ASp3 Themes
Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 4 months ago to The Gulch: General
I don't regard the Atlas Shrugged movie project as an attempt to release a piece of entertainment. I regard it as a propaganda campaign. (remember, propaganda can be true).
As such, I think some themes need to be emphasized that were glossed over a bit in the first two movies, either because the dialog was cut, or was delivered too briefly.
Obviously ASp3 will deal with Dagny's time in the Gulch. As Galt is showing her around, he could once again reiterate why he left the 20th Century Motor Company.
But I think it's important to show how life in the Gulch differs from the outside world. The class-less-ness. (such as a successful banker running a hog farm). Also, a clarification of the oath might help. Without a context, the oath can easily be taken as a declaration of selfishness. I think Dagny put it best in ASp2; "I won't be a slave; and I won't be a slave driver". That's the oath, IMO, in a nutshell. I swear upon my life not to use people, nor to let people use me.
A minor nit; as things run down, cell service will become spotty in the outside world. Clothes will become shabbier, food more scarce.
I think another important thing to make sure makes it into the 3rd movie is how railroad shipments are being manipulated based upon political considerations, not actual needs or financial considerations.
In "Go Tell the Spartans", there's a scene with a staged riot. The story explains how the rioters attempt to manipulate the media by giving themselves razor cuts and provoking the milice and then cowering in front of the cameras when the milice try to drive them back.
I think something similar might be useful during the "riot" at the Rearden factory. The schism between his actual workers and the imported rioters would be important, too, IMO.
I think the whole of Project X could be dealt with briefly, providing more time for more important topics. It might even be eliminated, except for references in the narrative.
Likewise, I hope any porn scenes are left out of the 3rd movie. They serve no purpose.
In the olden days, in ASp1, they would have shown Dagny and Hank go into the same bedroom together, and either the light would go out, or the door close, and then it would be the next morning and they were having breakfast. This saves precious seconds from a story already crushed for time, and allows the imagination to work on the details of their sexual exploits (for those minds that would care).
Likewise, the entire scene after the Taggart wedding could be cut. It's irrelevant. They could cut right to the scene where Lillian confronts Hank. The fact that he was with Dagny the night before could be easily inferred from him walking in in the am, Lillian asking her questions and saying, "You have her all over you".
Again, precious seconds saved, narrative tightened, and modern immature idiots are not pandered-to, something of which I approve.
I don't need to tell anyone that Galt's speech will have to be carefully edited. It's going to have to be modified to fit within the movie schedule, yet still hit all of the important points. I think it can be done, because much of his speech can be made redundant.
As such, I think some themes need to be emphasized that were glossed over a bit in the first two movies, either because the dialog was cut, or was delivered too briefly.
Obviously ASp3 will deal with Dagny's time in the Gulch. As Galt is showing her around, he could once again reiterate why he left the 20th Century Motor Company.
But I think it's important to show how life in the Gulch differs from the outside world. The class-less-ness. (such as a successful banker running a hog farm). Also, a clarification of the oath might help. Without a context, the oath can easily be taken as a declaration of selfishness. I think Dagny put it best in ASp2; "I won't be a slave; and I won't be a slave driver". That's the oath, IMO, in a nutshell. I swear upon my life not to use people, nor to let people use me.
A minor nit; as things run down, cell service will become spotty in the outside world. Clothes will become shabbier, food more scarce.
I think another important thing to make sure makes it into the 3rd movie is how railroad shipments are being manipulated based upon political considerations, not actual needs or financial considerations.
In "Go Tell the Spartans", there's a scene with a staged riot. The story explains how the rioters attempt to manipulate the media by giving themselves razor cuts and provoking the milice and then cowering in front of the cameras when the milice try to drive them back.
I think something similar might be useful during the "riot" at the Rearden factory. The schism between his actual workers and the imported rioters would be important, too, IMO.
I think the whole of Project X could be dealt with briefly, providing more time for more important topics. It might even be eliminated, except for references in the narrative.
