obvious, failed corporatism

Consider the dialogue between McGill and Trask at the end where she talks about bending the rules when you're at the top. But hard to get to the top when no one will give you a chance. I found that to be more critical to the people at the top being narrow-minded as to not take the working class seriously.

it was the 80's, communism versus capitalism.

There had been decades of propaganda promoting the virtues and ideals of capitalism being fair and prosperous. We now know it to be a lie, but back then nearly everyone and even now some people believe the crap about banks and corporations being good for society.

The internet has opened a lot of peoples eyes. We now know how banks operate, by counterfeiting money and carrying out theft by inflation, of the entire nations wealth.

We now know how they avoid taxes, and ruin the planet, and destroy lives. But none of that was widely known back then, it was hidden in the secrecy of ignorance.

it's a good movie, but leaves a bitter taste in my mouth because of idealising what is inherently a very evil financial system.

Tess made it good, but she is a cog in a machine that is evil. So its a bitter-sweet ending for me.

I am not an apologist for corporatism. I trained and worked in that world for many years and have now left it far behind me as it sickened me so much. I do not like the theme song either. I also think that Ayn Rand's output was (and I suppose remains) self-defeating. If there is one thing which cannot be mass-marketed or mass-produced, it is individuality, independence of mind... Rand made a lot of money from her books, speeches etc. and, with that money and her foundation, influences the world in which we live i.e. even after her death. All the more reason why it is folly to follow her output/philosophy.

All that stated, this film still holds some merit for me. I guess it comes down to the frame of reference in which one sees the movie. One can see it in terms of a comment on society. That, in turn, leads to your interpretation. The flipside to that is to see it as a satire, to which you agreed - and then liked the movie. Both of these views are valid. For me, it is centred around its characters.

The protagonist, Tess, is being exploited - for her mind and her body. Like millions of others, she is also grasping for financial independence. By the end of it, she succeeds. Yeah, it has a happy Hollywood ending element to it. It doesn't "make me wanna puke" though and a key reason for that is that each scene in the movie is important in the telling of the story. I, myself, am unsure of the reason but I return to the characters. Each of them, in their own way, were living out a philosophy and responding to their view of the world. For me, the acting was sufficiently believable. It is for this reason that I found this movie satisfying but I respect the fact that yourself and/or others may hold a different view. Indeed, I would not want it any other way.

I don't think it was so obvious in 1988 or in 86-87 when the movie was being created and produced.

I tell you what.