Novels That Should Not Have Been Filmed
Lincoln Spector
haven't read it in 30 years). The film, which follows the book very closely,
sucks eggs. No story. No conflict. Just people walking around talking
philosophy until they're old.
Perhaps the only worse choice was Jonathan Livingston Seagull. Once again,
it was very close to the book, but unlike Siddhartha, but book itself was
pretty bad). The film? No story. No conflict. Just seagulls flying around
talking philosophy until they die. Then they get reincarnated so they can
continue flying around talking philosophy.
Lincoln
Jess Askin
"Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:klL2d.22342$sA2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Ulysses
The Trial
Anything by Henry James
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
I had to see this because I didn't believe it could be done. Then I
realized that you could film an infinite number of different movies
based on the book, at least if you filmed it that way.
> The Trial
>
They changed it around more than a bit. I don't think it was wrong to
film. It might've been wrong to translate though.
> Anything by Henry James
>
As an example, "The Wings of the Dove"?
--
"Scars are the paler pain of survival, received unwillingly and
displayed in the language of injury." +- Mark Z Danielewski, "House of
Leaves"
Kingo Gondo
The Brothers Karamazov
Sometimes A Great Notion
Other:
The Fountainhead
MadiHolmes
>
>Other:
>The Fountainhead
I don't know. This might fall into the so godawful that it becomes bizarrely
funny. Like a trainwreck
MadiHolmes
Kingo Gondo
"MadiHolmes" <madih...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040917234857...@mb-m12.aol.com...
Perhaps, but it pains me to put the director of "The Big Parade" and "The
Crowd" (among others) up in Ed Wood territory.
Tony
was so awful it was just plain terrible.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"MadiHolmes" <madih...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040917234857...@mb-m12.aol.com...
> >
> >
AKieswetter
The Naked Lunch
Andrew Kieswetter
Tom Cervo
>> >The Fountainhead
>>
>> I don't know. This might fall into the so godawful that it becomes
>bizarrely
>> funny. Like a trainwreck
>
>
>Perhaps, but it pains me to put the director of "The Big Parade" and "The
>Crowd" (among others) up in Ed Wood territory.
No, it's a hoot. Watching Cooper--who was quail hunting buddies with Hemingway
and Faulkner--trying to make Ayn Rand's dialogue sound remotely human is a
hoot. "Duel in the Sun" is a hoot as well, a Wagnerian Western. Vidor was
talented enough to make these things entertaining and fun to watch. It's fun
watching someone like Walter Huston knowingly doing a self-parody of his
barnstorming style. (They're a lot more entertaining than "The Big Parade",
which is 1925's version of "Saving Private Ryan", a huge, dishonest hit of a
war movie; the kind of thing that Vidor had to make so he could make really
good movies like "The Crowd".)
Calvin Rice
Maybe so, but it was a great book, and seeing a bad movie made from it
might turn some people away from the book, which is a shame.
-cr
(I know, I know, nothing with Ayn Rand's name on it can possibly
be any good, as you have been so effectively taught to say, with an
uninformed but still withering sneer.)
Calvin Rice
> Atlas Shrugged on the other hand
> was so awful it was just plain terrible.
It's bad only to those who have been taught to trash it without reading
it, and to those who can't appreciate a book on its own terms, but have
to, for example, compare it to what a 'novel' is supposed to be, and
to those who have to agree with a book's philosophy before they can look
at it merits open-mindedly.
Atlas Shrugged isn't meant to be a 'novel' or any other particular
predetermined type of book. It is what it is, a great mystery story,
a great rant about individualism as opposed to collectivism, a series
of stunningly constructed dramatic scenes with deliberately larger than
life characters, who many people have found to be inspirational.
But, considering the disaster that the movie of The Fountainhead is,
I hope Atlas Shrugged is never filmed. At least not as a movie; a
long TV miniseries might work.
I'm aware of the predominant political make-up of this newsgroup, so
don't imagine that you will be surprising me by demonizing me along
with the book for having the effrontery to try to defend it.
-cr
Jess Askin
"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
message news:414B937B...@backpacker.com...
Definitely for example. What a travesty. But he's always hard to capture
on film, since his books mostly take place in his characters' minds. I
should have made an exception for The Innocents though, since although it
deviates from the book it's still a terrific movie.
Calvin Rice
> >Perhaps, but it pains me to put the director of "The Big Parade" and "The
> >Crowd" (among others) up in Ed Wood territory.
> No, it's a hoot. Watching Cooper--who was quail hunting buddies with Hemingway
> and Faulkner--trying to make Ayn Rand's dialogue sound remotely human is a
> hoot. "Duel in the Sun" is a hoot as well, a Wagnerian Western. Vidor was
> talented enough to make these things entertaining and fun to watch. It's fun
> watching someone like Walter Huston knowingly doing a self-parody of his
> barnstorming style. (They're a lot more entertaining than "The Big Parade",
> which is 1925's version of "Saving Private Ryan", a huge, dishonest hit of a
> war movie; the kind of thing that Vidor had to make so he could make really
> good movies like "The Crowd".)
The movie is horrible, despite the fact that Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay
and King Vidor directed it. But you can't judge a book by the movie, and
The Fountainhead is a great book. No doubt you think you are sliming the
book by laughing at the movie, which deserves it, but you are not. Most
people know that you can't judge a book by the movie, and you probably
know it too, though in this case you probably don't want to admit it.
King Vidor directed the 1956 version of War and Peace too, but if you
think that movie did justice to the book, you're crazy. In comparison,
the movie sucked.
-cr
Kingo Gondo
> don't imagine that you will be surprising me by demonizing me along
> with the book for having the effrontery to try to defend it.
>
> -cr
Dude, get off your cross--you are a little too eager to be martyred here,
methinks. A LOT of people now find Rand embarrassing to some degree or the
other, including many modern-day libertarians, so please--quit presuming
that those who disdain your artistic choices are solely motivated by a
political agenda. One Grand Inquisitor was enough.
Kingo Gondo
"Tom Cervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040918073208...@mb-m24.aol.com...
While agree The Crowd is quite a bit better than The Big Parade (which was
indeed a big "Hollywood" film of its day--although there's nothing
inherently wrong with that), I think you do the latter a disservice with
this comparison --The Crowd is among the best American silents ever made,
IMO. While I make no claim to be a silent film expert, The Big Parade was
certainly one of the very best American silents to deal with WWI. And, I'm
not sure Vidor's view of the film necessarily mirrors yours (that it was his
"paycheck" film, as opposed to his "art" film)--from what I've read and
heard, he seemed quite proud of it. Again, as a non-expert, I'm certainly
willing to be corrected if you have something that indicates otherwise.
My favorite WWI silent is Gance's original "J'Accuse"--even through my Nth
generation VHS copy his outrage roars through.
John Harkness
He likes Passion, Pearl Harbor and Ayn Rand?
The thing one loves about Cal is his utter predictability.
John Harkness
StormChaser
"AKieswetter" <apkies...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14003ccd.04091...@posting.google.com...
