Ayn Rand & The Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged soon in theatres?

[william.scherk]

Sorry for the double post. Here is a bandaid on my error, two classics and two imagined allies in Objectivish things.

[william.scherk]

William, I'm not sure I understand the point of your post.

That doesn't surprise me, but hey. Let me try to explain, and thank you for asking nicely.

The point of my post is to ID "otherizing" and to invite comment. I lingered, in my chatty, run-on manner, on how I got to thinking of Otherizing. I tried to lay out the difficulty of naming in a single name something that is but a quality of approach.

Read Ellen's post above. She grasped the point: Otherizing. She fleshed it out well and underlined that Otherizing isn't about Phil, but is more basic to Objectivish-ism.

Now, Phil, you might disagree that Otherizing was my point of attack and my question and my musing and my inquiry and my confusion. You might even say that you do not understand what Otherizing is. That is OK. You could point out that I edited your remarks above to De-Otherize. You might ask yourself how you could Re-Otherize those edited remarks. You might, above all, do a compare and contrast, like this:

1. Print out the original remarks
   
2. Print out the edited remarks
   
3. Note correspondences and additions, and where the changes were made.
   

The primary point, then, Phil, was Otherizing.

Did you get *absolutely nothing* out of the points I took the trouble to make in post 19?

I do wonder how long it has been since someone drew you into their arms and calmed you down, who soothed your anxiety and made you feel beloved.

Oh well. Yes, Phil, No -- if you do my simple little homework task of Compare and Contrast, you can see that I removed none of the numbered points from your remarks. I reworked them into sentences and pitched them back at you. Do you recognize anyone in the revised remarks? Is it not the Very Thing You Were Criticizing (and that Ellen IDs and details, the basic otherizing, the boxing out, the in-group/out-group ramparts, of derision and disengagement toward science, or inquirers of Evul Stripes, the non-attention to and Lack Of Appeal to actual practitioners. This is sometimes James H-N's line when he critiques both TAS and ARI for disengagement from cognitive science. Here is what I wrote backstage in my frustration:

I cannot put my full bite on OL, but let me tell you, what I have learned about the ways of humans on OL has helped me suit up for other battles elsewhere. Ayn Rand was so much smarter and more effective than any of her also-rans. They grapple least with the real world (science, free inquiry, the growth of knowledge and the rubbishing of bad premises) when they need it most to support their arguments.

Really, my friend, this one time, the point was not all about you. I wanted to engage you in the discussion and let you have some fun, so it was not about you entire. It more about all of us here and our relation to the Objective-ish project or whatever you want to call it, movement, Philosophy, its Spread ... and so on. The Lack Of Appeal to what would seem natural allies.

All right? Does that make you feel less snubbed and sidelined? Let me state this in stronger terms: yes, your criticisms and observations ring true, and I tried to assemble them under the awkward rubric Otherizing (while showing you how you too Otherize), and Ellen responded to the basic underlying theme that I poorly sketched and knitted it all back together. Some gift of communication happened between my words and Ellen's mind, and she got the pith of what I was getting at, beyond my own poke at it all.

Is it not telling that you say you do not get it? I suspect you do get it, very well, but you are unaccustomed to checking your own Otherizing habits and then talking about it, soothing yourself, easing yourself back into the game. Instead, the other, the dreadful enduring other, the vampire, the thing that is not like yourself, the usurper. the Them..

I took some trouble to develop those points - and the ideas that there is both a critical and a supportive way to look at OIsts, a positive and a negative side -- and that both movement "factions" tend to err in their critical slant.

Okay. This is good. I want you to come back to this one you have finished your Compare and Contrast exercise.

Read your remarks over again. Expose the premise. See how appealing or not your engagement with the topic of Otherizing actually is. Take Ellen up on Jung, have a wild weekend digression.

Consider this the kind of advice Pollyanna might give to Anne of Green Gables. Lighten up, bitch.

Edited January 14, 2012 by william.scherk

[Philip Coates]

William, your focus on my "otherizing" seems sort of petty compared to the importance of these points:

" the ideas that there is both a critical and a supportive way to look at OIsts, a positive and a negative side -- and that both movement "factions" tend to err in their critical slant."

It's sort of like when someone does a good essay focusing all your attention on the fact that he used green ink and it distracted you.

[Ellen Stuttle]

William, your focus on my "otherizing" seems sort of petty compared to the importance of these points:

" the ideas that there is both a critical and a supportive way to look at OIsts, a positive and a negative side -- and that both movement "factions" tend to err in their critical slant."

