Well, that is how are brains are hardwired. I’ve seen movies that try to evoke pure “atmosphere” or sensation and the result is shallowness. Both elements are needed. This is what makes the Coen brothers’ films so good.
I think we are in agreement. Dialogue has to be much tighter in a movie and it is supposed to be an immersive experience.
This conversation is a little bit of the topic of Austrian economics but let me just make my final comment on the subject. What I like is films that evoke meaning preciselly because they get underneath the overtly consciouss instrument of the words we learned in school.
2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner, Playtime, The Holy Mountain, A Clockwork Orange, Eraserhead, L’Avventura - These would all be great examples of what I mean and they are pretty darn far away from being shallow!
I personally am tremendously excited. Even if flawed (which seems inevitable) it can only advance the cause of freedom in a huge specific way. One of the things I’ve felt that libertarianism has lacked is a mainstream example of a free-market utopia. There is no end to the 1984 knockoffs featuring a fascist dystopia, and by knowing only one extreme, today’s youth look at our actual society (which is merely interventionist with a strong veneer of freedom) and think we’re well off. I’ve often thought that people need to see what normally “is not seen” (to paraphrase Bastiat), and Galt’s Gulch qualifies.
In fact, I still think there is room for a great movie showing a utopia, showing how amazing life would be in a free society, if there are any aspiring screenwriters out there. I think it’s important that it be a movie, as nobody reads anymore (though it could certainly start as a book).
Last I heard, from David Kelley, they had toyed with various ideas along those lines but have decided to go with a 2-3 hour movie. Angelina Jolie is set to play Dagny Taggart.
It’s been a while since I read The Fountainhead… Was it someone else’s property? I think it more likely that it was either directly state-owned or at least heavily or fully subsidized by the state and built by those subsidized by the state. It was a low income housing project after all. Even rejecting IP, as I do, what Roark did was not necessarily an un-libertarian act (unless it actually was private property that wasn’t largely or entirely funded by the state).
That would be pretty much like taking the Ring of Power out of Lord of the Rings. The industrialists are clearly supposed to be superior in intellect and of course, technology - they’re romantic heros, not modernist everypersons.
It will need to be changed, certainly, but not removed.
I agree. I was thinking more along the lines of the scientific and engineering absurdity of the invisible force field and the band of at most several thousand people who somehow generate the level of industrialization and division of labor for a railroad. Rand was a technophile to an absurd degree.
I could take ‘billy bob’s property’, more seriously as Lillian.
If I was ever too meet a randian women, I probably would only think it’s illusionary. Oscar Wilde had me convinced that beauty and brains don’t come in the same package.
Wesley Mouch, should be portrayed by a Bernanke lookin’ fellow.
I’m looking forward to the wedding speech on wealthy morality, and Reardon’s trial.
I hope this film opens up public debate on property, and ownership.
I enjoyed the film The Fountainhead. It seems like films back then carried more weight, because they couldn’t limp through an hour or two with special effects and two dimensional characters.
Could one argue that the twentyfirst century is scarce in civility, because of oppressive government?
Most definitely. Government crowds out the social institutions that maintain peace and stability in the absence of government. Also, the government’s fiat money raises time preferences. Consumption and debt are encouraged and production and saving are discouraged.
As I read The Fountainhead, it was a state-owned housing project. It’s never explicitly said, but heavily implied. In that case, it could even be argued that Roark had the best claim to ownership.
I dunno - V for Vendetta was pretty entertaining, and the message came through clearly. I got my early libertarian training from Heinlein, looking for (and finding) entertainment - I recommend The Moon is a Harsh Mistress highly.
If it’s not entertaining, nobody will hear the message.
Danno
I would say those who are not looking will not hear the message, if it isn’t entertaining. Those who are searching/looking/wondering/listening for the message (or at least for alternative thought) will be more receptive.
I wonder if Ayn Rand made her book enjoyable then libertarians wouldn’t be so critical of Objectivionism.[:O]
I remember Angelina Jolie saying she likes Ayn Rand.
Well what do you expect? Ayn Rand was an awful writer.
There are plenty of people who disagree.
Well, I don’t know… I guess you could make a case that her books were entertaining or even thought provoking, but great literature? I don’t think so.