Transcription
Objectivism is the justification for the indefensible, a defiant plea for those who are already guilty, a twisted, revolting pseudo-philosophy that both exonerates and idolizes selfishness, greed, and a purposeful lack of concern for anyone but oneself. But I may be getting ahead of myself.
The *Atlas Shrugged* film trilogy spanned from 2011 to 2014, producing three movies that were deeply objectionable, both as sociopolitical sermons and as pieces of art. The trilogy delivers diminishing returns of quality as it proceeds, which is saying something, considering it starts at the very bottom of the barrel and somehow digs deep into the Earth by the finale.
The film series is based on a novel of the same name by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand. In the novel, we don't have an exact date when this all takes place, but it feels around the time when it was published, 1957. In the films, we start in the far-off future of 2016. This allowed the filmmakers to save money and not make everything period-specific, but also as a means in which to comment on the economic collapse of 2007 and 2008, which the film seems to blame on the left-leaning socialist government of the film, in an awful and transparent rewrite of history.
The economic crisis occurred under the administration of George W. Bush, populated by men and women more likely to agree with Ayn Rand's way of thinking than disagree, at least on economic matters. On the corporate end, the housing market fell apart due to subprime mortgage lending and other unwise business practices designed to make a ton of money in the short term, at the expense of actual homeowners and the country at large. The federal government did not cause the housing market collapse, but it did save the housing market through a massive bailout. But I imagine Rand's disciples don't like to think of the federal government as the solution to corporate America's problems, but it was, in this case.
Now, the government was responsible in some ways for the financial crisis, but not because it was too left-leaning, as the movie suggests. It was because of deregulation laws that empowered giant corporations to have less oversight. The film portrays poor protesters as greedy and billionaires as heroes. The movie must take place in Bizarro World. But no, this really is what Objectivism teaches. Some of Objectivists will argue that selfishness ultimately benefits society, but history has proven that not to be so, as the gap between rich and poor in America grows larger and larger. The trickle-down concept of economics is now considered to be laughable.
I've been avoiding discussing what can only charitably be called the plot of these films, so let's dive into it. At the beginning of the first film, America is suffering through an economic crisis. Oil is terribly expensive, which allows the railroad industry to become a common means of public transportation again. Dagny Taggart, vice president of Taggart Transcontinental, buys a new form of metal for her railroad from Hank Rearden, owner of a company called Rearden Steel. She begins to make sweeping changes to the company, much to the chagrin of her brother and the company's president, James. For James Taggart, she and her company should have goals beyond making money, but his sister, someone who may as well be the embodiment of Ayn Rand's philosophies, has no interest in this. Bear in mind, she's the good guy. The movie is not painting her as a cold human being who must go through an arc to realize humanity is worth saving. No, we the audience are supposed to sympathize with her point of view right away, and that of Hank Rearden.
"Well, they say you're intractable, you're ruthless, your only goal is to make money."
"My only goal is to make money."
Objectivism rejects altruism, the concept of living for other people. In the film, every altruistic act is portrayed as secretly a smoke screen for a self-serving goal. James Taggart wants to help the poor people of Mexico, but reveals to his sister that it is mainly for PR. Hank's relative wants to help people through a foundation but does not want Hank's name on the list of fundraisers. His motivations may not be altruistic either. Hank's friend questions that Hank always says that his only goal in life is to make money, but this is not a moral condemnation. He's only saying it is bad for public perception. See, to an Objectivist, being selfish is a virtue, as outlined in a book by Ayn Rand that is literally called *The Virtue of Selfishness*. An actual line from the film is, "What's with all these stupid altruistic urges?" said straight and meant to appeal to the audience. Honestly, the only enjoyment one can get out of these films is spotting all the recognizable in-the-face but not-in-name character actors and *Star Trek* alumni that pop up.
This scene has Thomas F. Wilson, best known as Biff Tannen from the *Back to the Future* movies, which is hilarious because *Back to the Future 2* spoofs Donald Trump, according to screenwriter Bob Gale. So, this movie that apologizes for the crass behavior of billionaires and casts aspersions on Mexico has a fake Donald Trump in it, and it's hysterical. Trump once said in an interview that he loved Ayn Rand's novel *The Fountainhead* and identified with its protagonist.
In Part Two, the government wants to buy some of Hank Rearden's new alloy, Rearden Metal, so he refuses and goes to court in what looks more like a college literature classroom teaching *Atlas Shrugged* more than an actual court of law. Teenagers love *Atlas Shrugged*. Then some of them grow out of it, and some don't. Writer John Rogers once said, "There are two novels that can change a bookish 14-year-old's life: *The Lord of the Rings* and *Atlas Shrugged*. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."
