I found a copy of the Movie version of AR's The Foutainhead 1949 (Gary Cooper)- on DVD no less. I had no idea that this had been made into a film, so I bought it. AR was the playwrite as well. As usual the book was far better than the movie. In fact compared to the book the movie was senseless! Not one character seemed to have the slightest motivation for doing the things they did. Most apalling were changes made to the story such as Dominique leaving Peter for Gail Wynand breaking their ENGAGEMENT not their MARRIAGE. I am always prepared for the movie to fall short of the book. But in this case the movie was an injustice if not an insult to AR's message. I just could not believe that AR wrote the screen play. It was a deeply disappointing movie and from my point view failed to get AR's point and objectivism's message across.

Appearantly I am missing something because the many reviews I read on line written recently by recent viewers (not professional reviewers) - raved about how pefectly the film brought out AR's philosphy. It was a stilted boring and stiff script that sounded more like the actors were reading from ther que cards and making no attempt to hide that fact. Shoddy at best.

Seeker; Having Keating only engaged to Domonique was probably due to the Hayes Office. The director was a naturalist. Gary Cooper was Miss Rand's choice for Roark but Miss Rand realized that he was not the actor for the role. I hope some day someone is able to look at the various verisions of the script and memos about the movie.

Well, personally, I think that Gary Cooper did quite a good job of presenting Roark's character and demeanor in a way that was consistent with the book. He probably was a little too old for the part, though.

The account of the tribulations that Ayn Rand had to go through in the production of that movie is laid out in detail in Barbara Branden's book, The Passion of Ayn Rand. Those not familiar with the details of that struggle should read that book. Considering the cultural atmosphere in Hollywood at that time, it is amazing that any of Rand's philosophic statements were allowed in the production (instead of ending up on the cutting room floor). In fact, many key philosophic statements (including the essence of Roark's trial speech) made it into the movie.

A particularly weak portrayal, though, was the truncated characterization of Peter Keating. His "confession" to Ellsworth Toohey appears constricted and contrived, and is not presented in a manner that would be believable to a viewer.

Incidentally, several other actors reportedly vyed for Roark's part. Among them, Humphrey Bogart and Clark Gable. Although they were great character actors, their demeanor probably would not fit well with Roark's personality (i.e, Gable: "Frankly, Dominique, I dont give a damn!," or Bogart: "Dominique, it's clear that our love doesn't mean much in this crazy world..." Yeah, I know that the actors did not write these lines, but it is what they are remembered for).

I agree that this is an embarrassingly bad movie.

A point I noticed the last time I saw it is that the script steers deliberately away from expressly political points, to the point of making the story positively harder to follow. One example is the scene between Keating and Toohey, where Keating, trying to get the Cortlandt job, says something like "you know people in this game" without ever mentioning that it's a government housing project. Another is when Roark finally sees what they've done to his design, and one of the actors says, dismissively, "you can't sue us." For all the viewer knows, they are private real estate developers counting on Roark's unwillingness to put time and money into a lawsuit. This was probably a way of compressing the story and getting immediately to the essential ethical message.

Peter

Gary Cooper was...adequate...for his part.

Raymond Massey, Kent Smith, and Patricia Neal were quite good for their parts.

Robert Douglas was absolutely great for his part. Any 're-make' would need the likes of Kevin Spacey to outdo Douglas as Toohey.

LLAP
J:D

Where did you find it on DVD?! I still have my copy from the library (I owe at least $5 on it), but I don't want to drive downtown.

Overall, the film wasn't very good, but was worth a watch in my opinion. It's something I would sit down and watch if I were bored. Patricia Neal had some really great moments (none that I can recall at the moment), but her staring off into nothingness really got on my nerves. And I agree, Cooper was good as Roark, but too old.

Alsoooo, I didn't think the man who played Henry Cameron was very good.

You may be able to find The Fountainhead on DVD by "searching" on the title after logging onto eBay. I have found that many movie titles that are "out of print" through the traditional sources (e.g., Amazon, imdb, etc.) are available if you look carefully on eBay. Some titles that you find there are from collectors or dealers in "used" or surplus movies. Some are done overseas. And some may be "unauthorized" copies (but not always, because many titles are no longer protected by copyright).

