Reviews - The Atlasphere Social Network

O. HENRY: A BIRTHDAY TRIBUTE

Posted on September 8, 2011 by TeamAtlas

BY DON HAUPTMAN

The short stories of O. Henry continue to entertain and delight readers. Of course, he was the master of the twist or surprise ending. But there’s much more to O. Henry, which is why his work endures, almost a century and a half after his birth.

Prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, admirers of O. Henry recognized that date each year as his birthday. Today, such celebrations would appear inappropriate. But perhaps it’s acceptable to recall a time when September 11 had a different and more positive association. The following article is based on a talk I prepared for an Objectivist group that met in New York City on that date in 1999.

Born in Greensboro, N.C. on September 11, 1862, O. Henry’s original name was William Sidney Porter. After all, O. Henry would have been a rather strange name for an infant. Three decades later, he changed the spelling of his middle name to Sydney. As for the pen name O. Henry, he told several versions of its origin.

I discovered and loved O. Henry’s stories well before I encountered the works of Ayn Rand. I was gratified, however, to learn that she shared my admiration of his talents. Specifically, she praised “the pyrotechnical virtuosity of an inexhaustible imagination projecting the gaiety of a benevolent, almost childlike sense of life” (The Romantic Manifesto, p. 110, paperback).

William Sydney Porter, a.k.a. O. Henry

O. Henry’s curiosity and ingenuity were boundless. He could glance around a restaurant and instantly find the premises for half a dozen stories. That knack most likely helped inspire Rand’s own clever story, “The Simplest Thing in the World” (also reprinted in The Romantic Manifesto), in which a struggling writer attempts to produce a hack piece for a quick buck, but is constantly distracted by imaginative ideas he knows won’t sell.

The O. Henry trademark, is, of course, the twist or surprise ending that delights the reader because it’s unexpected yet logical. The device provided memorable denouements to his most familiar stories, including “The Gift of the Magi,” “The Cop and the Anthem,” “The Ransom of Red Chief,” and “The Last Leaf.”

But some of his best stories are not as famous. One of my favorites is “After Twenty Years.” It’s also one of his shortest, fewer than three printed pages. Lest I spoil your enjoyment, I will say only that it contains all of his characteristic touches.

Although O. Henry didn’t invent the surprise ending, he certainly perfected and popularized it.

The literati disparage O. Henry’s work as, among other things, superficial and sentimental. As with criticism of Ayn Rand, many of the accusations are ignorant and unjust.

In the early 1970s, I was in the Navy. I carried The Complete Works of O. Henry to three continents. Rather than read the volume straight through, I returned to its 1,700 pages intermittently over several years. (The title of this volume isn’t strictly accurate; it contains 250 stories, but O. Henry scholars estimate that the number of stories he wrote is closer to 300.)

Not everything O. Henry wrote is of equally high quality. Indeed, he often recycled themes and plots, and some of the situations rely excessively on contrivance and coincidence.

At his best, however, O. Henry is terrific. He’s a superb stylist; his use of language is skillful and often gorgeous. And he’s a master of character and dialogue. Even the speech of his “street people” is witty, humorous, and literarily romantic — not the way people talk, but the way they should talk.

O. Henry lived in New York City for eight years, drawing upon its colorful neighborhoods and characters for his best-known stories. But many of his works have other settings. He was a ranch hand in Texas, where his experiences inspired a group of tales with Western settings. (Many fans of The Cisco Kid may be unaware that he is O. Henry’s creation.)

Even the speech of his “street people” is witty, humorous, and literarily romantic — not the way people talk, but the way they should talk.

He was in prison for three years, which supplied fodder for his vivid tales of grifters, con men, and rogues, including safecracker Jimmy Valentine. And a stay in Honduras inspired a series of adventures of a U.S. consul in the backwaters of a fictitious Central American country.

O. Henry worked as a draftsman, a cartoonist, a pharmacist, and a bank teller. It was this latter job that landed him in the slammer, on a charge of embezzlement. He protested his innocence, and indeed some of the evidence exonerates him.

In the biography Alias O. Henry, Gerald Langford notes: “O. Henry’s life has seemed colorful enough to justify his own remark when he was asked why he did not read more fiction…. ‘It is all tame as compared with the romance of my own life.’”

In 1910, O. Henry died at the age of 48. He was penniless and dissolute — an ironic turn worthy of one of his own stories.

His works have often been dramatized on stage, on television, and in films. The 1952 film O. Henry’s Full House is an excellent adaptation of five of his stories, each by a different director, and with a cast of big-name stars, including Charles Laughton, Marilyn Monroe, and Richard Widmark. It was long unavailable on home video, but now it’s on DVD, along with several bonus features.

Ayn Rand praised “the pyrotechnical virtuosity of an inexhaustible imagination projecting the gaiety of a benevolent, almost childlike sense of life.”

Although O. Henry didn’t invent the surprise ending, he certainly perfected and popularized it. His legacy pervades popular culture—from The Twilight Zone to the short stories of Jeffrey Archer to a long list of movies, including The Sixth Sense, The Others, The Usual Suspects, and The Crying Game. I suspect that the “twist in the tale” is largely responsible for the word-of-mouth success of such films.

O. Henry’s home in Austin is now a museum. Each May for the past 34 years, an annual “O. Henry Pun-Off World Championships” contest has been held in the adjacent park. As a wordplay enthusiast, I’ve always liked the idea. True, O. Henry played with language, but even the creators of the event concede that the connection is a bit tenuous.

In 2012, the U.S. Postal Service will issue a stamp honoring O. Henry. Appropriately, given the author’s enduring appeal, it’s a “Forever” stamp that will always be valid as one-ounce first-class postage. The design shows a portrait of O. Henry, with the skyline of New York City in the background.

I hope I’ve motivated you to savor the rewards of this outstanding yet often underrated writer — whether for the first time or as a rediscovery.

On his birthday, then, let’s toast him with the O. Henry cocktail. You don’t know the recipe? It’s a Manhattan, with a dash of saccharine, served with a twist.

Don Hauptman is a New York City-based advertising copywriter and humorist, and a longtime Objectivist. He writes a weekly online column on language. He is also author of The Versatile Freelancer, an e-book that shows creative people how to diversify into public speaking, consulting, training, and other profitable activities.

DEMOCRACY SOCIETY

Posted on August 30, 2011 by TeamAtlas

BY JOHN ENRIGHT

This new dystopian political thriller by freshman novelist John Christmas is fast paced and funny, and explores important social and philosophical problems with the misguided ideal of unlimited democracy.

Imagine an America where people still vote to elect their government, but where the government has abandoned the Constitution and embraced redistribution of wealth and rule by rioting mobs. Do you think you have already caught glimpses of such an America? Well, you haven’t seen anything yet. That, at least, is the message of Democracy Society, the scary but funny new novel by John Christmas.

The novel opens with a historical prologue featuring secret plotting by some of the American Founders. But that goes by quickly, and we are plunged abruptly into a society where democracy has degenerated into a nightmare of seized assets and enslaved entrepreneurs.

Just to get an idea of how scary this society is, here is an excerpt from a scene in which the President of the United States, Roberto Rojo, campaigns for re-election:

“The Great Deal Party gave you a new human right. Free cash!

“These hundred-dollar bills have a picture of me instead of Benjamin Franklin since you don’t know who he was anyway!”

Rojo paused and made a mental note to ask an aide to figure out who Benjamin Franklin was, just in case the question ever came up.

This level of thinking may remind you of the 2006 film Idiocracy, in which society has become incredibly and comically “dumbed down.”

