That being said, I can't claim to be a full-on Randian objectivist. I suppose my views are closer to those of Locke. Better for me to perform some charitable deed for selfish reasons than not to perform the deed at all. Whether I seek a tax break or a blog topic or a sense of self-esteem or even forgiveness for my sins, my motives really don't matter in the grand scheme of things. It's better to help people in need than to ignore them. I certainly possess some sympathy for the viewpoint that most of the beggars and downtrodden in the world have played a role in their own struggles. I simply don't consider myself fit to judge them. If not for one fortunate outcome here or there, perhaps I would be the guy holding the 'Will Work For Food' sign on the corner of 8 Mile and Southfield. So I can never be considered a true objectivist. 'A is A,' true enough, but maybe A was once Q and there is a reason behind the change from Q to A. I don't know.
And I could never be a true purebred libertarian. Perhaps that kid down the street really enjoys the way that the local child molester touches him, but you know what? The molester is still a sick fuck and you can feel free to call me a moralist for saying so. You wouldn't have to know me very well to see where I fall on the morality continuum. I'm no Mother Teresa. Just look at what I choose to share on this freaking blog. Obviously my character leaves plenty to be desired. Yet I have my lines. There comes a point where 'live and let live' simply doesn't cut it. So yeah, I'm sympathetic to the causes of freedom and objectivism, but I'm not a hardassed devotee.
I really did love the book Atlas Shrugged though. I was able to forgive the Godlessness and immorality that I saw in the novel, since the larger point seemed to be far more pressing. What if the government really started behaving so ridiculously? None of you will be shocked to hear that I think we've already reached that point. The politicians and bureaucrats can tell us whether or not to smoke. They can tell us what kind of health insurance we may or may not buy. They can tell us whether or not we may purchase foods containing trans fatty acids. They can tell us whether or not we may extract resources from the ground to fuel our economy. They can tell us what kinds of light bulbs and toilets to buy. They can make some of us pay more for our cars, then turn around and offer subsidies for others to buy different cars. They can tell us how much of our own earnings we deserve to keep. The list goes on and on, but I think my point is made. We're not exactly a long stretch from enacting some of the policies mentioned in the novel.
So, after a bazillion years, the movie finally came to my local theater. I wanted to love it. I really did. Of all times, I thought, now was the time to show the world what we'll see if we continue to follow our current path. I could handle some bad acting or shaky cinematography as long as the gospel was preached. The world needed to know what our bizarre activist government was causing. Ms. Rand's story was just the lecture to do the trick. "In times like these..." Yep, we're right there now, aren't we? Every intrusion into our lives is rationalized as some kind of extreme measure in response to the extreme times in which we live.
I didn't expect a lot from this movie since I had seen the trailers before the film was released. It struck me more as an HBO special than a Hollywood production. I dutifully ponied up my ten bucks and checked it out though. If nobody spends money to see the rare non-leftist flick from Hollywood, then there will be even fewer non-leftist flicks to see in the future. I try to do my small part.
Bummer, dude. The movie just wasn't that good. If you're not familiar with the novel, then I suspect that you would leave the theater wondering what in the hell you just saw. If you are familiar with the novel, then I suspect that you would leave the theater wishing one of two things had happened. Either (a) the movie had been a lttle dull but the objectivist message was clear and consistent, or (b) the message had been watered down a bit but the movie was a blast to watch. It seems to me that what we got was a 50/50 blend of the two approaches that won't likely impress anyone other than those who are determined to be impressed.
None of this is to say that the film was terrible. It wasn't. It was so-so. The actor playing Hank Rearden was impressive, as was the guy playing Ellis Wyatt. The actress playing Dagny Taggart wasn't quite as forceful as I would have pictured, based on my reading of the book, but she did a capable job of filling the role. And she's rather easy on the eyes, which doesn't hurt. I've seen movie reviews from the usual suspects and they're not surprising. When you (the average liberal film critic) live in a world where it's inconceivable that people might not want you telling them how to live, then you're not going to find much to like about a film like Atlas Shrugged. The entire concept of the story is foreign to the liberal Hollywood types, so it's no shock to see them lining up to pan the movie.
Given all that I've said to this point, I think it's too bad that this wasn't a movie for the ages. Atlas Shrugged is every bit the epic story that Lord of the Rings or The Godfather were. Yet, for one reason or another, we wound up with unknown actors doing a decent enough job for an unknown director. We wound up with only a few types of scenes - meetings in ornate settings, cheesy looking news reports on television screens, and trains, essentially. It's too bad that there's not a Spielberg or Stone out there who can command the blockbuster budget to make a movie defending, rather than savagely attacking, individual liberty and the virtues of the free market. You know, the free market that made those guys so wealthy in the first place. Alas, it wasn't meant to be. Not this time, at least.
Hopefully the picture will earn a profit so there's some money to throw at making a decent Part 2.