I found a copy of The Fountainhead on DVD there. Cheap. When I received it, I noticed that the DVD disc had no printed label on it. The dustjacket cover had a duplicate of the cover design that was used on the LaserDisc album, which was different from the VHS tape jacket cover (I know this, because I also have the LaserDisc album). I suspect that the DVD was really a "private transfer" (also known as "pirated') copied directly from a LaserDisc.

However, the DVD did play properly, and the images and sound were very good. Better than the VHS format version. In fact, just as clear and sharp as my LaserDisc version! Hmmm.

Aw c'mon guys... it wasn't that bad.

Kat

I found the DVD the same way and when I recieved it - there was NO LABEL on the disk either. It also was "Universal" meaning it would play in any DVD player regardless of the region setting. I agree it is likely a pirated copy -- although ot was advertised as a legitimate copy! I could not find the information i had on where on the Internet I found it.

Yes Kat, I think it was that bad -- it lacked any background informatuion what-so-ever that would lead you to know who any character was and why s/he was doing what s/he did. I don't see how it would be comprehensible to anyone who had not first read the book.

Turner Classic Movies (TCM) is featuring movies about Architecture in October. They will be showing The Fountainhead on Wednesday, October 4 at 8pm eastern time. I've added it to the calendar.

Here is their website for the Fountainhead. Enjoy!

Kat

Seeker, I don't think you are being quite fair to the film, although I understand your perspective. I remember that when I first saw it, not long after it was released, I hated it -- I hated every single minute of it. I kept waiting for my favorite scenes, my favorite moments, my favorite lines, and many of them were not there; and if some of them were, they were not presented as the book presented them and as I wanted to see them. I considered the movie a total. disastrous failure.

It was only a few years later, when I saw the movie again -- and I was more removed from the book -- that I realized what I had done. For all practical purposes, I had watched the movie as if I had the book on my lap and I was waiting to see an exact facsimile on the screen -- which of course I didn't see. I realized that a film is not and should not be the presentation of a novel; it is an adaptation of a novel in in another medium, and must take advantage of that medium. It doesn't matter at all if Dominique was or was not married to Keating, what matters is the spirit of the book, not all of the concretes. Today, if I happen to see it on television, and I watch a bit of it, my reaction is: Good god! How did Rand manage to have these words, these scenes, these incredible ideas, made real on the screen? Who did she have to kill? The movie -- despite all its many defects -- is a miracle.

I recommend that those of who who dislike it, give it a bit more time, then see it again. You may change your view of it.

John, I agree with you about Richard Douglas' performance as Toohey. He was superb. The only problem was that he was too strong, not for Toohey, but for the other actors.

Barbara

My experience with the film was identical to Barbara's. That was back when I was an O-newbie, all full of fire. I was getting everything I could get my hands on. I was thrilled to find a battered VHS copy of it at a library. That was maybe over twenty years ago. Even then, I was far from a stranger to film. I found the dialogue stilted, contrived. There were moments, but overall I couldn't stand the thing.

I've seen it two or three times more since then, the last time about a year-and-a-half ago. I find more moments to enjoy.

But I still have to say that I've seen far better films from that era. Far better. Shoot, some of the larger scale Chaplin silents make mincemeat out of it.

Talk about a remake, I'd love to see that one done. It's much more containable than Atlas.

In the end though, I have a much more benevolent view of it than upon first viewing.

EDIT: Oh, and the musical score. Way, way too heavy-handed in a lot of places, especially in transitions, scene openings. Didn't care for it a bit, really.

The Turner Classic Movie Channel just showed The Fountainhead. I watched it for the first time in a number of years. I repeat: It's a damn miracle! Whatever its flaws, what it captures is the wonderful, exalted idealism of the major characters, of Roark and Dominique and even Wynand, who in the movie kills himself when he understands the extent of his betrayal, and in the book does the equivalent. It captures their idealism, and the passion of their unswerving commitment to their values. And it captures, in essence, the nature of those values. Exactly how many movies have you seen of which you can say any of these things? These are the aspects of the movie that put the book back on the bestseller lists after its release, and that captured the allegiance of generations of young people and still continues to do so.