Democracy Society by John Christmas

Fortunately, all is not lost. There are intelligent and virtuous people fighting to restore the system of governance envisioned by the Founders, heroes who understand that the protection of property rights is one of the keys to the establishment of liberty and prosperity.

One such hero is David Goldstein, a free market economist, who is running a last ditch campaign for the Presidency, doing his best to explain the need for property rights to a citizenry low on economic literacy.

Leading the heroic charge for action, adventure, and romance are Jack Cannon and Valentina Zaiceva, an international pair who seem prepared for any physical challenge that life can thrown at them. They have been recruited for a dangerous mission by a secret society — a secret society which traces its roots back to the time of the American Founders.

The story is quite fast paced and often very funny; at least, it was very suited to my sense of humor. As befits a political thriller, the story is a roller coaster of twists and turns, with a big final twist which I did not see coming.

As befits a political thriller, the story is a roller coaster of twists and turns, with a big final twist which I did not see coming.

The author is focused upon a political theme. He is raising the alarm about what he calls “universal-suffrage democracy,” a term he uses to describe a political system where the many are allowed to oppress and loot from the few, a political system where all constitutional protections for individuals have been cast by the wayside, and in a nation where economic ignorance is widespread.

He goes so far as to contemplate the question of whether a wise hereditary monarchy might sometimes provide a freer system of governance. The huge problem of how a monarchy could be kept on a wise path, however, is not explored. Granted that contemporary democracies show many institutional and philosophical weaknesses, it seems obvious to me that historical monarchies showed a grim tendency to sink into tyranny. But it’s also true that monarchy was a dominant form of government for much of human history, and speculative fiction has repeatedly imagined its return. See, for example, Niven and Pournelle’s classic The Mote in God’s Eye.

As an aside, it is worth noting that the authors of The Federalist Papers tended not to use the word “democracy” to describe the form of representative government they were endorsing. They tended to see the word as having negative connotations of the dangers of mob rule. But over time connotations often shift, and de Tocqueville’s Nineteenth Century study Democracy in America is devoted to explaining how well democracy worked out in the U.S.

While our author is critical of trends in American democracy, there is another country whose democratic trends he finds even scarier. His fictional Russian president declares: “I decided to go for the presidency instead of just a seat in the Duma because my supporters told me that I was extremely popular because of my corruption.”

Author John Christmas (from his website)

The story line veers around the United States and around the world, and while the descriptions are not lengthy, they were very particular, giving the sense that the author had been to most of these places himself and taken note of their distinctive features.

While a number of the characters exhibit interesting personal outlooks and intriguing value conflicts, the pace of the story necessarily keeps us from getting into a great deal of psychological depth. This is not a book to take up if you insist on multidimensional character studies, or if literal believability is high on your list of literary virtues.

It’s more of a high-speed trip through a Looking-Glass dystopia, with the illogical villains showing off thinking processes reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s Alice stories. Fortunately, the heroes demonstrate the common sense logic which Alice herself displays, and you have the sense, from the beginning, that the heroes will emerge triumphant.

John Enright is the author of More Fire and Other Poems and the novel Unholy Quest. He lives in Chicago with his wife, Marsha Familaro Enright, and works as a computer consultant. His regularly-updated blog is titled “Rhyme of the Day.”

I AM JOHN GALT: BUY THE BOOK!

Posted on July 18, 2011 by TeamAtlas

BY STEPHEN BROWNE

The new I Am John Galt is a rare and well-written book, shining a spotlight on the many ways in which Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged explains not only today’s headlines, but also the people behind those headlines.

I accepted a review copy of I Am John Galt, by Donald Luskin and Andrew Greta, with some trepidation. I was recommended to the publisher by a friend, and agreed to read and review the book on the explicit understanding they’d have my honest opinion — i.e., that if I thought it stank, I’d pan it. This is the kind of thing that can strain friendships.

I’m happy to say, my misgivings were unfounded. This is a good, readable, and vitally important book.

I was afraid the book would be meaningless to anyone who had not read Atlas Shrugged and was steeped in Objectivist literature. No such thing. One does not have to have read the novel, though I’d bet money a lot of people who read I Am John Galt will be motivated to read Atlas Shrugged.

This is not a book for archetypical heroes of fiction, titans of industry, or giants of philosophy. This is a book for you and me: People who produce, rather than steal, their living. And the book explains how this is our fight, too.

But this is no abstract, unreadable philosophical or economic tract. The authors, to put it bluntly, kick ass and take names. They take issues you’d expect to be as dull as ditchwater, make them vitally interesting, and put faces on them.

Cui bono? Who became wealthy beyond dreams of avarice from policies that have all but wrecked the economy of the richest nation on earth?

Meet Angelo Mozillo, who spent billions of our money to inflate the subprime mortgage housing bubble. (“Subprime” is an economic term that means “probably can’t pay it back.”) And meet the politicians who benefited from his largess in extending sweetheart real estate loans. They’re in here, names and all.

Meet Barney Frank, the politician and serial liar, corrupt to the core, who wields the power of a commissar over an economy he neither understands nor gives a damn about, so long as he can satisfy his basest appetites.

Meet economist, New York Times columnist, and toady to would-be tyrants Paul Krugman, who has been wrong in every single significant prediction he has ever made, but whose reputation as an economic pundit somehow remains undiminished.

And meet Alan Greenspan, the economist who was actually a friend and associate of Rand’s for many years, who at a crucial time inexplicably turned his back on his own principles and better judgment when he could have been a voice of opposition people might have heeded.

And how did incompetent nebbishes like Frank and Mozillo get the power to destroy wealth on a scale unmatched by any barbarian invasion of civilization?

The astounding revelation in the book is, largely because they wanted it. Men who can produce wealth — do. It is through the sheer indifference of the producers to political power that tends to cause it to fall into the hands of those whose only talent is networking with the like-minded. You’ll see this in the parable of Microsoft and the Lobbyists.

On the subject of Ayn Rand herself, Luskin and Greta are concerned with her ideas, and her almost-prescient picture of a collapsing civilization.

So who stands against them? Who’s on our side, in a conflict that increasingly looks like the beginnings of a revolution?

Meet Steve Jobs, who helped invent the modern world, from the sheer joy of creating technological marvels that were fun toys. And find out what they did to him.

Meet Bill Gates, who more than any other man made the personal computer into something more than “the world’s most expensive etch-a-sketch.” And find out what they did to him.

Meet John Allison, the banker who made Objectivist principles into rules for mind-boggling corporate success. A man of integrity who built one of America’s strongest banks, and actually attracted more business by making it the bank’s policy to extend no loans whatsoever for financing private property seized by eminent domain. And find out what they did to him.

Meet Milton Friedman, the brilliant economist who cogently explained how the principles of economic freedom translate into the greatest good for all — and, yes, how Ayn Rand dismissed this as “collectivist propaganda.”

My initial misgivings about I Am John Galt resulted from the fact that it compares characters and events from a novel with their counterparts from the real world. I feared it would land too close to what I call “the great book fallacy” — the notion that, at a critical moment of history, a single book comes along that rallies a vast inchoate resistance to tyranny around a central set of ideas. Tom Paine’s Common Sense or Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin are often given as examples.

A close examination of history shows that, in each of these cases, there was a long period of discussion in the marketplace of ideas before the issue crystallized around a brilliant summation. Historian of the American Revolution Bernard Bailyn showed the issues that the revolution was fought over had been disseminated and discussed in hundreds of now-obscure pamphlets that circulated on both sides of the Atlantic for fifty years before Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence.

