Films an Objectivist shouldn’t (?) like

[9thdoctor]

Here's ten films that perhaps an Objectivist shouldn’t like. Too malevolent and/or violent, anti-values, politically statist, drug glorifying…yet if I tried to make one of these huge lists, these films would be on it.

A Clockwork Orange

Altered States

Fight Club

Jude

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

Pulp Fiction

Requiem for a Dream

Reservoir Dogs

The Bicycle Thief

The Big Lebowski

The Last Temptation of Christ

Again I aimed for ten and went up to eleven. Call it Spinal Tap syndrome.

Here’s some others, each acclaimed, great for what they are, but I’m personally less a fan of:

American Psycho

Anything Else

Blue Velvet

I ♥ Huckabees

Leaving Las Vegas

Little Miss Sunshine

No Country for Old Men

Qatsi trilogy (Koyannisqatsi etc.)

The Seventh Seal

The Tin Drum

Terminator 2

Wall Street

Anyone else game to put your sense-of-life corruption on display? I just got The Road from Netflix this weekend, 10 minutes in and I'm not sure I'm going to make it through. Just don't bring up Avatar, it's got its own thread.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[algernonsidney]

What the hell is wrong with Fight Club?

[9thdoctor]

What the hell is wrong with Fight Club?

I saw it denounced in an Objectivist publication, sorry no reference handy. GHS made a comment on another thread about admiring it in spite of his Objectivist influences. Would you not agree it’s malevolent, violent, anti-values, and politically statist? It’s arguably anarchist instead, but Tyler’s trying to build his own cult/gang, that he controls as surely as Kim Jong-Il controls North Korea. I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it, I put it in my top 10, I think it’s a great movie. I read the book too, thumbs up. Even met the author, he’s quite odd, he tries to get people to vomit during his readings. He was still in the closet, but one wouldn’t need high functioning Gaydar to know.

[Reidy]

Pink Flamingos. If you can top that I don't want to know about it.

[9thdoctor]

Pink Flamingos. If you can top that I don't want to know about it.

The idea is that these are movies you admire, I’ve never seen Pink Flamingos but from what I gather it’s one of the worst and most disgusting films ever, and you don’t seem to like it either.

[Bryce]

I remember that Oliver Stone depicts greed in Wall Street without exaggeration. He sums his socialist virtues in the end but doesn't lie or imply falsehoods about capitalism to present his view. Stone honestly hates capitalism. I believe that many fans of Gekko don't understand that message (and probably feel good about the ending) or that Michael Douglas believes in the message, too. But Gekko carries himself so well and unapologetically that he's almost heroic. And for that, I like the movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7upG01-XWbY

Edited May 31, 2010 by Bryce

[BaalChatzaf]

Here's ten films that perhaps an Objectivist shouldn’t like. Too malevolent and/or violent, anti-values, politically statist, drug glorifying…yet if I tried to make one of these huge lists, these films would be on it.

A Clockwork Orange

Altered States

Fight Club

Jude

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest

Pulp Fiction

Requiem for a Dream

Reservoir Dogs

The Bicycle Thief

The Big Lebowski

The Last Temptation of Christ

Again I aimed for ten and went up to eleven. Call it Spinal Tap syndrome.

Here’s some others, each acclaimed, great for what they are, but I’m personally less a fan of:

American Psycho

Anything Else

Blue Velvet

I ♥ Huckabees

Leaving Las Vegas

Little Miss Sunshine

No Country for Old Men

Qatsi trilogy (Koyannisqatsi etc.)

The Seventh Seal

The Tin Drum

Terminator 2

Wall Street

Anyone else game to put your sense-of-life corruption on display? I just got The Road from Netflix this weekend, 10 minutes in and I'm not sure I'm going to make it through. Just don't bring up Avatar, it's got its own thread.

What ever happened to just plain funny?