It was interesting to note that after the movie concluded, Robert Osborne, the host of TMC, and his guest (whose name I can't remember) talked about it briefly, and both clearly were deeply moved by it.

Watching it -- gasping as if I had never seen it before when Wynand rises to his feet in the courtroom to receive the jury's verdict on Roark, and on him, choking back tears during Roark's speech and not caring one whit if Cooper wasn't adequate because the words were more than adequate, saying to my cat "Saki, Ayn was a bloomin' genuis!" as Dominique rises toward the figure of Roark standing on the top of his skyscraper and blotting out the rest of the world for her -- I rememberd what had drawn and held me to Objectivism so many years ago, and what holds me to so much of it still today..

Those of you who haven't seen the movie: SEE IT! Those who have: SEE IT AGAIN!

Barbara

~ No two ways about it: whatever it's 'flaws' as one subjectively evaluates it in mere terms of 'likes-dislikes', this movie, then, as well as now, is heads-and-shoulders of a different and 'higher' calibre than most movies made before, then, and since. I said that Gary Cooper was 'adequate' in handling his part and I praised his co-actors higher re their handling theirs. I must add that, movie-buff that I am, I'm not aware of any other actor that YET can really handle (in a more 'believable' manner, which is not to be confused with "I'd prefer/like-more to see 'X' doing it" ) his part better than he did, regardless that some see Cooper as 'wooden' (not I) in doing it. --- An aside: maybe a thread should be started to distinguish the diff between someone showing passion...and, merely showing scene-chewing emoting.

~ If I didn't make it clear, Cooper was 'adequate'...and playing Roark: that's no small feat. God help the actor who plays Galt in the upcoming Atlas Shrugged.

Rich; You mentioned the score for The Fountainhead. The score was by Max Steiner who did a lot of Warner Brothers movies. Years ago I had a cassette that had excerpts from some of his movie work including The Fountainhead. If anyone know about this I would love to hear.

Commercial Break.... You can buy the soundtrack to The Fountainhead at the Objectivist Living Bookstore at Amazon. Look on the right sidebar menu and click music.

http://astore.amazon.com/wheelerdesign-20

Now back to your regularly scheduled program....

Kat

~ Max Steiner was one (if not 'the') 1st movie-music-composer I remember paying attention to in movies when I was a kid. Indeed, he was probably why I started actually 'reading' the end-credits...thereby learning about other 'soundtrack' (as the term became) composers, as well as 'gaffers' (not to be confused with 'go-fers.') Gone With The Wind was it ('music by...'). Thereafter I learned about Bernard Hermann, Jerry Goldsmith, Mancini, Kaper, etc.

LLAP
J:D

P.S: I see on IMBd that he has one hell of large resume.

John; At the same time in Hollywood was Erich Wolfgang Korngold who wrote the score of Robin Hood. I can remember an acquaintance saying that there were Korngold movies at theatre in DC. Korngold was employed by Warner Brothers like Steiner.

Chris:

~ Korngold? Did the music to the movie with my originally favorite iconically-heroic, devil-may-care, *actor/cinema-character* (hey, I was a 'kid' then) Errol Flynn aka Robin Hood? -- (Not that I recall the music much; this was pre-GWTW when I saw each; have to catch it a-g-a-i-n, I guess [sigh].)

~ How'd I m-i-s-s him?

LLAP
J:D

I tend to agree with Barbara. When I first saw it, I had a similar reaction.

However -- and I concur with the comments about Max Steiner's music (check out "White Heat" from the same year, thrilling score) and Robert Douglas -- what hardly anyone ever mentions is the stark, Expressionistic cinematography by DP Robert Burks.

Burks had been a special effects cameraman at Warner's and worked with the likes of great cinematographers Karl Freund (Fritz Lang's DP, later director of "The Mummy" and DP on "Key Largo") and Sid Hickox ("The Big Sleep"). Later on, Burks would become Hitchcock's favorite DP for movies such as "Strangers on a Train," "I Confess," "Vertigo," "North by Northwest," and "The Birds."

