The Focus Of A Movie Review

[intellectualammo]

[split from the thread about the movie "V for Vendetta", these posts address the more general issue of movie reviews. - snerd]

The review by Rule of Reason seems so typical of the supposedly "hard line" Objectivists.

I might have to start a new thread.

What are "supposedly 'hard line' Objectivists"?

Did you add the "hard line", or did you get this elsewhere?

Edited March 29, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Daedalus]

I might have to start a new thread.

What are "supposedly 'hard line' Objectivists"?

Did you add the "hard line", or did you get this elsewhere?

If there is a Hard Line Objectivist Club, put me down as a member.

[Strangelove]

What are "supposedly 'hard line' Objectivists"?

Did you add the "hard line", or did you get this elsewhere?

My own personal opinion and I find that more often then not, its a conflict over aesthetics.

No matter how much people insist and persist that Objectivism is not a cult because its a philosophy of individuality, reading articles like that review which is written with the understanding that "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did." is not comforting. While I would certainly expect Objectivists to have similar tastes (I don't expect there are many people here who are particularly interested in say, Crash). I find that there seems to be an unwritten cannon of things (TV shows, movies, etc.) which all "truly rational" Objectivists should look at and reach concensus on. Never mind the fact that the individual is perfectly capable of living a rational, self interested, capitalism promoting life, the fact that he has "questionable" taste, means that there are serious flaws that must be fixed for him to be able to live by Objectivism as Ayn Rand would have wanted him/her to.

Example, here are a few things I like which I can guess could be a "surprise" to most Objectivists:

Wicked (The Musical)

What I Like:

-Great music and characters. A very strong musical that even makes effective use of literary technique to make the story more engaging and interesting.

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

-What? A subtle hint of moral relativism? Thats a Liberal Idea! Don't Buy the CD or see the show!

Battlestar Galactica (new one)

What I Like:

-Where should I begin! This show has some of the most well told stories and engaging characters on television. It also is incredibly appropriate to modern times with a very good political stance. A very recent episode is very interesting to watch in the context of the Palestinian elections and while it is not meant to make direct reference to that event, it is still very meaningful to watch.

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

-Why are we watching characters bleed on screen! Why are they not winning every day of the week! Why are people dying! This can not be allowed to happen, this is naturalism at its worst!

Lost (TV Show)

Why I like it:

-Every character has a story and I want to know what is going on on that island!

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

-Unexplained events? Things beyond human understanding? This is a condemnation of the rational mind!

Foundation (Issac Asimov series of books)

Why I like it:

-Its interesting to see the development of the Galactic Society and the history that drives it, especially since I am personally very interested in history.

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

-Predicting history? What about the individual's ability to change it! Why is the only character who goes against the "plan" a villain (the mule).

Paradise Lost

Why I like it:

-Satan is awesome and the whole story is riveting the whole way through.

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

Its inherently irrational, based on religion, and incapable of getting out of that problem.

Dr. Strangelove

Why I like it:

-Its funny:

"You cant fight in here, this is the war room!" "It was going to be announced Tuesday, you know how our Chairman loves surprises." "Flouridation" "We can not allow, a Mine Shaft Gap!"

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

-It shows the American military in a bad light, this is indicitive of an illusion from reality. No good!

Hear of Darkness

Why I like it:

-There are so many emotions that get evoked from this text, its exciting and chilling and impressive all at the same time. There is something to be said for the novel helping stir the colonialist inside of me.

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

-Ambiguity!!!

Catch-22

Why I like it:

-A very well written work, great characters and hillarious situations.

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

-Its not even chronological!

And so on.

And its not as if I put down some truly awful things either.

Edited March 28, 2006 by Strangelove

[softwareNerd]

I find that there seems to be an unwritten canon of things (TV shows, movies, etc.) which all "truly rational" Objectivists should look at and reach concensus on.

Except that, as this very thread demonstrates, while people who insist on "thou shalt like this" do exist, they are not the norm. Edited March 28, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Daedalus]

My own personal opinion and I find that more often then not, its a conflict over aesthetics.

No matter how much people insist and persist that Objectivism is not a cult because its a philosophy of individuality, reading articles like that review which is written with the understanding that "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did." is not comforting.