Pulp Fiction and The Big Lebowski were hoots.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

If a movie combines a well-written script with good actors and a good director, then (with a few exceptions) I don't care what values it supposedly embodies. I watch movies to be entertained and to escape from the "real world" for a while, not to be morally enlightened or uplifted.

In 1969, after I recommended "Midnight Cowboy" to some people at a UA Students of Objectivism meeting, one woman berated the film for its "sense of life" and asked how I could possibly like its corrupt portrayal of human nature. I responded that I saw no reason why the characters in a movie should be construed as paradigms of human nature. The film was essentially a character study of two men and their unlikely friendship, and it was well-crafted in every respect. Why we should ask anything more from a form of entertainment is something that I didn't understand.

I suspected then, and I suspect now, that some Objectivist types pass moral judgments on movies to exhibit their moral superiority and rectitude. They are loathe to admit what we all know happens from time to time, namely, that we can enjoy a film without really knowing why. And it doesn't matter why, so far as I am concerned. A movie is not a moral test.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I saw a piece of garbage called Edmond because I like William Macey's work.

I can't imagine many Objectivists liking that one.

It's about a rather successful dude who simply tells his beautiful wife he doesn't love her anymore and starts wandering the combat zones of the city. The trouble is, the way he acts in the combat zones is totally outside of reality (as I have known combat zones--I am no stranger) and the acts of a nutcase to boot.

There's senseless killing in the film and one of the worst endings in all of human art.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> If a movie combines a well-written script with good actors and a good director, then (with a few exceptions) I don't care what values it supposedly embodies. I watch movies to be entertained and to escape from the "real world" for a while, not to be morally enlightened or uplifted. [GHS]

I partly agree; partly disagree:

For me, if a movie is well-written, well-acted, well-directed, each of those are pluses. Also, if it's uplifting, inspiring, or heroic those are pluses. If it's funny, that's a plus. But if it's depressing, about anti-heroes, or has a bad sense of life, those are minuses. They don't help me 'escape' from the real world, but remind me of its lesser and lower aspects. And they depress me -- which is not entertaining or pleasant or diverting for me.

To sum up (and to oversimplify a bit, using quantification for what's not easily quantifiable), if a movie has two pluses and one minus, I'll like it a bit. If it has three pluses and two minuses, I'll also like it a bit. If it has one plus and one minus, it's probably lower.

In other words, if it has a sense of life or characters I dislike or disagree with (or even more strongly, find revolting) that's a significant minus for my enjoyment, but --and here I'm adding another category-- I learn a great deal about life or people or how things work ...or any of the other pluses I mentioned that -could- be enough to outweigh a negative or malevolent or anti-heroic perspective. [This is probably analogous to the house of horrors with a powerful guide thing Rand talked about wrt Dostoeyevsky in Romantic Manifesto.]

I dimly remember (mildly) liking "Pulp Fiction" for some of those reasons, but it would never be on the level of enjoyment or entertainment (or lasting value) of "Casablanca" for me. It's the difference between, say, PF = ++- while CS = ++++

PF is forgettable, and I've probably forgotten most of it. I would never view PF lit up with lights in my mind (not really for skill or performance--well-done but not great; and certainly not for view of life) or as water in a desert, and want to see it over and over, the way I would "Casablanca" or "Holiday". (My repeated viewings list is a short one.)

Edited May 31, 2010 by Philip Coates

[9thdoctor]

Pulp Fiction and The Big Lebowski were hoots.

Agreed. But Pulp Fiction definitely got slammed by a ranking fundy back when it was new, sorry I don’t have a reference or link to share. I don’t recall seeing The Big Lebowski get criticized, I’m projecting there.

we can enjoy a film without really knowing why. And it doesn't matter why, so far as I am concerned. A movie is not a moral test.

Amen.

I saw a piece of garbage called Edmond because I like William Macey's work.

Arggg!!! If you think it's garbage this isn’t the thread to discuss it on.

