"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[Xray]

Roark's "justifying" his blowing up the building with "breach of contract" is absurd, for Roark had no contract. The contract was with Keating, not with Roark.

Wow. How perceptive you are. Too bad you weren't around in the 1940's so you could have pointed that out to Ayn Rand. She was obviously confused.

Dennis, don't descend to the snarky and belittling level of so many posters.

Phil,

I personally am not offended by comments like the above made by Dennis (maybe it's because I grew up as a street-smart kid and have become somewhat thick-skinned in that respect), but see them as a challenge for a suitable answer. Something which works fine in many instances is to use some humor or irony. This usually takes the wind out of the attacker's sails.

So what could I reply to Dennis who wrote:

"Wow. How perceptive you are. Too bad you weren't around in the 1940's so you could have pointed that out to Ayn Rand. She was obviously confused." (Dennis Hardin)

Reply:

"I'd cut Ayn Rand some slack on that, Dennis. We all tend to be confused over this or that at times."

After that, we can tackle the real issue. The real issue being here that Roark's blowing up the building IS of course a very problematic act, and that Objectivists too are aware that it is.

It is important not to let the real issue get "lost in altercation", so to speak.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

Phil . . . Phil . . . Phil . . .

Blah, blah, blah

Edited March 20, 2011 by Ted Keer

[kiaer.ts]

Dennis:

Cortland would not have existed without Roark's design,

It was built in violation of his contract with Keating.

Therefore, he had an absolute right to destroy it[his intellectual property].

Adam

"Absolute" right? No. Obviously it's not absolute - unless you are saying he had the right to kill anyone who got in his way. But it's not even a conditional privilege. He might have the right to sue Keating for damages, depending on the wording and validity of the contract. He certainly doesn't own the material or labor put into the project. Even if his contract had been open and direct and willfully violated, at best he could sue for a cash award. No judge would require the demolition of the building.

In the real world, we submit our complaints to the government and accept its rulings - and if not, we should be prepared to do the time if we are willing to commit the crime. Rand's jury simply nullified the law out of sympathy with the defendant. They didn't acquit him on the absolute right of artists to destroy physical adaptations of their work that they don't approve of.

[Selene]

Dennis:

Cortland would not have existed without Roark's design,

It was built in violation of his contract with Keating.

Therefore, he had an absolute right to destroy it[his intellectual property].

Adam

"Absolute" right? No. Obviously it's not absolute - unless you are saying he had the right to kill anyone who got in his way. But it's not even a conditional privilege. He might have the right to sue Keating for damages, depending on the wording and validity of the contract. He certainly doesn't own the material or labor put into the project. Even if his contract had been open and direct and willfully violated, at best he could sue for a cash award. No judge would require the demolition of the building.

In the real world, we submit our complaints to the government and accept its rulings - and if not, we should be prepared to do the time if we are willing to commit the crime. Rand's jury simply nullified the law out of sympathy with the defendant. They didn't acquit him on the absolute right of artists to destroy physical adaptations of their work that they don't approve of.

Ted:

I think it is clear that we are discussing this in the context of the novel, not the real world. Something Ms. Xray fails to acknowledge.

Adam

[Dennis Hardin]

The hard part:

By contrast, I think when you can bring yourself to swallow your anger or frustration and treat people with respect and calmly make your argument with crystal clarity, then (over time) the most thoughtful, honest people will start to treat you and your ideas more seriously.

(This is difficult I know. For me my frustration level tends to build with repeated ankle bites or unfairnesses. And control is seldom perfect)

Phil,

I agree with much of what you say. I personally feel that my phrasing of “how perceptive of you” constituted mild sarcasm. On the other hand, it definitely did have a disrespectful tone. That seemed appropriate and unavoidable. Context is crucial, of course. I would not use that sarcastic tone to explain Roark’s action in a letter-to-the-editor. But here on OL, a certain minimal grasp of Rand’s intent should be presumed, and that seemed to be missing.

[Xray]

I personally feel that my phrasing of “how perceptive of you” constituted mild sarcasm. On the other hand, it definitely did have a disrespectful tone. That seemed appropriate and unavoidable. Context is crucial, of course. I would not use that sarcastic tone to explain Roark’s action in a letter-to-the-editor. But here on OL, a certain minimal grasp of Rand’s intent should be presumed, and that seemed to be missing.