The Color Purple
Catch 22
The Mosquito Coast
Your Pal Brian
> And, I'm
> not sure Vidor's view of the film necessarily mirrors yours (that it was his
> "paycheck" film, as opposed to his "art" film)--from what I've read and
> heard, he seemed quite proud of it. Again, as a non-expert, I'm certainly
> willing to be corrected if you have something that indicates otherwise.
Indeed he did. He famously went to Thalberg and asked to do an important movie,
Thalberg asked "An important movie about what?" and Vidor answered "Steel,
Wheat, or War." Big P was War, obviously, Our Daily Bread was Wheat, and I
dunno if he ever got around to Steel. Maybe An American Romance, but I haven't
seen it yet.
Hallelujah and other films with a religious or moral tilt were also among the
personal ones, often built around his Christian Science beliefs.
His paycheck films were stuff like Show People.
By the way, he claims in On Filmmaking that The Big Parade was the first film to
use an absolute consistency of screen direction - the Germans always moving left
to right, the Americans right to left, and so on. I don't know if this is true,
but it's one of the things that makes the film so impressive; gives it sort of a
subliminal feeling of unstoppable momentum.
Brian
Tony
intelligence - Good move, but one that doesn't mean one when you start by
attacking me.
I've only read half of Atlas shrugged. After the absolute assininity of the
Fountainhead I could sorta tell after a while that things weren't oing to
get better. A non writer is a non writer. I also was a full fledged Eng Lit
major (at one time) So I'm not basing my opinion on complete lack of
knowledge here. I've read a lot, and turned in a lot of papers.
You, on the other hand, with no knowledge of me, have determined in your
own head that I didn't read your precious illiterate's POS and therefore you
have given yourself a "authority" position. Sorry, Ace - but Shite is
Shite - even if it is anti-commie.
Your assumption I didn't read Shrugged is similar to this:
Since you haven't read "Howard's End", "Ullysses", or "The Great Gatsby"
you have nothing upon which to judge the quality of "Shrugged" or any other
20th century writing. Go spend a few years at a good school getting a good
education and see if at the end of that time you still think tripe is
treasure. If you still like Rand's blather after reading some real books -
then you are too dumb to be educated.
See how it works?
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Calvin Rice" <os...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:22680de.04091...@posting.google.com...
Tony
This has got to be the same yo-yo come back under a new name. Look at
the style, the "I'm the lone voice of sanity" defense, the right wing
doggerel. It's the old Grande Inq, having discovered he has been killfiled
by everyone setting up a new account to start over.
I'm pretty sure it's a different troll than Gaza, as it only seems to
have one subject - More like the Vic Morrow, And that tap dancer woman
troll - monomaniac.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@zor.org> wrote in message
news:nQ13d.1003394$ic1....@news.easynews.com...
Tom Cervo
> Catch 22
> The Mosquito Coast
>
Actually, I can imagine capable versions of all three, but done by people with
less of a tendency to solemnity, gunning so obviously for an Oscar.
Anthiony Burgess opined that a truly great novel can not be successfully
adapted to film. None of the above are great novels.
Kingo Gondo
> There is the clue!
> This has got to be the same yo-yo come back under a new name. Look at
> the style, the "I'm the lone voice of sanity" defense, the right wing
> doggerel. It's the old Grande Inq, having discovered he has been killfiled
> by everyone setting up a new account to start over.
Hmmm...possible, I suppose, but he'd have to be REALLY confused. Rand was a
raging atheist, while GI was almost-a-snakehandling Jesus Christer, waiting
to "raptured" into the starry abodes. I will give Calvin the benefit of the
doubt (on this point).
Blue
"The Catcher In The Rye" was also terrible, because it was never
filmed, I reckon because the author never gave permission, so it'll
always be that way, just ramblin', you know. Blue
Bob Tiernan
> He famously went to Thalberg and asked to do an important movie,
> Thalberg asked "An important movie about what?" and Vidor answered
> "Steel, Wheat, or War." Big P was War, obviously, Our Daily Bread
> was Wheat
Intersting thing about Our Daily bread -- the farmers in it
were the downtrodden heroes who needed water. Move forward
about 70 years and a duplicate situation in southern Oregon
and parts of No. Calif has been going on the past few summers
in the Klamath Basin, but the lefties don't wanna give 'em
the water. Hmmmmm.
Bob Tiernan
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to
be defenders of minorities."
-- Ayn Rand
Pam or C. Wayne Owens
wayne
http://www.movieandtvnews.com/
"Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:klL2d.22342$sA2....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
Pam or C. Wayne Owens
since it came out. Now there is a concept. "The Nutty Catcher In The Rye."
wayne
http://www.movieandtvnews.com/
"Blue" <blues...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:876a049a.04091...@posting.google.com...
Your Pal Brian
> Hmmm...possible, I suppose, but he'd have to be REALLY confused. Rand was a
> raging atheist, while GI was almost-a-snakehandling Jesus Christer, waiting
> to "raptured" into the starry abodes.
Maybe that's where he's gotten to?
> I will give Calvin the benefit of the
> doubt (on this point).
Calvin isn't Gaza nor GI nor Rander. He's been around here and Current for a
while.
Brian
Calvin Rice
> He likes Passion, Pearl Harbor and Ayn Rand?
But, I like many other things that are approved by you and others here,
such as Russian Ark, Pollock, Girl with a Pearl Earring, most Fellini,
most Antonioni, most Woody Allen, about half of Bergman, all but one of
the Coen brothers' movies, The Station Agent, and of course many other
'approved' movies that don't come to mind immediately. I generally like
every Sundance-honored movie I see, but I know that cuts no ice with
you because you have already declared that you don't like anything
connected with Sundance. (Though of course that's not prejudiced.)
> The thing one loves about Cal is his utter predictability.
There goes that theory.
-cr
(You forgot to mention that I like the 'horrible' Bonfine of the Vanities.)
Calvin Rice
>
> Your assumption I didn't read Shrugged is similar to this:
>
> Since you haven't read "Howard's End", "Ullysses", or "The Great Gatsby"
> you have nothing upon which to judge the quality of "Shrugged" or any other
> 20th century writing. Go spend a few years at a good school getting a good
> education and see if at the end of that time you still think tripe is
> treasure. If you still like Rand's blather after reading some real books -
> then you are too dumb to be educated.
> See how it works?
If you will check my post again you will see that I didn't assume you
hadn't read the book. That was one of three or more possibilities I
listed.
I understand that your paragraph above is supposed to be only an
analogy, to illuminate what you said I assumed about you, but you
still seem to be assuming that I've read nothing but Ayn Rand. I
read Atlas Shrugged in 1964 (but still voted for Johnson instead of
Goldwater). I never got around to reading The Fountainhead until
1992. I assure you I've done other reading. The book that I like
to mention when talking about Atlas Shrugged is War and Peace.
Tolstoy and Rand are two Russians who could not be more opposite.