Some have long hoped Atlas Shrugged would be one of those world-changing books, if only enough people could be persuaded to read it, or see a movie made from it. But after fifty years and millions of copies it’s evident something more is needed — including more books like I Am John Galt that help bridge the gap from fictional archetypes to real-world examples. They show Rand had actual, living people in mind when she created characters like Wesley Mouch and Robbert Stadler — perhaps even people she’d seen in Soviet Russia.

And now we’ve learned to our shock and horror that they aren’t caricatures, but living breathing men and women. And they have power over us, just as she tried to warn us, almost in vain.

What this book does is actualize the principles in the novel, pins them down and shows how they relate to what is going on all around us.

On the subject of Ayn Rand herself, Luskin and Greta are concerned with her ideas, and her almost-prescient picture of a collapsing civilization. They neither ignore nor dwell upon her faults as a human being, because they just aren’t relevant in the context of a discussion of her ideas. Likewise the schisms among her followers are not dealt with because they simply have no relevance to the discussion at hand.

I Am John Galt is readable, and this is the first criterion for a book written to take on the entrenched power supported by media whores endlessly repeating what “everybody knows.” There are graphs and sets of numbers, but they’re presented in a way that is easy to understand and does not get in the way of the narrative. This is, by itself, an impressive accomplishment — and I speak as a journalist who specializes in explaining policy, financing, and engineering infrastructure issues for general audiences.

So is it going to preach only to the choir? I have to step back and think carefully about this, because I am familiar with Ayn Rand’s writings, and have been since I was a teenager.

In the half-century since its publication, Atlas Shrugged has never been out of print, with sales each year jumping from the tens of thousands yearly, to the hundreds of thousands in the 1980s and ’90s. All told, with pass-around readership, that’s tens of millions of people who’ve been exposed to the book and the ideas therein.

However, one can’t help but notice there aren’t tens of millions of Objectivists or even libertarians around. Ayn Rand’s effect on the culture is undeniable; but if even half the people who’ve read Atlas were converted to the philosophy therein, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

That’s where this book, and others like it, come in. What this book does is actualize the principles in the novel, pins them down and shows how they relate to what is going on all around us.

As I read the book, each time I thought “Yes but…” my objection was answered within a page or two. Eventually I realized that what these two men have done is take the organizing tools defined by leftist Saul Alinsky and use them to advance a message of Capitalism and Freedom — the title of Milton Friedman’s work for laymen.

And it’s about time, too!

The book is available for immediate purchase, in traditional as well as Kindle editions, from Amazon.com.

Stephen W. Browne is a writer, editor, and teacher of martial arts and English as a second language. He is also the founder of the Liberty English Camps, held annually in Eastern Europe, which brings together students from all over Eastern Europe for intensive English study using texts important to the history of political liberty and free markets. In 1997 he was elected an Honorary Member of the Yugoslav Movement for the Protection of Human Rights for his work supporting dissidents during the Milosevic regime. His regularly-updated blog is at StephenWBrowne.com.

BOOK RECOMMENDATION: THE LIEUTENANT

Posted on April 27, 2011 by TeamAtlas

BY KURT KEEFNER

How often do you find literary fiction portraying a principled and intellectually gifted “geek” with respect and even admiration? Kate Grenville’s new novel The Lieutenant does just this — with enjoyable results.

Ayn Rand was right. There’s a type of person who is an Atlas upon whom the world rests. This sort of person is usually ignored or made fun of. In high school he is likely to get stuffed in his locker by the jocks. And yet our “new economy” is carried on his skinny shoulders.

I am referring, of course, to the math/logic/science geek. Now I don’t like terms such as “geek,” “dork,” and “nerd,” and I hope you don’t either, but we all must admit that we know exactly who I mean when I use the word.

We know that I mean Bill Gates and Stephen Hawking and a lot of other programmers, engineers and physicists. These guys — and they are usually guys — are talented, ingenuous, naïve, playful and usually manage not to become resentful of less intellectual people despite the way they have been treated by them.

Such characters are fairly common in fiction genres such as sci-fi and mysteries — Sherlock Holmes comes to mind — but I haven’t seen him show up much in literary fiction. This is probably due in part to literary fiction being written mostly by verbal, rather than mathematical, people.

This is why it is all the more extraordinary to see this type as the hero of a recent literary novel, The Lieutenant, by Kate Grenville. The title character is Daniel Rooke, a lieutenant in the British Royal Marines in the Eighteenth Century. We follow his life, with one long gap, from childhood to death.

As a seven-year old, we see Daniel discover prime numbers and seek a pattern in them. This is noticed by his teacher and he gets sent off to the junior naval academy, where he is trained as a navigator and an astronomer. The two went hand-in-hand since, in those days, ships were steered by the stars.

He is abused by the other boys because of his middle-class background and, presumably, because he is shy and intellectual. He trains himself to make eye-contact and carry on with his peers, but he is more comfortable on his own. In a sort of Newtonian metaphor, he comes to see languages — at which he is also good — and the cosmos as types of “machines.”

Daniel definitely grows over the course of the story and that growth is tied to the plot and the theme, which is reason and openness versus conformity and prejudice.

When he is grown, Daniel is made a lieutenant and is sent on the original prisoner-transport colonization of Sydney, Australia. Discipline is strict, not only for the prisoners, but for the officers. Once in his career already he has seen an officer hanged for merely discussing the possibility of disobeying an order.

Daniel is the expedition’s astronomer, and he is allowed to set up a small observatory with living quarters up on a cliff. Here he meets an aboriginal family and establishes a friendship with their ten-year-old daughter.

It is vitally important to the survival of the colony that the British learn to communicate with the aborigines, lest they starve from not knowing how to find food in a strange land. Daniel takes it upon himself to learn the aboriginal language from the sociable girl.

Daniel doesn’t, however, see her or the other aborigines as most of the British do — as little more than animals. He sees their humanity. The girl reminds him of his sister, the only person in the world he can be himself with.

This difference between himself and the British commanders will bring him to a terrible, possibly life-or-death, disagreement with his superiors, and how he handles it forms the climax of the novel.

I won’t lie and say this is a great novel. It’s quite good, but it is not driven enough by action and conflict. The climactic clash is worthy, but could have been given more weight and drama.

It is eerie how much Daniel echoes Rand’s description of the reason-versus-people dichotomy from her essay “The Comprachicos”

I won’t lie and say this is a great novel. It’s quite good, but it is not driven enough by action and conflict. The climactic clash is worthy, but could have been given more weight and drama.

The real joy of the novel, however, is the character of Daniel Rooke. It is eerie how much he echoes Rand’s description of the reason-versus-people dichotomy from her essay “The Comprachicos” in The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, and it is very gratifying to see this type of person treated with respect and sympathy, and without an ounce of condescension.

Daniel definitely grows over the course of the story and that growth is tied to the plot and the theme, which is reason and openness versus conformity and prejudice. This would be a good novel for Objectivists and for math gods.

Kurt Keefner is a writer and teacher who has been published in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies and Philosophy Now magazine. He is currently working on a book about mind-body wholism. He lives near Washington, D.C., with his wife, author Stephanie Allen.

A SALUTE TO THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE

Posted on March 16, 2011 by TeamAtlas

BY JUDD WEISS

Some of us weren’t just skeptical about the new Atlas Shrugged movie; we wanted it stopped. There’s no way a rushed, small-budget, independent production could do justice to Ayn Rand’s novel. Or could it?

A few weeks ago, at a private screening for Atlas Shrugged Part 1, I took my seat, closed my eyes, dropped my head, and for the first time in my life, I said a prayer. “Please don’t be cheese ball. Please don’t be cheese ball. Please don’t be cheese ball.”