I commented in # 301 on how I deal with the use sarcasm, and how important it is not to let the real issue get drowned in a fruitless back-and-forth where the one feeling attacked then gets personal and reacts on a purely emotional level.

Roark's blowing up the building is a problematic act, there is no way of getting around this fact.

In case you bring forward the argument that the act Roark commits is "only" in a work of fiction, then one can use use this argument against Galt's speech as well.

Dennis:

Cortland would not have existed without Roark's design,

It was built in violation of his contract with Keating.

Therefore, he had an absolute right to destroy it[his intellectual property].

Adam

"Absolute" right? No. Obviously it's not absolute - unless you are saying he had the right to kill anyone who got in his way. But it's not even a conditional privilege. He might have the right to sue Keating for damages, depending on the wording and validity of the contract. He certainly doesn't own the material or labor put into the project. Even if his contract had been open and direct and willfully violated, at best he could sue for a cash award. No judge would require the demolition of the building.

In the real world, we submit our complaints to the government and accept its rulings - and if not, we should be prepared to do the time if we are willing to commit the crime. Rand's jury simply nullified the law out of sympathy with the defendant. They didn't acquit him on the absolute right of artists to destroy physical adaptations of their work that they don't approve of.

Dennis,

Your comment on Ted's reply would interest me.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Xray

[Dennis Hardin]

Dennis:

Cortland would not have existed without Roark's design,

It was built in violation of his contract with Keating.

Therefore, he had an absolute right to destroy it[his intellectual property].

Adam

"Absolute" right? No. Obviously it's not absolute - unless you are saying he had the right to kill anyone who got in his way. But it's not even a conditional privilege. He might have the right to sue Keating for damages, depending on the wording and validity of the contract. He certainly doesn't own the material or labor put into the project. Even if his contract had been open and direct and willfully violated, at best he could sue for a cash award. No judge would require the demolition of the building.

In the real world, we submit our complaints to the government and accept its rulings - and if not, we should be prepared to do the time if we are willing to commit the crime. Rand's jury simply nullified the law out of sympathy with the defendant. They didn't acquit him on the absolute right of artists to destroy physical adaptations of their work that they don't approve of.

Dennis,

Your comment on Ted's reply would interest me.

Well, I said I wouldn’t comment further, but since you asked so nicely.

Keating fought. It was the kind of battle he had never entered, but he tried everything possible to him, to the honest limit of his exhausted strength. . .

He appealed to Toohey, but Toohey was not interested. He was busy with other matters and he had no desire to provoke a bureaucratic quarrel. . .

When Keating invoked his contract, he was told: “All right, go ahead, try to sue the government. Try it.”

The Fountainhead, p. 610

Roark at the trial:

“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

"I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken…Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action."

p. 670

Again, Roark’s “contract with Keating” was irrelevant to his decision to dynamite the project. Keating insisted that his contract for designing the building was worded as Roark wanted. And he did everything he could to honor their private agreement. It was the bureaucrats' violation of Keating’s “contract with his employers” that was Roark’s justification for blowing up Cortlandt.

[Selene]

Folks:

By definition, Keating did not do everything in his power. He did not proceed into either the State Supreme Court or the Federal Court to obtain an injunction.

Adam

[kiaer.ts]

Folks:

By definition, Keating did not do everything in his power. He did not proceed into either the State Supreme Court or the Federal Court to obtain an injunction.

Adam

Rand absolved him by having him say there was no one to appeal to, that no one was in charge, and Roark agreed.

[Selene]

Folks:

By definition, Keating did not do everything in his power. He did not proceed into either the State Supreme Court or the Federal Court to obtain an injunction.

Adam

Rand absolved him by having him say there was no one to appeal to, that no one was in charge, and Roark agreed.

Ted, et al.

And all three (3) were wrong. Legal theory and practice were certainly not one of Ayn's long or short suits.

Adam

[Selene]

Now this publicity move rubs me the wrong way, but it may work. The Atlas Shrugged Spartacus moment????

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/IAmJohnGalt

[Dennis Hardin]

Now this publicity move rubs me the wrong way, but it may work. The Atlas Shrugged Spartacus moment????