Later in Part Two, there's an incoming message from the "big giant head," and the government enacts emergency laws to deal with the economic crisis that Rearden and Taggart do not want to help solve because the federal government must be the bad guy, I guess. I won't bore you with a complete synopsis of all three movies, but long story short, Dagny crash-lands on a super-science micronation Utopia where she meets a far-out libertarian Ubermensch, John Galt. I will say one positive thing about the films: the *Atlas Shrugged* film trilogy is better than the book, by far. I read some of Rand's writings over the years, and I started reading *Atlas Shrugged* last month in preparation for this, and in addition to it being a dumpster fire of bad philosophy, it is also a colossal bore. A huge portion of the book is just one speech by John Galt, but later in the film, it is reduced to only 4 minutes, and thank God for that.
"It exists. It is real. It is possible. It is yours."
I was worried that the entire third film would just be John Galt's monumentally tedious speech. Then there's a cameo by Glenn Beck wearing Harry Potter glasses, surrounded by bowling trophies. Yeah, I don't know. It ends with the words "The End," of course, but under it, it says, "No, it's the beginning." It's like those movies that end with "The End?" I could go on and on. There is a condemnation of public schools in one scene and something that looks suspiciously like an advertisement for Bitcoin, the unregulated internet currency beloved by drug dealers.
But I will sum up: these films are abysmal, and it's difficult to watch them in one sitting, as I did about a week ago, not only because of their preening obnoxiousness but because every actor is recast in every iteration. After Part One, every character has a new actor. In Part Two, and after Part Two, every character has a new actor in Part Three. I can only assume that after the first one, everyone abandoned ship and/or the producers did not have enough money to bring them back. And then the exact same thing happened in Part Three. I really hope that the producers learned from wisely crowdfunding Part Three. The absolutely essential quality of community. Rand's disciples said that this was the movie that Hollywood was afraid to make, but the source material does not make sense for a motion picture. The sad fact is that these terrible films might have been about the best anyone could get out of such a rotten story with such awful, hollow messages.
Objectivism is not just something that influences economic policy; it's also a perception of the universe. The problem is that the rules of Objectivism contradict one another. One edict is that reality is an objective absolute; facts are more important than man's feelings and wishes. Okay, not terrible in and of itself. But here's the problem: an economic edict of Objectivism is that the ideal political system is laissez-faire capitalism. But here's the thing: laissez-faire capitalism is a utopian fantasy, not reality. You would think it would really streamline life if the economy did not have to be regulated against unfair and unsafe business practices, but it does. We need the FDA to make sure our food is not poison, and we need taxes because that is a small price to pay to live in a society. The American government has been responsible for some rotten things: war, abuses of power. But helping the less fortunate through social services and maintaining infrastructure are not among its sins. It's just the basics of life. We see problems with deregulation of business, from everything from destructive economic policies from the century prior to Rand that treated people like chattel to the century after Rand passed away with the recent global economic crisis.
So, how does the perception of the universe edict contradict the economic edict? Well, like all utopias, it cannot actually exist and be effective. So, just like any philosophy, it needs to be judged on how it is implemented in the real world. And in our world, laissez-faire capitalism never really worked well. If reality is an objective absolute, then the reality is that Ayn Rand's economic policies are proven to be destructive and dangerous. She has argued against herself. Objectivism was a product of the Cold War and fears about Soviet Russia and communism, and it is long since past its expiration date.
Objectivism teaches its disciples that every man exists for his own sake and not others, that one's own self-interest and one's own happiness in life is the only purpose. But that is not how humanity has risen in reality. Humans have evolved as communal, tribal creatures, and that means bonds with both family and local communities. In fact, these attributes are tied to health and longevity. Objectivism contradicts provable scientific facts. The world would simply not exist if we only took care of ourselves. A philosophy needs to have real-world implementation, and Objectivism not only does more harm than good but also, it's just not applicable to life on Earth.
The problem with *Atlas Shrugged*, the novel, not the films that came later, is that it influenced a lot of people, most notably the worst politicians and heads of corporations. Some are hard to spot right away, and some get named after the author. These writings were responsible for the mindset of many politicians and corporate bigwigs of the time, and even today, contributing to income inequality, the "voodoo economics" of the '80s, and much more. Ayn Rand has had considerable influence on libertarian and conservative thought, or as someone once said of *The Fountainhead*, "Isn't that book the Bible of right-wing losers?" But that's just the sociopolitical impact of Rand's writings. The artistic legacy of Ayn Rand is just a few dull books and a film trilogy that is among the worst that the motion picture industry has ever produced. Part Three is actually one of the rare films that has 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, which means that even film critics who might be sympathetic to its ideals still said that it was an absolute load of garbage. But the films are now complete and in the past, and we won't have to deal with Ayn Rand in the theaters ever again. Oh, God damn.
[Music]
It.
[Music]