[algernonsidney]

I saw it denounced in an Objectivist publication, sorry no reference handy. GHS made a comment on another thread about admiring it in spite of his Objectivist influences. Would you not agree it's malevolent, violent, anti-values, and politically statist? It's arguably anarchist instead, but Tyler's trying to build his own cult/gang, that he controls as surely as Kim Jong-Il controls North Korea. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I put it in my top 10, I think it's a great movie. I read the book too, thumbs up. Even met the author, he's quite odd, he tries to get people to vomit during his readings. He was still in the closet, but one wouldn't need high functioning Gaydar to know.

Have you actually seen the movie? Or do you just include it here because it was "denounced in an Objectivist publication"?

First of all, I found it to be very entertaining. There are some very memorable scenes in that film.

Another thing is that it is completely unpredictable. You can't say that about very many movies nowadays. Tyler Durden has to be one of the most unpredictable characters of all time. That made it entertaining.

Tyler was able to build a cult because he gave men something that they need emotionally. I think the "fight clubs" were a rejection of the over-feminization of our culture. They were a way that men could be men again. It's the same reason why little boys like football. Apparently this movie actually did inspire some real-live fight clubs. As long as they are totally consensual, I have no problem with something like that.

Ed Norton's character needed the fight clubs, too. His life was totally routine and bland. He was just a lifeless part in "the machine." It is significant that he is never named in the movie, because he really has no identity anyway.

Fight Club is definitely a guy movie. If you find a female who likes it, you have found a special female.

[algernonsidney]

I remember one movie that caused a really heated debate on the WeTheLiving group was American Beauty.

[Jonathan]

Well, other than Avatar, which I just watched tonight for the first time since it's been out on disc, I've seen Ojectivists get all apoplectivist over these:

Fargo

Taxi Driver

Field of Dreams

Raising Arizona

American Beauty

Mulholland Drive

Rain Man

It's a Wonderful Life

Goodfellas

Jaws

Dances With Wolves

Pocahontas

The Lion King

J

[George H. Smith]

For me, if a movie is well-written, well-acted, well-directed, each of those are pluses. Also, if it's uplifting, inspiring, or heroic those are pluses. If it's funny, that's a plus. But if it's depressing, about anti-heroes, or has a bad sense of life, those are minuses. They don't help me 'escape' from the real world, but remind me of its lesser and lower aspects. And they depress me -- which is not entertaining or pleasant or diverting for me.

The first two Godfather movies are among the best films ever made, and I never tire of watching them. Yet they depict thugs, murderers, and a culture of violence and hypocrisy. Both films are populated purely with "anti-heroes," both (by Randian standards) convey a "bad sense of life," and both deal with the "lesser and lower aspects" of the real world. Neither is inspiring or heroic.

So do you regard these characteristics as minuses? Do the movies depress you? May I assume that you do not find them good escapist entertainment?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I remember one movie that caused a really heated debate on the WeTheLiving group was American Beauty.

Jeff Riggenbach wrote an excellent analysis and defense of this film. If he still has it, perhaps he would be willing to post it on OL.

American Beauty is a fascinating character study.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Well, other than Avatar, which I just watched tonight for the first time since it's been out on disc, I've seen Ojectivists get all apoplectivist over these:

Fargo

Taxi Driver

Field of Dreams

Raising Arizona

American Beauty

Mulholland Drive

Rain Man

It's a Wonderful Life

Goodfellas

Jaws

Dances With Wolves

Pocahontas

The Lion King

J

I'm curious why you included Fargo and Jaws in your list of films that "Objectivists Shouldn't Like."

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Some movies I like I didn't mention on the other thread are most of Quentin T's, Natural Born Killers (incredible stylization), the first two Godfathers, Apocalypse Now, Fargo, etc. Quentin Tarantino is a sheer cinematic genius. The Big L. bored me and I turned it off 1/3 the way thru.