A vision flashed in my mind of John Travolta, on the cover of a Battlefield Earth poster. Petrified, my fingers hardened into a grip around my arm rests. “No! Please don’t be cheese ball. Please don’t be cheese ball….”

No doubt, the excitement in the room was mixed with fear. The producers of this film had the balls to make a motion picture out of one of the most thought provoking and controversial novels of all time. We know about the Library of Congress reader’s poll ranking Atlas Shrugged as the second most influential book of all time next to the Bible, and other prominent reader polls ranking it as the best novel ever written — over one thousand pages packed with action, philosophy, adventure, politics, romance, mystery, and a whole lot of attitude.

Ayn Rand nailed these 1300 pages on the door of the world’s churches and state capital buildings, sparking what history might record as the beginning of the next Renaissance.

Back in the 1500s, Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses on the door of a prominent Catholic church, sparking The Reformation. Ayn Rand nailed these 1300 pages on the door of the world’s churches and state capital buildings, sparking what history might record as the beginning of the next Renaissance, the next cultural movement to bring back a focus on reality and reason and freedom and productivity.

The novel’s title refers to the Greek god Atlas, of course, who strains to hold the weight of the world on his shoulders. The load gets heavier and he struggles through blood and sweat to keep the world up. Until he changes his mind, shrugs, and drops the world. Let it fall. Let the world burn. Let all the ungrateful leeches and apes have it to themselves and enjoy it. Atlas is done.

The parallels to what is happening today are extraordinary. The achievers and producers are routinely blamed for the problems of the world. People have voted into office politicians intent on further regulating and controlling the producers in our country. More and more people are becoming “the needy” — and more mouths are opening. Amidst an economic crisis, the popular political solution is to demonize, and then to chain, the hands that feed us.

We can imagine what would happen to our quality of life if all the leaders of the vilified oil companies, pharmaceuticals, ISPs, and Zuckerberg, suddenly said “Screw you all — I’m out.”

Ayn Rand took a bold stand in support of those who produce and create. By taking this stand so firmly, she became one of the most widely revered and hated public figures of the last 100 years.

Everyone in the screening room with me knew the power of this book. And now, they’ve filmed this historical document. Actors and camera men and movie sets are going to bring it to life.

Terror strikes you harder when you know the circumstances surrounding its creation. For five decades, people have been struggling to make the movie. Over the years, many famous stars were attached to a wasteland of terrible scripts. Angelina Jolie made waves for being cast in the lead role a few years ago, but then she got pregnant, or something like that, and that production attempt died a bitter death.

The newest option on the film rights to Atlas Shrugged were set to expire in June of last year, 2010. In April, John Aglialoro, the producer who held the option on the film rights, begged for the rights to be extended, but was denied.

This meant he had two months to start production — or lose the millions he already invested in the project over the years. That meant two months to get a new script together, get the financing together, get the available cast together, choose a director, find film locations, and all that other stuff, while attempting to faithfully and successfully adapt a deep, complex, legendary novel for the screen.

Fans were pissed! And I was one of them. You know, I always push people to take on tough challenges, not to give up when things get more difficult. But even I can acknowledge reality.

Not only is this impossible, but the producers are about to ruin one of the most important novels of all time. This book, profound and packed with so much insight and story, is about to get discredited and humiliated before the public. I didn’t believe.

I wanted this movie stopped. Word on the streets was this was going to be a train wreck.

In fact, along with many fans, I wanted this movie stopped. Word on the streets was this was going to be a train wreck. We all want to see this film made, but let’s take our time and do it right.

If I could have spoken with the producer, I would have said, “John, don’t do this. I know you don’t want to lose your money, but please don’t drag this classic down with you. Please let go and give up on this. It’s too important. You are about to cause a lot of damage and harm. There is no way for you to pull this off as a rush job.”

I was wrong.

Now, does this movie carry the same power as the novel? No man, there’s no way. A movie is just a visual representation — a graphic novel, if you will. Pictures and dialogue truly can not carry the weight of all that writing, but can only allude to it. And that’s the point. It seems obvious that this movie was never meant to replace the book, but rather to serve as a phenomenal advertisement for it.

The highlight of the film is its script, co-written by Aglialoro and Brian O’Toole.

The highlight of the film is its script, co-written by Aglialoro and Brian O’Toole. Witty and full of attitude, it successfully and faithfully adapts the novel to the screen. Part of what keeps this film enjoyable throughout is that you can hear Ayn Rand’s attitude shine through in the dialogue. The theme was well preserved: This is a war between creators and blood suckers.

Let’s get a few things out of the way. This was made for $10 Million. That’s a lot of money, but tiny, tiny for movie production. You’re not going to see Avatar production quality.

Directed by a TV director and starring a cast of TV actors, this is actually TV movie production quality, but very good TV movie quality. We have all seen excellent TV programs that we’ve enjoyed, so this is not meant as an aspersion. The filmmakers did an incredible job squeezing production value out of a small budget.

The production quality was saved by excellent cinematography. The man behind the camera was obviously catching up on his Dr. Zhivago, going for epic sweeping landscape shots that mark legendary director David Lean’s claim to excellence.

The worst acting was unfortunately from John Galt’s few scenes.

The acting was OK. They won’t win any Oscars, but they pulled it off. The worst acting was unfortunately from John Galt’s few scenes. He’s not even supposed to appear until the third part of the novel. I don’t have a problem with briefly introducing him in part one; it’s just that it wasn’t done so well. Fortunately he always appears in the dark and you could never really see him, so any better actor can easily take over that part in the future sequels.

By far my favorite actor was Grant Bowler. Perfectly cast as Henry Rearden, he truly exemplifies the strong, accomplished businessman bewildered as he’s surrounded by all the ungrateful bloodsuckers supported by him. Perhaps the best cast role was Rebecca Wisocky as Hank’s wife, Lillian Rearden. She did a fantastic job of playing a cold bitch, putting genuine terror deep into the heart of any man who’s not yet married. Well, at least she accomplished that for me. Seriously, check out that leaked scene of Rearden giving his wife a gift and tell me if you honestly still feel like ever getting married.

The film was about 100 minutes. It should have been a little longer. Even though this film represents only the first third of the book, there is still too much material to cover, even after editing down the story, and it caused the pacing to become very fast. Some scenes don’t have a chance to set in and build the gravity of the situation.

The truth is, the film is intelligent, it is engaging, it is faithful, and it is entertaining.

Perhaps this is where art meets reality. Three hours would have allowed for a lot less compromise, but that much film time would have required a bigger budget and more production time, and surely would restrict the distribution considerably, as theaters would be unable to rent as many seats. Still, it could have used another 20 minutes of film time.

So, the movie is not perfect. Screw it, I don’t care. Hardcore fans like us could find a million ways to pick apart the film and complain over details; but the truth is, the film is intelligent, it is engaging, it is faithful, and it is entertaining.

The movie is excellent as it stands, and the fact that John Aglialoro pulled this off and achieved this feat — well, that’s a story worthy of being among the pages of the novel itself. And it also opens up some ideas for fun exercise challenges to give the producer next time for the sequel. Apparently some of us work better under extreme pressure. Ok dude, you’ve got only one month this time, make it better. Go!

I kid.

John Aglialoro, my deepest apologies for my previous misgivings. I salute you, sir.

Judd Weiss lives in Los Angeles and blogs at HustleBear.com.

WHERE THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE FALLS SHORT

Posted on March 9, 2011 by TeamAtlas

BY KATHERYN SCHWALB

The new film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged offers first-rate set design, editing, music, wardrobe, and camerawork. Overall it was much stronger than expected. Why, then, are some viewers left unfulfilled?