The point of my post is to ID "otherizing" and to invite comment. I lingered, in my chatty, run-on manner, on how I got to thinking of Otherizing. I tried to lay out the difficulty of naming in a single name something that is but a quality of approach.

[Ellen] underlined that Otherizing isn't about Phil, but is more basic to Objectivish-ism.

[...] if you do my simple little homework task of Compare and Contrast, you can see that I removed none of the numbered points from your remarks. I reworked them into sentences and pitched them back at you. Do you recognize anyone in the revised remarks? Is it not the Very Thing You Were Criticizing (and that Ellen IDs and details, the basic otherizing, the boxing out, the in-group/out-group ramparts, of derision and disengagement toward science, or inquirers of Evul Stripes, the non-attention to and Lack Of Appeal to actual practitioners. This is sometimes James H-N's line when he critiques both TAS and ARI for disengagement from cognitive science. [....]

[....] Really, my friend, this one time, the point was not all about you. I wanted to engage you in the discussion and let you have some fun, so it was not about you entire. It more about all of us here and our relation to the Objective-ish project or whatever you want to call it, movement, Philosophy, its Spread ... and so on. The Lack Of Appeal to what would seem natural allies.

[....] Let me state this in stronger terms: yes, your criticisms and observations ring true, and I tried to assemble them under the awkward rubric Otherizing (while showing you how you too Otherize) [...].

Where's either pettiness or ignoring of your points?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Reverting to the subject of the movie, the announcement Adam posted in #25 sounds to me as if the producers are worried about sparsely populated audiences for the showings.

A bit of additional indication: On Friday Larry happened to go to see a different movie at the local theater where the documentary is scheduled to run (once) on Tuesday, so he bought advance tickets. Upon inquiring about advance sales, he was told that so far he was the only one to purchase advance tickets.

Ellen

[PDS]

Reverting to the subject of the movie, the announcement Adam posted in #25 sounds to me as if the producers are worried about sparsely populated audiences for the showings.

A bit of additional indication: On Friday Larry happened to go to see a different movie at the local theater where the documentary is scheduled to run (once) on Tuesday, so he bought advance tickets. Upon inquiring about advance sales, he was told that so far he was the only one to purchase advance tickets.

Ellen

Ellen:

I refuse to consider or accept a reversion to the original topic and/or anecdotal evidence of any kind.

Seriously, one can only hope that the abject failure of AS-Part 1 (something for which my prediction was as wrong as wrong can be) hasn't forever tainted the Rand Brand, at least as far as movies go.

[caroljane]

Such recreation to be had at OL. We have on one side the rapier of PDS, uniting the theme of the OT and unknotting pretensions in one sweep.

On the other hand, the same game but played with polishers, grinders, rivets.

I have noticed Phil's incredible use of pronouns. Phil's favourite pronoun of course is I, but strangely he uses They more often. In most heated exchanges, if you look, you will see that Phil rarely gets a sentence going without Them and They. This I might call Otherizing.

Otherizing is an odd thing, and a bit tough to explain (as all neologisms should be, I think). We all use constructions like I think or I believe. This usually introduces that we are 'winging it,' and are ready for discussion. Discussants are invited to probe our thoughts or beliefs for reality.

In contrast, an assertion drops the "I believe" or "I think."

Frankly, I add back in the "I believe" and "I think" in my mind when I re-read an assertion. It doesn't make much difference in my probing questions, but, it makes me more prone to be kind to the person behind the assertion.

How does this relate to Otherizing? Well, this is a case in which several things are dropped entirely beyond "I think" and "I believe". No longer do we have a thought, summary, conclusion, assertion presented plainly. No longer do we have a statement like "(I think) most people are stupid and/or degenerate," which is a good start to a discussion. We don't get "(I think) Evil people always do evil to themselves first." Instead we get things like "The bad things about Them are listed in the following List." If the word "I" comes in, it is just to introduce a bill of charges againsts Them.

So, what was all that blather for?

Well, I am going to de-Otherize Phil's post in which he goes on and on about Them.

I have had a lot of conversations with Objectivists and students of Objectivism and the Objectivish over the years, ever since I went to New York in the fateful year 19XX (the same year in which I met Miss X)

I have had conversations in college and in grad school. I have had conversations on the east coast and the west coast, in the fly-over states, I have spoken at conferences and attended a dozen and have had conversations at each.

