have made a huge amount of loans to the United States. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried." They are definitely in a tough spot and obviously can't just sell their Treasuries without destroying their value. So I doubt they're very happy with their situation.

    I will clarify, I believe the Gold Standard can stand on its own merits and survive in competition with paper money. Maybe I misspoke by saying I do not support the Gold Standard. What I meant was I support competing forms of money, while at the same time I think a commodity currency would function best.

    Anyways this was an argument that the market can function without fractional reserve banking. The clearing function of the 'Real Bill' allowed for liquidity which opponents of gold as money claim it cannot provide. Real Bills emerged spontaneously in the market and allowed quick adjustment to consumer demands. There are defenders of Real Bills today, and there are still vestiges of its use.



    Is a bailout considered propping up a failing business?



    I'd hate to take up so much space. Try a google search for 'list of economists opposed to bailout.' Are university professors credible enough because I found hundreds when I searched.

    Well, I agree that repealing Glass Steagell was the spark. This is all in the framework of a central bank system though. I doubt these types of regulations would be necessary in a system of free banking (Don't shoot me).

    Back to the original debate - the question of what the role of government should be is a very important one. I believe its role is to protect our lives and our property from aggression and fraud. You believe it should be involved in regulating commerce and creating infrastructure. Protecting property rights and preventing fraud covers 'regulating commerce,' but I assume there's more you'd have government do. 'Creating infrastructure' is a green light for a larger than necessary gov. Do we agree that imperialism and endless government programs go beyond both mandates?

    Anyways I don't think there's much constructive dialogue going on here. From everything I've read I've come to the conclusion that the Austrians have been correct about the business cycle, the failure of fiat, and the dangers of the state. Perhaps you could give me your influences, I'd be glad to check them out - but I don't think there is much we agree on, so let's save ourselves the energy of a dead end debate.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    There is nothing preventing you from exchanging gold, silver or any other metal or any other device for goods and services in The United States. Go down to your local coin shop. You can find all sorts of privately minted coins. Turn on the TV and you find any number of folks selling privately minted coins and money. There is nothing stopping you from purchasing any of them or using any of them as currency except for the fact that no one is going to accept them as currency.

    You can't post the links because your claim is simply untrue. In the last year the Treasury sold about 6 trillion in notes. The Fed purchased less that 600 billion of those notes. I think you can do the math.

    You are just repeating nonsense/lies you have heard in the conservative media.
    If I held US notes with the Republican Party threatening to intentionally default on US obligations as they have been doing, I would be nervous too.

    The reason China is holding so much US debt is because they have been doing so much trade with The United States and their economy is dependent on exports. So they have a catch 22, they cannot have wealth without US trade. They cannot have US trade without manipulating their currency and without US debt.

    Like I said before were on the Gold Standard with the rest of the world. But it didn't work our for all of the reasons previously cited - the reasons that you choose not to believe in, the history that you choose not to recognize.
    Again, we have been there and done that and it didn't work. History speaks for itself...to those who care to listen. This is yet again another example of willingly refusing to learn from the mistakes of the past.

    How is this relevant? When the governement bailed out the banks in 2008 they were in reality bailing out the the US economy by saving the entire banking system...not individual banks. The bailout was done to prevent a global economic catastrophe.

    As previously mentioned, the Comptroller of the Currency routinely examines banks for financial integrity and nationalize insolvent banks. That is contrary to your claim that the government is in the business of proping up banks. That is clearly not the case.

    Oh please do. You can find economists who were concerned about how the bailout would be implemented...how it was drafted but not that it was needed. And of course you can always find economists, like lawyers, who are paid to argue the other side.

    But in retrospect, I think you would be hard pressed to find a "reputable" economist who takes issue with the need for the bank bailouts. Government intervention was clearly called for not only in the US but across the globe. Even China had a stimulus package.

    Good, I am glad we agree on something.
    A free banking system is what caused the excesses in the first place. If banking history has taught us anything, it has taught us that the only way we can have an efficient and trustworthy banking system is if it is well regulated.
    I believe that there is a legitimate roll for government to create and maintain an infrastructure for commerce..an infrastructure that foments opportunity. That infrastructure includes, roads, legal system, basic research, education, etc.

    I do not believe that government should be used to artificially restrict markets to the benefit of industry insiders as is currently the case (e.g. US Healthcare system, cable, energy, farming etc.). I am a solid believer in open and fair market competition except in those cases where open market competition is no longer feasible (e.g. healthcare, the industry has protections at too many levels of government so the only practical solution is government intervention).

    Above all else, I am pragmatic. I am old school, I believe in doing what works and believe that government should foment opportunity and in doing so they promote freedom.
    As I said before Austrians have been widely discredited. Why the Austrian business cycle is wrong:

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/01/market-failure.html
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2011
  18. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    The book was 1000+ pages worth of exposing an agenda in a very boring way. *Yawns*

    I won't be watching the movie.

    Peace.
     
  19. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    What if ...?

    You know, it occurred to me last night—and just work with it for a moment:

    What if the point wasn't necessarily to make a good film, since it's so hard to make a good film from such a long book written to push a moral assertion?

    The late Jack Cady would tell students of literature and writing that if they needed a soap box, had a moral to push, wanted to sell their snake oil, to write an editorial. Years later, I do wonder if Ayn Rand was who he had in mind.

    But over the years, I've noticed that, yes, the stories in which some moral assertion is more prominent, and seemingly the reason for the story in the first place, are more often than not poorly written. Those stories from which moral assertions emerge from the combination of story, teller, and audience, are, for the most part, better written. Not that they're all well-written, but even among the trash—literal human refuse—we see strewn along the side of the road, or piled in the alley, or tumbling out of the dumpster, some is simply more filthy than the rest.

    When the story and its elements are entirely subject to the moral assertion one proposes, those components are unnaturally restricted. Characters become two-dimensional, events predictable, and the general verisimilitude degraded.

    Trying to wrangle an interesting movie out of that on a twenty-million dollar budget seems counterintuitive.

    Maybe on a budget of $150m, with Keanu Reeves and Alyssa Milano heading the cast, one could offer up a hip, entertaining sort of Atlas Shrugged: Part I in which the wooden characters and bad dialogue are masked by the fact that, well, it's the likes Keanu Reeves and Alyssa Milano delivering the lines.

    But in the end, the whole idea of this film seems more and more ridiculous. From a business standpoint, this is a minimal investment developing a product in much need of design improvement. And what, really, do the sorts of critics who tell consumers to see this or that film because it's worth so many stars actually produce and contribute? Nothing. As Hemingway suggested of his critics, at least they aren't in jail.

    Yet these people would have the power to push a Aynalist over the edge?

    Really? Nothing about this makes sense.

    What if the point isn't actually about the film? What if the point is a thin, egotistical pretext for starting the Galtian revolution? What if Aglialoro is hoping to lead the strike?

    I know, I know. It would be almost unbelievably strange if this was the case. But we know there are terminally stupid people out there, and there is no law of nature that says the terminally stupid can't be rich egomaniacs lost in an ill-conceived, poorly considered literary delusion.

    But, yes, there was a moment last night in some random bit of conversation, when the movie came up and I reminded that the producer was threatening to go on strike; it hit me that it was entirely possible that going on strike was the whole point of the movie.

    And no, that notion does not make any sense. But neither does anything about this film at this time.
     

Share This Page