Max Steiner's score overwhelms as do the performances of Raymond Massey and Rob't Douglas. One night, however, I watched "The Fountainhead" with the sound off and the movie simply jumped off the screen: While it had a lot of the same props and themes as film noir movies from the period (arc lamps, long diagonal shadows, etc.), Burks keeps boxing in Cooper with an oppressively tight framing, much as he does with Montgomery Clift in "I Confess." When Roark is down and out, Cooper is trapped within a world of billboards, placards and stencilled lettering on frosted plate glass windows on doors. How better to signify the theme of the lone creator against the system? Burks' camera only really looks up in contemplating Roark's buildings, even though he presents Roark as a heroic figure by shooting him from a low angle.

Only one person gets the better of Roark, visually, and that's Patricia Neal as Dominique, in the famous scene with the buggy whip, in which Roark is filmed from the horseback POV.

Check it out: Watch this one with the sound off. It becomes a way stronger film, just as "Psycho" becomes *weaker* without Bernard Herrmann's frenzied soundtrack.

Robert; Your comments are very on target. King Vidor had the reputation as Naturalist but in The Fountainhead he breaks out and The Fountainhead is highly stylized. I think the same comment could be made about Patricia Neal who's later films are much more naturalistic. Two that spring to mind The Day the Earth Stood Still and A Face in the Crowd.

Robert: "When Roark is down and out, Cooper is trapped within a world of billboards, placards and stencilled lettering on frosted plate glass windows on doors. How better to signify the theme of the lone creator against the system? Burks' camera only really looks up in contemplating Roark's buildings, even though he presents Roark as a heroic figure by shooting him from a low angle."

That's fascinating. I'll do as you suggest, that is, I'll watch it with the sound off. Unfortunately, it seems I'm rarely aware of cinematography -- except in such films as "Citizen Kane" and a favorite of mine, "The Magnificent Ambersons."

Barbara

Turner Classic Movies shows "The Fountainhead" at least three or four times a year. It did so most recently this past month in a "31 Days of Oscar" tribute to Gary Cooper. I almost never miss it, and I've got two copies of the film on tape! (And will soon buy the long-overdue DVD.)

A newly produced "What a Character" interstitial piece on Cooper's career, one of many running between TCM features, relies heavily on shots of Cooper from this film. One of them is of his sketching the bastardized version of Wynand's house, in order to show that he couldn't be bought by the newspaper mogul. This piece noted that Cooper initially sought work in Hollywood as an illustrator, and that was news to me. No camera tricks, as I'd long thought ... he must have been actually sketching that atrocity!


Last Fall, the "Essentials" series co-host probably was Molly Haskell, a self-consciously feminist film critic who wrote From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in the Movies. I recall her being impressed by Patricia Neal.

That Haskell got past a usually quite cynical attitude to be, yes, notably moved is a tribute to the film's power. She's married to Andrew Sarris, creator of the "auteur" critical theory of director-shaped film productions, and someone who's long been dubious about the value of a less flamboyant craftsman such as King Vidor. That had to have made it more difficult, methinks, for her to show that this moved her.

I first saw this movie in 1976, age 17, on an ancient ('52) 18-inch black-and-white set that seemed, somehow, to fit it better than the color sets I've seen it on since. My dad urged us to watch it. He'd always admired Gary Cooper's work, with his own favorite being "Sergeant York." I'd found the piety and manipulation of that undeniably well-told story off-putting, and almost resisted Dad's suggestion.

I'm glad I didn't. We turned on the local PBS station (!) and I was enthralled. Especially by the courtroom speech, which was vastly different in ideas and rhetoric from the statist credo I'd had shoved at me in government schooling. The stark imagery and Max Steiner's soaring score were also compelling.

This was my introduction to the work of Ayn Rand.

A few weeks later, I looked up the full courtroom speech in the high school's copy of the book, since my mother had wanted to read it in full. I photocopied it, but didn't get enticed to read the whole book until the following Summer, my last before college. Well, then the hooks were in my mental hide!

And all these years later, I still think that this is the best way to encounter what still is Rand's best work of fiction -- solely as fiction, not as a hybrid with deliberate philosophic writing. Movie first, to get the essence of the story, and only then the far broader planes of the book.