I have also had conversations in clubs I have started (these were mainly Objectivish clubs), and finally I have had conversations while I have been an Officer in clubs. I should also mention that I have had conversations when I have been just a member of a club.

So, what I am stressing is that I Have Had Conversations With Objective-ish Folks. Lots of them, lots and lots and lots.

Am I about to tell you about those folks' sides of the conversations? No -- why should I? This is a thread about me. I want to tell you what I discovered in those conversations (In fact, my Next Book will be called "Conversations with O"). I want to tell you about myself, mostly, my wisdom, my acuity of vision, my prophecy and so on.

I'm often highly critical of them or of the 'movement' -- whether ortho, conservative, or reform, but I realize that I am sometimes guilty of that which I critique. I feel Oists are often too smug, too proud of reading and accepting the system of ideas, and then I note that I can be too,.

I am restrained in criticizing Peikoff compared to most folks here on OL, but at the same time I am often unwilling to see virtue in people who disagree with me. I have a hard time reconciling this in my mind. Once I put someone on a 'side' of me, I am often unrestrained in criticizing anyone of that side. Viz maggots, cunts ... (but I have a hard time keeping consistent on this point, I think).

I am not reluctant to strongly criticize prominent thinkers or tendencies, but I do not actually understand why this angers anyone. I seem to have a side, but everyone else is on the wrong side, somehow. I criticize everyone but myself, mostly, maybe.

When folks get tired of my posts they often use the term " "schoomarm." I still don't quite get this. What is wrong with a Schoolmarm, after all? I am a teacher by profession, and that is what Schoolmarms do, so what is the freaking problem?!

Sometimes the owner of a website on which I post tries to prove that I am an "attention-seeker," playing the same Me Me Me game over and over with the same dire results. I do not accept this, or even, really, understand it. Some listers point out that I have called people names and stormed off this site several times never to return, as if it meant anything to me. I ignore this kind of thing, usually. I evade the implications of my own actions and statements, sometimes. But isn't that what self-preservation and amour-propre does for everyone? Am I like everyone I criticize? I would be hard pressed to accept that in my heart. That would be devastating. I cannot be a hypocrite. That would puncture my self-esteem, I think.

But, I soldier on. I ask myself questions, the same questions I put to others. I test my own premises, do I not?

Do I use proportion in all my criticisms?

Well, the largely Objectivish folk I have met over the years -- whether ARI-leaning or TAS-leaning or pre "schism" or regardless of what side they take on the earlier Rand/Branden issues, have usually been morally and intellectually admirable people -- highly intelligent, honest, resourceful, clear-sighted. In all these conversations across the years, the Objectivish have largely reflected what I think about myself. I think of myself as possessing, on the whole, a good moral character. I think I have a high degree of idealism. I am not nihilistic or cynical. I could be wrong, but I strongly identify with these qualities and I want to be like my heros.

I think these folk are courageous, because they accept and practice a worldview that might make them pariahs (like Mr X) , might kill or hamper some personal (Miss Y) or professional relationships (Dr J).

[The variously named people such as Misses X, Y, Z and Mssrs P, R, U, X, W, Z and Y and Drs P, L and P were some of the most wonderful people I've met.

I want to be like them, accomplished, caring, wise, fully human. I sometimes fall short, but I hope I learn. I hope I learn to trust criticism of myself as much as I trust my criticism of others, even if only in a small way. It would help me be more satisfied in life, less lonely, less thwarted and less frustrated. I am sorry for all the terrible things I have done and said over the years.

Thanks, everyone who has cared enough about Reason and Reality (and little old me!) to critique me. I wouldn't be the man I am without it. I realize that I myself gain when I criticize myself first, and hold myself to the same standard I hold to others, that I gain respect and credibility as a thoughtful participant in debate, that I display integrity. I think I am not just a crank, after all -- and I can give you evidence that people on this very list, people like Michael who harshly criticize me, and people like WSS and Ghs -- they LIKE me still, and so does Carol and so do several others who said so out loud here! If I fix mistakes in presentation, I can still make a Large Mark On The World, and be more like my heroes.

This deOtherization is so good it could lead to group hugs followed by an AngloObjectivish service (but you forgot the most fun part, the music!)

[Dennis Hardin]

Well now, surely all those clamoring to express how much they loved this amazing documentary must be exaggerating.

I have not seen a word about it anywhere.