Become Part of the DVD: Record a video saying: "I am John Galt"

It's a brilliant idea. Appealing to our natural vanity. The only problem with it is that they will probably get a three hour DVD bonus feature consisting mostly of people saying "I am John's Goat."

[caroljane]

Now this publicity move rubs me the wrong way, but it may work. The Atlas Shrugged Spartacus moment????

Become Part of the DVD: Record a video saying: "I am John Galt"

It's a brilliant idea. Appealing to our natural vanity. The only problem with it is that they will probably get a three hour DVD bonus feature consisting mostly of people saying "I am John's Goat."

First the sheep, then the cows, bulls, swine and now goats! Where will it end? I thought this was a cosmopolitan environment!

[Dennis Hardin]

Tonight I bought my advance ticket to see Atlas Shrugged at 7:15 PM on April 15 at the AMC Rolling Hills in Torrance, CA. Look for me in the crowd. I'll be the tall, lanky, mysterious loner with the dark glasses. B) (No autographs, please.)

The girl who sold me the ticket said I was the third person to buy an advance ticket for that showing. That's a little disappointing, but then again the film is showing in a bunch of theatres around LA.

I also have an ATLAS SHRUGGED bumper sticker on my car. Oorah.

I feel so bad for being such an outspoken pessimist in my prior comments about the previews. Who the hell do I think I am anyway? I promise to only say nice things about the movie from now on. And if they make Part Three as a musical, I'm going to barf my brains out.

[anthony]

Tonight I bought my advance ticket to see Atlas Shrugged at 7:15 PM on April 15 at the AMC Rolling Hills in Torrance, CA. Look for me in the crowd. I'll be the tall, lanky, mysterious loner with the dark glasses. B) (No autographs, please.)

The girl who sold me the ticket said I was the third person to buy an advance ticket for that showing. That's a little disappointing, but then again the film is showing in a bunch of theatres around LA.

I also have an ATLAS SHRUGGED bumper sticker on my car. Oorah.

I feel so bad for being such an outspoken pessimist in my prior comments about the previews. Who the hell do I think I am anyway? I promise to only say nice things about the movie from now on. And if they make Part Three as a musical, I'm going to barf my brains out.

Dennis,

That's the spirit!!

May you all enjoy it.

[Reidy]

Aside: it wasn't a formal, enforceable contract, merely a document that would be professionally damaging to Keating if he didn't hold up his side of the bargain.

[Jonathan]

Folks:

By definition, Keating did not do everything in his power. He did not proceed into either the State Supreme Court or the Federal Court to obtain an injunction.

Adam

Rand absolved him by having him say there was no one to appeal to, that no one was in charge, and Roark agreed.

Although it isn't true that there was no one to appeal to -- there was still a judicial system in place where one could appeal to a jury of one's peers -- there probably was technically "no one to appeal to," at least if justice would be the goal of appealing to someone. Since Roark and Keating were guilty of violating Keating's contract with the owners of Cortland by committing the fraud of passing off Roark's work as Keating's, there would indeed be "no one to appeal to" who would agree that they were an injured party rather than that they had intentionally misrepresented themselves when entering into the contract.

Likewise, if I enter into a contract with my neighbor which states that I'll come up with the perfect plan to rob a bank, he'll carry it out to the letter, and then we'll split the money, there would rightfully be no one to whom I could appeal to complain that my neighbor deviated from my perfect plan when robbing the bank.

J

[Dennis Hardin]

I mentioned on another thread that the Torrance, California theatre (AMC Rolling Hills) where I bought advance tickets is now going to offer a special midnight showing of Atlas Shrugged Part One on Thursday, April 14.

I have to think that the advance sales have been strong anough to inspire this move. I plan to buy another ticket (or three) just to support the theatre for doing this. Does anyone know if other theatres are doing the same?

Yesterday, I logged on to Yahoo and glanced at their 'trending now' list. The Atlas Shrugged movie was number ten.

It has even been released yet and it's already a cult film.

[anthony]

The excitement mounts, and I'm getting some.

The numbers, the numbers, that is what's grabbing my attention, now. All those New Intellectuals.