This reversal of the usual path is nearly unique in my experience. Few movies ever match up to the mental vistas of their books. I wouldn't say that the film's storyline, far more condensed, is "better" than the book's, but it fits the film medium far better.

Most of all, it's more direct. You get a host of characters, especially Toohey and Wynand, brought out in detail by visual and aural cues. These two received lengthy flashbacks in the book, into their youth and career paths, which couldn't be easily portrayed on screen. Their psychologies were telegraphed, though, quite well by Robert Douglas and Raymond Massey, respectively. Gestures of flamboyance and drive were shown in walks, mannerisms, props (especially cigarette smoke), and intonations.

Even apart from the plot and Rand's dialogue, the vigor of the story comes out in an ineffable sense of being "driven" that was unique to Warner Bros. among the major studios. Their scrappy gangster pictures and saucy slices of strong Americans fit the thrust of Roark's persistence in the face of adversity. I can't imagine that the overbaroque production values of, say, MGM would have allowed for such tart thrusts of acting and visual design. (That studio's committee-driven production line would have gutted the content, as well.)

I'm struck on every re-viewing about how easily one can be absorbed in the story on its own terms. It highlighted the plotting. Rand's book brought out a far more detailed tapestry of motivations and conflicts, alongside -- and over and under and behind -- the plotting. Having been captivated by the book, I thought that re-viewings of the movie would feel flat by comparison, by not having this degree of detail. For me, at least, they haven't done so at all.

And I'll second the suggestion to see this film, for once, with the sound turned down. At least the powerful compositions in the last ten minutes, from Wynand rising with Roark in the courtroom onward. Especially notable here is the silhouette of Wynand and Roark against the buildings of New York, as Roark leaves Wynand's office for the last time. Both men are meant to measure up against the skyscrapers, literally and figuratively, very closely fitting how Rand saw the characters.

A very interesting post, Greybird. Now that you mention it, I am aware that many people who see the movie without having read the novel are overwhelmingly moved and fascinated by it -- and rush to get the book. I can imagine how stunning it must be to first encounter Rand's ideas in this rather stark, unembroidered form. I think you're correct in suggesting that the movie is a wonderful way to be introduced to Rand. I don't agree that it's necessarily the best way, however; I suspect that each of us thinks the way he first encountered Rand was the best way, and mine was through the novel of The Fountainhead.

Barbara

~ Reading the rest of this thread brought back to mind some 'behind the scenes' interviews I remember seeing of George Lucas about his films (not ONLY the SW ones). Either he, or commenters on his films, stressed the idea that in cinema, for the most part, the visuals themselves should be able to tell most of the 'story,' and that dialogue was almost regarded as secondary. This is definitely stressing cinematography as the highest priority here.

~ I'd guess there're film classes that get into this subject (and I wonder it's relevence to stage-plays?), but after reading the above, I can appreciate this perspective of some film-makers. Hitchcock comes to mind.

~ I WILL re-check THE FOUNTAINHEAD movie...sans sound. Thanx for the idea re a subject I'm too little familiar with.

LLAP
J:D

Hi Seeker

Well you may or may not be missing something - people can take different views! - but personally I don't agree with you. I saw the film more or less by chance when it was shown in London a while ago - and I'd read both TF and AS first - and I thought it was great!

I posted my reactions on objectivistcenter.com and hope you'll forgive my quoting myself here...

I wondered how well TF would translate to film. My preconception was that movies are better at action than ideas. I'm conscious that Rand's novels are pretty intellectual and philosophical, and her characters have a way of breaking into long set-piece speeches which is arguably a bit un-novelistic and even more un-filmic. I've read with interest about the plans to film “Atlas Shrugged”, but wondered a little how on earth one could do it.

I checked out what Internet commentators, including both movie fans and objectivists, had to say about the film,and got essentially a lot of gripes. Was Gary Cooper too old? Did the architecture look right? Was the sexual symbolism (drills, skyscrapers) too unsubtle? Was the romantic orchestral score a bit much? Would the images disrupt one's internal visions of the characters?

So I went in with (I hope) an open mind, but also a degree of scepticism. I should also say that I'm more a reader than a viewer, and that when I do see films they tend to be modern rather than vintage. The last old film I remember seeing was Chaplin's “Great Dictator” (also highly recommended, by the way).