Your lack of comfort may stem from a conflict between your values and Objectivism. If "that review" you are referring to is Nicholas Provenzo's at http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/archives/...286989739726798, the author's criticisms were primarily political, not aesthetic: that V's "revolution" was not based on basic principles and that it constituted an implicit endorsement of anarchism. These points follow from fundamental Objectivist ethics. That Mr. Provenzo chose to address such moral weaknesses in the movie is not evidence of "cultish" behavior but of the highest personal integrity.

And, by the way, Dr. Strangelove is a vile movie that engages in moral equation between Soviet aggression and American military defense. Its malicious twisting of reality and disgusting dismissal of American vigilance and patriotism sparked a sea change in American opinion that led to the defeat of Ayn Rand's candidate, Barry Goldwater, in 1964. See Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus, Rick Perlstein. Hill and Wang.

Edited March 28, 2006 by Daedalus

[RationalBiker]

Your lack of comfort may stem from a conflict between your values and Objectivism.

But then you wouldn't know now because you haven't seen the movie and you are relying on someone else's thoughts to make this criticism.

I suggest you refrain from implied attacks like this until you know what you are talking about.

[Daedalus]

But then you wouldn't know now because you haven't seen the movie and you are relying on someone else's thoughts to make this criticism.

I suggest you refrain from implied attacks like this until you know what you are talking about.

I defended Nicholas Provenzo from the charge of cultism. One does not have to have viewed V for Vendetta to recognize that the assault on Provenzo's character is unwarranted.

[softwareNerd]

From what I gather, the complaint is that the review concentrated on the weaknesses of ethics and politics of the movie at the cost of its aesthetic merits. I don't see how someone's integrity can be judged from this choice of focus.

Suppose one accepts, for the sake of argument, that this movie has great aesthetic merits and also that it espouses the wrong philosophy. The net result is an enjoyable movie that is not perfect. Les Miserables and Crime and Punishment could be made into enjoyable movies, even though the faulty explicit philosophy might detract from them.

The extent to which some explicit message will detract is higly dependent on the viewer (i.e. the individual Objectivist who is watching). Personally, over the years, I have learnt to pick up pearls wherever I find them, and ignore the morass in which they may lie. Qua movie viewer, the morass is of no importance to me.

[RationalBiker]

I defended Nicholas Provenzo from the charge of cultism. One does not have to have viewed V for Vendetta to recognize that the assault on Provenzo's character is unwarranted.

One does have to have viewed V to know whether or not his review or evaluation is accurate. You haven't so any view you have about the movie or the accuracy of his comments is gathered strictly from faith, not any thought of your own.

I reiterate more firmly, do not imply attacks on other users unless you know what you are talking about.

[Strangelove]

the author's criticisms were primarily political, not aesthetic: that V's "revolution" was not based on basic principles and that it constituted an implicit endorsement of anarchism. These points follow from fundamental Objectivist ethics. That Mr. Provenzo chose to address such moral weaknesses in the movie is not evidence of "cultish" behavior but of the highest personal integrity.

I appreciate the distinction made, but once again, the problem then becomes that the description of V as a true anarchist whom the audience should not reasonably like makes no sense from what was shown in the movie. I suppose all he needed to say was "And by the way, I think that in the future, we should have lazie faire society with little government intervention" and then all of a sudden, the movie is not as flawed as it would have been before. But no, the lack of that line, means that the movie is terrible and not worth watching.

If I was asked if the movie is not 100% in line with Objectivitst ethics, I would say that yes, that is true. Partly because the source material was even further away from Objectivist ethics. I hardly see how a movie being only 93% in line with Objectivists ethics makes it not worth watching at all though.

Daedalus, if you are so insistent on not paying for the movie, I assume you could illegally download it.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Strangelove

[RationalBiker]

Daedalus, if you are so insistent on not paying for the movie, I assume you could illegally download it.

That may be possible, but why on earth would you suggest it here?

[intellectualammo]

Hear of Darkness

Why I like it:

-There are so many emotions that get evoked from this text, its exciting and chilling and impressive all at the same time. There is something to be said for the novel helping stir the colonialist inside of me.

What I Assume "Hard Line" Objectivists Would Not Like:

-Ambiguity!!!

You mean "Heart of Darkness" by Joseph Conrad, not "Hear of Darkness", right?