Ayn Rand has said that reading Tolstoy was her most odious literary
duty, and no doubt Tolstoy would think the same about her. Tolstoy
is a supreme collectivist and Rand a supreme individualist. Yet I
love War and Peace. I go with Tolstoy's collectivism while reading
it, just as I go with Rand's atheism while reading her. I strongly
believe in the value of a 'willing suspension of disbelief' in a
writer's philosophy, or politics, or religion when reading his work.
That's more than I can say for modern little academic lefties who
wont touch anything that doesn't conform to their views, or the
views of their sneering professors.
What I hate is sneering snobbery, putting down something without even
bothering to give a reason, because you're secure in this company,
knowing that 90 percent or more of the people here will just nod in
agreement, because of one of the possibilities that I listed.
-cr
Calvin Rice
> "The Catcher In The Rye" was also terrible, because it was never
> filmed, I reckon because the author never gave permission, so it'll
> always be that way, just ramblin', you know. Blue
Right, Salinger never has given permission. Now would be a great time
to film it, because Lucas Black is exactly the right age to play Holden.
I can't imagine a more perfect young actor to do it. Please, Jerome,
before it's too late.
-cr
Tom Cervo
>were the downtrodden heroes who needed water. Move forward
>about 70 years and a duplicate situation in southern Oregon
>and parts of No. Calif has been going on the past few summers
>in the Klamath Basin, but the lefties don't wanna give 'em
>the water. Hmmmmm.
Are we talking about the Joads here, or Agribusiness? Don't confuse Tom
Dunson's spread with a feed lot being run for a company based in Amsterdam with
a few local poster children.
John Harkness
>There is the clue!
> This has got to be the same yo-yo come back under a new name. Look at
>the style, the "I'm the lone voice of sanity" defense, the right wing
>doggerel. It's the old Grande Inq, having discovered he has been killfiled
>by everyone setting up a new account to start over.
> I'm pretty sure it's a different troll than Gaza, as it only seems to
>have one subject - More like the Vic Morrow, And that tap dancer woman
>troll - monomaniac.
Calvin and the GI are two different people.
No evidence at all that Cal has ever seen a Tarkovsky movie
John Harkness
David
>I understand that your paragraph above is supposed to be only an
>analogy, to illuminate what you said I assumed about you, but you
>still seem to be assuming that I've read nothing but Ayn Rand. I
>read Atlas Shrugged in 1964 (but still voted for Johnson instead of
>Goldwater).
I had no idea you were that old. I thought you were a teen.
>What I hate is sneering snobbery, putting down something without even
>bothering to give a reason, because you're secure in this company,
>knowing that 90 percent or more of the people here will just nod in
>agreement, because of one of the possibilities that I listed.
If you really hate it, a newsgroup is the wrong place to hang.
frank habets
> again, it was very close to the book, but unlike Siddhartha, but book
> itself was pretty bad). The film? No story. No conflict. Just seagulls
> flying around talking philosophy until they die. Then they get
> reincarnated so they can continue flying around talking philosophy.
>
> Lincoln
>
When I tried reading Joe L. Seagull as a kid, it confirmed my theory that
most adults are stupid.
***
Other 'unfilmable' authors, (so far):
Kurt Vonnegut. Hi ho. So it goes.
Isaac Asimov. Too talky and not enough action?
Some would argue that maybe Thackeray can't be made into a feature-lenght
film either (Barry Lyndon, Vanity Fair).
***
OTOH, some directors can bring to the screen books I'd have thought
impossible for it.
Cronenberg did it for J.G. Ballard (Crash) and Burroughs (Naked Lunch).
Kingo Gondo
"Your Pal Brian" <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote in message
news:414D7960...@iFreedom.com...
> Kingo Gondo wrote:
>
> > Hmmm...possible, I suppose, but he'd have to be REALLY confused. Rand
was a
> > raging atheist, while GI was almost-a-snakehandling Jesus Christer,
waiting
> > to "raptured" into the starry abodes.
>
> Maybe that's where he's gotten to?
If the Rapture has occurred, that would leave George W. Bush behind as the
almost-certain Antichrist.
I think you may be on to something....
Jess Askin
"StormChaser" <ring...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Ct33d.6028$n16....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I disagree emphatically on the last one, that was a riveting movie. I admit
I haven't read the book though.
Jess Askin
> > The Color Purple
> > Catch 22
> > The Mosquito Coast
> >
>
> Actually, I can imagine capable versions of all three, but done by people
with
> less of a tendency to solemnity, gunning so obviously for an Oscar.
> Anthiony Burgess opined that a truly great novel can not be successfully
> adapted to film.
Hmm, could he possibly be thinking of one of his own novels that was filmed?
Jess Askin
Why in the world should he? He doesn't need the money. I don't think it
would make a very good movie anyway -- they'd never get it right. The book
is very much a period piece, and that period is long gone
Tony
She was beneath the level of a hack. To compare her with Tolstoy is moronic.
If political correctness is the standard by which you judge literature - and
it obviously is - then you fall into the too dumb to be educated field.
Instead of an example this has now become a statement of opinion. Farewell.
Have fun with your savant philosopher. I've wasted enough time on you.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Calvin Rice" <os...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:22680de.04091...@posting.google.com...
Mute Fan
> Anything by Henry James
Watch The Bostonians, an early foray into pretentiousness by
Merchant/Ivory, and s-u-f-f-e-r.
Or maybe I should just say "YOO-hoo! YOO-hoo!" (Olive Chancellor,
portrayed by the equally pretentious Vanessa Redgrave.)
(BTW, the lead in that movie was an execrable American ingenue. Does
anyone know why M/I cast this woman? She was neither exceptionally
good-looking, well-known, and especially not talented. Christopher
Reeve actually may have given his best performance ever in this film;
and the plot lent itself to pre-90's-angst. But the film was ruined
by the woodenness of the lead actress, who never again costarred let
alone starred in a major motion picture.)
Calvin Rice
> I had no idea you were that old. I thought you were a teen.
> If you really hate it, a newsgroup is the wrong place to hang.
I keyed in a reply but then noticed that the two lines above are the
only thing you have contributed to this entire thread.
-cr
Calvin Rice
> Calvin isn't Gaza nor GI nor Rander. He's been around here and Current for a
> while.
Several years and always as me. I tried using another id for 3 or 4 posts
a couple of years ago, but found it was no fun if I couldn't be me. Actually
it's not all that much fun being me in this pit of vipers, but I press on.
-cr
Tom Cervo
>Hmm, could he possibly be thinking of one of his own novels that was filmed?
>
He was talking about an adaptation of "The Charterhouse of Parma".
Tom Cervo
Madeleine Potter. I thought she was sweet and unaffected. James Levine
recommended her to Ivory.
>But the film was ruined
>by the woodenness of the lead actress, who never again costarred let
>alone starred in a major motion picture.)
The lead actress was Vanessa Redgrave, who gave a fine performance. Potter, the
ingenue, played in another Merchant/Ivory film and continues to work in the
theatre.