I didn’t see it. Would someone who did kindly say something?? Please!!!

Perhaps the applicable word is: Thud.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I liked it quite a bit. It's uni-focused, on the prophetic character of Atlas, as the title says. There are discussions of why Rand's message was a "Thud" in the sense of the general populace not expecting things to go like the novel (which was published at a time of peak prosperity in America) and how people are now remembering, and re-reading the novel, and seeing the parallels. Many interview segments with CEOs -- John Allison and several others whose names I'm not remembering. The material from Burns and Heller is mostly about Rand's early life and how it led to her forsightedness -- also about her disappointment at no prominent intellectual, nor major voices from the business world, standing up for her. There's discussion of Rand's meaning of "altruism" and "selfishness" as contrasted with people's characteristic understanding of those terms, and how the discrepancy hindered comprehension of Rand's message, and -- prominently from Yaron Brook, also from other of the ARI people -- of her actual moral stance. A high point for me was the interview with Ruddy -- still a "live wire."

Judging from the turn-out at the showing Larry and I attended, it sure wasn't any box-office success. About 20 people there. But I think it will be a valuable addition to material on Rand.

Ellen

[Jerry Biggers]

Well now, surely all those clamoring to express how much they loved this amazing documentary must be exaggerating.

I have not seen a word about it anywhere.

I didn’t see it. Would someone who did kindly say something?? Please!!!

Perhaps the applicable word is: Thud.

I did not see the movie in a theater. Rather, I have the DVD (from fr333minds.com), which also includes some outtakes from some of the interviewees. I regret to say that this additional material did not add much of benefit to the documentary).

A few observations:

First, not bad for what it did say. However, to the "uninitiated" viewer (i.e., those that have not read the novel or Rand's subsequent nonfictional books), what it did not say (no real discussion of Objectivism or even the contents of Galt's Speech), I fear would leave them rather perplexed.

The title describes the contents in a strict manner, giving the impression that Atlas Shrugged describes the actions of the collectivist planners/Looters and their supporters in causing the economic decline of the country. There is little mention of the actions of the heroes in response to the Looters, other than that Galt organizes a strike of the creative. But, exactly what Galt offers the creators to get them to withdraw or strike, or what he offers the nation as an alternative in his radio speech is not explained.

Although this may not, strictly speaking, be an ARI production, all those interviewed (with a few exceptions, Al Ruddy, Ed Snider, Jennifer Burns, and Anne Heller) are affiliated with ARI either as staff (e.g., Binswanger, Bernstein, Brook), approved lecturers, or authors. Excerpts from the recent Rand biographers, Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller, are included, but only discussing her early life and the attempts to get Atlas Shrugged published, and the hostile reaction from reviewers, such as Whittaker Chambers, (which is over emphasized).

Incidents and significant personae that ARI wishes to have not existed (e.g., the Brandens, NBI, Kelley, IOS/TOC/TAS, etc.) are, conveniently, not mentioned.

As for Rand's literary output, brief mentions of We The Living and The Fountainhead are included, but the concentration is almost exclusively on Atlas Shrugged (the prophecy part, not the philosophy or her "message"). Her nonfiction works are hardly mentioned at all, other than to have a few shots of some of their titles in the window of a book display (probably at ARI). And that's it. Did these other books have anything interesting to say about the message of Atlas Shrugged? Who knows? The movie is silent on this.

Curiously, Leonard Peikoff is not interviewed or even mentioned (other than listing him in the credits at the end of the movie). Excerpts from interviews with Amy Peikoff, listed as a Professor at Chapman University, are included. There is a brief (maybe one second) shot of the Ayn Rand bust on the campus of Chapman University, but it is shot in a manner which makes it almost unrecognizable and no mention of what it is, or of its significance, is given.

Excerpts from an interview with movie producer Al Ruddy discussing his meetings with Rand and his failure to get her to agree to him producing a movie version, are included. These segments are interesting in that they give a hint as to what might have been. However, since a movie was finally made of Part One, there is a brief segment with producer Ed Snider, but no shots from the movie. Binswanger is shown, damning it with faint praise ("...well, it could have been a lot worse.").

My conclusion: It will be mildly interesting to those familiar with Ayn Rand, but admirers of her philosophy will likely be frustrated by what is omitted. I think the producers could have, at least, given a brief description of the fundamental points of Objectivism, (such as, what differentiates it from other prevailing philosophies, why it is significant, why it attracts some and angers others, etc.).

