Films an Objectivist shouldn’t (?) like

[9thdoctor]

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

No, there's not yet enough trained auditors, but stay tuned.

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

Before someone takes me to task for this, here’s a link to a thread about DIM, from 2006. There’s no such thing as an M3, and yes I knew that when I was writing the original post. I suppose I was in Boojum mode. Even Hitler was only an M2. Kant a D2. Also I got the M’s and D’s mixed up as they applied to Bush and Kerry circa 2006. Reading the first few pages of the thread, I’m confident I agree with the rest of Betsy Speicher's comments on DIM, no point rehashing it now. A rationalist construct designed to promote insularity through development of a new insider's lingo/jargon. It's a great sign that no one seems to be buying in to it.

[Xray]

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.[ /quote]

It would me interest me what these reservations were. Wasn't Garbo one of AR's favorite actresses?

... I prefer to think of my mind as a wilderness of spontaneous order.

"Wilderness of spontaneous order" - brilliantly put, and imo fits perfectly.

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 recall being totally bored by Three Women. I saw it in 1977 or 1978, and recall nothing of the story (only that Shelley Duvall and Sissy Spacek were in it), but to this day, recall the boredom. But since I watched it together with my boyfriend (who seemed to like it), I didn't want to just get up and leave the cinema.

Before someone takes me to task for this, here’s a link to a thread about DIM, from 2006.

I wonder if Peikoff was aware of the comic aspect in the acronym "DIM" (!) he used for his hypothesis? Priceless!

Can't resist applying A=A here: That "DIM hypothesis" is exactly that.

As for "Films Objectivist's "shouldn't" like":

What about Stanley Kubrick's Lolita? Neither heroes nor heroines in there to admire and uplift the spirit, instead there is the anti-hero Humbert Humbert, whose obsession with the budding sexuality of a young girl ends in a tragedy.

Lolita is brilliantly acted and directed, an excellent adaptation of Nabokov's masterpiece.

Thinking of Casablanca: in the final scene, doesn't Rick persuade Ilsa to commit an "altruistic" act which demands that she place Victor Lazlo's interests before her own?

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.

As for films (or books) a follower "shouldn't like" because the message they contain contradict the values of the ideology - doesn't this contradict the very idea of individualism?

Edited June 3, 2010 by Xray

[Reidy]

About Ninotchka: Rand acknowledged the movie's superb artistry but thought it took Communism too lightly. My copy of Mayhew isn't at hand, but she shows her usual insightfullness and a detailed familiarity with the move.

Garbo was, indeed, a favorite of hers. She was unmistakably the model for Kay Gonda in Ideal and probably for Kay Ludlow in Atlas Shrugged. She may also have been physically the model for Dominique Francon. Rand's biographers note that there was briefly a prospect of Garbo's coming out of retirement to play Dominique.

[Greybird]

About Ninotchka: Rand acknowledged the movie's superb artistry but thought it took Communism too lightly. [...]

Ye GODS. That was simply being greedy, and not in her positive gloss on that concept. What, I wonder, did she want? Inserting footage of the Gulag (which, at the time, would have been impossible to obtain anyway) into a multi-emotionally-faceted romantic comedy?

What Wilder and Lubitsch did instead was to show Ninotchka's silent, understated, ratcheting-upward, wrenching despair, at her mistake in returning to Moscow. That got across the soul-deadening aspects of a Communist regime better than any preaching or documentary could have done. And in the "Red Decade," to boot.

"Ninotchka" never was and never could be We the Living. There was a place for showing the Soviet regime far from "lightly." And there was a place for subtly lampooning its stupidity — along with making a case for the persistence of love in working around it. Two distinct points, two works of art.

[Dennis Hardin]

> 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 actually laughed out loud at this. Good one, Phil.

Peikoff's categories are alarmingly similar to the names for military armament--M1 rifles, M1 tank, D3 armored vehicle. Not quite sure if we should be concerned about that.

[Jerry Biggers]

[... 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.

Steve,

We may agree on other things, but Altman is clearly not one of them. And yes, it is hard to believe that we are talking about the same director.

M.A.S.H. may be a brilliant satire, although I find its humor heavy-handed. But it is not about the Korean War, despite its use of that location. The anti-war sentiments that it expresses are typical of those heard in this country during the Viet Nam war. But perhaps you are not contesting that.