[Strangelove]

Yes.

That may be possible, but why on earth would you suggest it here?

Deadalus strikes me as the kind of person who would avoid paying taxes if he could get away with it despite it being illegal to do so.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Strangelove

[Daedalus]

One does have to have viewed V to know whether or not his review or evaluation is accurate. You haven't so any view you have about the movie or the accuracy of his comments is gathered strictly from faith, not any thought of your own.

I reiterate more firmly, do not imply attacks on other users unless you know what you are talking about.

As a regular reader and admirer of Nicholas Provenzo, I know exactly what I am talking about. The merits of the movie have no bearing on the accusation that Mr. Provenzo is cultish. Anyone familiar with Mr. Provenzo's dedication to reason and the advancement of Objectivism will recognize the charge as the art of smearing at its worst.

[RationalBiker]

As a regular reader and admirer of Nicholas Provenzo, I know exactly what I am talking about.

First, Strangelove doesn't even accuse Mr. Provenzo of being "cultish". What he says is that articles like that make him uncomfortable because they appear to be written from the perspective of "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did."

Second, regardless of whatever contributions Mr. Provenzo has made to the good of Objectivism, I disagree with his assessment of the value of the movie, and his criticism's of V's character are weak (he offers no Galt's speech; he's no John Galt, there's tons of good movies out there that don't have those qualities). Then right after he declares that V is an anarchist, he quotes a line from the movie that is very suggestive that V is NOT an anarchist; "people ought not fear their governments, governments ought to fear their people." This would certainly seem to be a recognition that SOME government should be in place, just not the tyrannical government they currently have. The only place I agree with him is in part where he states V does not spell out what he's fighting for so much as what he's figthing against. I have explained previously, why I think that is; V knew he wouldn't be around, and he was going to leave that choice to those left alive.

There is no way you can know if Mr. Provenzo's review is off-base or not because you have not seen the movie. Based on the way he writes his critique, I can understand why Strangelove might think the way he does about Mr. Provenzo having the "with me or against Objectivism" attitude.

Anyone familiar with Mr. Provenzo's dedication to reason and the advancement of Objectivism will recognize the charge as the art of smearing at its worst.

And anyone familiar with logical fallacies would recognize this statement to be one of an "argument from intimidation".

[Daedalus]

First, Strangelove doesn't even accuse Mr. Provenzo of being "cultish". What he says is that articles like that make him uncomfortable because they appear to be written from the perspective of "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did."

There is an implicit accusation of cultishness: "No matter how much people insist and persist that Objectivism is not a cult because its a philosophy of individuality, reading articles like that review which is written with the understanding that 'And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did.' is not comforting."

There is no way you can know if Mr. Provenzo's review is off-base or not because you have not seen the movie.

There is no way I can know if any review of a book, play, movie, concert, album, restaurant or hotel is off base unless I read the book, watch the movie, attend the concert, play the album, eat at the restaurant and sleep in the hotel. So much for the value of reviews. So much for the careful management of my spare time.

Based on the way he writes his critique, I can understand why Strangelove might think the way he does about Mr. Provenzo having the "with me or against Objectivism" attitude.

Can someone be against Objectivism and with you?

And anyone familiar with logical fallacies would recognize this statement to be one of an "argument from intimidation".

Since Provenzo never made the statement "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did," the alleged argument from intimidation is a phantom, and Provenzo's critics are attacking a strawman.

[Qwertz]

You know, the review didn't read as terribly 'cultish' to me, either. Aggressive, yes, but the closest I could come to finding 'If you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did' was this:

Only intellectual revolutionaries, such as the American founders or Objectivists, are left out of V for Vendetta's premise.

Which might be read to imply that Objectivists should feel left out by V's revolution, but I don't think that reading necessarily must follow.

But it does imply that the movie's premise is one of revolution exclusive of ideology, and that only the American founders and Objectivists have ever supported revolution with ideology. He says that V's revolution could include

Muslims upset about Koran abuse, homosexuals tired of government oppression, [or] people opposed to genetic engineering, surveillance cameras, taxation, or the war in Iraq.