Likewise, I hope any porn scenes are left out of the 3rd movie. They serve no purpose.
In the olden days, in ASp1, they would have shown Dagny and Hank go into the same bedroom together, and either the light would go out, or the door close, and then it would be the next morning and they were having breakfast. This saves precious seconds from a story already crushed for time, and allows the imagination to work on the details of their sexual exploits (for those minds that would care).
Likewise, the entire scene after the Taggart wedding could be cut. It's irrelevant. They could cut right to the scene where Lillian confronts Hank. The fact that he was with Dagny the night before could be easily inferred from him walking in in the am, Lillian asking her questions and saying, "You have her all over you".
Again, precious seconds saved, narrative tightened, and modern immature idiots are not pandered-to, something of which I approve.
I don't need to tell anyone that Galt's speech will have to be carefully edited. It's going to have to be modified to fit within the movie schedule, yet still hit all of the important points. I think it can be done, because much of his speech can be made redundant.
Rand ultimately wanted to demonstrate that sex is tied to values. and the values do not boil down to an evolutionary "alpha male." You clearly don't buy that. A test. Have a woman rank 5 guys from their pictures as most to least desirable. Then give her a short meeting with each, have her rank again. Then give her some real time with each and rank. That last ranking will be completely different from the initial ranking.
ASK a rational question and I'll answer it... rationally. You haven't asked a rational question yet.
If the question to which you refer is "what's the point?" the rational answer is...
MAKING BABIES.
Sex is NOT an idea, and "mother nature" does not care if you screw for hedonistic pleasure or because it's the only way you can discuss theology or politics with the person whose mind you're attempting to engage (yes, that's sarcasm). If you do not screw, your kind dies out. Such a fundamental requirement is not left to reason in nature, just as it's not left up to you to calculate whether you need food or not and of what type.
Getting back to the movie, if you cannot portray emotional connections between humans without actually showing every drop of sweat, hearing every grunt, making them look like they're desperate to climax... you're either incompetent or lazy.
Someone is shown walking into the men's room. I don't need to see the urine emit from their body, I don't need to hear the sigh of relief.
The fact that I see them walking into the room makes it clear enough what takes place in there.
UNLIKE sex and defecation, eating is not a personal, intimate action. If the story is of a man starving of the wilderness, I don't need to see him bite a bug in half, or gobble the inwards of an animal, with the blood spatter and the raw organs entering his mouth. Show him from behind, making motions above the inanimate form of an animal, and I'll get the idea.
Likewise, if I see a man and a woman walk into a bedroom and close the door behind them, I "get" that they have strong, romantic one another, or are desperately horny, or are transacting a prostitution arrangement, based upon the context of previous scenes.
Showing them screwing is just to pander to to the juvenile and/or sex-obsessed audience out there.
I prefer the idea that it's meant as part of the solution of the myth of globular warming.
Or, if they are going the weapons development route, they should focus on the aspect of it being used against citizens as part of maintaining civil order.
Man *doesn't* just exist in his mind; if he did, he'd be a computer or a robot, and devoid of volition. He's also the product of evolution, he also has glands and parts of the brain which are reactive.
"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature'". The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are.' - Robert A Heinlein
Man is not unique in being rational... and I would say men are more rationalizing than rational. The other apes, even dogs (although they are not natural in that they are created by Man) are rational to one degree or another.
My ad hominem was on purpose. I suspect Rand's evaluation of your defense of her position would be similar. Think for yourself, don't assume because she said it, it must be true.
I enjoy watching scenes in films of people enjoying food. Thiese are artistic depictions of joyful instances. They illustrate life. Life is about joy, not just about existence, for a rational being. I removed a point, because you started out with an ad hominem attack. This does not further the discussion.
I agree with Rand (not you, since you insist on mooching on her ideas as if she were a theological prophet) in that sex should be involved in a very serious relationship. Long ago I decided that I would only have sex with a woman I was willing to marry and raise a child with. This, I felt, put sex in its proper perspective and role, as well as keeping me responsible for the purposeful result of intercourse.
