Sunday, April 10, 2011

Atlas shrugging at a theater near you this Friday!

A few weeks ago I got a chance to watch a sneak preview for the first installment of a film trilogy based on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I did not have high hopes for the adaptation, given that much of the "action" in the gargantuan novel occurs in the heads of characters, the heads of characters who can outwardly appear to be emotionless.

I was very pleasantly surprised with the film. It captures about as much of the book's essence as anyone should have expected and set up the rest of the trilogy quite well. If you are a fan of the book but also appreciate the high wire act required of anyone who might dare to adapt it to film, I think you'd enjoy it.

You'll have exactly that chance this Friday. The film opens April 15 (har har har!) and will debut in (so far) five Kentucky theaters:
Bowling Green
Great Escape Greenwood Mall 10
323 Great Escape Drive, Bowling Green, KY 42101

Regal Hamburg Pavilion 16
1949 Starshoot Pkwy, Lexington, KY 40509

Cinemark Tinseltown USA
4400 Towne Center Drive, Louisville, KY 40241

Rave Motion Pictures Stonybrook 20
2745 S Hurstbourne Pkwy, Louisville, KY 40220

AMC Newport on the Levee 20
1 Levee Way, Newport, KY 41071
I hope you are able to make it on opening night!


Hempy said...

Atlas Shrugged is a piece of theological fiction. It's premise is: Take what you can get from whomever, and do whatever you want with it."

It's a defense of feudalism. Let the lord of the manor take what he can get wherever and from whomever.

Anyone who wants to be a part of it has to do bondage to the lord. These are the serfs for whom there is little or no exit.

It's a repudiation of the basic tenets of major religions of providing for the common good. Atlas Shrugged is morally and spiritually bankrupt. It's a moral and spiritual poverty case.

Jack said...

Just checked AMC at the levee's website and there was no mention of "Atlas" being shown on the 15th.


Jack said...

Hempy. Feudalism was a system of social organization that was based on coercion. It has nothing at all to do with the principles espoused by "Atlas". The book addresses the rights of man. Natural rights that all people have by virtue of the fact of their very existence. Whether you believe that those rights come from the Creator or from the nature of man doesn't alter the existence of those rights. When coercion enters the scene, then freedom is lost. It makes no difference if that coercion comes from a dictatorial state, an oppressive church as witnessed during the Dark Ages and present day fundmental Islam, or any entity that tries to subjugate your mind and/or body without your consent. Those principles are embodied in our Declaration of Independence, our Bill of Rights, and our Constitution. Bondage, serfdom and sacrificing an individual for the "common good" is the antithesis of those rights. John Locke and others advocated those same inseparable rights. Read the book. Maybe you will learn something.

Hempy said...

I've read the book. Again, it is a piece of theological garbage. It's as fundamentalistic as any religion.

Atlas Shrugged It's based on the acquisition of getting something from nothing and then developing it (usually land), even if you have to take it away from someone else.

That's the philosophy of the robber barons. The lords of the manor essentially did the same thing. They got some land and set up a fiefdom. Others could come and live there provided they obeyed the rules of the lord.

No king was to interfere with the fiefdoms of the lords. You might want to read John Dalrymple's A General History of Feudal Property in Great Britain. Thomas Jefferson recommended that Americans read it.

Today, the proponents of that feudal philosophy are called conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and now more recently teabaggers. Atlas Shrugged is their theological Bible to justify that kind of system.

lance said...

I wrote a lengthier response, but lost it due to computer malfunction. Due to frustration, I'll keep it short.

Hempy, the ideas you attribute to Rand are diametrically opposite to the ideas she actually espoused. "I swear - by my life and my love of it - that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

Secondly. You drop the name of Jefferson while taking a stance opposed to his own. Read his favorite political philosopher (John Locke) and see for yourself. Lock (and Jefferson) and a favorable view of landed property.

Also, as an aside, there is one Libertarian philosopher who actually was/is pro-feudalism. Hans Hermann Hoppe. His philosophy is intellectually interesting, but contrary to Rand's (and most conservatives/libertarians/republicans). He's actually one of the Anarcho-Capitalists (Rothbard's philosophy seems similar to feudalism, but never fully praises it). Rand despised Anarchism, favoring a constitutional republic as the best form of government. Likely a federalist, not being overly concerned with state's rights, unlike Jefferson who likely would have been an anti-federalist had he been present for the debate. The only other major difference (politically) is that Jefferson was anti-bank and Rand was not so.

Hempy said...

Atlas Shrugged is nothing but a piece of theological fiction. The world it portrays does not exist and never has. It's a utopian nightmare.

Capitalism doesn't deny property. Property should be shared proportionally as Adam Smith and Alexander Hamilton advocated. It's the utilitarian principle of John Stuart Mills. It's also a biblical principle. The Father feeds the birds of the air; and you are of more value than they. Likewise money should be shared proportionally.