Jess Askin
> >
> >Hmm, could he possibly be thinking of one of his own novels that was
filmed?
> >
>
> He was talking about an adaptation of "The Charterhouse of Parma".
I ask because there's a very pointed caricature of Kubrick in Earthly
Powers. I gather Burgess was less than thrilled with the film version of A
Clockwork Orange.
David
>> I had no idea you were that old. I thought you were a teen.
>
>> If you really hate it, a newsgroup is the wrong place to hang.
>
>I keyed in a reply but then noticed that the two lines above are the
>only thing you have contributed to this entire thread.
So ... is that all you have to say?
Tony
same doublethink as this guy - But I'll be the first to admit that even Gaza
might be more than one person -- it just doesn't matter how many there are
when all are best dumped into the killfile.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@zor.org> wrote in message
news:Jw73d.1021874$ic1.1...@news.easynews.com...
jayembee
> I gather Burgess was less than thrilled with the film version of A
> Clockwork Orange.
He was, but mostly because Kubrick's adaptation was missing the
denouement of Burgess's last chapter. Kubrick was taking the tack
that removing Alex's freedom of choice was a bad thing, and that
undoing the damage therefore set things right again. Burgess felt that
removing Alex's freedom of choice was a bad thing, but giving it back
to him didn't make things better. If anything, it made them worse.
-- jayembee
Calvin Rice
> ...
> If political correctness is the standard by which you judge literature - and
But it obviously isn't. Didn't you notice that I said I love War and Peace?
Didn't you notice that I said I suspend my disbelief in a writer's
philosophy or politics or religion, and go with what the writer is offering,
on the writer's own terms?
And I didn't say that Rand's philosophy is what I like most about her
writing, so you were wrong to assume that. Yes, I prefer individualism to
collectivism, but I'm no aspiring Objectivist. I just think Rand tells a
good story, in both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.
I don't expect you to respond to this, because you have already wasted
enough time on me, you said. But others can see your unfairness in
distorting what I said.
-cr
Calvin Rice
Ok, I'll reply to your profound remarks. To the first one, I don't know
or care what your age is. To the second one, when I decide it's wrong
for me, I'll quit 'hanging' here.
-cr
Johnd Fstone
[...]
> I'm no aspiring Objectivist.
That's a good thing, because becoming an Objectivist sounds like too
high a goal. I don't know if I could EVER accomplish my life-long
dream of becoming an Objectivist.
[...]
--
If you talk to show how much you know, you show how little you know.
-- from the film RESISTING ENEMY INTERROGATION
David
>But it obviously isn't. Didn't you notice that I said I love War and Peace?
>Didn't you notice that I said I suspend my disbelief in a writer's
>philosophy or politics or religion, and go with what the writer is offering,
>on the writer's own terms?
Good idea, because you can't extrapolate the "writer's philosophy or
politics or religion" from a novel.
Calvin Rice
> No evidence at all that Cal has ever seen a Tarkovsky movie
No (having just looked him up on the IMDb) but I would be happy to
try one. If you can give me a couple of the titles most likely to
be on video, I'll see if I can find one on eBay or somewhere. The
video stores in my area are sure not to have any.
-cr
Calvin Rice
> No evidence at all that Cal has ever seen a Tarkovsky movie
I should have looked on eBay before making my last post. There are
plenty of Tarkovsky movies there, both VHS and DVD. I'll get one right
away. If you have a particular suggestion, please say.
-cr
Elbow Baggins
Did you ever read the last chapter?
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/chabrieres/texts/clockwork_orange.html
You've an odd idea about 'making it worse.'
Calvin Rice
> os...@netscape.net (Calvin Rice) wrote:
In general no doubt you're right, but in the cases of Atlas Shrugged and
War and Peace, the writers explicitly expound their philosophies, though
of course they may later change.
-cr
Calvin Rice
> os...@netscape.net (Calvin Rice) writes:
> > I'm no aspiring Objectivist.
> That's a good thing, because becoming an Objectivist sounds like too
> high a goal. I don't know if I could EVER accomplish my life-long
> dream of becoming an Objectivist.
Since you spell the word with a capital 'O', I assume you're referring
to the philosophy(*) put forth by Rand in Atlas Shrugged, and later
ellaborated upon by herself and Leonard Piekoff and others. If that
is correct, I wonder why you didn't try to defend Atlas Shrugged in
this thread? Not that you had any obligation to, but I sure could
have used some help.
(*) I consider what Rand gave us in Atlas Shrugged to be a rant, not a
philosophy, but that's not meant negatively. I love her rant, and I
think she deserves a listen because she experienced some of the evils
of institutionalized collectivism after the Russian Revolution of 1917,
before she got the hell out and came to America.
Still, it's the storytelling, more than the rest, that I think is so great
about Atlas Shrugged.
-cr
P.S. to Tony Spadaro: My favorite writer, jerk, is not Ayn Rand. It's
Flannery O'Connor.
Your Pal Brian
The Sacrifice is my favorite, photographed by Sven Nikvist; the Kino DVD includes a "making of". Solaris is my
least favorite and the most popular. (Figures.) Andrei Rublev gets shown in film schools a lot. Stalker is cool,
Nostalghia underrated, and Mirror rather silly. Ain't seen Ivan. TCM shows The Steamroller And The Violin every
once in a while, so keep an eye out, and his student film of The Killers is on the Criterion disk with the Siodmak
and Siegel versions. Ain't seen it. Chris Marker made a documentary about him, but I found it heavy-handed. He
(Tarkovsky) also wrote a book, Sculpting in Time.
Brian
Calvin Rice
> The Sacrifice is my favorite, photographed by Sven Nikvist; the Kino DVD includes a "making of". Solaris is my
> least favorite and the most popular. (Figures.) Andrei Rublev gets shown in film schools a lot. Stalker is cool,
> Nostalghia underrated, and Mirror rather silly. Ain't seen Ivan. TCM shows The Steamroller And The Violin every
> once in a while, so keep an eye out, and his student film of The Killers is on the Criterion disk with the Siodmak
> and Siegel versions. Ain't seen it. Chris Marker made a documentary about him, but I found it heavy-handed. He
> (Tarkovsky) also wrote a book, Sculpting in Time.
Thanks. I've already ordered Andrei Rublev today, on a double VHS tape,
letterboxed, so I'll watch it first and then take it from there.
-cr
Kingo Gondo
"Your Pal Brian" <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote in message
news:414F1F23...@iFreedom.com...
TCM has also shown Ivan, Solaris and The Sacrifice (the latter quite
recently)--somebody there likes Mr. T.
By the way, a couple of years ago somebody named a thoroughbred race horse
Tarkovsky. Alas, he lived up to the standard criticism tossed at his
namesake: too slow.
Mute Fan
> Madeleine Potter. I thought she was sweet and unaffected. James Levine
> recommended her to Ivory.
Whoa! WHO are you, Tom Cervo (to have such insider information)? I
disagree with--
> The lead actress was Vanessa Redgrave, who gave a fine performance. Potter, the
> ingenue, played in another Merchant/Ivory film and continues to work in the
> theatre.
Potter definitely was the lead IN THE FILM VERSION. Olive Chancellor
is the "lead" in the novel.
George Peatty
wrote:
>If the Rapture has occurred, that would leave George W. Bush behind as the
>almost-certain Antichrist.
Nonsense. Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ. When the Rapture occurs, George W
will be ascending skyward and heading home. He'll have lots of company.
Kingo Gondo
It's an awesome choice. I just showed it my SO last month--and she's still
here. Seriously, it is even better after the first viewing. It is so epic in
its scope and ambitions (in a most unHollywood way) that it takes more than
just one viewing to fully wrap your brain around it. (Uh-oh...I'm starting
to sound like a pseudo-intellectual prick).
One point--maybe you're rolling in dough and just don't care, but unless
you're are in the sticks, there are such things as libraries. Mine has AR on
that nice Criterion DVD, for free. Seems like a better option for the test
drive of a new model, IMO. I just reserve it online, pick the branch to have
it delivered to (when the DVD is available), await their call, and have 5
days after they call to go get it. Easy as toast.
Johnd Fstone
> Johnd Fstone <jd...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> news:<uoek1hxi1...@softhome.net>...
> > os...@netscape.net (Calvin Rice) writes:
>
> > > I'm no aspiring Objectivist.
>
> > That's a good thing, because becoming an Objectivist sounds like
> > too high a goal. I don't know if I could EVER accomplish my
> > life-long dream of becoming an Objectivist.
>
> Since you spell the word with a capital 'O', I assume you're
> referring to the philosophy(*) put forth by Rand in Atlas Shrugged,
> and later ellaborated upon by herself and Leonard Piekoff and
> others. If that is correct, I wonder why you didn't try to defend
> Atlas Shrugged in this thread? Not that you had any obligation to,
> but I sure could have used some help.
Duh, I couldn't defend Objectivism in a standard way, e.g., quoting
from Galt's speech, because I haven't accomplished the super-duper
lofty goal of being an Objectivist.
I have no defense; I just like the phrase "aspiring Objectivist".
[...]
--
3.) Three, you need barriers to participation. This is one of the
things that killed Usenet. -- Clay Shirky
MadiHolmes
>
>Nonsense. Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ. When the Rapture occurs, George W
>will be ascending skyward and heading home. He'll have lots of company.
>
Who knew that you could bribe God as well as Ivy-league schools?
MadiHolmes
John Harkness
Sacrifice and Ivan't Childhood are probably the most accessible.
Solaris will drive most sane people to distraction unless they've done
a lot of weed.
Mirror is fairly astonishing, though one needs a high tolerance for
modernist memory films.
Nostalghia and Stalker are my favorites, but I wouldn't recommend them
as starters.
Andrei Rublev I've not seen in a long time.
John Harkness
Kingo Gondo
"MadiHolmes" <madih...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040920195039...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Don't quarrel with George (P.)--he has access to the records of Hell, I
hear. I bet he could pencil your name in damned quick (so to speak).
how...@brazee.net
On 20-Sep-2004, George Peatty <pttyg4...@copper.net> wrote:
> Nonsense. Bill Gates is the Anti-Christ. When the Rapture occurs, George
> W will be ascending skyward and heading home. He'll have lots of company.
Bill had better up his campaign contributions. How much does it cost to
add your name to the rapture list?
Chuck Klaus
They've moved Hell upstairs?
jayembee
>jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
>
>> "Jess Askin" <spam...@dontbother.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I gather Burgess was less than thrilled with the film version of A
>> > Clockwork Orange.
>>
>> He was, but mostly because Kubrick's adaptation was missing the
>> denouement of Burgess's last chapter. Kubrick was taking the tack
>> that removing Alex's freedom of choice was a bad thing, and that
>> undoing the damage therefore set things right again. Burgess felt that
>> removing Alex's freedom of choice was a bad thing, but giving it back
>> to him didn't make things better. If anything, it made them worse.
>
> Did you ever read the last chapter?
Yes, I have. Several times.
> You've an odd idea about 'making it worse.'
How so?
Kubrick left the movie with the implication that Alex was going right
back to being the monster he'd been before, and presented that as
a triumph. Burgess left the novel with the understanding that Alex
would grow out of his ways.
-- jayembee
ToolPackinMama
> Kubrick left the movie with the implication that Alex was going right
> back to being the monster he'd been before, and presented that as
> a triumph.
Yes, but that was ~ironic~, don't forget.
> Burgess left the novel with the understanding that Alex
> would grow out of his ways.
Oh? How ya figure? Please explain in detail.
jayembee
> jayembee wrote:
>
>> Kubrick left the movie with the implication that Alex was going right
>> back to being the monster he'd been before, and presented that as
>> a triumph.
>
>Yes, but that was ~ironic~, don't forget.
Perhaps. I'm not convinced.
>> Burgess left the novel with the understanding that Alex
>> would grow out of his ways.
>
> Oh? How ya figure? Please explain in detail.
Elbow gave a link to the final chapter. Did you read it? Among
other things, when his new droogies are about to go off for a
night of fun, Alex decides he's not in the mood. Later, when he
runs across one of his old droogs, he's surprised that the droog
is married, and starts thinking about perhaps settling down himself.
-- jayembee
Calvin Rice
> ...
> One point--maybe you're rolling in dough and just don't care, but unless
> you're are in the sticks, there are such things as libraries. Mine has AR on
> that nice Criterion DVD, for free. Seems like a better option for the test
> drive of a new model, IMO. ...
Thanks; no I'm not rolling in dough; I rent one from Blockbuster every week
and always get one free, plus many more freebies per year. Our BB is fairly
good with some new foreign movies(*), but has few old ones. The AR I found on
eBay is 'new' and costs 8.85 including shipping. I completely forgot about
our local library, which does have some videos and I haven't checked the
titles recently.
(*)I've rented a Russian, a German(**), and a couple of Australian ones in
the past few months.
(**)I can't recall the title at the moment, but it's a very nice one
about a teenager trying to shield his ailing mother from the knowledge
that the Berlin wall has come down and East Berlin is becoming westernized.
-cr
Your Pal Brian
> (**)I can't recall the title at the moment, but it's a very nice one
> about a teenager trying to shield his ailing mother from the knowledge
> that the Berlin wall has come down and East Berlin is becoming westernized.
Goodbye Lenin.
Brian
Elbow Baggins
And you said.....
> >> Burgess felt that
> >> removing Alex's freedom of choice was a bad thing, but giving it back
> >> to him didn't make things better. If anything, it made them worse
And then later said...
> Burgess left the novel with the understanding that Alex
> would grow out of his ways
Which is it Dude?
>
> -- jayembee
Calvin Rice
> Goodbye Lenin.
Yes, and more to the point I should have said that it is knowledge of
the collapse of the Soviet Union from which he is trying to protect her,
in her fragile state of health.
-cr
Elbow Baggins
> ToolPackinMama <la...@lauragoodwin.org> wrote:
>
> > jayembee wrote:
> >
> >> Kubrick left the movie with the implication that Alex was going right
> >> back to being the monster he'd been before, and presented that as
> >> a triumph.
> >
> >Yes, but that was ~ironic~, don't forget.
>
> Perhaps. I'm not convinced.
>
> >> Burgess left the novel with the understanding that Alex
> >> would grow out of his ways.
> >
> > Oh? How ya figure? Please explain in detail.
>
> Elbow gave a link to the final chapter. Did you read it? Among
> other things, when his new droogies are about to go off for a
> night of fun, Alex decides he's not in the mood. Later, when he
> runs across one of his old droogs,
The Droog was Pete, didn't you ever wonder what happened to Pete?
He and his wife were about to go to a friends and do couple's type things.
This failed to earn Alex's contempt, instead it caused a mild form of envy,
a feeling of emptiness and longing. WOW that Burgess was a damn fine writer.
Anyway the fact that it was Pete, the missing Droog, shows that this is what
Burgess intended all along.
Joe Gillis
>> The Color Purple
>> Catch 22
>> The Mosquito Coast
>>
>
IMHO the film of Catch-22 wasn't that bad. Most of the cast was good. Bob
Newhart as Major Major and Jack Gilford as Doc Daneeka were excellent, and Alan
Arkin was the perfect Yossarian.
Not everyone was perfect -- Jon Voight was totally wrong for Milo Minderbinder,
and as for Art Garfarkle...
While no masterpiece, the film has some nice moments -- and certainly could've
been a lot worse.
>Actually, I can imagine capable versions of all three, but done by people
>with
>less of a tendency to solemnity, gunning so obviously for an Oscar.
>Anthiony Burgess opined that a truly great novel can not be successfully
>adapted to film. None of the above are great novels.
>
As far as Catch-22 is concerned, I couldn't agree less.
=================================================
"I don't mind lying, but I HATE inaccuracy." -- Samuel Butler
Joe Gillis
copen9370
jayembee
>jayembee <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote:
There's no contradiction there. Alex didn't change for the better
right away.
-- jayembee
Calvin Rice
> BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES!!!!!
Well, if it shouldn't have been filmed, does that mean I should destroy
my beautiful letterboxed laserdisc of it, and publicly renounce the past
pleasure I've had from seeing the movie about five times, and also get
the couple of people who have enjoyed watching it with me to renounce
the pleasure they had from it too? Should we refrain from seeing any
more Brian De Palma movies, in protest of his filming of Bonfire?
-cr
Elbow Baggins
Dude, weak!
He was 18 years old when he 'grew up', right on schedule.
(And indeed Burgess's whole point, there was nothing 'wrong' with Alex
to begin with.)
> -- jayembee
Jess Askin
"Your Pal Brian" <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote in message
> Kingo Gondo wrote:
>
> By the way, he claims in On Filmmaking that The Big Parade was the first
film to
> use an absolute consistency of screen direction - the Germans always
moving left
> to right, the Americans right to left, and so on. I don't know if this is
true,
> but it's one of the things that makes the film so impressive; gives it
sort of a
> subliminal feeling of unstoppable momentum.
You just made me realize that whenever I picture a WWI battlefield, I
picture the French or British on the left and the Germans on the right. I
believe that's the way it's usually filmed, too. But why? Makes just as
much sense the other way around.
Jess Askin
"Your Pal Brian" <brian...@iFreedom.com> wrote in message
> Calvin Rice wrote:
>
> > John Harkness <jhXaYr...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:<kv6rk01ki8c74bpe1...@4ax.com>...
> >
> > > No evidence at all that Cal has ever seen a Tarkovsky movie
> >
> > I should have looked on eBay before making my last post. There are
> > plenty of Tarkovsky movies there, both VHS and DVD. I'll get one right
> > away. If you have a particular suggestion, please say.
> >
>
> The Sacrifice is my favorite, photographed by Sven Nikvist; the Kino DVD
includes a "making of". Solaris is my
> least favorite and the most popular. (Figures.) Andrei Rublev gets shown
in film schools a lot. Stalker is cool,
> Nostalghia underrated, and Mirror rather silly. Ain't seen Ivan. TCM
shows The Steamroller And The Violin every
> once in a while, so keep an eye out, and his student film of The Killers
is on the Criterion disk with the Siodmak
> and Siegel versions. Ain't seen it. Chris Marker made a documentary
about him, but I found it heavy-handed. He
> (Tarkovsky) also wrote a book, Sculpting in Time.
If you really want to torture him, trick him into sitting through Stalker.
Nimrod ``
<spam...@dontbother.com> wrote:
>
>Anything by Henry James
>
You're joking, right?
THE INNOCENTS is the greatest filmed ghost story ever as far as I'm
concerned....and THE HEIRESS is both haunting and devastating; both
great films.
N``
Kingo Gondo
"Jess Askin" <spam...@dontbother.com> wrote in message
news:cislkq$dj6$1...@news.netins.net...
Because every map of the Western Front that has ever been published is laid
out that way.
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> --
> 3.) Three, you need barriers to participation. This is one of the
> things that killed Usenet. -- Clay Shirky
Usenet is dead? News to me.
ObPastFilms: I was just fortunate enough to catch a restored version of
Visconti's _The Leopard_. It's a perfect example of an epic film that's
moving and dramatic precisely because it's not heavy.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"I wish to express my grateful thanks to Mr. Irving Chernev for kindly
allowing me to use his excellent library. I must also beg my wife's pardon
for heartlessly thrusting the typing of the manuscript upon her."
-- Dr. Reuben Fine, in the preface of _Basic Chess Endings_
Calvin Rice
Since you top-post, I will too. You're lying. Neither have you read half
of Atlas Shrugged, nor do you understand why you condemn it. You're
parroting others who have convinced you that you shouldn't like it. You
may have read some of it, but it's doubtful that you read even the first
chapter with an open mind, or else you would know that Ayn Rand could write.
Not like Joyce, or Tolstoy, or Fitzgerald, because it was not in her
interest to write the way they wrote. As a reader, it's not your job to
accept or reject a writer because she is or isn't like other writers. It's
your job to open your mind and take in what is written, or leave it alone.
It's certainly not your job to write baseless condemnations because the writer
uses a style of romantic surrealism, and tries to promote individualism.
If you hate individualism, you should have the decency to admit it, but
not vindictively try to trash a writer because of it. If you hate the
use of larger than life heroes and villains, you should just say so, but
not try to denigrate a writer and her readers, because you object to a
writer's politics, or attitude, or style. If Ayn Rand was a poor writer
in the ways that you imply, her books would not have been revered by so
many, and reviled by so many. The woman was a lightning rod, but not
'less than a hack'.
If you read half of Atlas Shrugged, prove it. Or show that you have any
grasp of what was put forth in the first part of the book, even the first
tenth of it.
I've been skipping around in the book recently, reading favorite sequences,
and I happened to notice that possibly the most impressive sequence of all,
the events leading to the train disaster in the Colorado mountains, begins
exactly half-way through the book. That reminded me that you claimed to
have read half the book, which would have been 584 pages in my copy. No
one who detests something, as being 'beneath the level of a hack' would
inflict such misery on oneself.
Tell the truth, Tony. Sneering snobbery doesn't impress anyone except
would-be snobs.
-cr
"Tony" <tspa...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message news:<7tm3d.4025$zA3.7...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> Willing suspension of Disbelief. Rand couldn't write, or think straight.
> She was beneath the level of a hack. To compare her with Tolstoy is moronic.
> If political correctness is the standard by which you judge literature - and
> it obviously is - then you fall into the too dumb to be educated field.
> Instead of an example this has now become a statement of opinion. Farewell.
> Have fun with your savant philosopher. I've wasted enough time on you.
>
> --
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
> home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
> The Improved Links Pages are at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
> A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
> http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
>
> "Calvin Rice" <os...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:22680de.04091...@posting.google.com...
> > "Tony" <tspa...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:<kn63d.3951$zA3.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com>...
> > >
> > > Your assumption I didn't read Shrugged is similar to this:
> > >
> > > Since you haven't read "Howard's End", "Ullysses", or "The Great
> Gatsby"
> > > you have nothing upon which to judge the quality of "Shrugged" or any
> other
> > > 20th century writing. Go spend a few years at a good school getting a
> good
> > > education and see if at the end of that time you still think tripe is
> > > treasure. If you still like Rand's blather after reading some real
> books -
> > > then you are too dumb to be educated.
> > > See how it works?
> >
> > If you will check my post again you will see that I didn't assume you
> > hadn't read the book. That was one of three or more possibilities I
> > listed.
> >
> > I understand that your paragraph above is supposed to be only an
> > analogy, to illuminate what you said I assumed about you, but you
> > still seem to be assuming that I've read nothing but Ayn Rand. I
> > read Atlas Shrugged in 1964 (but still voted for Johnson instead of
> > Goldwater). I never got around to reading The Fountainhead until
> > 1992. I assure you I've done other reading. The book that I like
> > to mention when talking about Atlas Shrugged is War and Peace.
> > Tolstoy and Rand are two Russians who could not be more opposite.
> > Ayn Rand has said that reading Tolstoy was her most odious literary
> > duty, and no doubt Tolstoy would think the same about her. Tolstoy
> > is a supreme collectivist and Rand a supreme individualist. Yet I
> > love War and Peace. I go with Tolstoy's collectivism while reading
> > it, just as I go with Rand's atheism while reading her. I strongly
> > believe in the value of a 'willing suspension of disbelief' in a
> > writer's philosophy, or politics, or religion when reading his work.
> > That's more than I can say for modern little academic lefties who
> > wont touch anything that doesn't conform to their views, or the
> > views of their sneering professors.
> >
> > What I hate is sneering snobbery, putting down something without even
> > bothering to give a reason, because you're secure in this company,
> > knowing that 90 percent or more of the people here will just nod in
> > agreement, because of one of the possibilities that I listed.
> >
> > -cr
Tom Sutpen
*twice* a number of years ago, and while it's a crackerjack piece of
storytelling (that was always Rand's literary gift, her ability to tell a
story; something she learned at the feet of a master, Cecil B. DeMille), the
philosophy that informs the novel is strictly for adolescents (and those who
think like them). Believe me, I was under the sway of Objectivism for about a
half-hour and even I eventually figured out that what made sense on the page
(or did it?) doesn't translate smoothly into real life.
She was extremely good at constructing and writing stories (a
not-inconsiderable achievement by any standard), but she was no kinda
prophetess.
Tom Sutpen
"Cinema is Truth, 24 Times a Second"
-- Jean-Luc Godard
"The Truth is 'what is'. And 'what should be' is a fantasy; a terrible,
terrible lie that someone gave the people long ago".
-- Lenny Bruce
JMKAUFFMAN
period, read virtually all of Rand, including "Atlas Shrugged." (Not to
mention Nietzsche, but that's whole 'nother story, LOL). To a person, even
those of us who loved Rand (despite her inherent deficiencies) tended to want
to throw "Atlas" across the room when one of the central conceits of the book
(think Shangri-La) was revealed. If you approach Rand as a semi-operatic
writer, with both the pros and cons that that genre engenders, she can be
enjoyable. And I'm one of the few (perhaps) who actually likes the film
version of "Fountainhead." (Whatever happened to the announced TV miniseries
of "Atlas Shrugged," I wonder--I seem to remember Faye Dunaway was announced to
star, which shows how long ago it was in development).
The Truth About Frances Farmer:
http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html
Tony
but since it appears addressed to me I will reply to Tom Sutpen (did you
know that the people of that name here in the Souf spell it Sutpin?)
I find Rand an overbaked bore as a storyteller - which goes along with
your DeMille comparison - I find his storylines overbaked bores too. So much
of the plot tends to swing on illogical events or people withholding
information for no good reason etc, that I cannot get into them. I read all
of Fountainhead and determined that the Architect was insane - he takes a
job on commission knowing they are going to do their level best to change
it, then goes postal when they do --- if you want to be a pure artist you
PAINT or sculpt and leave stuiff you cannot afford to people who have been
tainted by commercialism. His relationship with the woman was more than a
bit sick - from my point of view, I've never been into S&M and think rape is
about power and control - not sex.
I can't even remember Atlas but I only got a couple hundred pages into
that giant turkey. There was an earlier book that I read too - title plot
and everythign else forgotten.
I've always seen Rand as someone who obviously did not spend a happy
childhood and devised herself a world view to take revenge on those who made
her unhappy, then had the audacity to call it a "philosophy". In a way it is
mose similar to another deep thinker of the era - Hugh Heffner and the
Playboy Philosophy (Sex is good) and they are probably the parents to the
philosophy of the Spinal Tap keyboardist.
I was, according to my cousin the Randist, however, already corrupted - I
had read a few real philosophers at the time and they were all commies ---
especially Bertrand Russell. SWo with my mind so full of commie propaganda I
was lost forever. Russell wasn't his only target for hatred, my cousin was
equally disgusted with that proto-commie, Plato. He never mentioned anyone
else. I believe Russell and Plato (both of whom he bragged he had never
read) were his knowledge of philosophy other than his guru, mentor, and
platonically beloved (although he would NEVER use that word), the
incomparable, and insane, Ayn Rand.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Tom Sutpen" <akir...@aol.commintern> wrote in message
news:20041011070427...@mb-m23.aol.com...
Calvin Rice
> For what it's worth, I slogged through the entirety of "Atlas Shrugged"
> *twice* a number of years ago, and while it's a crackerjack piece of
> storytelling (that was always Rand's literary gift, her ability to tell a
> story; something she learned at the feet of a master, Cecil B. DeMille), the
> philosophy that informs the novel is strictly for adolescents (and those who
> think like them). Believe me, I was under the sway of Objectivism for about a
> half-hour and even I eventually figured out that what made sense on the page
> (or did it?) doesn't translate smoothly into real life.
> She was extremely good at constructing and writing stories (a
> not-inconsiderable achievement by any standard), but she was no kinda
> prophetess.
I agree with most of what you said. Every time I mention Rand books in these
NGs, I always point out that I'm no Objectivist, and don't aspire to be, but
I always say that the books, Atlas Shrugged in particular, are great story-
telling. That's all I would like to see others admit.
I don't know whether screen writing for DeMille is what taught Ayn Rand story-
telling or not, but Atlas Shrugged is a marvel of plot construction. As for
adolescent thought, I don't think individualism and capitalism are things
that need to be 'gotten over' as one grows up, but of course there's a lot
more than individualism and capitalism in Rand's 'philosophy'. I certainly
don't see anything wrong with enjoying a thousand-page rant in favor of
individualism and capitalism. We get enough rants against them these days,
from all sides.
-cr
Calvin Rice
> ...
> I've always seen Rand as someone who obviously did not spend a happy
> childhood and devised herself a world view to take revenge on those who made
She got the hell out of Russia a few years after the Revolution of 1917,
and had a story to tell about what happened there (*). It's one thing to have
an unhappy childhood because of a family situation, but quite another to
be a first-hand witness to a movement that captured the imagination of
a large part of the world, and was in direct conflict (collectivism vs.
individualism) with much of Western civilization. Such a person, such a
refugee, who has a passion to write about the difference between the
essense of the U.S.S.R. and the essense of the U.S.A., deserves a hearing,
not an automatic put-down by those who oppose her politically.
-cr
(*) We the Living
P.S. Just because one knows a person who was hostile to Russell and Plato,
and revered Ayn Rand, does not mean that everyone who finds something
useful in Rand is the same way. I read a large amount of Russell when
I was young, and have read Plato all my life. It seems to me that it is
the Rand haters, in general, who are more of the view that one's reading
should be consistent and exclusive. I've always read writers of all sorts,
who often have totally opposite views of the world, such as Rand and Tolstoy,
One doesn't have to be a snob in either direction.
Chris Cathcart
> I've always seen Rand as someone who obviously did not spend a happy
> childhood
"...obviously..."
and devised herself a world view to take revenge on those who made
> her unhappy, then had the audacity to call it a "philosophy". In a way it
is
> mose similar to another deep thinker of the era - Hugh Heffner and the
> Playboy Philosophy (Sex is good) and they are probably the parents to the
> philosophy of the Spinal Tap keyboardist.
Slightly provocative, but without substance. (Your statement, not Rand's
philosophy.)
> incomparable, and insane, Ayn Rand.
"Insane" not meant, literally, "obviously."
--
Chris Cathcart
http://geocities.com/cathcacr
e-address: remove [Spamlover]
Chris Cathcart
"Tom Sutpen" <akir...@aol.commintern> wrote in message
news:20041011070427...@mb-m23.aol.com...
> philosophy that informs the novel is strictly for adolescents (and those
who
> think like them).
Rubbish.
nut
i've only read the first few chapters of fountainhead and i got
hooked. i will finish it. rand was ultimately a genre writer with
formulas and types rather than characters but damn SHE IS FUN! she's
somewhere between a serious and a popular writer. i would definitely
rank her higher than puzo whom i love.
the problem is she mistook her grand fantasies--and they are
stunning--for serious thought. i mean i'll take godfather or scarface
as firstrate fantasies but don't try to build philsophical foundations
on them.
but, in a century dominated by modernist fragmentation,
rand--ironically along with hitler and stalin--aimed for the mythic
and grandiose. she took the american individual and turned him into
a demigod. she was the fascist of anti-fascism. she was the
totalitarian of anti-totalitarianism. she was an european intellectual
of american anti-europeanism. she was crazy. but she was one of a
kind.
sadly, she also confused her fantasies for thought.
Chris Cathcart
> I agree with most of what you said. Every time I mention Rand books in
these
> NGs, I always point out that I'm no Objectivist, and don't aspire to be,
but
> I always say that the books, Atlas Shrugged in particular, are great
story-
> telling. That's all I would like to see others admit.
You probably won't get them to admit it, particularly if their ethics and
politics are in disagreement with Rand's. I've basically read no fiction
over the past 10 years, with the exception of Rand's novels, so my frame of
reference about her quality as storyteller may be non-existent. I could
compare her storytelling with great storytelling in films, and I think I
could say this: it's hard to view them as stories outside of what she wants
to say philosophically. It's a "story" in that it tells how a country will
get all fucked up if it abandons capitalism and individualism, but that's
really all she does, just dramatized considerably.
> I don't know whether screen writing for DeMille is what taught Ayn Rand
story-
> telling or not, but Atlas Shrugged is a marvel of plot construction.
Well, the plot is summarized really briefly as: the men of the mind, the
wealthiest and most successful producers go on strike, withdrawing from
society since they're no longer willing to sanction evil and have their
efforts plundered. No longer having products to plunder, the rest of
society collapses. A major conflict that goes on is in the values held by
characters like Dagny and Hank -- whether they want to hang on to society
and sanction evil, or leave. Some plot "twist" has to do with the identity
and role in all of this played by John Galt.
I don't know if that qualifies as great plot construction or not. She's
dramatizing her ideas, first and foremost, and a reasonably good story gets
built around that.
As a literary construction, it seems to be much too heavy on the explicit
verbalization of her ideas. The ideas get crammed down the reader's throat,
and then re-crammed, and re-crammed at great length. The 60-page, 3-hour
radio address goes beyond heavy-handed into some other realm altogether.
I do like the part of the book having to do with the train disaster in the
tunnel, but more as a dramatization of ideas than as storytelling. :-)
> As for
> adolescent thought, I don't think individualism and capitalism are things
> that need to be 'gotten over' as one grows up,
Of course. If anything, it's latent or explicit anti-individualism and
anti-capitalism that need to be "gotten over" as one grows up.
Tony
keeps you off the street and means you aren't exposing yourself to the
neighbourhood children. That sounds like a good guess to me. Our discussion
is now over -- for life. I don't have a lot of time to waste on the weak
minded, and you have already wasted more than enough of my time.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Chris Cathcart" <cathcacr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6V1bd.2178$NX5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Tony" <tspa...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Ns1bd.23734$n%3.36...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> > Don't attempt to change my meaning. When I say something I mean it. I
said
> > INSANE and I meant INSANE. The woman was off her cart, her elevator
didn't
> > go all the way to the top, she was a dozen marbles short of a Chinese
> > Checkers Set, and all the other various ways one describes a clinical
> case.
> > Ayn Rand was insane. PERIOD.
>
> Let me guess: you don't command much credibility around here.
Shouse
read. Rand didn't really need a lengthy Galt speech in there. The book's
message is delightfully and authentically clear far prior to that point.
I think I've said enough to upset fans and critics alike.