In the event, I thought the film of “The Fountainhead” was absolutely great.

Yes, it's a late-40s Hollywood movie and conforms to the conventions of its place and time. But then these guys were seriously good at making movies, and it's not hard to suspend your disbelief and live with those conventions. Yes, quite a lot of the content of the novel ends up on the cutting room floor. But then a good screenwriter knows that a film is something different from a book, and works with that, even if it's not the case (as here) that the screenwriter is also the novelist. Some of the incidents may have gone, but the message is intact.

The movie – perhaps even more than the novel? - is absolutely clear and purposeful. Every scene makes its point and has its place in the argument. Not a word or a shot is wasted.

I guess there are two ways of looking at the film. If you're coming at it as a Rand enthusiast, looking for a work of art you can appreciate, then see it – it's good. Another way of looking at it, though, is as a vehicle for advocacy and education in objectivism. Several times I've tried to introduce friends to Rand's ideas. While a paperback copy of “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged” can be an inexpensive present, not everyone is immediately turned on by the prospect of eleven hundred pages of tiny print. I know some people advocate “Anthem” as a starter, and I can see why they do, although personally I find the fantasy setting of that book less compelling that the more-or-less modern contexts of the late great novels. I'd suggest that the film of “The Fountainhead” could well be a fine alternative easy way in to Rand's thought. I understand from amazon.com that it will be out on DVD very soon. (I only hope the US DVD works in Europe.)

Best regards

Adrian

In the new Essays on Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead there is chapter on turning the book into a movie by Jeff Britting. It is well worth reading. Miss Rand was not the first choice to write the screenplay. Some of the earlier efforts were awful. The next time I am going to take the advice and turn off the sound.

IN fact, the title of my movie review for it was "See the Movie First, THEN Read the Novel."

Think of the movie in the context of the films and style of that time.
A good late night movie to watch. That stone-faced Gary Cooper as Roark.
The attempting-to-be-frivolous Dominique

Kat and I just saw this on DVD and also saw the bonus documentary, The Making of The Fountainhead, that bore the copyright of 2006, so it is a recent mounting of old film footage with a modern narrator. Before getting to the movie, a couple of comments about the documentary. I had never seen footage of King Vidor before, so it was cool seeing him. It was kinda cute how they glorified the "scandalous affair" between Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, which had started during the filming, and presented as glamorous. As this was undoubtedly overseen by ARI people (it certainly had the signs of it), I couldn't help thinking that when it is others who have affairs with married people, it is glamorous, but when it is Rand herself... ahem... I digress. Also, there was a very curious notice at the end. Special thanks were given to Leonard Peikoff and Michael Mentzer on a full screen.

Michael Mentzer??? The weight lifter who died in 2001???

Whatever...

One thing the documentary mentioned was that King Vidor was mostly famous at that time as a silent movie director. Since I saw the documentary before seeing the film (again), I focused on this comment and, by golly, that is what characterizes this film. It is a modernized silent film with dialog. Especially Patricia Neal's constantly exaggerated tragic facial expressions and the mostly wooden delivery by most of the actors during much of the film. In Brazil, I did a lot of subtitle translation for old silent films in video so I have these images in my memory. Once it was verbalized, the silent movie style of The Fountainhead simply jumped out at me and I found it charming as all get out. What I used to consider as stilted I now saw as stylized (for lack of a better word), but not stylized in an Objectivist sense of romantic realism—stylized in the sense that silent movies are not real.

The most regrettable thing I found about Max Steiner's score is that it was lush without being very memorable. The main melody is not a strong one and the others are even more bland. The strange thing is that I now find the lushness a bit out of place during most of the film. But it did work when Patricia Neal was doing her thing with extravagant looks and gestures.

All in all, I am glad I saw it again. Despite these criticisms, the constant harping on ability and integrity during the film hit me in the gut hard and it felt good.

Michael

Michael; I suspect that Mike Metzer may have found the King Vidor footage.

I will try and watch with it the sound off the next time it is on TCM.

Chris,

My issue with Metzer helping out is that he had been dead for 5 years when he apparently helped out.

Michael

Michael; I was wondering if maybe Metzer found the footage and gave it to ARI. Were you able to look at all the credits.