So, my purist sensibility won't be satisfied, likely. Too bad. (But hell, for starters, I always 'saw' the movie in gritty black and white.)

And, could this be the movie that brings down a government?

Hold on, now... I'm establishing my copyright to the title - who knows, it could be a film, one day.

"The Movie That Changed A Nation."

Tony

( B) getting carried away again.)

[caroljane]

The excitement mounts, and I'm getting some.

The numbers, the numbers, that is what's grabbing my attention, now. All those New Intellectuals.

So, my purist sensibility won't be satisfied, likely. Too bad. (But hell, for starters, I always 'saw' the movie in gritty black and white.)

And, could this be the movie that brings down a government?

Hold on, now... I'm establishing my copyright to the title - who knows, it could be a film, one day.

"The Movie That Changed A Nation."

Tony

( B) getting carried away again.)

Tony, the last time you were carried away was from the Hot Drinks Reception at PolarCon, and it took four of the youngest Brothers to lug you.

Try to stay upright.

ISS,

Nanook'

[anthony]

Tony, the last time you were carried away was from the Hot Drinks Reception at PolarCon, and it took four of the youngest Brothers to lug you.

Try to stay upright.

ISS,

Nanook'

Hey, 'nook, that is a downright fib.

I was carried IN to an establishment, once - but I have always walked out.

Proudly,

Tony

[caroljane]

Tony, the last time you were carried away was from the Hot Drinks Reception at PolarCon, and it took four of the youngest Brothers to lug you.

Try to stay upright.

ISS,

Nanook'

Hey, 'nook, that is a downright fib.

I was carried IN to an establishment, once - but I have always walked out.

Proudly,

Tony

If you say so, brother. Me and the other 77 witnesses will let you keep your pride. The Trans-Siberians don't read English anyway.

Cynically,

Nanook

This reminds me of a great exchange in Dickens:

(in court)

Counsel: Ever been kicked?

Witness: Yes.

C: Ever been kicked downstairs?

W: No.

C: No? I have here reports of numerous occasions upon which you were kicked downstairs.

W: I have never been kicked downstairs, Sir. I have been kicked at the top of the stairs, and went down them of my own accord.

Edited April 2, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Philip Coates]

Yes! I remember that! Funny (it's from Tale of Two Cities, the trial of Charles Darnay on bogus charges for treason early in the book.)

[Xray]

Although it isn't true that there was no one to appeal to -- there was still a judicial system in place where one could appeal to a jury of one's peers -- there probably was technically "no one to appeal to," at least if justice would be the goal of appealing to someone. Since Roark and Keating were guilty of violating Keating's contract with the owners of Cortland by committing the fraud of passing off Roark's work as Keating's, there would indeed be "no one to appeal to" who would agree that they were an injured party rather than that they had intentionally misrepresented themselves when entering into the contract.

Likewise, if I enter into a contract with my neighbor which states that I'll come up with the perfect plan to rob a bank, he'll carry it out to the letter, and then we'll split the money, there would rightfully be no one to whom I could appeal to complain that my neighbor deviated from my perfect plan when robbing the bank.

J

Keating and Roark agreeing on passing off Roark's work as Keating's also contradicts a fundamental principle of Objectivism itself: not to fake reality.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Xray

[GALTGULCH8]

I find myself telling virtually everyone I encounter about this movie and that they have to see it and to read the book. I imagine everyone who knows about it is doing the same across the whole country. Once it is released and is seen by the first crop of the mixture of diehards like us as well as neebies sparks will fly.

I just showed the latest trailer to appear on the movie website to my wife who was suitably impressed. I haven't seen a mention of it here anywhere yet. It is a scene in which Dagny talks with the delegate from the locomotive engineers union.

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-scene-dagny-confronts-union

If this is an example of the quality of the movie as a whole we are in for a treat.

My criticism of this is that there are a few precious seconds wasted lingering on the sleazy union delegate at the end rather than on the actress who plays Dagny.

I do believe this is really happening and is not just a dream. So I will not say that I find it hard to believe that Atlas Shrugged will be on the large screen.

Trailers usually or often show only the highlights of a movie which ends up being disappointing to see. I am hoping that this scene is representative of the whole movie. I know better.

Enjoy and spread the word.