Altman has stated in interviews (maybe in Playboy) what his view of America is, and what he is trying to say in his movies since M.A.S.H. In a few words, he has contempt for us. America and Americans are too greedy, too self-centered, too materialistic (read, capitalistic), not to mention imperialistic, chauvinistic, ruthless, mendacious, and despoilers of native culture. We're not nice people.

At minimum, he expresses an extreme "naturalistic" view and seems to find that under the public veneer of his characters, lies their true nature which unfolds in each of his movies. There are no heroes, there are only victims and degrees of corruption and depravity.

In another portrayal of a slice of Americans, in "A Prairie Home Companion," he portrays the "innocent, pure, all-around nice guy", Garrison Keilor (O.K., he's found a hero this time!) who is just trying to run a folksy radio variety show, but its existence is threatened by greedy unfeeling businessmen who do not think the show is profitable enough.

I assume that you have listened to episodes of the real radio show, which has been running on public radio for many years. Behind its folksiness and Keillor's mellifluous voice lies his political/cultural message. This is not just a musical variety show nostalgic for the 1940's. Listen to what he is saying about the culture. It is not well disguised and Keillor has elsewhere elaborated upon what he is up to. It is not surprising that in Keillor, Altman has found "his kind of guy." Their views on American culture are in agreement.

There are probably other analyses of Altman and Keillor that would agree with my estimate, but that probably would not convince you. If I have the time, I may illustrate my points with quotations and synopses of his movies, or find the public statements of Altman and Keillor, who will do it for me. I am not inclined to watch all of his movies again. There is a limit to my masochism.

But, here is what really grates me about Altman: he has stated his contempt for American culture, but cynically uses themes about America's cultural institutions that he knows will attract movie goers. They are expecting a film about Nashville and country music. Instead, they get Altman's portrayal that is considerably darker and decidedly uncomplimentary about thaat genre. Personally, I am not a fan of country music and Nashville, but I find it deceptive that Altman draws the fans in, so he can "kick them in the teeth," figuratively speaking, saying to them, in effect, "You like this kind of stuff? Well, here is what your heroes are really like!."

The problem is, he repeatedly uses that same "bait and switch" strategy to portray other areas of American culture in his other films, so it is no accident.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Jerry Biggers

[algernonsidney]

"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.

I can think of at least TWENTY Eastwood movies that I like better than Unforgiven.

[RightJungle]

Here's an all time non-objectivist favorite:

"Our Vines Have Tender Grapes" starring Edward G. Robinson

Description: "An endearing and quietly rhapsodic slice of Americana about a single year among the Norwegian immigrants in a Wisconsin farm town, Our Vines Have Tender Grapes enthralled 1945 audiences and critics with its timeless joys. Told from the viewpoint of little Selma (Margaret O'Brien), the film explores grand childhood adventures: making friends, a pet calf, Christmas, a terrifying trip down a flood-swollen river, a barn fire and a ride on a circus elephant's trunk. In a change-of-pace role, Edward G. Robinson is a revelation of wisdom and compassion as Selma's father, leading a fine cast that illuminates the profound power of everyday triumphs and sorrows."

The deciding scene was the one where his daughter wants to continue to use her brand new roller skates, but the crafty little boy demands that she let him have a turn "right now". Edward, loving non-objectivist father that he is, makes her give, permanently, the skates to the little boy. Supposedly that taught the little girl generosity, which she played out later when she gave her only calf to a farmer whose barn has burned.

You've gotta weep over that one.

Edited June 25, 2010 by Mary Lee Harsha

[9thdoctor]

You've gotta weep over that one.

No you don’t. I can think of another involuntary physical reaction.

This reminds me of a story from AR's childhood, when her mother gave away her favorite toy. It's in the Heller bio.

[Brant Gaede]

"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.

I can think of at least TWENTY Eastwood movies that I like better than Unforgiven.

Spoiler alert:

What I like about Unforgiven is the way the main character is finally revealed, turned into an inexorable force of avenging unapologetic murdering cold-blooded hammering graced with more than a touch of justice distribution. Gene Hackman was incredibly nasty. Much nastier than in his French Connection forays.

--Brant

[RightJungle]

You've gotta weep over that one.

No you don't. I can think of another involuntary physical reaction.

This reminds me of a story from AR's childhood, when her mother gave away her favorite toy. It's in the Heller bio.

Not weep as weeping in the movies, but actually weep over such a dreadful representation of fatherly love and wisdom.