"and orgies of theories as to why [oh why] we should spend like a hollywood bimbo with the income of a hobo"
Keynes said in the end we are all dead, and in another greatly read work it was once said to live for today - tomorrow is not promised.
"so one only hopes that the cries of depression, recession and any other imaginable demon will befall upon us so as to make possible the old prime directive to "buy low"
How so randian of you, to wish for and hope suffering on others to deal with your own inability of understanding your world.
imdb.com
This film depicts what I suspect Ayn Rand was really like in her personal life: bitter, angry, lacking in self-confidence and intensely concerned what people thought of her. This, of course, totally goes against what her philosophy and novels purport: objectivism.
But, since that philosophy is so anti-people, it is easy to understand why not even the person who formulated this outlandish theory -- nor her most ardent follower, Nathanial -- would be able to live up to it.
Near the end, Nathanial's wife, Barbara, contradicts Ayn by saying something like, "compassion: it's what humans do" to Ms. Rand. This, for me, neatly sums up what Ayn Rand's life was about: the antithesis of compassion.
Though the film itself is nothing spectacular in its acting, script, effects or direction, the message it puts forward is important. The message is that if a philosophy so much goes against what people feel to be correct (as objectivism does), it is quite probably unworkable and undesirable. To me, that was the most important theme in "The Passion of Ayn Rand."
I watched this movie on satellite last night in the arms of a sweet lady whose mind meant little to me as I am sure mine meant little to her and thought of you. We let our bodies do all the thinking as mother nature gifted
More comments for you silly goose:
You see, in Ayn's work, she stresses the ideal in life, that which is held to the highest, noblest, and greatest - the achievements of the mind.
... suppose the most obvious reason for this is because it is an account of the non-fiction work of Barbara Branden. She was a close friend and disciple of Ayn Rand. Her husband, Nathaniel (an egotistical and sex-hungry psychologist), has an affair with Ayn Rand. The film begins to get gray here in that it doesn't fully the develop the reason for Barbara Branden's non-sexuality, which in part fosters Nathaniel's cheating on her. What is odd also and perhaps the glorified self-image of the author, is Barbara's depiction as really the only character that held truest to the Objectivist philosophy. Her love for Nathaniel seems mistaken for great admiration and respect of his intellect. Her lack of any sexual expression appears to substantiate this as she has passion for only the intellect and not the physical. Her singular defiance of Ayn's teaching is displayed with her agreement and subsequent self-immolation in allowing her husband to have an affair.
But good ole mother nature took care of silly beliefs and selfish individuals! Perhaps mother nature predicted fools like ayn who would see our world die from lack of demographic sustainability and made her a slave to her heart and body like so many before her - how rich!
Ayn and Nathaniel, on the other hand, share the same act of uncontrollability in their affections for one another. While this is displayed as logical, they ask their spouses to sacrifice themselves for their pleasure by agreeing to the affair - a big no-no in Ayn Rand's teachings. Ayn's husband, Frank, appears in a fog during most of this, washed up and washed out as he hides in his hidden anguish.
But Nathaniel commits the ultimate travesty in his cheating not only on his wife but now also on Ayn herself. He begins an affair with a young woman he is counseling, while still juggling his wife and Ayn in the mix. This, of course, comes to a head and Ayn is as furious with Nathaniel as if she were his wife. She vows to destroy the man she believes she has made (what happened to the self-made hero she saw in him, the man who did not rely on others?). Strangely, Barbara once again appears noble as she defends her husband's destruction before Ayn.
If I haven't explained it to you Ayn Rand's fans clearly enough, this movie is full of holes in her philosophy. I'll quote a line from Nathaniel Branden in the movie, "A philosophy should not be judged by the actions of its teachers." This statement surely applies to this film! However, I wonder just how "objective" a testament Barbara Branden gave when she wrote the book this film is based on. Because if the teachers can't follow the philosophy and remain true to it, then either the philosophy failed or the teachers never fully understood it in the first place.
....Power corrupts, and she became intoxicated by the attention of her devotees, and wound up going against her own principles (enlightened egoism and independence of mind) to demanding that her followers obey her unthinkingly and serve her ends self-sacrificially. None of this validates or invalidates her philosophy. It just teaches us again the ages-old lesson that idols are only human, and pride goes before a fall.,
.... Helen Mirren turns in a brilliant performance as a character trying to rise above human frailty but ultimately failing to resist being dragged into the depths of childish emotionalism and petty jealousy.
.... At the same time, Mirren's performance hints at the vulnerability, isolation and loneliness that Rand must have experienced as she destroyed or abandoned one important personal relationship after another. Whether you love Ayn Rand or hate her, this film makes a powerful impression
no man is an island - who said that? What a great day for you when your father had a lustful neanderthal thought about your mother and your glorious conception began - or did her SAT scores make him have the orgasm? |
