AS - Let's talk about sex.

Posted by EitherOr 11 years, 7 months ago to Books
50 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

[On review, I suppose this post should come with a SPOILER ALERT. Though it IS in the "Books" category. You've been warned.]

Yes, you read that right. Specifically, I would like to start a conversation about the significance of Dagny's physical relationships with Francisco, Rearden, and Galt, and why they were altered/ left out of the movies entirely.

First off, these relationships are not fluff or filler for the novel. Rand includes them because they reveal important aspects of the characters and help illustrate the values of Objectivism. The question is whether removing them from the movies actually detracts from Rand's message or is there enough content already in the movies to get the story and philosophy of Objectivism across. I'd like to hear your thoughts, Gulch members.

Here's what I think:
Yes, the relationships are necessary. And in their full "violence" (Rand's word, but you know what I'm talking about). The film scene at Ellis Wyatt's house between Dagny and Rearden was so... polite. Let's not forget that, in the book, Dagny wakes up from her first night with Rearden to find "a bruise above her elbow, with dark beads that had been blood." And she SMILES. This is a woman who knows what she wants, and sets out to earn it. She celebrates sex as "an effect and an expression of man's sense of his own value" (ASII ch IV). Rearden does not understand that a man's physical desire is a response to his mind, so the reader is led on a journey of discovery with him.

And then there is Galt. I guess we'll have to wait for part III to see what happens there, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

It could be argued that films have time constraints. Fair enough. But at a time when "Fifty Shades" is still going strong on the NY Times bestseller list, it seems the general public would be quite receptive to the type of Dagny-Rearden action presented in the book. It could even broaden the film's audience. Some people might not understand it at first, but I've mentioned this before--I find people are a lot more receptive to discussing or reading Atlas Shrugged when they have some initial interest of their own.

Here's something from Francisco to think on:
"Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I'll tell you his entire philosophy on life."


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by WDonway 11 years, 7 months ago
    It seems less talked about, today, but Ayn Rand herself characterized the romantic relationship, which she saw as between a man and a woman (another WHOLE topic) as "dominance and submission." She explained this at Ford Hall Forum, as I recall; but perhaps, actually, Nathaniel Branden did in his lectures. At any rate, she made clear that this applies only to the romantic-sexual context and is based both in physiology (actually anatomy) and psychology. This rather soon got softened (I believe by Mr. Branden) to initiator-responder. That is, to say the least, not politically correct, today; so we don't discuss it. It was Mr. Branden who went into the anatomy and the nature of male versus female orgasm to explain why, in the sexual context, man must be dominant, woman submissive. It is interesting that the poster went back to The Fountainhead to bring out the rape paradigm implied by Rand's view of sex. Because what Ayn Rand was talking about was the woman welcoming "rape" by her hero, wanting rape as a tribute to her. To capture this better, it helps to go back to "Penthouse Legend," the title Ayn Rand gave to the famous play, "Night of January Sixteenth." There, Karen Andre's maid, called upon to testify about the relationship between Bjorn Faulkner and Karen Andre, recounts that Karen Andre had her lover, Faulkner, create for her a sort of vest of platinum chain mail, which Karen Andre required the maid to heat by the fire till it was too hot to touch, then put on Karen's naked body so she would scream and writhe as it burned her breasts. And, of course, the first meeting between Leo and Kira in "We the Living" is where Kira is happy to be mistaken by Leo for a whore and says she won't charge much. Here, again, the symbolism is that, given the value relationship, the hero worship (which in We the Living happens at first sight), the woman wants to be treated as an object for a man's sexual pleasure--used. The stronger and more confident the woman, the more comfortable she is in this role. How relevant is this to the philosophy, and the message of the movie? Well, it is dead certain to be misinterpreted and used to stigmatize Ayn Rand's philosophy as brutal exploitation. But this sexual relationship as conceived by Rand is the most dramatic and visceral dramatization of the idea that human beings are through and through, on the physical, emotional, intellectual level, shaped by their values. From frontal cortex to clitoris, it is all about values. There is no mind-body dichotomy and values are the ultimate integrator of ALL that happens in the individual. And that is why the statement by Francisco, "Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I'll tell you his entire philosophy of life" is the novel's triumphant moment of philosophical penetration (yeah, yeah) and expression of that insight in the most exciting context of the plot as one hero seeks to liberate another to openly embrace life's joy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 years, 7 months ago
      Thank you for this! I do remember reading a mention of Rand's dominance and submission theory somewhere, and thinking "well of course. that's exactly how it is in AS. makes perfect sense." I put it on the bottom of my list of things to look up at a later date.
      Then, as you put it, "The stronger and more confident the woman, the more comfortable she is in this role." I think the exchange that really made it clear for me was-
      Rearden: "Are you saying... that I rose in your estimation when you found that I wanted you?"
      Dagny: "Of course."
      Unfortunately, you're right. Because these movies represent a philosophy with an opposition more vocal than its followers, they have to be careful about including material that can be easily misinterpreted. I wish that weren't the case but... A is A.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 11 years, 7 months ago
      Wow. Point for this.

