-
Website
http://www.newcritics.com -
Original page
http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/09/16/worst-movie-ever/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
web directory
24 comments · 1 points
-
kathleenmaher
13 comments · 11 points
-
Jason_Chervokas
28 comments · 4 points
-
Dan Leo
25 comments · 4 points
-
Stroke Treatment
63 comments · 4 points
-
-
Popular Threads
The last Ayn Rand post created a thread of staunch supporters, taking those of us who know little of her "philosophy" by surprise. I read "The Fountainhead" in one all-night sitting, having just broken up with a my second or third boyfriend. The thick but superficial story was diverting and, thus, perfect for my needs. Only later did someone surprise me by referring to Rand's novels as a "philosophy." Until then, I had considered Aristotle and Kant, Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein as quintessential philosophers. I believed philosophies offered and demanded back rigorous thinking. Generally, too, philosophy spoke to how we know what we think we know and/or why we live and die. I was young and reading to escape when I read The Fountainhead, but I was also more immersed in the great philosophers, from Plato to the Existentialists, than in anything else.
As a side note - Greenspan didn’t seem so bad (from the bits I saw) on 60 Minutes this evening.
If angie and brad make 'Atlas Shrugged' and they actually deliver the 3-hour-long 'I am He-Man, tremble before my logical power of reasoning!!' speech of John Galt, i would go watch it just to see how many people in the theater fall asleep. to tell the truth, i skipped pages 3-60 of the speech and i dont think i missed much.
Laughable is about what I think of Ayn Rand as a "philosopher." What I know of objectivism renders it objectionable. (I'm in no hurry to subject myself to her "novels.")
BTW: Here's Pauline Kael's capsule review of the movie:
A little delirious and definitely skewed. Can people who see this picture ever forget the sight of the silvery-blond columnist Dominique (Patricia Neal) galloping up on her black horse and slashing her riding crop across the face of the tall, mocking stranger who had looked at her impertinently while he was using a pneumatic drill in the quarry? He's the genius architect Howard Roark (Gary Cooper). When his design for a public-housing project is altered, he dynamites the building; put on trial, he justifies his action with an attack on collectivism and the parasites of the left. Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay, based on her 1943 novel, and true to her hero's principles, she wouldn't permit any changes in her (megalomaniac, comic-book) dialogue. King Vidor directed this paean to the individualism of "superior" people, made in a sleek, hollow, Expressionist style that owes a lot to film noir. It's an extravaganza of romantic, right-wing camp, with the hyper-articulate superman Roark standing in the wind on top of a phallic skyscraper, and the fierce, passionate Dominique rising in an open elevator to join him there. Despite Rand's denials, Roark was said to be based on Frank Lloyd Wright, and Vidor wanted Wright to design Roark's buildings, but had to settle for some bland imitations. The futurist structures are often obvious models and painted backgrounds. With Raymond Massey as the newspaper tycoon; Kent Smith as the mediocre architect; Robert Douglas as the despicable architecture critic; Henry Hull as Roark's Louis Sullivan-like teacher; and Ray Collins and Jerome Cowan. Warners.
Also, thanks for *that link*, Viscount to that old comment thread. I have no idea how I missed that back in March.
How intense was that? Whew, boy.
If so, will those Inspired Persuaders, please, persuade the USA--and not merely to the fallacies in Ayn Rand's philosophy as such, but, everything else?
Just remember that, ya liberal bastards!