Hi Adrian:

From the comments I've read here and yours in particular, I am going to have to view the film again -- when I first viewed it - I had just finished reading TF and I think I was unwittingly expecting the book and the movie to be one in the same in most aspects. This is an unrealistic expectation for any book and screen play combination. Hence, I probably did miss something in a more profound way than I'd like to admit. In addition I've now read all of AR's books except Anthem and have read several other books about her and/or objectivist philosophy and find I am intrigued and absorbed by AR's life and philosophy even more than I was initially. I believe I will see it from a fresh prospective and more intense interest.

I will be the first to admit that I have a hard time viewing films made in the 40's and 50's because I find most the acting to be too mechanical to be real - the opposite seems to be true of modern films where I think they are often too realistic/graphic in general. If TF were made today I would expect there to be torrid graphic depictions of sexual encounters among other things that would detract from the movies message. So each era has its own distractions -- but keeping that in mind may very well be the ticket to my enjoyment of TF, the movie. To be continued!

Warmest regards,
Seeker

P.S. I have not heard of Chaplin's "Great Dictator" or at least I don't recall coming across it in my 67 years on the planet -- I will indeed check it out!


Hi Seeker

Well you may or may not be missing something - people can take different views! - but personally I don't agree with you. I saw the film more or less by chance when it was shown in London a while ago - and I'd read both TF and AS first - and I thought it was great!

I posted my reactions on objectivistcenter.com and hope you'll forgive my quoting myself here...

I wondered how well TF would translate to film. My preconception was that movies are better at action than ideas. I'm conscious that Rand's novels are pretty intellectual and philosophical, and her characters have a way of breaking into long set-piece speeches which is arguably a bit un-novelistic and even more un-filmic. I've read with interest about the plans to film “Atlas Shrugged”, but wondered a little how on earth one could do it.

I checked out what Internet commentators, including both movie fans and objectivists, had to say about the film,and got essentially a lot of gripes. Was Gary Cooper too old? Did the architecture look right? Was the sexual symbolism (drills, skyscrapers) too unsubtle? Was the romantic orchestral score a bit much? Would the images disrupt one's internal visions of the characters?

So I went in with (I hope) an open mind, but also a degree of scepticism. I should also say that I'm more a reader than a viewer, and that when I do see films they tend to be modern rather than vintage. The last old film I remember seeing was Chaplin's “Great Dictator” (also highly recommended, by the way).

In the event, I thought the film of “The Fountainhead” was absolutely great.

Yes, it's a late-40s Hollywood movie and conforms to the conventions of its place and time. But then these guys were seriously good at making movies, and it's not hard to suspend your disbelief and live with those conventions. Yes, quite a lot of the content of the novel ends up on the cutting room floor. But then a good screenwriter knows that a film is something different from a book, and works with that, even if it's not the case (as here) that the screenwriter is also the novelist. Some of the incidents may have gone, but the message is intact.

The movie – perhaps even more than the novel? - is absolutely clear and purposeful. Every scene makes its point and has its place in the argument. Not a word or a shot is wasted.

I guess there are two ways of looking at the film. If you're coming at it as a Rand enthusiast, looking for a work of art you can appreciate, then see it – it's good. Another way of looking at it, though, is as a vehicle for advocacy and education in objectivism. Several times I've tried to introduce friends to Rand's ideas. While a paperback copy of “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged” can be an inexpensive present, not everyone is immediately turned on by the prospect of eleven hundred pages of tiny print. I know some people advocate “Anthem” as a starter, and I can see why they do, although personally I find the fantasy setting of that book less compelling that the more-or-less modern contexts of the late great novels. I'd suggest that the film of “The Fountainhead” could well be a fine alternative easy way in to Rand's thought. I understand from amazon.com that it will be out on DVD very soon. (I only hope the US DVD works in Europe.)

Best regards

Adrian
[/quote]

Hi Seeker

Thank you, that's kind of you. I'm very pleased that you found my post interesting.

Chaplin's "Great Dictator" (moving off-topic a little) is a humorous treatment of a very unhumorous topic (the Nazis). I believe Chaplin later said that he couldn't have made it if he had really understood what was going on. Still. to my mind, the film is very sharp and really hits home. I'll be most interested to hear what you make of it. (We may need a new thread for that.)