But all of these people have an ideology, and some of them would likely replace Norsefire with yet another oppressive, totalitarian regime. I haven't seen the film yet, so I can't confirm that V never indicates what he would replace Norsefire with, but I think his strong stance against totalitarianism would preclude his being associated with these types.

I'm not sure why Provenzo included homosexuals tired of government oppression and people opposed to taxation in that list. Any government which oppresses those it is supposed to protect, or forceably confiscates property, and leaves no legal avenue for the redress of grievences should be forceably overthrown. The key is the lack of non-violent recourse by which to correct the wrongs, and the objective evil of oppression and taxation.

I'll try to see it sometime in the next week, so I can comment more on the actual content of the film.

-Q

[Strangelove]

There is an implicit accusation of cultishness: "No matter how much people insist and persist that Objectivism is not a cult because its a philosophy of individuality, reading articles like that review which is written with the understanding that 'And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did.' is not comforting."

No, this is not about Mr. Provenzo specefically being "cultish". Its about similarily worded comments from other Objectivists which don't make sense to me (despite the overwhelming logic of everything else) and hold me back really being able to support Objectivism.

Since Provenzo never made the statement "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did," the alleged argument from intimidation is a phantom, and Provenzo's critics are attacking a strawman.

That is very strongly implied in what you have said and what the article said. If Mr. Provenzo and you are both convinced that his interpretation of reality is correct, then what he says must be true. And you both use of Objectivism to interpret reality, then your use of Objectivism must be flawless. So when reading the article, the implicit assumption is that Mr. Provenzo has made perfect use of Objectivism to reach his conlusions and that if no one else did, they are clearly flawed.

I personally dont mind if there are people who dont like the movie, but I prefer better reasons then the ones he described, especially if he wants to argue that the movie as a whole is not worth watching.

[Daedalus]

No, this is not about Mr. Provenzo specefically being "cultish". Its about similarily worded comments from other Objectivists which don't make sense to me (despite the overwhelming logic of everything else) and hold me back really being able to support Objectivism.

If you don't think Provenzo's argument was cultish, why even bring up "cult" in your response? That is nothing more than guilt by association.

If Mr. Provenzo and you are both convinced that his interpretation of reality is correct, then what he says must be true.

False. Belief and truth are not synonymous.

And you both use of Objectivism to interpret reality, then your use of Objectivism must be flawless. So when reading the article, the implicit assumption is that Mr. Provenzo has made perfect use of Objectivism to reach his conlusions and that if no one else did, they are clearly flawed.

And the problem with that is . . . ?

I personally dont mind if there are people who dont like the movie, but I prefer better reasons then the ones he described, especially if he wants to argue that the movie as a whole is not worth watching.

His reasons were sufficient to convince me not to watch V. I'd rather put on my old VHS tape of The Fountainhead.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Daedalus

[Strangelove]

If you don't think Provenzo's argument was cultish, why even bring up "cult" in your response? That is nothing more than guilt by association.

"Cult" was bad word choice by me. (Definition from my computer dictionary being: "a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf.") When compared to Scientology for example, it becomes very clear that Objectivism is not a cult, it is a philosophical system which places an exceptionally high amount of stock in what Ayn Rand had and might have said, but it would not argue that Ayn Rand herself is the essential component when compared to the Objectivist system. (Though she is understandably a point of great interest.)

I did however, feel that Mr. Provenzo was (and yes I have read his FAQ) speaking on behalf of Objectivism, and that if you did not come out the review as you should have, feeling "empty", that you are a human being who has a fundamental problem that is enough to group in same set as the "Orgasmic Libertarians"

And the problem with that is . . . ?

Aside from the fact that there are a number of Objectivists who probably disagree with being put in the same category as "Orgasmic Libertarians" http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=3259 (And for the record, I do not call myself an Objectivist since I am aware that that is a very precise definition) I find the test of whether or not you come out of that movie feeling empty or not a poor indicator of how "incorrect" you are. A number of people have already commented on the context of the film to discuss reasons for that in more detail.

With regards to his recent blog post where he clarifies that he has a very specific audience in mind for his movie reviews, I can understand what he means, and I will admit that I originally read his review with the thought that he felt that the other aspects of a movie should not be included because they are unimportant. Now I understand that he simply feels that his blog is not the appropriate medium to discuss issues other then the ethics of the film.