--Brant

the first three Star Wars too: I saw the first one on the first day in 1977 and went back and saw it four or five more times in the next month.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Jerry Biggers]

Damn. Where to start? There are so many reaally bad films. I don't just mean badly acted or badly directed. There are some that I think the intent of the director and the screenplay writer was clearly to support values that most Objectivists would consider evil, and to condemn values that most Objectivists would defend. High on the list of directors who were "up to no good" would be the late Robert Altman, who had an extremely long and productive carrer in both television and cinema. I am referring here to those movies where his prior successes allowed him to have had near total control of the selection of storyline and the manner in which it would be portrayed. There you see the real Altman

Altman's directorial style has been described as "naturalistic," and in this Ayn Rand would have certainly agreed, and for all the reasons that led Rand to condemn naturalism. I remember reading an interview of Altman many years ago (probably the '80s), where he proclaimed that his intention was to condemn all things about American society and culture that he despised (and there were many), adding "I would like to kick America's collective ass!"

In many of his films, he chooses a particular aspect of American culture and then paints a picture portraying the representives as either corrupting or corruptible. To name a few examples, Nashville, MASH, Buffalo Bill and the Indians - Or, Sitting Bull's History Lesson, Pret A Porter, A wedding, and his last and most transparent statement of everything that he hates in America, A Prairie Home Companion. In each case, the underlying message is consistent: American society encourages or creates morally corrupt people promoting all the worst values: decadence, greed, selfishness, hypocrisy, commercialism, and vulgar displays of capitalist ostentatiousness. Predictably, Altman was praised and courted by the MSM.

[George H. Smith]

Damn. Where to start? There are so many reaally bad films. I don't just mean badly acted or badly directed. There are some that I think the intent of the director and the screenplay writer was clearly to support values that most Objectivists would consider evil, and to condemn values that most Objectivists would defend. High on the list of directors who were "up to no good" would be the late Robert Altman, who had an extremely long and productive carrer in both television and cinema. I am referring here to those movies where his prior successes allowed him to have had near total control of the selection of storyline and the manner in which it would be portrayed. There you see the real Altman

Altman's directorial style has been described as "naturalistic," and in this Ayn Rand would have certainly agreed, and for all the reasons that led Rand to condemn naturalism. I remember reading an interview of Altman many years ago (probably the '80s), where he proclaimed that his intention was to condemn all things about American society and culture that he despised (and there were many), adding "I would like to kick America's collective ass!"

In many of his films, he chooses a particular aspect of American culture and then paints a picture portraying the representives as either corrupting or corruptible. To name a few examples, Nashville, MASH, Buffalo Bill and the Indians - Or, Sitting Bull's History Lesson, Pret A Porter, A wedding, and his last and most transparent statement of everything that he hates in America, A Prairie Home Companion. In each case, the underlying message is consistent: American society encourages or creates morally corrupt people promoting all the worst values: decadence, greed, selfishness, hypocrisy, commercialism, and vulgar displays of capitalist ostentatiousness. Predictably, Altman was praised and courted by the MSM.

Other than A Prairie Home Companion, I don't think I have ever watched an Altman film all the way through. I don't have a profound philosophical explanation for this; I just find his movies boring.

I liked A Prairie Home Companion because of the music.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I saw a piece of garbage called Edmond because I like William Macey's work.

Arggg!!! If you think it's garbage this isn't the thread to discuss it on.

Dennis,

Say what?

I must be having a senior moment. I have no idea what your objection means...

Michael

[John Day]

Of the ones listed that I've seen:

Fight Club: Perhaps the most nihilistic film released by a major studio. The film is a perfect representation of the anti-industrial revolution that Ayn Rand wrote of. Even the left-wing Roger Ebert was critical of it.

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest: I actually very much enjoy this film despite it's downer of an ending. Like We The Living, it shows what happens to people when the achievement of their values is made impossible.

Pulp Fiction: A very overrated movie, I found it very difficult to understand.