All good wishes

Adrian

Hi Chris

A very late reply. Apologies.

I think you can find the original recording (released for some reason by Brigham Young University) at http://www.screenarchives.com/title_detail.cfm?ID=4119.

There's a later. more modern, re-recording of suites from this and other Steiner movie scores at http://www.amazon.com/Now-Voyager-Classic-...3030&sr=1-1.

Hope that helps.

Best regards

Adrian

The second one is the one I brought as an LP.(For the youngsters LP is abbrev. for long playing phonograph record)

MSK:

~ Re Metzer (Metzner?) I know nothing of his association debated here, but, as an aside, was extremely surprised a while back (ok: more than a decade+ ago) while reading some of the 'muscle' mags (when my stepson-of-then was into body-building) that here was someone writing 'intellectual stuff' (apart from the usual concretes of specific diets and weights to live by and for) about body-building, and, was a self-avowed Rand-promoting 'Objectivist.' I still can't get over that this was in a 'muscle' mag.

~ Wiki has some interesting background on him and Weider.

LLAP
J:D

I'll be surprised if someone doesn't assume you meant Leonard Peikoff.

Alfonso

Alfonso; LP for Leonard Peikoff is always a risk with this group. I'm glad I didn't have to explain what a phonograph was.

FOR THOSE BORN POST-'80:

~ Record-wise, 1st (popularly accepted, that is) there were the 78-rpm (rounds-per-minute) vinyl (aka plastic) 'records,' about 1 ft wide; then came the less-than-1 ft wide '45's (45 rpm) with a special larger center opening for a special large spindle to fit on the original record-playing center-spindle. Then came the 33-1/3 rpms, wider (1-1/2 ft?) than the 78's, but fitting the original spindle; THESE were called the Long Playing records.

~ Then came the 8-track tapes, their cassette descendents, and Leonard Piekoff. Who knows what Phoenix will rise from cassettes' offspring, Compact-Discs?

LLAP
J:D

John; Wasn't Leonard Peikoff born in 1935? I thought 331/3 records came after World War 2.

33-1/3 records were invented for use, I believe, in the 1930s. They were not available for public consumption until 1949, when Columnia Records introduced the 12" LP.

However, their use was widespread for Armed Forces Radio during WW2, as it was a much more compacted form of music storage than 78 rpm records. In fact, the AFR records were 15" on diameter, and most people would have difficulty playing them on a turntable manufactured with 12" as the outer diameter limit.

Robert:

~ I was going by vague personal-experience memory. My measurement-refs apparently were off. Being a kid then, things apparently seemed larger than they were. Your explanation now explains my perplexity as to why my portable record-player wouldn't close up with an 'LP' sitting on the turntable; clearly it was built for '78's.

Chris:

~ I don't think L. Piekoff started lecturing when he was born. I think he started a bit later.

LLAP
J:D

John,

You can say that about Peikoff if you must, but don't you dare say that about Rand.



Michael

MSK:

~ Sorry, I must; her as well as him. She was not a born-lecturer. She was a born-writer. She didn't start lecturing until after she stopped writing (books, anyways.) Same for the Long-Playing intellectual...descendent. --- Now I'm getting confused as to whethr we're talking recording-devices and technology, or people and ideas.

LLAP
J:D

Excellent observation regarding the "...diff between someone showing...passion...and, merely showing scene-chewing...emoting." Cooper did more with micro-facial actions and his total kinesics than most actors do with a "heart wrenching sob scene". I happened to sit in on my colleauge's "The Art of Oral Interpretation" course many years ago and chose Roark's jury summation as my end term performance project. Coop's cadence was not the best, but his iron certainty as to his principles connected to his legal contractual connection in his summation was stunning in its clarity. It took eight [8] minutes in the movie. I extended the time for cadence purposes when I did it and I was more animated. However, it is an intense speech and one of the most difficult tasks to perform it is to sustain it, which he did.

Selene; Did you make a recording of this project? It would be interesting to see how someone else die it.

No. It was the early seventies, we were still doing cave paintings.