Films an Objectivist shouldn’t (?) like

[Reidy]

Rand herself seems to have had reservations about Ninotchka (if the Mayhew Q&A book is to be believed), but it remains my favorite movie after Queen Christina.

[Philip Coates]

> 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, #15]

No, I -love- those movies.

Not only great direction, great acting, great sense of time and place and lifestyle, but I like what they say about life -- about what can happen, but didn't have to (and how they say it) in the portrayal of the central character in all three, Michael: He starts out as a good person, honest, honorable, war hero, in love with a beautiful girl, with what looks to be a happy marriage coming. And step by step Pacino, in a great performance, shows him change. The arc of a lifetime. This is what happens when you let loyalty to family or tradition overwhelm having your own course in life. This is what happens when you lie to your wife, when you enter into the world of endless vendettas, when you are so swept up with rage and hostility and not becoming one of those common people, those suckers who play be the rules and don't run things, 'one of those pesanavanti'. When you become the man your father always wanted to avoid having you become. And at the end, having betrayed the man he might have been and ought to have been finds he doesn't have love and power doesn't bring him happiness. And you can see it in his hard face, his emotional repression. It's almost an Objectivist theme: Be true to your own self. Or else.

I just saw Godfather III on cable. Michael is older and trying to become respectable. He says with barely suppressed screaming rage, "whenever I try to get out, they pull me back in!!" At this moment, he is blaming others. But a good thing about G3 is that Michael knows who he has become. In the middle of the movie, he is walking in th egarden with a cardinal, complaining about devious people and he is asked "would you like to confess, my son". "It's too late, father." But he does: "I have betrayed my wife. I killed my brother. I betrayed my family..." [my quotes are approximate.] He shows what has always been silent in him for the other two movies. And he breaks down.

So, I wouldn't exactly characterize those movies as being anti-romantic or havnig a bad sense of life. It deals with lesser and lower aspects, but the 'romantic' part is it shows where they lead. So, in that sense they are value-laden movies. I think it's a mistake to identify a good sense of life with only positive values or aspects. Being a moralist but 'on the dark side' in the sort of dostoeyevskyian sense is not necessarily a 'bad' sense of life. Maybe if you believed heroes can't exist, but not if you simply create a film with deals with those who fail to be heroic, who are flawed, cowardly, vindictive, etc.

There are parallels here with Shakespeare's tragedies. Rand was mistaken to generalize about S's 'tragic' sense of life. Both because it's an oversimplification about his view of the world and people and because tragedy does exist and it's not anti-life or a sign of a somehow weak or un-benevolent spirit to observe and trace and portray them.

,,,,,,,,

(Among other critically acclaimed movies which Oists often indiscriminately lump in the same giant "anti-heroic" or "naturalistic" pot -- Fargo, American Beauty, and The English Patient, I love Fargo and -despised- the other two...but the reasons are a whole other story.)

Edited May 31, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Jerry Biggers]

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

Somewhere, I'm pretty sure that a conservative critic of movies has wriiten a piece on the "anti-American" underlying messages in the "mature" (say, after the early '70's) Altman movies. The Message (with a capital M) would grate on conservative sensibilities even more than on Objectivists, and its not really that underlying: American people, American values, their cultures, their politics are all corrupt, greedy, ruthless, backstabbing, hypocritical, untrustworthy, and devious. Did I miss anything? Probably, but put more concisely, Altman portrays an America that, well, sucks! We're all pretty nasty and despicable people (excepting, perhaps, those who pay to attend these orgies of cultural self-hatred and those critics who praise him for his "realism.)"

Take Nashville. A movie celebrating American "country music?" Hardly. As the movie unfolds, the main characters proceed to reveal their "true" selves, which are corrupt, greedy, ...(well, see the above list). Country Music is just a location that Altman has chosen because he views it as quintessentially American and therefore a perfect target. Personally, I'm not a fan of this type of music, either, but I don't believe it deserves this type of treatment.

