I saw Atlas Shrugged, Part II last night. I don't want to do a complete review of the movie, but I do want to make a few comments.
The script writing in Part II is much better, there is suspense throughout the movie. I'm sure the better script is partially responsible for the better acting and directing than in Part I. Both the better acting and better direction are very noticeable. I was pleasantly surprised.
Those, who are not an Ayn Rand junkies, might actually enjoy this film. Unlike, Part I, which had stiff acting and a poorly written script.
The anti-IP people are going to choke over the movie. As I have stated before, I am in favor of intellectual property rights, though not the current form of IP laws (Yes, the book is coming.) The movie contains a number of pro-IP scenes that tend to support the current IP legal structure, but overall it does a heroic job of dramatizing that creations of the mind are the property of the creator of the ideas.
The most shocking and disappointing scene in the movie comes when neoconservative Sean Hannity appears on screen in a cameo appearnce, playing himself as a news commentator defending steel magnate Henry Rearden. Sadly, neocons are attempting to co-opt the Ayn Rand philosophy and it is just terrible that a neocon managed to get a role in this film. I shudder to think about the number of people who will be introduced to Rand's thinking through this film and end up associating Rand thought with Hannity.
Putting Sean Hannity in the movie even if it's in a cameo roll is the kiss of death for me. Maybe if the reviews of the movie turn out to be outstanding , I will catch it when it comes out on video.
ReplyDeleteSeriously. I've been kind of excited for this. But Hannity??? Like you, I'm probably waiting for it on Amazon Instant.
Deletebetter wait for the Pirate Bay copy which is certainly forthcoming. :)
DeleteCritics, un surprisingly, are hating on it. Viewers seem more positive.
Delete"creations of the mind are the property of the creator of the ideas"
ReplyDeleteNo they are not. The contents of the mind are not property since they cannot be scarce. And it is impossible to prove that a mind created anything, since the contents of the mind can only be known to itself. Defending IP is simply defending government enforced monopoly. It is market control.
really? go tell that to silicon valley and while you are at it tell them all to go home because they now have no incentive to work. another mindless comment
DeleteI call bs: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm
DeleteHumans didn't create, invent, produce until merchantilists invented coercive monopoly a couple of centuries ago. And if silicon valley doesn't have monopolies, they will have no incentive to work. Now, THAT is a mindless comment.
Delete"go tell that to silicon valley"
DeleteGo talk to some real inventors and entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley. They usually hate the IP system passionately. Lawyers, on the other hand, just love it. After all, by now Google and Apple spend more on patent litigation and defensive IP acquisition than on actual R&D.
The movie contains a number of pro-IP scenes that tend to support the current IP legal structure, and overall it does a reprehensible job of dramatizing that nationalist monopolies should aggress against people who transform their own property into certain unoriginal configurations.
ReplyDeleteFTFY
Sean Hannity: America's Favorite Fascist Propagandist
ReplyDeleteMmmm, Krugman perhaps.
DeleteVery good observation. Property exists as an object not a concept. Concepts, or creations of the mind, cannot be property. They do not exist. Even if scarce or not ideas cannot have an "owner". That would imply complete control over them. That would be impossible for ideas to be controlled. Ownership is also a concept, and it comes about by having complete control over property.
ReplyDeleteIP is bogus on so many grounds and I'm glad to see people picking up on it.
Yep. Stealing people's work is just peachy. Nothing like sweating over a manuscript or software for a few years just to have some kid in his basement make a million copies and destroy the value of all your work.
DeleteThat's what I like about the anti-IP crowd... Amoral to a tee.
As if "sweating" had anything to do with "value of all your work". Sounds like this guy still believes in the "labor theory of value".
DeleteIf you use your own physical resources (e.g. paper, ink, copying machine, your book, your brain with the mental image of something seen or heard) to (re-) produce something, you are not taking away anything from anybody else, and you are not aggressing against anyone. Whoever is using (or threatening to use) force against you to prevent you from using YOUR own body and physical property is the criminal.
I've always been personally tortured over the issue of IP. Ultimately if you have a truly unique idea(which is truly rare, as most ideas are simply modifications based on someone else's ideas) and fail to bring it to market it certainly doesn't help humanity and further the notion that someone else's success in doing so isn't somewhat a theft of their labor/know how in enforcement of said patent/IP/etc. is an issue in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, knowing that it takes gov't to enforce IP makes it pretty much a non-starter for me.
As for the Atlas Shrugged II, I looked at my watch around 1 hour end wishing it would end... I thought the acting was horrible in the first hour.
The last 45 minutes ended well though, I thought the acting improved and the plot got more interesting(and I've read the book btw)-or maybe you can say the screenplay writing improved....
I was disgusted as well by the Hannity cameo...but I'm not letting his appearance detract from the whole film. I really went for the benefit of my wife who will never read a 900 page book...lol
As least the cameo by Teller offset it a bit...although I'm not sure he's as hardcore a libertarian as Penn.
I was also disappointed in the references to the Constitution, like it was some sacred document(also in relation to the founding of the country and its "death" as scrawled by a hobo on what appeared to be some weird type of tablet suggesting biblical overtones...yuck!)
Anyway, I suppose it's easy to pick apart...but I'm going to try and focus on the positive...which is that someone finally did something with Ayn Rand's work in an attempt to make it more available to the mainstream and if nothing else a few more curious people might decide to read the book or look into libertarianism even if this movie isn't always a good representation of such.
The key is opening up someone's mind enough so that they do as Rand urged and "check their premises.". Once they do that, the path to voluntarism is fairly straightforward.
DeleteUnfortunately this is being billed as a "Tea Party" movie. The same tea party that overwhelmingly supported creeps and cronies like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, not exactly Randian heroes.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it could actually make the movie profitable. Just look at how well 2016, a boring "documentary", did in the box office. Maybe Part III will have an even bigger budget.
I saw the movie Friday. I liked it better than the first one. The acting was better. I agree with a lot of what I heard in the movie. I especially liked the trial scene with Hank Rearden. People will always pick any movie apart but I would have enjoyed this movie even if I never heard of Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged.
ReplyDelete"I am in favor of intellectual property rights, though not the current form of IP laws"
ReplyDeletePlease elaborate asap. Please define property, and why human beings have property rights. Then, please explain how such concepts can possibly apply to ideas.
I just got back from the movie. I agree that Part II was better than Part I, and it seemed higher-budget, with better production values. The change in cast was a bit jarring, and Dagny wasn't as good-looking.
ReplyDeleteBut I almost choked when I saw Sean Hannity, and I was irritated by the pro-IP BS. Otherwise a good movie.
By the way, don't you love it when these media celebrities like Hannity do cameos in movies, and their in-movie show looks legit, that is, just like their actual TV program. For those bought-and-paid-for idiots, it's all just acting.
Don't want to wander into a snakepit on this issue, but w/r/t the manuscript example: I'm not paying for the paper, I'm paying for the words on the paper = specifically I'm paying for the experience of reading them. If my money goes to the author, then the author is rewarded for creating an experience I can only have by paying him for it. If it goes to someone who copied the words without thinking of them, then how is the author not the victim of theft, to the amount of the price of the manuscript I didn't pay him for? How does the copier assert ownership over the money got by copying?
ReplyDeleteIt seems there is a pretty bright line of abstraction here which is not defined. Here's another example: I "design" a house; which is to say I draw plans, buy materials to execute those plans, build the house by following the plans, I hold deed and title to the house and the property beneath and around the house. Is the house, as the product of my "ideas" as expressed in the plans, not my property? Or are merely the plans now not mine? If I sell the plans to a willing buyer, and he re-sells those plans against my wishes, I'm to say, "OK, well, there's no such thing as IP, so those plans are free to whomever wants to sell them to anyone else." ? How does this anti-IP argument preserve my right to evict squatters from the house?
In other words, if ownership is to be contingent upon some ontic status of artifactuality, what is the definition of "artifact?"
The fact that Rand "vigorously" defended her IP rights is hardly news. In fact, Rothbard and Rand had quite the tiff about it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stromberg4.html
But but but, RW, the Mises Institute is against IP, therefore, IP is Bad Bad Bad.
ReplyDeleteI have at times wondered what would become of the libertarian movement if the Mises Institute ever published an essay promoting cyanide consumption.