I watched Atlas Shrugged, Part II yesterday. Atlas Shrugged, Part II is the second of a three-part series of movies that are based on Atlas Shrugged, a novel that was written by the philosopher Ayn Rand in the 1950's. To read my review of the first movie, see here.
In my opinion, Atlas Shrugged, Part II is a much better movie than Atlas Shrugged, Part I. I'll go even further: I actually enjoyed watching Atlas Shrugged, Part II. I have three reasons for this:
First of all, one of the early scenes in the movie has Robert Picardo in it. That was a huge plus for me, since I am a Star Trek: Voyager
fan, and the Emergency Medical Hologram whom Robert Picardo played is
one of my favorite characters on the series (not that it's easy to
choose from the characters, since I like most of them).
Second,
I found the music to be powerful. It was especially effective during
Hank Rearden's trial scene, as the audience in the courtroom applauded
his speech before the judges about his right to do with his own
invention (Rearden metal) what he wished. The music was also powerful
at the end of the movie, when a shadowy figure reached out his hand to
Dagny Taggart and identified himself as John Galt. John Galt is the
subject of the famous "Who is John Galt?" line that people in the novel
ask whenever they don't know the answer to a question. He has also
invented a motor that would not require the use of gasoline, and he is
the mysterious figure who has been inviting the self-made industrialists
and talented of the world to a secluded spot where they can be free to
create and produce, apart from intrusive government regulation.
Third,
I liked the actors more in the second movie than I did in the first.
The second movie used a different cast of actors. In the first movie,
the characters struck me as rather cold and mechanical, whereas they
came across to me as much more authentic and human in the second movie.
I also admired their integrity. I could tell from the interviews on Youtube
with the actors in the second movie that some of them made a decent
effort to empathize with their characters. Perhaps that is why they
acted as well as they did. (At least I thought that they did well----I know that there are plenty of reviewers out there who are calling their performances wooden.)
As
far as my reaction to Rand's philosophy goes, I'm all for inventors and
producers being able to profit from the fruit of their imagination and
hard work. But why does that have to be deemed inconsistent with a high
regard for the common good, which is what Rand seems to suggest? Hank
Rearden in his trial, after all, although he said that profiting from
his invention was his primary motive, also appealed to the good to the
public that his metal provided: jobs, revenue, etc. I could not find
that particular line in the book, but the book as a whole is largely
about the ill-societal effects from the government cracking down on
free-market capitalism. Obviously, the common good was important to Ayn
Rand, on some level, whether she admitted that or not. Moreover, in
the movie, Hank Rearden submits to the government when it blackmails him
by threatening to reveal his affair with Dagny Taggart, a famous
capitalist in her own right. Was Hank Rearden being altruistic in that
case----taking the fall to protect Dagny? I thought that Randian
philosophy abhorred altruism! (Perhaps its point is that voluntary
altruism is okay----I don't know.)
While I think that the movie could have done a better job explaining the ideology of the villains (how
exactly they were saying that their policies and regulations would
enhance the public good), I am sympathetic to the movie's message about
the evils of crony capitalism. I suppose that I myself, on some level,
tolerate corporate welfare and the government picking winners and losers
in my support for Obamacare and green energy policies (assuming that
the government is picking winners and losers in those cases), but I do
have problems with the government favoring the influential and enacting
policies that restrict competition. The thing is, I feel that I have
to pick from the options that are presented to me. If the choice is
between Obamacare and nothing at all (which I feel is the choice that is
presented to me, whatever "plans" on health care the Republicans claim
to have), then I choose Obamacare. If my choice is between green energy
jobs and simply cutting taxes on the rich and expecting for that money
to magically trickle down to everyone else, then I choose the green
energy jobs.
I'll stop here. I will say that I have not read
every Ayn Rand book that was ever written, so, objectivists, please be
charitable to me in your comments. I'm not telling you to be altruistic
to me, but just to be kind! I watched a documentary that said that Ayn
Rand was against altruism, not benevolence.