I had the privilege of watching the Atlas Shrugged Part 1 preview screening on February 24th in Culver City, California. A few minutes into the movie, a moment came when I found myself letting go of the deep breath I had been unknowingly holding in my chest. I eased back in my seat, relieved of my long-held worry that this low budget, quickly produced film might be amateurish or even embarrassing.

On the contrary, by the time the end credits rolled, I was impressed with the consistently high production values achieved on such a low budget. The set design, editing, music, wardrobe, and camerawork were all first rate. Even the special effects scenes revealed no evidence of cutting corners. Make no mistake, it’s one handsome film.

And yet, considered as the screen adaptation of Ayn Rand’s masterwork, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 fails in a most critical area. When the house lights came up, following the 7 p.m. screening I attended, the audience was remarkably subdued, especially considering that most were likely Rand supporters.

After a brief smattering of restrained applause, I noticed a few people glancing around with bewildered expressions and most saying nothing. We filed out quietly. Once outside, I spoke with a few people who were quite pleased with the film. But as I spoke with others, similar themes emerged: “I don’t know what to think.” “I have mixed feelings.” “I can’t put my finger on it.” “I’m not excited but I can’t explain why.”

Was it the casting? Not really. All the actors looked and sounded appropriate for their roles and gave adequate-to-very-good performances.

For my taste, Taylor Schilling projects a persona that is too soft and vulnerable for the character of Dagny. I found it hard to really believe her character ran a transcontinental railroad. And yes, a couple of A-list actors in key roles might have bumped up the overall experience a notch or two; but the budget didn’t allow for that, and this cast did a very creditable job.

Was it the direction? For the most part, no. The movie did alternate between crisp, fast-moving “action” scenes and talky expositional scenes that sometimes bogged down. I wondered, as Hank and Lillian’s anniversary party dragged on, why a few minutes of that time hadn’t been allocated to other material from the novel.

This cast did a very creditable job.

In terms of creativity, the overall direction was naturalistic and straightforward, matching the level of a well-made TV movie. Budget constraints probably left little time for inspired or risky stylistic treatment of the material, much less the larger-than-life romantic approach than Ayn Rand would no doubt have preferred.

Was the dialogue the film’s undoing? Not exactly. Although it was naturalistic and was updated to present day phrasing — I don’t remember any character in the novel saying they were “pissed off” — for the most part it was remarkably Randian in tone and style. Even in scenes not found in the novel, the dialogue stayed true to what one would expect in the Rand universe.

Reflecting the first third of the novel, the film understandably devoted considerable screen time to exposition and to faithfully introducing major and minor characters — perhaps too much exposition and too many characters. There was little time left for even truncated versions of Rand’s hallmark speeches.

We are left with protagonists who seem to hold Randian views but we never hear why! Particularly galling for me was that Francisco’s speech on money is virtually non-existent. Purists might howl at the notion, but streamlining story elements and combining a few of the minor characters would have left more time for Rand’s voice.

So where then does the movie really fall short? Fundamentally, the problem is that a major strength of the novel did not survive the translation to the medium of film.

We are given so few opportunities to get inside the heads of the characters and empathize with what they are feeling.

The movie version of Atlas Shrugged feels flat because we are given so few opportunities to get inside the heads of the characters and empathize with what they are feeling.

Rand’s novel — as with most well-written novels — takes the reader inside the mind of each character. We can read how Dagny agonizes over the disappearance of the productive people of the world. We can revel in the pride Hank feels about his new metal.

We can see the envy and denial at work inside the minds of looters and bureaucrats. Through the thoughts of Hank and Dagny, we get a visceral sense of their growing attraction to one other.

It is far more difficult to convey a character’s thoughts in a movie. It requires an incredibly specialized skillset. Ideally, the screenwriter (and director) create cinematic “cues” that allow the audience to share the feelings of the characters. This is often newly invented dialogue that didn’t exist in the novel or new character “business” that gives the viewer a hint of the character’s emotional state.

In Atlas Shrugged Part 1 the script succeeds at faithfully adapting the plot of the novel but we have little opportunity for true empathy with the characters and so our emotional responses stay muted. We, the audience, remain remote observers as the story unfolds.

We see this clearly in the absence of any “sizzle” to Dagny and Hank’s romantic relationship. And when Dagny rides the John Galt Line for the first time, we see that she looks triumphant; but we, the audience, don’t share that feeling with her.

The final scene of the film centered on Dagny’s horrified reaction to a shocking and devastating event. The sudden intensity of her emotions seemed unexpected from our detached perspective. As the final shot fades out, we don’t really care.

While Atlas Shrugged Part 1 successfully adapts the storyline of Ayn Rand’s novel, it fails to capture the inner motivation of her characters and therefore the passion of Rand’s ideas. Ironically, some devotees of the novel may still thoroughly enjoy the film, already being intimately familiar with the state of mind of the characters. The uninitiated moviegoer, though, may very well wonder what the Rand hoopla is all about.

Katheryn Schwalb is a filmmaker, television producer, and line producer. She has extensive mainstream, studio, and agency production credits in commercials, indie film, and low budget films, as well as music videos. She has been a film festival programmer and festival director for over 8 years.

A ROMAN COPY OF A GREEK ORIGINAL

Posted on March 8, 2011 by TeamAtlas

BY SHRIKANT RANGNEKAR

For successful transmission into the broader culture, great artwork must be copied into different mediums, by different artists with different visions and different capabilities. In the new Atlas Shrugged movie, this process is well at work.

I watched the preview screening of Atlas Shrugged Part 1 in New York City last week, and here is my take on it.

This is a sincere attempt to portray Atlas Shrugged. The production team genuinely liked and respected Atlas Shrugged and it appears they tried to portray it to the best of their ability within the constraints they had.

Making a movie is a large-scale endeavor, and working for nearly two decades to bring the movie to fruition required considerable tenacity, resourcefulness, and purposefulness. I must thank especially John Aglialoro, the producer who spearheaded the project, for making that happen.

My overall impression of the movie can best be described by an analogy. A few years ago, I began studying the cuture of Ancient Greece. I did so by immersion into Greek literature, visual arts, history, philosophy, science, descriptions of daily life and customs, learning rudiments of Ancient Greek language, and visiting Greece.

I found the Ancient Greek culture to be so dramatically and radically different from the culture around us that most modern attempts to portray the culture captured only the outward trappings while missing the core view of man that animates the culture.

Similarly, this movie does a good job of capturing the political, economic, and social aspects of Atlas Shrugged while missing the deeper moral, psychological, epistemological, and metaphysical aspects of the novel.

Capturing the political, economic, and social aspects of Atlas Shrugged is an achievement itself.

As someone who deeply loves Atlas Shrugged, and knows that the heart of Ayn Rand’s achievement is metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, and moral, I was left with a sense of emptiness — of seeing a work of art that looks like Atlas Shrugged on the surface, but with something critical missing.

Capturing the political, economic, and social aspects of the novel is an achievement itself, and I certainly enjoyed seeing that brought to life on the screen. That said, the movie versions of Ayn Rand’s characters were oddly similar to people I see in New York every day. They talked, looked, moved, and related to each other somewhat like most people do today, not in the highly stylized manner of the novel’s characters. I had the odd sensation that I was watching a world halfway between Ayn Rand’s world and my New York today — a hybrid of naturalism and romanticism.

The production quality is high and the movie is well-executed visually.