MASH: You may enjoy the jokes, the repartee between Hawkeye, Trapper John, Klinger, et al. But that's just the prop that Altman is using to convey "The Message." The Korean war setting is also transparently a cover for the Viet Nam war. The type of jokes, cultural references, thinly-veiled contempt for the military, and cynical anti-war sentiment are clearly referring to Viet Nam. Altman felt he had to change the location to get studio backing and funding.

And what's the variant on The Message, this time? It's not just anti-war. None of his "good guys" demonstrate belief in Americas's role in the conflict. References to any real threats from the Chinese and North Koreans are virtually non-existent. Most soldiers are portrayed as being there grudgingly and forced by the politicians. All those who show any belief in America's role are portrayed as pompous asses, boobs, or otherwise ridiculed. The movie was fantastically popular, spawning an even more popular TV series. I think it succeeded because of its good writing, actors, and a constant stream of wisecracking jokes. The Message may have gone right by most viewers. They liked the comedy.

A Prairie Home Companion. As in the actual NPR radio show, Garrison Keillor uses his love and mastery of 1940's radio variety, comedy and mystery shows to cover for his Message, which is the same as Altman's. Americans are naive, simplistic, easily manipulated boobs (in this case the sub-culture used are Keillor's stereotype of Minnesotan Lutheran Swedes and Norwegians). Same as in MASH, forget Keillor's smooth delivery, singing, and comedy. He's (they) are very good. The Message: despite their simplistic folksy naivety, Minnesotans are basically good,if borderline intelligent, except for the corrupting influence of "commercialism" (read, capitalism). To this, Altman's adds a sub-plot of evill capitalists threatening to shutdown Garrison's show and the efforts of the NPR good guys to fight-off these greedy money-grubbing businessmen, symbols of Altman's view of American culture.

A Marriage. Guess what? The American institutions of marriage are just a cover to make money. Love, romantic values? That's just the cover for all of us to fuck each other over (literally and figuratively).

Thieves Like Us. Poor unfortunate American youth are forced by a heartless, evil economic system into desparate circumstances where crime and violence are their only choices. And law enforcement? Agents of the Ruling Class. Nobody's innocent. We're all guilty. Corrupt. American.

There are many other films by Altman. The locations and situations differ, but The Message remains the same.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The idea is that these are movies you consider great, but are objectionable in some major way according to Objectivism...

Dennis,

Oh.

In that case, the Number One All-Time Nightmare for an Objectivist--one that I liked--would have to go to Koyaanisqatsi. For standard Objectivist aesthetics, this is akin to liking James Joyce or Gertrude Stein.

But then again, I saw this film back in my drug days. I saw it right when it came out. I went to a theater with a great sound system and I was bombed out of my skull on a super-dose of some royally righteous weed.

I have very fond memories of that one...

(All right... all right... I probably would not like it today if I saw it again... )

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

As the piece-de-resistance of altruism run amuck, try Kevin Spacey's Pay It Forward(2000).

Remember that bumper sticker, "Practice random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty"? I know, you are trying to forget it. Imagine a whole movie, no, a whole world, built around this sentiment! In brief, the movie recounts the revolutionary and wonderful things that would happen if everyone continuously went out of their way to help or serve total strangers, even when they did not ask for assistance. Somehow each act of being a Good Samaritan will cause others to act this way, in an exponential manner, until the world explodes in an orgy of blissful self-sacrifice. This is "Pay It Forward."

Continuing to practice or worship at the alter of altruism. Spacey, along with other Hollywood luminaries, Danny Glover and Sean Penn, recently undertook a pilgrimage to Venezuela to pay homage to Hugo Chavez, who is attempting to make his whole country "pay it forward" at the point of a gun.

I must admit, I have not seen this movie and have relied on the detailed summaries of the plot line of this movie which can be found on IMDb and elsewhere. Reviewing something without even reading or seeing it is not a critical method that I would recommend (and anyway, who would have the chutzpah to do that?.... ;) ). But, sorry, in this case there is a limit to my self-sacrifice!

[tjohnson]

The idea is that these are movies you consider great, but are objectionable in some major way according to Objectivism...

Dennis,

Oh.