Of course, there have been many disagreements with his discussion of the ethics of the film, as well as disagreements with how those ethics actually affect the ability to come out the film with a Pro-Objectivist view and enjoy the movie (and I am beginning to become convinced that that is more strongly dependent on personal taste and less on Objectivism itself), but I wont hold it against him that it is his only focus in the blog since he clearly is capably of appreciating other aspects.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Strangelove

[Thoyd Loki]

Can someone be against Objectivism and with you?

What are you implying with the question? Whether or not Mr. Provenzo's review implied "with me or against Objectivism", your question amounts to a sanction of a stand like that.

The question is not "can someone be against Objectivism and with you", but "can someone be against you (Mr. Provenzo-namely, his opinion of the movie) and with Objectivism". That is the question.

Or are you saying that disagreement with Mr. Provenzo equals disagreement with Objectivism?

If this is not your stance, then your question entirely irrelevant.

Since Provenzo never made the statement "And if you are an Objectivist, you would have reached the exact same conclusion I did," the alleged argument from intimidation is a phantom, and Provenzo's critics are attacking a strawman.

It is not a phantom, you did make the statement, and it was argument from intimidation.

Anyone familiar with Mr. Provenzo's dedication to reason and the advancement of Objectivism will recognize the charge as the art of smearing at its worst.

I did not get that impression from Mr. Provenzo's review. Then again I let my own eyes and ears and mind be the judge. I do think that he should leave movie reviews to someone else, as I almost never agree with him in this department, and this particular review tanked big time.

[Thoyd Loki]

No, this is not about Mr. Provenzo specefically being "cultish". Its about similarily worded comments from other Objectivists which don't make sense to me (despite the overwhelming logic of everything else) and hold me back really being able to support Objectivism.

Why let other people determine your support for Objectivism? Why let the interpretations and/or distortions of others determine what you think of the philosophy? Objectivism is a set of principles, not a population of followers. If all the Objectivists you know (the good, the bad and the ugly) died tomorrow, it would reflect not a drop on the philosophy nor change a principle in it, nor its ability to help you think and live. It is your mind and reality.

I noticed several posts ago that someone criticized a movie you like, Dr. Strangelove (I haven't seen it) by explaining its message or meaning. He did it in complete imitation of exactly the way you said someone (a "hard-liner") would. This is very illustrative of the way some people digest Objectivism. Notice how a description of the "message" was equated with its value as a work of art as if there was no distinction. Does that sound like the Objectivist aesthetics? It certainly does not to me. And I am right.

"Ah, this depicts the victory of the Christians over the Pagans! Bad!"

"Arg, this movie's message is how man is defeated if he tries to reach too high. Awful!"

"Yew, this is a story of unrequited love, and is tragic. Disgusting!"

Were you asked why you liked this movie? You were not. Were you asked if you understood the meaning of the movie and if you agreed with that? You were not. Were you then asked do you like it despite its message? You were not. Were you asked of any context of your own self at all? You were not. You were given a one line synopsis, and you are supposed to reject it on those grounds alone. It does not agree to Objectivist principles-BAD ART. Suppress yourself, deny what you like for the abstraction.

I implore you not to consider that an application of Objectivism. That is Objectivism as ingested through a Rationalist Cheese-Cloth.

[hunterrose]

The author's criticisms were primarily political, not aesthetic: that V's "revolution" was not based on basic principles and that it constituted an implicit endorsement of anarchism. These points follow from fundamental Objectivist ethics. That Mr. Provenzo chose to address such moral weaknesses in the movie is not evidence of "cultish" behavior but of the highest personal integrity.

So... despite the things that suggest that V was not an anarchist, his lack of an explicit denunciation of anarchism qualifies as an "implicit" endorsement??

Would someone charging that Dominique, or any other Rand character, didn't specifically speak against anarchism require we reread the respective novel to evaluate it - or would criticizing her silence on the matter be offbase?

And, by the way, Dr. Strangelove is a vile movie that engages in moral equation between Soviet aggression and American military defense. Its malicious twisting of reality and disgusting dismissal of American vigilance and patriotism sparked a sea change in American opinion that led to the defeat of Ayn Rand's candidate, Barry Goldwater, in 1964.

Your blinders are causing you to miss out on a good movie.