The Big Lebowski: One of my all-time favorites. Don't bother trying to understand it, just enjoy the ride.

American Psycho: Overall, I found it very funny and entertaining, but too violent at times.

No Country for Old Men: A great movie with a very malevolent message about the problem of evil.

Terminator 2: Enjoyable action movie, the line "No fate but what we make" is something most Objectivists would hardily endorse.

Wall Street: Good but not great movie. Douglas is fantastic as Gekko, but Darryl Hannah is miscast. Gekko's speech is one of the great scenes of all-time.

Other "anti-Objectivist" films I enjoy:

Groundhog Day: Promotes determinism and altruism, but it's a very funny and sweet movie.

Clerks: Completely filthy and somewhat glorifies neer-do-wells and potheads, but funny as hell.

Malcolm X: I strongly disagree with his philosophy on race, but Malcolm X was a fascinating figure and he was portrayed brilliantly by Denzel Washington.

Lawrence of Arabia: Disagree with the film's overall message, but it's visually stunning and exceptionally well-acted. Lawrence embraces the primative culture of the Arabs, but I love this exchange:

Prince Feisal: Gasim's time has come, Lawrence. It is written.

T.E. Lawrence: Nothing is written.

Sherif Ali: You will not be at Aqaba, English! Go back, blasphemer... but you will not be at Aqaba!

T.E. Lawrence: I shall be at Aqaba. That, IS written.

[pointing to forehead]

T.E. Lawrence: In here.

[Brant Gaede]

Other than A Prairie Home Companion, I don't think I have ever watched an Altman film all the way through. I don't have a profound philosophical explanation for this; I just find his movies boring.

I liked A Prairie Home Companion because of the music.

Ghs

If you don't like MASH you don't like Altman; it's his best film IMHO. I love the damn thing. His other films never did much for me. I do believe Lilian Gish played a corpse in one and did an outstanding job. Nashville?

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

Have you actually seen the movie? Or do you just include it here because it was "denounced in an Objectivist publication"?

Did you read the paragraph you quoted of mine? The film is on my favorites list, I say I’ve read the book, and met the author. And you’re questioning whether I’ve seen the film?

Jeff Riggenbach wrote an excellent analysis and defense of this film. If he still has it, perhaps he would be willing to post it on OL.

American Beauty is a fascinating character study.

I liked American Beauty a lot, I haven’t seen it in long time though. I’d like to see JR’s article on it, I didn’t think of it as something O’ists would target for criticism.

I'm curious why you included Fargo and Jaws in your list of films that "Objectivists Shouldn't Like."

I must be having a senior moment. I have no idea what your objection means...

The idea is that these are movies you consider great, but are objectionable in some major way according to Objectivism, maybe having been publicly critiqued by someone, e.g. Ed Hudgins and Avatar (not this thread!!!) or Peikoff and Titanic; otherwise be ready to make a case, as GHS asks Jonathan to do for Fargo and Jaws. I gave an incomplete list of criteria: malevolent, violent, anti-values, politically statist, drug glorifying. By violent of course I meant gratuitously so.

I'm just trying to keep the thread from drifting towards a discussion of how awful Pink Flamingos, Showgirls, and Plan 9 from Outer Space were. That would be boring.

[George H. Smith]

Other than A Prairie Home Companion, I don't think I have ever watched an Altman film all the way through. I don't have a profound philosophical explanation for this; I just find his movies boring.

I liked A Prairie Home Companion because of the music.

Ghs

If you don't like MASH you don't like Altman; it's his best film IMHO. I love the damn thing. His other films never did much for me. I do believe Lilian Gish played a corpse in one and did an outstanding job. Nashville?

--Brant

I forgot about Mash. I like the movie, but I'm not crazy about it, primarily because I've never cared much for Donald Sutherland or Elliot Gould as actors. I thought the casting for their characters was better in the television series.

Ghs