The clearest and most damaging way in which this was executed was by unnecessary replacement of Ayn Rand’s dialog by those of the movie’s writers. My guess is that having the characters talk more like most people today was an attempt to make the characters more “believable.”

Though I know next to nothing about movie making, I have one sure-fire piece of advice that could make Atlas Shrugged Part 2 significantly better while reducing production costs: Please, please use more of Ayn Rand’s lines.

The good portrayal of Hank Rearden and a dramatic and innovative use of “Who is John Galt?” lines were the highlights of the movie for me. The production quality is high and the movie is well-executed visually. I again thank the production team for making this movie and I encourage my friends to see it. It is not an experience you want to miss.

Let me expand on the analogy to modern portrayals of Ancient Greek culture. The central difficulty in modern portrayals of Ancient Greece lies in what I will call the “cultural distance” between the modern view of man and the Ancient Greek view of man.

The cultural distance between Ayn Rand’s view of man and the modern view of man is equally large. Some of us who have spent years internalizing and making operational in ourselves Ayn Rand’s metaphysical, epistemological, psychological, and moral principles, are aware of this distance, through the sheer effort it has cost us to traverse it.

Making a great movie based on a great book is not the mere translation, but the creation, of an entirely new artistic integration.

Traversing that cultural distance in one’s own person, however, is easier than making a piece of art that objectively enables others see the new vision of man in a concretized form across that massive cultural chasm. That is precisely Ayn Rand’s achievement in creating Atlas Shrugged. Even with her phenomenal artistic skill, it took her over 1000 pages and over a decade of unremitting labor to make her vision real.

Because a movie is a distinct art medium with its own unique constraints, strengths, and weaknesses, making a great movie based on a great book is not the mere translation, but the creation, of an entirely new artistic integration that matches the original in meaning. It would take an artistic achievement on the order of Ayn Rand’s to make a movie that fully lives up to the novel. All this needs to be kept in mind while judging the movie.

Romans revered Greek sculpture and made a massive number of copies of it, but they never could capture the deeper meaning — the dynamic, living soul of the Greek sculpture.

We need both the Greek ideal and the Roman transmission network.

In focusing on the political, economic, and social aspects of the novel as opposed to its deeper spiritual aspects; in using a more colloquial dialog and characterizations to replace Ayn Rand’s highly stylized one; and by using the extremely efficient mechanism of the movie medium itself — the Atlas Shrugged movie does to the novel what Romans did to Greek art. The movie is a Roman copy of a Greek original.

While the Greek sculpture is far superior in esthetic value, Roman sculpture through its sheer quantity and superlative transmission ability has served a critical cultural value as the transmission mechanism for the Greek ideal. Just as the Renaissance sculptors discovered Greek art largely through their Roman copies, this movie trilogy will help a wider audience discover Atlas Shrugged.

Both Greece and Rome are the foundations of our civilization. We need both the Greek ideal and the Roman transmission network. While it would be wrong to blame the Roman transmission network for not having the Greek delicacy, it would also be wrong to let ourselves forget the full grandeur of the Greek ideal, due to the ubiquity of Roman copies.

With this in mind, I raise a toast to both — to Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and to Atlas Shrugged the movie — each for what they are.

Shrikant Rangnekar lives in New York City. This article originally appeared on his blog, where he is still updating the original post in response to reader feedback.

ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE: FAITHFUL, OUTSTANDING

Posted on March 7, 2011 by TeamAtlas

BY HANS GREGORY SCHANTZ

This week the Atlasphere will publish a series of reviews exploring the new Atlas Shrugged movie. In this, our first review, physicist Hans Schantz looks closely at what changed from the novel and what remains intact.

The new film adaptation of the first part of Atlas Shrugged stays remarkably close to the source material and, by virtue of this fact, yields an outstanding movie. Despite a modest budget and a rushed production timeline, the movie works, racing with breathtaking speed through the first third of Ayn Rand’s classic novel.

The movie’s most significant deviation from the novel occurs in the opening scenes. A montage of cable news shots describe the Dow falling to 4000, the Mideast having “imploded,” gasoline at $37.50/gallon, air and automotive travel having collapsed, and railroads having re-emerged as the most important form of long distance transportation — not only for cargo but also for passengers.

This clever plot device enabled the filmmakers to preserve Rand’s 1950s-era economy of rail and steel, for a faithful adherence to the plot of the original novel, while also allowing the story to be set in the near future, complete with plasma screens, computers, and cell phones.

The opening scenes make clear that the continued survival of the nation’s economy hinges upon Taggart Transcontinental’s successful operation. A cable TV feed presents a three-way interview with oil entrepreneur Ellis Wyatt, James Taggart, and Wesley Mouch. In the midst of an economic apocalypse, oil magnate Wyatt has birthed an industrial renaissance in Colorado and is furious with Taggart’s negligent service. The replies from Taggart and Mouch establish their characters, as well as their conflict with Wyatt.

As each striker vanishes, the color fades to black and white, and titles indicate their name, position, and the date they vanished. Subtle, it isn’t.

Another significant deviation arises in the treatment of the strike, as key leaders in industry, finance, and the arts are mysteriously vanishing. A major hook in the early part of the novel is the developing realization that a “destroyer” of some sort is at loose, somehow removing these elite figures from society. There’s no such mystery in the movie: We see a shadowy John Galt recruiting strikers with a line or two of persuasion.

The trailer presents Galt’s encounter with Midas Mulligan from the opening minutes of the movie, and there are similar encounters throughout the film. As each striker vanishes, the color fades to black and white, and titles indicate their name, position, and the date they vanished. Subtle, it isn’t.

Also in the opening moments, a locomotive races through the night toward disaster, behind a title slide informing us that the year is 2016. My initial reaction was negative: How dare the producers set a specific date on Rand’s timeless story? Upon further reflection, however — given the use of dates in newspapers and particularly in the dramatic washes to black and white of each striker as they vanish — I do believe this was justified.

To understand the movie, one must first acknowledge that a movie is not a novel. Rand might present pages of elegant, intricate verbal ripostes and parries between her characters, gradually building up dramatic tensions to a stunning climax. Instead, the movie has a couple of punches followed by a knockout blow. Exchanges between characters are dramatically simplified, streamlined, and essentialized.

The complexity of the plot remains almost overwhelming, by virtue of its close adherence to the novel.

This comic-book-level dialogue may disappoint some fans, but may have been inescapable, in order to compress the source material and meet the time constraints of the movie format. Paradoxically, despite the tremendous simplifications to the narrative, the complexity of the plot remains almost overwhelming, by virtue of its close adherence to the novel.

The relentless compression of a third of Rand’s novel into a 106-minute production meant ruthless omission of minor subplots. Richard Halley and his music are gone. The mystery of the dollar-sign cigarettes reduces to a passing shot of Hugh Akston lighting one. The rich background of Dagny, James, and Francisco, and their childhoods together, is entirely absent. A flashback scene of Dagny and Francisco was cut from the final production.

The dialogue and acting were remarkably solid, even brilliant.

Many characters — Dan Conway, Ragnar Danneskjold, Balph Eubank, Bertram Scudder, Lawrence Hammond, and Ted Nielsen — are only mentioned in passing.

The character of Cherryl Brooks was cast, but is missing from this part of the movie; screenwriter Brian O’Toole says he “has great plans” to introduce her in part two. Owen Kellog and Herbert Mowen have brief appearances, but the scene in which Kellog appears as a laborer and discusses the exodus to Colorado with Mowen was cut.

The movie’s most serious flaw is that it feels too rushed. An additional ten or fifteen minutes would have helped make clear the nature of the villainy, and driven home the way in which Dagny’s heroic achievement — bringing the John Galt Line to life — only enabled the looters to complete their destruction of Ellis Wyatt and his Colorado industrial renaissance.

