That was my view - I watched the films and thought "no one can be this idiotic?" I decided that the movie makers might have missed the point, so I read the book. I was horrified that objectivism is really, to me at least, little more than eugenics with money worship thrown in - basically survival of the fittest and, in this case, the richest. Anyone who isn't cold-hearted, cold-blooded and ambitious enough to seize what they want, when they want it, will be shot in cold blood by some deranged woman on a power trip.
In a supposedly enlightened society, that kind of animalistic pack mentality doesn't really work - in an enlightened society, where we see the damage that worshiping at the altar of cold hard cash actually does and not just to us but to the entire world around us, then that kind of blinkered attitude is idiotic.
Sure I can see that giving people everything can lead to a loss of ambition - you only have to look at my own country, the UK, to see where having a nanny state gets us (and those attempting to settle here because they think the streets are lined with free money). But there is a mid-ground; a way that the truly desperate can be helped and encouraged without handing them the world on a plate.
This can be achieved; only recently there have been people thanking a charity for getting them off the streets and into a hostel - by doing so they have an address, which means they can get jobs; which they have. Now they're renting their own flats, making their own way in the world. Once they were homeless and hopeless, now they have futures because someone helped them.
Ayn Rand never saw that; she herself seemed too blinkered and, dare I say, cold-heartedly unemotional to do so. If Atlas Shrugged (1,2 or 3) is what the future holds for us as a species then I really hope we blow ourselves up before that distopian society can take control.
Death, as they say, before dishonour; or at least aniahilating those less lucky than us. Because Rand conveniently ignores those who end up destitute through no fault of their own. We have many ex-servicemen in this country (the UK) as I am sure the US does, who ended up on the wrong the side of an IED and/or an insurgent attack.
Many have lost limbs - what happens to them? Can someone dumped from the armed forces by our governments, left to beg on the streets (as happens here), suddenly become a super-rich captain of industry? Especially when my government at least, makes it so difficult for the poor to climb up that slippery pole of success? So what of these men and women? Should we kill them? Because they're not able to be 'productive' by Rand's definition of the word without help? No, Rand's world is definitely not one I, or my family, would want to live in.
As for the movie itself; dear Lord, I thought the first two were bad - but this was truly awful. The ending, lingering on the Statue of Liberty (the only thing still lit up in a city gone dark), the 'you're my tomorrows', the kiss 'resurrecting' the supposedly dead John Gault and then, the irritatingly Mills & Boon/Hallmark channels style sweeping romantic scores just made me want to vomit. Also WHY keep recasting? Was it because the original actors of each of the first two parts legged it when they saw what a nightmare the finished movies were? Was it because, ironically, the makers couldn't afford the actors from the first film for the other two? Whatever it was, constantly recasting the main characters drove me nuts and made the later two films even more unwatchable.
No, these films are up there with the worst of the worst - would Ayn Rand be happy? I don't know; frankly, I don't care. Anyone who worships money as a God is off my radar. I'd rather be kind and thought weak; than evil and thought strong. Let's face it, if aliens watched this, they'd just blow us and be done with it. We'd be considered too threatening to allow to exist. However, I bet the Tea Party people and most of the Republicans absolutely ADORED these three films.
----
Enjoy life; there's plenty of time to be dead - especially when you're a vampire.
reply
share
alvink
10 years ago
you are sooo clueless. the tea party hates this book and these movies, because if the american citizens learn from and accept these books, those fuzzy tea party *beep* are going to be out on their cans, and they know it.
you repeat that stupidity that ayn rand advocates the worship of money. let me try to advance the people of the USA, and if it doesn't work, oh well.
an offensive lineman does not think about the score, he thinks about dominating his opponent, on every play. if he does his job, the team gets 'the pizza'. this type of teamwork, a sense of teamwork with humanity, is a central theme in her works.
ms rand always talks about 'doing the job', and then you get 'the pizza'. it is the losers, the politicians, who worship the money and the power, and want to get it by any means.
in ayn rands books, the robbers-the politicains, worship the money=power.
in ayn rand books, the winners are those who respect themselves and their own works. respecting themselves and their works, they advance civilization. they worship effective thought, and use money as a scorecard. the politicians and the powermongers use money and power as their goal.
please re-read the books again. just see the power mongers and politicians as the tea party people, and see the effective people as intelligent people who can do things that the bloodsucking politicians are incapable of.
thank you for reading.
reply
share
gabby_bm
10 years ago
I think in today's economic world, it's easy to get confused as to what defines the "Randian Hero". It's not the politicians, the Wall-Street gamblers or the Corporatists. It's the people who create, innovate, risk, grow and place value on the people and things of value, establishing a mutually-beneficial relationship that creates a thriving economy and society.
My New Year's resolution is to simply write 2̶0̶1̶4̶ 2015 instead of 2014"
.
reply
share