In that case, the Number One All-Time Nightmare for an Objectivist--one that I liked--would have to go to Koyaanisqatsi. For standard Objectivist aesthetics, this is akin to liking James Joyce or Gertrude Stein.

But then again, I saw this film back in my drug days. I saw it right when it came out. I went to a theater with a great sound system and I was bombed out of my skull on a super-dose of some royally righteous weed.

I have very fond memories of that one...

(All right... all right... I probably would not like it today if I saw it again... )

Michael

LMAO I will confess that I was wrecked when I first saw Blazing Saddles around '74 and I started laughing from the first joke and never stopped till the end. I don't think all the blatant racist jokes would go over too well in this day and age. I loved Slim Pickens as the racist, flunky right hand man of Harvey Korman. One of the most memorable lines;

"That's when we go a ridin' into town, a whuppin' and a thrashin' every livin' thing within an inch of its life.

Except for the women a course, we rape the shit out of them"

In the words of Seinfeld, "nothing is sacred".

Edited May 31, 2010 by general semanticist

[Jonathan]

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

I included them because I've seen Objectivists throw Objecti-Fits™ over them.

Fargo was said to be slice-of-life naturalism since the characters in the film were ordinary, everyday schlubs rather than idealized visions of the perfect hero or villain. The film didn't represent the way that "life ought to be" according to Objectivism, so it was deemed to be bad (or, actually, probably something more like "anti-life, "anti-man" and/or "anti-reason").

Jaws was denounced as having been created to appeal to those who enjoy mindless horror. It was said to have a "plot" which was nothing but an excuse for despicably irrational beings to wallow in their natural state of being terrified by existence, or something like that.

J

[9thdoctor]

In that case, the Number One All-Time Nightmare for an Objectivist--one that I liked--would have to go to Koyaanisqatsi.

Give Baraka a try, it’s by the same cinematographer (Fricke). It’s much less heavy handed and the imagery is incredible. His next film is expected later this year, I’m really looking forward to it.

[jriggenbach]

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

I included them because I've seen Objectivists throw Objecti-Fits™ over them.

Fargo was said to be slice-of-life naturalism since the characters in the film were ordinary, everyday schlubs rather than idealized visions of the perfect hero or villain. The film didn't represent the way that "life ought to be" according to Objectivism, so it was deemed to be bad (or, actually, probably something more like "anti-life, "anti-man" and/or "anti-reason").

Jaws was denounced as having been created to appeal to those who enjoy mindless horror. It was said to have a "plot" which was nothing but an excuse for despicably irrational beings to wallow in their natural state of being terrified by existence, or something like that.

J

The plot of Jaws is essentially a modern adaptation of Henrik Ibsen's An Enemy of the People, which is hardly a story of "mindless horror."

JR

[anthony]

"Unforgiven", that Eastwood Western, but in the modernist, anti-heroic style, is memorable in its sombre realism.

The ageing killer back at his original trade one last time, up against someone even more nihilistic than himself.

It was an apt cap on Clint's cowboy career.

William Munny (Eastwood) warns his hotshot,new kid on the block, partner:

"It's a hell of a thing to kill a man; you take away everything he has, and everything he's ever going to have."

Tony

[Greybird]

[... In "M*A*S*H":] Most soldiers are portrayed as being there grudgingly and forced by the politicians. [...]

I'd say "grudgingly" is so much of an understatement in describing conscription as to be almost comical, if it weren't alluding to so many blighted and destroyed lives.

You don't even mention the doctors' draft — and they, the core characters of "M*A*S*H," were thus liable to being enslaved not merely until age 26, but until age FIFTY.

Apropos of this thread, Rand and even Peikoff particularly denounced the doctors' draft. Should this film thus become one an Objectivist "should like"?

I'd say that the Rand of "The Roots of War" might believe it to be so, though she took on her own savagery in her Ford Hall Forum pronouncements later.

Altman's film is brilliantly satirical, much more so than the pseudonymous original novel. It skewered, drew, and quartered the warmongers just when that was needed most. I'll always be glad for his not holding back.

As for "A Prairie Home Companion," your description of this satirical, comedic, musical, and half-fantasy confection has little to do with the reality on screen. I was delighted by it, even though the fantasy (the lovely Virginia Madsen as an angel [!] notwithstanding) goes over the top.

We're not seeing the same director at all, Jerry, and I can't be the only one with such dissonance.

[Rich Engle]

I wonder how O-worlders generally feel about Guy Richie films (outside of maybe "Sherlock Holmes," which is kind of a gimme).

[DavidMcK]

Health Care Personnel Delivery System

On December 1, 1989, Congress ordered the Selective Service System to put in place a system capable of drafting "persons qualified for practice or employment in a health care and professional occupation", if such a special-skills draft should be ordered by Congress.[47] In response, Selective Service published plans for the "Health Care Personnel Delivery System " (HCPDS) in 1989 and has had them ready ever since. The concept underwent a preliminary field exercise in Fiscal Year 1998, followed by a more extensive nationwide readiness exercise in Fiscal Year 1999. The HCPDS plans include women and men ages 20–54 in 57 different job categories.[48] As of May 2003, the Defense Department has said the most likely form of draft is a special skills draft, probably of health care workers.[49]

from Conscription in the U.S. (wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_the_United_States

[Dennis Hardin]

To me, it makes no sense to speak in terms of films that “an Objectivist shouldn’t like.” There are so many potentially interesting aspects to any given work of art, especially cinema--including the professional work of the actors, writers and directors. Or perhaps one just happens to be a fan of a particular movie star. Or find a particular character fascinating, such as Javier Bardem’s cold-blooded but articulate, philosophical killer in 'No Country for Old Men'” Responding emotionally to various artistic aspects of a film and evaluating the values or sense of life being portrayed are entirely independent ways to react to a work of art, each completely legitimate by themselves. Moral evaluation of the film itself only strikes me as appropriate when the film itself is clearly intended to be used explicitly for immoral purposes, such as propaganda for evil (as Ayn Rand apparently believed to be the case with ‘Song of Russia’) or to promote irrational behavior, like drug use. There might be some exceptions to that rule, but they would be few and far between. I would not attend a movie made by the Iranian government out of concern that I would be financing terrorists, but the film itself could still be a decent work of art and have qualities which, in another context, one could respond to positively.

It is so foolishly typical for Objectivists to drive themselves crazy wondering if it is “okay” to like a movie. Good grief. There are times when your brain can cut your emotions a little slack and let them take over for a while. A rational philosophy is not meant to be a strait jacket.

[9thdoctor]

Rand herself seems to have had reservations about Ninotchka

The male lead is something of a nebbish. If he represents capitalism…fill in the blank.

Jaws was denounced as having been created to appeal to those who enjoy mindless horror. It was said to have a "plot" which was nothing but an excuse for despicably irrational beings to wallow in their natural state of being terrified by existence, or something like that.

Do you have a cite for this? Who said it? I think the Ayn Rand Letter had ended by the time Jaws came out.

To me, it makes no sense to speak in terms of films that “an Objectivist shouldn’t like.”

Yet there is a documented history of AR and company making judgements about others based on films they like, also music etc. I made light of the legendary conformist culture in the opening post: “Anyone else game to put your sense-of-life corruption on display?” It’s strange but you’re not the first who seems to be taking it literally. BTW, the thread is titled “shouldn’t (?) like”, the question mark didn’t get there by accident.

It is so foolishly typical for Objectivists to drive themselves crazy wondering if it is “okay” to like a movie. Good grief.

I like to think that that’s not typical. That’s the cultist mentality, and this thread is giving people a chance to combat it by noting films that they think are great, even if they (arguably) clash with Objectivism.

I'm putting you down as a fan of No Country for Old Men, so now I believe Peikoff will label you as a D2. I'm an M3. He and Diana are the only I's. Even Harry's an M1 nowadays.

[Philip Coates]

> I believe Peikoff will label you as a D2. I'm an M3. He and Diana are the only I's. Even Harry's an M1 nowadays.

I'm an AK47

[George H. Smith]

> I believe Peikoff will label you as a D2. I'm an M3. He and Diana are the only I's. Even Harry's an M1 nowadays.

I'm an AK47

I would ask what that means, but I'm afraid you would start a separate thread to tell me.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

> I believe Peikoff will label you as a D2. I'm an M3. He and Diana are the only I's. Even Harry's an M1 nowadays.

I'm an AK47

I would ask what that means, but I'm afraid you would start a separate thread to tell me.

Ghs

The DIM hypothesis, D=disintegration, I=integration, M=misintegration. Peikoff speaks in terms of levels of misintegration etc. so you if you're M1, you've got a couple things wrong, M3 and you're a mess. D2 is about equal to M3 I think. In 2006 he said the Democrats were M somethings and the Republicans were D somethings. I don't remember exactly but it was how he proved that you should vote Democratic.

[George H. Smith]

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

...

Little Miss Sunshine

...

I lost interest in Little Miss Sunshine after Alan Arkin's character, Edwin, died. He was the most interesting character in the movie by far.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The DIM hypothesis, D=disintegration, I=integration, M=misintegration. Peikoff speaks in terms of levels of misintegration etc. so you if you're M1, you've got a couple things wrong, M3 and you're a mess. D2 is about equal to M3 I think. In 2006 he said the Democrats were M somethings and the Republicans were D somethings. I don't remember exactly but it was how he proved that you should vote Democratic.

In order to get a rating, do you have to hold a couple tin cans and be interviewed by an "auditor"?

I would probably qualify as an M3, but I prefer to think of my mind as a wilderness of spontaneous order.

Ghs

[Barbara Branden]

Phil wrote about the Godfather movies: "It's almost an Objectivist theme: Be true to your own self. Or else."

Are you saying that this is the deliberate message of the films? You can't mean that. Can you?

Barbara

[Philip Coates]

Barbara, I guess I should reword it to say one can extract a lesson from Michael Corleone. I don't know how deliberate it was, and I'd have to re-view the films to see if it was central. My impression is that it was central, consciously or unconsciously, to the movie, just as Michael is central to every stage of the film and the experiences of the characters across decades.

I thought there was a clear arc in Al Pacino's portrayal of him as a tragic figure and one who felt the consequences of his actions across decades. To what extent Coppola or the original book stressed or intended this, I don't know.

But for me its what made the movie (and to some extent its two sequels) something far greater than the sum of all the other skills and portrayals and incidents. In that sense, yes, it was the theme or at least a theme or summation one can extract from the movie.

(Another thought: perhaps what I mentioned that emerges from the movie is a more negative 'theme' than positive...less "be true to yourself" since I can't think of well-developed portrayals who are than this is what happens to a man who isn't, and - to a lesser extent - a whole subculture of those who live by violence and intimidation and subjugation to the family and its code.)

((Still another thought: This is a -very- interesting issue. It makes me want to get the DVD set and also read the book! Cool!))

Can you think of other major themes or an abstract summation of the movie? Especially if they contradict or go against the grain of the one I identified?

Edited June 2, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> I'm an AK47 [Phil]

> I would ask what that means, but I'm afraid you would start a separate thread to tell me. [GHS]

Now, that's funny. Point taken. I can be a bit long-winded and grandiose sometimes.

[Philip Coates]

...Hopefully it doesn't happen more than 95% of the time, though...

[Jonathan]

Jaws was denounced as having been created to appeal to those who enjoy mindless horror. It was said to have a "plot" which was nothing but an excuse for despicably irrational beings to wallow in their natural state of being terrified by existence, or something like that.

Do you have a cite for this? Who said it? I think the Ayn Rand Letter had ended by the time Jaws came out.

No, I don't remember who it was who flipped out over Jaws, but I thought it was someone associated with the TOC/TAS side rather than the ARI side. Maybe Alexandra York, Robert Jones or possibly one of the TAS regulars/higher-ups (and it wasn't at the time that the film was first released, but within the past decade).

Now that I think of it, a good source of "Films an Objectivist shouldn’t (?) like" might be back-issues of The New Individualist. The TAS bunch can sometimes be much more uptight than ARIans when it comes to the evil messages that they interpret movies as containing.

J