This flaw could be remedied in the second part of the trilogy, however, and meantime we can hope for an extended “director’s cut” version on the DVD.

Despite the film’s rushed feel, the dialogue and acting were remarkably solid, even brilliant, at times. Taylor Schilling’s cold and unemotional Dagny Taggart stares down her arrogant brother James (ably played by Matthew Marsden) to save their family’s railroad, yet relaxes with, warms to, and ultimately allows herself to be seduced by, Grant Bowler’s Hank Rearden.

The heart of the movie for me was Grant Bowler’s flinty portrayal of steel tycoon Hank Rearden. I’ve never understood the criticism of Ayn Rand’s characters as two-dimensional. Rearden is a brilliant and dedicated industrialist who fails to apply the same standards to his personal life. He enables his family’s misbehavior, allowing them to shamelessly mock and undercut him. See, for instance, the released clip above.

Bowler’s Rearden is as eminently heroic as he is tragically flawed. The power of Bowler’s acting is enhanced further by Rebecca Wisocky’s amazing performance as his wife, Lillian. Wisocky’s Lillian is as beautifully elegant as she is viciously vile. Wow!

Many challenging aspects of the plot — including Dagny’s trade of a diamond necklace for Lillian’s Rearden Metal bracelet and Dagny’s growing romance with Rearden — were carried off flawlessly due to the excellent script and strong acting.

Another pillar of the film is Graham Beckel’s Ellis Wyatt. He is an elemental force of nature barreling into Dagny’s office, yet becomes warmly gregarious as he recognizes kindred spirits in Dagny and Hank. Despite having tragically little screen time, Jsu Garcia makes mysterious playboy Francisco D’Anconia come to life. I can’t wait to see more of him in part two. Edi Gathegi’s Eddie Willers and Nikki Klecha’s Gwen Ives also delivered solid support.

While the settings and scenes were visually lush, the rushed production and limited budget did leave a few rough edges. For instance, the Taggart Transcontinental System map was geographically confused, the “Taggart” train was really Union Pacific — though you’d have to be a train buff to spot it — and the Reardens’ and Taggarts’ limos were the same vehicle.

The film’s flaws are due much more to the rushed production than the modest budget.

Similarly, the strong script was marred by poorly vetted, last-minute changes in dialog. Did the audience really need to know that Galt’s motor “employs the Casimir effect to accelerate Helium3 nuclei, creating a magnetic field that couples to atmospheric vacuum, thus extracting static electricity”? Only a John Galt could make sense of that technobabble. On the other hand, creative little flourishes — like Gwen Ives’s innovative filing system, though not in Rand’s novel — helped further character development with economy and skill.

A viewer determined to nitpick the film will find no shortage of material. In fact, I was so concerned with picking out the minor flaws that it seriously detracted from my appreciation the first time around. When I relaxed and watched the movie the second time, I found it much more enjoyable.

The film’s flaws are due much more to the rushed production than the modest budget. I can’t wait to see what the producers will be able to do in part two, with a more relaxed schedule and, hopefully, more generous financing.

Despite the occasional rough edge, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is a great movie, true to Ayn Rand’s classic novel. This exciting, fast paced, and breathtaking romp provides an easy introduction to Ayn Rand’s ideas. Inspired viewers will then be motivated to read the novel, to satisfy their burning desire to learn more.

Hans Schantz is CTO of the Q-Track Corporation, the leader in low-frequency, long-wavelength real-time location systems. Author of The Art and Science of Ultrawideband Antennas (Artech House, 2005), he is also an inventor on over 30 patents. Dr. Schantz blogs at www.aetherczar.com and is @AetherCzar on Twitter. All images are courtesy of The Strike Productions ©2011.

YARON BROOK: CAPITALISM WITHOUT GUILT

Posted on December 29, 2010 by TeamAtlas

BY TARA OVERZAT

Brook has become a leading crusader for Ayn Rand’s ideas, in the media and elsewhere. We joined him at a recent event in Atlanta to see what his speaking events are like in person.

Energetic. Engaging. Funny.

Not words one might imagine using to describe a lecture on a college campus. But Yaron Brook delivered all of this and more at a recent talk at Mercer University’s Atlanta campus.

It is worth mentioning that Dr. Brook is punctual. These days, we are so used to events — whether plays, concerts, or lectures — starting late. (C’mon, when was the last time you were at a rock concert and didn’t hear the crowd cheer for some roadie who appeared on stage to plug in an amp, in hopes that the main act was finally about to start the show?) Without excessive pleasantries, Dr. Brook dove into the topic of the night, “Capitalism Without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom.”

Dr. Brook began by talking about the housing boom and bust. Government incentives for Americans to take on debt to buy a home, with HUD insuring up to ninety percent of mortgages, were setting people up for failure. For every one dollar of equity, there were one thousand dollars of debt. This also contributed to an artificially low interest rate on mortgages. No private entity would lend money to such a losing enterprise, but the government readily supported the housing market and the inappropriate loans people were procuring.

He then pondered why it is that, whenever there is an economic downturn, people are so quick to blame the free market instead of government intervention. He briefly revisited the government snafus that helped to shape the Great Depression and prolong it, including myriad mistakes by the Federal Reserve.

Next he held up Hong Kong — which he characterized as a small rock surrounded by water, with few natural resources — as an example of a free market at work. Why is it that people are flocking there, sometimes even risking their lives to go there? With its tremendous prosperity, he said that it works “because freedom works. Capitalism works. Free markets work.”

Ayn Rand Institute President Yaron Brook

But what about the human face of fiscal success? He cited Bill Gates as an example of someone who had been vilified; but now that he is giving away the millions upon millions he made, he’s a “good guy.”

In fact, Dr. Brook clarified, if Gates gave away everything he owned and moved into a hut on an island, we’d call him a great guy — even if he were nuts.

Holding up his iPhone, Dr. Brook explained to the audience that trade, not sacrifice, is best. Steve Jobs aims to make the best product possible, and owning the smartphone Brook held in his hand is worth more to him than the $200 he paid for it.

For him, and other iPhone users, the cost of the phone was more than worth the price paid for it — that’s why they bought them. The consumer benefits from a product they enjoy, and that makes their lives easier, and the company benefits by making a profit on a good product. Such free trade is always a win-win, he told the crowd; and it is sacrifice, in contrast, that creates a lose-lose situation.

So, what about Bernie Madoff? Madoff, Dr. Brook explained, is not selfish but self-destructive. Selfish people “make their lives the best that they can be,” but Madoff put himself on a path that ruined his life. He postulated that Madoff was probably relieved when he finally got caught, because the scam was over. All of the lies, the deception, the fear of getting caught, had now vanished.

Addressing the subject of global warming and the environment more generally, Dr. Brook opined that, “We change our environment in order to live in it.” People live in skyscrapers, not caves. As animals, people are “pathetic” — we have no claws, sharp teeth, or strength. It is our minds that make our survival possible.

He further explained that the best way to protect, say, the spotted owl, was to allow protections for private property. If a person liked spotted owls and wanted them around, he could contribute to a spotted owl preserve. If people want their rivers clean, private property makes that possible, since it allows you to sue the person polluting your river. In other words, your property is protected by the rule of law and cannot be contaminated by others.

Coming to the close of his talk, Dr. Brook invited questions. A man stood up and humbly asked about books that better explain Objectivism. Dr. Brook’s suggestions included Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness and Tara Smith’s Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. (Tara Smith is the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism at University of Texas at Austin.)