To those unfamiliar with Rand, I think the movie would come across as perplexing and maybe irritating (but why would people falling into that category be going to see this movie in the first place?). At best, maybe they would go out and buy the book(s). But I wouldn't count on it.

[Philip Coates]

Thanks for the very thorough review, Jerry. You mentioned a dozen different points or aspects.

That kind of review gives a reader a really good idea whether or not he'll be missing anything if the documentary doesn't show up in a theater in his state.

[PDS]

Thanks for the very thorough review, Jerry. You mentioned a dozen different points or aspects.

That kind of review gives a reader a really good idea whether or not he'll be missing anything if the documentary doesn't show up in a theater in his state.

Jerry: I think you just got yourself a gold star. Congratulations.

Thanks for the nice review, nevertheless. Based on your comments, I will let the movie come to me, rather than vice versa.

[Dennis Hardin]

Excellent review, Jerry. Thanks. In other words, the film is exactly what one should expect from someone who regarded Galt’s speech as extraneous to the plot of Atlas Shrugged.

Got to hand it to the producers. That would be quite a challenge: to make a movie about Ayn Rand that is almost totally devoid of philosophy.

Wow. I’m glad I didn’t waste my time.

[Jerry Biggers]

Thanks, Phil, Dave, and Dennis for your compliments!

In summing up my feelings about this documentary, I guess that I should paraphrase the comments that Harry Binswanger made about the movie, Atlas Shrugged, Part One: "well, it could have been a lot worse!" What is not clear to me is what the intent of the producers were with this film. I suppose that the goal, besides lauding Rand for her prescient predictions (not really "prophecies") in describing the futile actions of the Looters to "save" the nation, was to encourage viewers to read the book. But then more should have been said about her prescription for. the philosophical changes required to provide /rebuild a society based on reason, liberty, and individual initiative. Unfortunately, these were barely hinted at in the film.

Obviously, the whole structure of Objectivism could not be presented, but at a minimum, enough should have been said, in a tantalizing way, to spark an irresistible desire in the viewer to Find-Out-More.

I should have added that, in the outtake interviews included on the DVD version- each interview segment is followed by an admonition to find out more in the companion book to the documentary. I don't think that that book has yet been released, but perhaps it expands on the issues that have not been addressed in the movie.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't think the purpose of the documentary was to arouse interest in the philosophy of Objectivism, or in the O'ist movement, but instead to encourage a turning around of government encroachment. I thought it was well-geared to what I took to be its purpose. On the other hand, I agree with Harry Binswanger's assessment of the Atlas Shrugged - Part I movie.

Ellen

[Guyau]

From a review by Scott Holleran,* who saw the film in a theater:

With a booming male narrative, breakneck pace, and incessant score, the independent documentary is better suited to the intimacy and immediacy of television. Writer and director Chris Mortensen achieves amazing results given the ground he has to cover in this short time frame. . . . The unfortunately named [cf.] Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged, which at its worst plays like a bombastic infomercial, delves into the book’s history at the expense of explaining key connections to today’s events.

. . .

A steady stream of scholars and students and businessmen capably discuss Rand’s ideas and the students’ insights are most effective in demonstrating the relevance of Atlas Shrugged. The most prophetic points are in abundant evidence and the discussion of the tunnel scene is particularly clear and compelling. . . .

. . .

As propaganda for an exceptional book that runs over a thousand pages, contains larger-than-life themes that challenge the dominant ideas of our times, and tells the unforgettable story of the mind on strike, Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged partially succeeds. Among the assets are images of Ayn Rand in rare footage, including the author at a press conference with the film’s comic relief, a colorful movie producer named Al Ruddy (The Godfather), who pitched a movie version of Atlas Shrugged to her until she pitched it back . . . . Other footage includes . . . a rarely seen clip from President Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell speech, in which Ike essentially warned about encroaching total government control of industry. . . .

Jerry Biggers' review is here.

[9thdoctor]

It's available to watch for free on Hulu:

I still haven't seen it.

[Backlighting]

It's available to watch for free on Hulu:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/373081

I still haven't seen it.

Thanks for the heads up. Just saw it and it's certainly worth a watch.

[9thdoctor]

OMG I'm only 7 minutes in and I can't stand it! The music, the transitions, the overall portentousness, ugh!! The cymbal crescendi, sh-sh-sh-SH-SH-SH-SH-sh-sh-sh...when's the masked killer going to jump out of the bushes?