Check out my short film!

[jimipatterson]

A short film I made for the Atlas Shrugged video competition.

There's been some debate over the hero's integrity. I'm glad, seeing as the point of the film was to bring up discussion. I'm curious what you think!

[claire]

Sorry, but I can't understand any of the mumbling.

[dream_weaver]

If this was to illustrate that Galt destroyed the motor he had a part in developing for the company he worked for, there are a couple of issues that are out of alignment to me.

Do you approve of the inventor's actions?

In the book, he just abandoned the motor. He knew it would serve no purpose to those who did not comprehend it.

Does a company own an idea of one of it's employees?

Most engineering companies exchange the promise of pay, for the product of the employees it pays.

Is it moral to break a contract?

You agreed to the terms of the contract.

Is it moral to compromise your values if a contract you signed in the past demands it?

Again, you agreed to the terms of the contract. If your values have changed since entering the contract - you can offer to renegotiate the terms of the contract.

Will you recommend this short?

Not as having captured the spirit of novel as I had read it.

[jimipatterson]

If this was to illustrate that Galt destroyed the motor he had a part in developing for the company he worked for, there are a couple of issues that are out of alignment to me.

It was not suppose to have been a retelling of the book, or even a reenactment. It was merely in the vein of... I was trying to explore the ideas of over regulation, copyright, and personal integrity as a creative person living by the tenets of Objectivism. I wanted to use an inventor with a machine as the nod to the book.

This would be my first attempt in making an "Objectvist" film; on the next execution I will be far more clear so as the viewer can better comprehend the hero's dilemma.

[jimipatterson]

Sorry, but I can't understand any of the mumbling.

I'm sorry you're having trouble hearing. Here is a transcript.

NARRATOR

November 12th, 2035. As I await my arrest, I write my confession. Most of what you'll hear about me is true. They'll say I'm arrogant, sinful, and uncaring. They'll tell you about my crime: What I've stolen, who i've disobeyed, and how I've disgraced the public.

AGNEW

You're here, because the committee is taking over your project?

FREDERICK

No. I'm not going to hand my machine over to a bunch of second-rate looting researchers.

NARRATOR

This is why I love the man that I am. Because we live in a world upside down. A world where we coddle unintelligence and treat treat genius like a defect. Mediocrity reigns while superiority is deemed shameful. Innovative men are hobbled so the incompetent ones can compete. The groups welfare is far more important than the individuals.

AGNEW

Of course you won't... you don't compromise. But you signed on the dotted line, and no judge will ever rule in your favor.

FREDERICK

Say whatever you want... but i dont need the support from a corrupt justice system to tell me what's rightfully mine.

NARRATOR

How did it get like this? HOW did it get like this?

FREDERICK

That invention is my greatest achievement...

NARRATOR

Mans mind...

FREDERICK

It doesn't belong to you...

NARRATOR

Nothing...

FREDERICK

The public...

NARRATOR

But a fragment...

FREDERICK

And certainly not the committee.

NARRATOR

Of a collective. So, now I ask you to reexamine my crimes. Only in a society this distorted am I guilty. I've done what i can do to protect myself... But now I am faced with a dilemma: My mind, my life, my freedom but face persecution. Or, the unthinkable.... What would you do?

Edited December 31, 2010 by jimipatterson

[dream_weaver]

It was not suppose to have been a retelling of the book, or even a reenactment.

That would change the tenor of my initial presumption considerably.

Even so, the questions posed, not knowing the nature of the [implied?] contractual agreement, would still make the assessment you request difficult here for myself.

The action sequence went well with the dialog. If the inventor had no contractual agreement with the committee, then by all means he is free to dispose of his property as he deems fit.

[prescient]

An interesting and thought provoking short film. However, a couple of the follow-up questions have the “have you stopped beating your wife” flavor which cannot have a simple yes or no answer. If you willingly enter into a contract which you have read through and understand, how then can your decision to break that contract be defended? Unless of course the other party in the contract has abrogated their responsibility in the contract. If I understood the film, the principle invented something he did not want to surrender to his employer even though the employer has provided the main character the facilities, materials and money to create this invention. If the employer provided the means to create this invention, it has to be rightfully the property of the employer as per the prior contract. If however the Galt-like character in this film has an idea, he should have ended his employment contract with the employer and pursued the invention on his own. That would have been an honest pursuit of the invention as well as protecting the principle form the state like entity portrayed in the film. The independent pursuit of this invention on terms of the main characters choice would make this device entirely his to do with as he wishes.

[jimipatterson]

An interesting and thought provoking short film. However, a couple of the follow-up questions have the “have you stopped beating your wife” flavor which cannot have a simple yes or no answer. If you willingly enter into a contract which you have read through and understand, how then can your decision to break that contract be defended? Unless of course the other party in the contract has abrogated their responsibility in the contract. If I understood the film, the principle invented something he did not want to surrender to his employer even though the employer has provided the main character the facilities, materials and money to create this invention. If the employer provided the means to create this invention, it has to be rightfully the property of the employer as per the prior contract. If however the Galt-like character in this film has an idea, he should have ended his employment contract with the employer and pursued the invention on his own. That would have been an honest pursuit of the invention as well as protecting the principle form the state like entity portrayed in the film. The independent pursuit of this invention on terms of the main characters choice would make this device entirely his to do with as he wishes.

I agree with what you are saying; and i'll try to clarify. Although I do not hold any excuse; the film is 3 minutes... and I was hoping although it was not expressly obvious... in the future regulation and corporate ownership is rampant and the accepted norm. I tried to convey this with the narration. The individual has NO right whatsoever. So, the principal has to accept a job-- in the case of the short; some field of research. (Much like how things are today. Most people have a hard time CHOOSING their field... its often dictated to them) Once he makes his discovery-- he can't just sit back and let it become the property of some group, no matter how involved they were in financing the resources... at the end of the day the idea IS HIS. So... in a free market, I AGREE, the hero would be wrong morally... but in a world where everything is controlled, regulated, and owned... where no individual is protected... the hero behaved accordingly.

With the next film I will leave nothing in the air, or subtextual and I appreciate your comments. Thanks for watching.

[Hermes]

I was not able to vote. I would have selected one Yes only, recommending the film. However, the software demanded that I vote on all questions. I found some questions to be false dichotomies. For others, I did not have enough information.

I was impressed with the production. I had no problem hearing the narrator. The editing was competent, giving depth to the action and narration. The director had a clear idea and carried it through. It is pretty easy to argue philosophy. Making a movie is a bit harder.

Criticizing the work the artist did not make is unfair. In Atlas Shrugged, Hank Rearden apparently gave his patent to the nation which provided him with opportunity, though the omniscient author provided the reader with more information. In this story, set 25 years in the future, we have no way to judge the context beyond the presentation.

The writer/director may be an Objectivist or a Communist. It is obvious that the artist is a realist, not an impressionist or expressionist. One purpose of art is to make you stop and think. In fact, for me, that is the primary purpose of art. This three-minute vignette delivered much to think about. It is the story of a man who destroys his life work and risks death rather than let his creation be used by evil others.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Hermes