All of which has nothing whatever to do with watching two actors simulate the sex act on screen, as if I'm too dense to figure out what they're doing in the bedroom in the middle of the night with the door closed, and why.
When "having sex", one is more concerned with one's own pleasure than one's partner's. When "making love", one is more concerned with one's partner's pleasure. I'd far rather make love than have sex.
A female friend recently expressed amusement at the variety of women I'm attracted to. Because they aren't merely "deepest visions of myself", they are unique individual human beings. I'm not so egocentric that I seek women who are feminine reflections of myself.
I got news for Rand; the most sexually adventurous men I know are full of themselves, they don't despise themselves.
You would bring up that bit of child porn known and Romeo and Juliet. It's possible I may be the only person on the planet who was happy when the two little melodramatic idiots offed themselves. Think of it as evolution in action.
But, at least Romeo and Juliet revolved around two hormonally overcharged teenagers new to sex and romance, and therefore forgivable in their obsession. And, while I think even that story could have been told with a minimal display of sex acts, the story is *about* their sexual and romantic involvement.
"They had sex". There, that describes it all. "He pushed his tongue up the inside of her soft, white thigh, teasingly...." not necessary unless you're writing porn.
There is no "doing it right". You don't have enough time to tell the important parts of the story as it is, you certainly don't have time to waste on this prurient nonsense.
She walked away from Taggart. You have missed some key themes in AS, hiraghm.
I cannot tell the director the best way to go about that scene, but it is key in the book. and for the reasons I said elsewhere in this post. But I completely reject your comparisons.
The quote of Rand's you cite indicates her own departure from reason and rationality. "...a lower or animal part of his nature". Sorry, people are animals; I'm rather surprised that an aggressive atheist like Rand was unwilling to acknowledge that simple evolutionary fact.
There was a study some time ago, of heroin addicts, because they were the most recidivist. When they would describe their "high", they would get this beatific look of joy on their faces. The high of heroin, it turns out, is similar to the "high" experienced during sexual climax.
Addictions are universally harmful. There is no good that is ever done by addiction, nor is addiction simply neutral, without effect. Yet, addiction has not been bred out of the species over our long history. Why is that? Because the first, most important addiction cannot be done away with without risking extinction. Any species that grows bored with sex will eventually die out.
Eagles will begin mating high in the air, not not stop until the act is completed or they splat on the ground below. There are insects that will continue to perform intercourse even as their mates eat them. Animals, including the human ones, will go to great and ridiculous lengths to service that addiction. Humans do ridiculous things, such as autoerotic asphyxiation to maximize that endorphin high, risking death and sometimes dying for it.
Rand, typical of pro-abortionists, made the mistake of believing that sex exists for pleasure. It doesn't, no more than eating exists for pleasure.
Speaking of which, there's a series of Terence Hill movies beginning with "My Name is Trinity" which have long, disgusting eating scenes. These scenes did nothing to further the story, and only amused the immature audience members, of whom I'm sure there were many.
I think ASp3 should no more have these sex scenes than have scenes focused on gulping down beans.
Sex has nothing to do with the message or underlying theme of Atlas Shrugged than does pooping or gobbling down hotdogs.
The underlying theme is about those who produce being used by those who don't; about how production is characterized as somehow shameful in order to control the producers. Unless you're a prostitute, the sex act doesn't enter into it.
I really don't know why you place such importance on displaying the sex act. One doesn't have to display an actor enjoying a really satisfying bowel movement to demonstrate that he really liked his meal.
Intercourse has nothing to do with aknowledgement of anything. Maybe you forget the story, but she didn't really *build* anything. She was fighting like hell to preserve and maintain what her forefathers built, in spite of her brother's incompetence and, most importantly, in spite of her stalker's intense campaign to destroy her.
Them coming together can be explosive and intense and have great music... without wasting the audience's time watching them bump and grind. Some of the greatest and most epic movies of all time had no sex acts in them. Insert sex scenes into "Gone with the Wind", for example, and you diminish it.
Load more comments...