      I'm a little over half way though O Human Child. A great page turner. I love the twists. It's never going where I think it might. Good job so far.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by WDonway 11 years, 7 months ago
        Hey, thank you for that Rocky MP. I'm glad you are enjoying it. I sure enjoyed writing it. Until I finished writing it and looked back, I did not realize quite explicitly that I had created a male protagonist dealing with three women--or four, depending on how you count--all of them strong and demanding. At one point, he does have a conversation with Ashlyn about the issue of strong women who want in the romantic-sexual context to be dominated by a strong man. And that I created a man who might not be quite up to it. And that becomes a problem driving the plot.

        Thanks again for giving the book a chance.

        Walter
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by overmanwarrior 11 years, 7 months ago
      Wonderful comment! I was thinking about this very trend while watching Iron Man 3 over the weekend. The terrorist headquarters was filled with prostitutes which gave a sense of the cheapness of the place. People understand these things, but they fail to align their thoughts with their actions in life, causing a major crises in all their relationships.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
      whoa. quite the response. My cortex.....is stimulated. ;)
      We're really lucky you found this site, professor.
      btw, "O Human Child" was great and quite the page turner. I'm formulating my review and it will be in the can manana.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
    I think it's about time. and what one can get across on the screen. Like anyone, I would much anticipate a great first love scene between Dagny and Galt in ASIII. But the complexities you have brought up, the self reflection/evaluation are hard to get across. Ultimately, they had to choose. From a film perspective, Galt is quiet and you know-sort of a fortress through much of the movies. It's quite tempting for the movie goer (if Dagny's love relationships are explored) to pick Francisco over Galt. Heck, I did for the first 3 times I read the book. I think there is an article somewhere where the producers talk about that-the love quadrangle. Instead they decided to make a focus of current events and putting the characters through those paces. Better wake up call, and driver to read the book? I guess. Also- no women are in charge here and women LOVE love. and were all about the poignancy of Francisco's ah-ha with Galt over Dagny and then Hank's ah-ha over Francisco's love of Dagny. You make excellent points.
    Have you read the Fountainhead. I think sex is a dominant (lol) theme with Dominique's struggles.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 years, 7 months ago
      Same here - I picked Rearden over Francisco over Galt on my first read through, because I felt I knew the most about him. I didn't understand how serious Dagny was about Galt until that last night in the Gulch when they both can't sleep. I'm not asking for long, drawn-out love scenes here. Even a few moments like that one in the Gulch, or those great ah-has you mention would be better than the delicate, mild relationship established between Dagny and Rearden in the film, which says nothing at all about Objectivism. Oh no, are my female sensibilities showing? Sorry ;)
      maybe you and i can sneak into a production meeting or two, and make some suggestions...
      No I haven't read the Fountainhead. Yet. I'm on The Romantic Manifesto right now.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LionelHutz 11 years, 7 months ago
    I think Ayn Rand was a wierdo on the matter of sex. I suspect this aspect of the book was left out of the movies because it certainly would have changed the rating to R and the directors/producers thought it would be a bad thing to have Objectivist philosophy associated with violent rape-like sex.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years, 7 months ago
      Rape-like sex? lol aggressive sex isn't "rape-like" or violent. No one was there against their own free will either.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by WDonway 11 years, 7 months ago
        Less clear about Atlas Shrugged, but Ayn Rand created a sensation with The Fountainhead scene between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon way back in 1943.

        He enters her house, at night, uninvited, silently. He goes to her bedroom and rips off her night gown. She is struggling. And, in the classic erotic fantasy, properly rejected by feminists and all of us, Dominique becomes ravenously aroused and accepting. Yes, rape me, rape me. Which of course cannot be rape. We gather this is the first time she ever has climaxed; and it is not even clear if this may not be the first time she has had sex.

        Roark comes directly from the granite quarry, covered with the dust and grime of the day. She is clean and sweet smelling. The powerful man in command of nature, down in the hellish quarry breaking stone with the roaring (penetrating, thrusting) drill, comes to the safe, sheltered home and drills her frigid reserve--takes his reward without asking. His is command of the earth and all that is in it.

        There is no way that Ayn Rand's principles, or she, in person, would sanction this behavior. This is fiction. It is expressing Ayn Rand's feelings about the nature of the sex act: dominance and submission. Symbolic taking or rape based upon the woman being overwhelmed by hero worship for the man.