The next audience member questioned Dr. Brook’s claim that a the free market system is what made Hong Kong so affluent and successful, citing instead the more oppressive Singapore as the best example of economic prosperity. I have attended many lectures at campuses in the Southeast, with notables such as Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, Noam Chomsky, and Dennis Kucinich, to name a few. But I have never seen a speaker so graciously allow an audience member to make his point and then return with his answer without a trace of animosity — no anger at being challenged nor signs of being flustered by the question.

This confidence that exists when one is knowledgeable of the facts and open to intellectual discourse reminded me what Objectivism is all about. Dr. Brook acceded that Singapore was in fact a wealthy city-state, but also reminded the audience of the overly-strict social rules that its government enacts, including the much-publicized caning of an American citizen for vandalism in the Nineties. However, the government of Singapore allows their economy to run as a free-market — providing further evidence, Brook observed, that it is in fact free markets that bring prosperity.

If Dr. Brook comes to a university or lecture hall near you, I highly recommend going to see him speak. I left feeling reinvigorated and further confirmed in my own beliefs in the free market and the many virtues of enlightened self-interest.

Tara Overzat is a writer and a graduate student in Clinical Mental Health Counseling in Atlanta, Georgia. She blogs at Shy Extrovert and the American Counseling Association Blog.

TRON’S LEGACY OF MORAL CONTRADICTIONS

Posted on December 23, 2010 by TeamAtlas

BY ANDY GEORGE

The dazzling new Tron Legacy movie extends the original like a richly vivid fractal universe, amplifying every aspect of Tron — including Disney’s tired moral pretensions.

The new Tron Legacy movie updates the original Tron franchise to the more futuristic styles and darker looks that today’s movie going audiences enjoy. The dazzling state-of-the-art production values and computer generated imagery we’ve come to appreciate from a major studio like Disney are carefully woven into an even faster and hipper three-dimensional film tapestry.

An impressive array of contemporary industrial designers advance Tron’s costumes, vehicles, and settings, which are then skillfully balanced with its cleverly crafted new, and yet accurately derivative, story line.

After a brief segue intro from the time of the original Tron, we join Sam Flynn today as the estranged son of Tron creator Kevin Flynn. Sam is now hacking ENCOM, the software giant still exploiting his missing father’s legacy and corporate empire. Apparently as gifted as his Dad was with computer game design, Sam nonetheless languishes in his riverside loft as he schemes of ways to undermine ENCOM.

Alan Bradley, Kevin Flynn’s disgruntled former partner, opts to help Sam and tips him about an anachronistic styled phone page received from the abandoned Flynn’s video game arcade where it all began. Sam breaks into the arcade to discover the long forgotten portal that encoded and transported his Dad into his own video game’s universe. Sam’s bravado also gets him encoded and he finds himself trapped “on the grid” just like his Dad before him.

<<<Youtube Video>>>

The new Tron grid has gotten much vaster, scarier, and more powerful since the original Tron. The improved integration of better industrial design, computer graphics, and current 3D imaging creates an intense video game like reality that’s still very unique and also true to the original. More streamlined and faster by several factors, the original Tron video game thugs and bullies are also back again and ready to arrest Sam on arrival.

Sam is immediately thrust into the games, the same as his Dad was, where he survives victorious thanks to his advanced video game skills. As the plot unfolds, Sam continues to prevail in various scenarios derived from his Dad’s ordeals in the original Tron.

The bearded, robed, Moses-like, and now wiser and older Kevin Flynn

We’re also quickly reminded of certain lingering moral contradictions within the Tron story. Kevin Flynn’s claim that his original Tron video game design ideas were stolen by evil ENCOM executive Ed Dillinger smacked of the typical Hollywood evil capitalist clichés — and this cliché is coming absurdly from Disney, one of the biggest and oldest entertainment corporations of all time.

Trying to be hip and get “in” with the new generation of software hacker countercultures, Disney reveals a gigantic, astounding example of absurd crony capitalist conservative me-to-isms. And since they’re stuck with this absurd plot cliché in order to expand the Tron franchise, they’re forced to exaggerate the contradiction rather than resolve it.

The new Tron’s explicit championing of its own self-fulfilling prophesy of the open source free-for-all business model, now even more prevalent than in old Tron’s, shines a giant CGI 3D spotlight on this inherent contradiction.

Quorra, the isometric algorithmic miraculously and spontaneously grid-generated program

Quorra, the newest Tron character and an isometric algorithmic miracle program created spontaneously by the grid itself, espouses Zen-like selflessness — and practices it too. Her altruistic sacrifice backfires, though, and she’s necessarily resurrected by the bearded, robed, Moses-like, and now wiser and older Kevin Flynn.

All the “heroes” are out to sink the real corporation from within their own virtual dream world, courtesy of that same corporation and its own technologies. Further contradictions abound as multiple characters morph and shape-shift morally to fit all sizes and forms of computer nerd fallacies inside Tron’s infinitely more flexible and relativistic video game universe.

Game grid player

Multiple dualisms and digital mysticism refract in a fractal house of CGI 3D mirrors that seem to extend into infinity. Anti-capitalism and anti-technology have now entered the perfect hypothetical environment from which to attack reality — all thanks, paradoxically, to the massive financial and creative resources of Disney Corporation.

Complex plot reversals and revisionist history only draw more attention to the twisting of the truth. This extreme exaggeration between several moral contradictions in the new Tron actually offers an amazing opportunity to examine Hollywood chasing its own CGI 3D tail on the global 150-million-dollar scale: Any of the soul, humor, or innocence of the original is finally displaced by faith and force.

Greetings, program!

While several scenes — like the awesome extreme-speed spectacle of the light cycle battles — are breathtakingly graphic and visually revolutionary, the irrational and derivative script and plot-twists soon unfold as being equally, if not more, underwhelming than the original Tron.

The impressive orchestration of the multiple layers of live action special effects, computer generated imagery and fantastic-looking costumes and sets soon crush the extremely strained narrative of backtracking and extrapolations.

The new Tron attempts to address some of the more scientific logical contradictions of its own legacy while distracting the audience from, and ignoring, the more important moral contradictions that have always been present in Tron. Such a huge waste of impressive production values is truly tragic at any price.

Light cycle with rider

Last, but by no means least, the new movie’s Daft Punk soundtrack is good and may be better suited for today’s modern audiences — but the original Tron’s Wendy Carlos soundtrack was vastly richer and deeper in scope, range and even innocence.

I’m somewhat biased, since its music is actually why I went to see the original Tron in the first place — at which point I was quite pleasantly surprised by its imaginative CGI work. I had even overlooked its altruistic themes, so distracted was I by the music and visuals. But you can be sure I’ll be paying much closer attention in the real future.

Greetings, program!

Andy George is an independent electronics product development craftsman and technician in New York City. He’s a drummer, a fan of science and science fiction films, and a pioneer of LED fashion technologies. He also participates actively in the NYC Objectivist community. His website is at www.andy-george.com.

Category: Reviews

O. HENRY: A BIRTHDAY TRIBUTE

DEMOCRACY SOCIETY

I AM JOHN GALT: BUY THE BOOK!

BOOK RECOMMENDATION: THE LIEUTENANT

A SALUTE TO THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE

WHERE THE ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE FALLS SHORT

A ROMAN COPY OF A GREEK ORIGINAL

ATLAS SHRUGGED MOVIE: FAITHFUL, OUTSTANDING

YARON BROOK: CAPITALISM WITHOUT GUILT

TRON’S LEGACY OF MORAL CONTRADICTIONS

Contact Details

Pay with Paypal

Login

Register