        By the way, in this scene it seems quite evident that Howard Roark is a virgin along with Dominique. That may have troubled Ayn Rand, initially. Her notebooks for The Fountainhead indicate that one draft had Howard Roark with an earlier girlfriend, but, like much else, that was cut. Just as in Atlas Shrugged, there was a heroic Jesuit priest in earlier drafts, since Ayn Rand felt that Thomas Aquinas was the great advocate of reason in the founding of the Western tradition beginning with the Renaissance. This may well have been a tribute to Isabel Patterson, Ayn Rand's closest intellectual friend and her mentor, who was a Deist.

        That she eliminated these aspects, to which her sense of life initially said, "yes," suggests a high disciplined writer and thinker determined to be understood (by the honest) and to create a work unmistakably integrated. Also, though, she cut this character after she had a painful break with Isabel Patterson.

        Life, as well as philosophy, has its role.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
          great retelling of the scene.
          Also the back story of Isabel Patterson and their break. We had already discussed the the Jesuit priest, as DS was thinking of including the scene in the ASIII script. It was a lively discussion.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
      what book are we talking about here? I cannot recall a rape scene in AS. Did I miss something-that one is in the other book. But you make a great point about the rating. My nieces and nephew would not have been allowed to see it if it was rated R.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 11 years, 7 months ago
    The directors were correct not to include steamy love scenes. It would have distracted from the main point of objectivism. Also, it would have provided cannon fodder for critics looking for any excuse to pan these films.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 years, 7 months ago
      Okay, I think these comments have helped me figure out exactly what my issue is:
      I'm not asking for a full-length love scene. I don't even need one at all. BUT there is a clear message in the book about the unity of body and mind. I think the films missed a big opportunity to communicate that. It could've been done though dialogue (philosophical and sexy dialogue, of course).
      Ex: Rearden gives Dagny the necklace. In the film it just appears on her. Deleted scene shows he presented it to her in broad daylight, with other people around, and even puts it on her then. WTF is a man who is uncertain about his desires doing by presenting his love with a ruby necklace in the middle of a garden party?? (cue Annoyed Picard meme).
      Or what about this: (PG version) Dagny wakes up at Ellis Wyatt's house to find Rearden already dressed, looking down at her (she is fully covered by sheets) and he yells at her for being so desirable, and bringing him to this low point. She laughs, and rolls her speech about sex and Francisco's on love into a few lines- asking Hank why he is so exacting with his business deals but not his personal life. Then goes on to explain the bit about how she feels honored to have earned a place in his bed because "a man's sexual choice is the sum of his fundamental convictions." One shot of Hank's face looking pensive, then understanding, then he jumps back into bed with her and camera fades to black. Back to business as usual.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
        all great points eitheror. go find Duncan Scott's website and email him your thoughts :)
        I think you weren't yet here when we got to ask him questions in the Lounge?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 11 years, 7 months ago
          Ah, that's what I love about posting to this site. I have an idea and someone responds with "stop talking and do something about it!" :)
          And no, I missed the Q and A by just a couple days. :( I read through it though. Drafting email to Mr. Scott now...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
      films get panned for love scenes? you're no fun five dollar. sex and love are very much a part of Objectivism, not a distraction
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by overmanwarrior 11 years, 7 months ago
        In a lot of ways, the sex is why a lot of people read Atlas to begin with. It was pretty steamy stuff for 1957. If it brings people to Objectivism, then let the cloths fly off and let the steam begin.

        But I was happy that the film didn't go there. There wasn't time to dig into the complexities of Rand's view of love life properly without being pornographic. Dagney would come across as a hop-along, and not a treasure hunter in search of value.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
          well, I'm back with the rating. More will see it if the rating is not R. But who can forget the first time D and JG come together in the dark tunnel? Not I. It has to be in the movie and there has to be intensity. Pursuit, perhaps. and leave the rest to the watchers' imaginations. Its the perfect way to demonstrate the tension, frustration and final capitulation of Dagny and the anticipation and conquering by Galt. All good. :)
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 11 years, 7 months ago
            Pursuit. Not a bad idea. My imagination is far more vivid than can be portrayed on the screen. At least without XXX ratings.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 11 years, 7 months ago
              I figured, pirate ;)
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ winterwind 11 years, 6 months ago
                Imagination is always more vivid than what is on the screen - it hooks into your own experiences, including prior reading[s] of the book. But there has to be something for the imagination to work with. Example? Francisco opening the bottle of wine at Dagny's cabin. I found the scene more than suggestive: "Watch how effortlessly and skillfully I can do this task. What else can I do as well?"

                I wanted moments like that between Hank and Dagny, the suggestions of "other things done", of another aspect of their life and missed them.

                I await the tunnel scene with Dagny and John but fear it will disappoint me. *hmph* OK, I give in. Cross out "disappoint" and insert "satisfy".
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo