"Atlas Shrugged, Part I" Is An Intriguing Event
by Michael D. Hume, M.S.
As a book, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" stands as one of the greatest works of literature in history. As a movie, "Part I" is pretty good... the performances are at least OK, and the faithfulness to the story is outstanding. But as an event, the release of this movie is nothing short of amazing.
"Atlas Shrugged" is an account of what would happen if the push toward collectivism was allowed to attain success in America. It's eerie how close the real events in our nation are coming to those warned of in Rand's book, which she wrote as a story instead of as a philosophical dissertation in order to more artfully (and impactfully) make her point. What if the "progressives" were able to continue to incite the masses, through class warfare, to hobble the productive and "eat the rich?" And what if the productive members of society - those hard-working idea generators who create jobs and wealth for all of us - were to simply walk away? Go on strike? Stop holding up the world, like a shrugging Atlas?
Everybody thinks they could do a better job of running their company than do the owners... but could they, really? Could those who've been "trained" (through years of dependence behavior) to wait for others to sustain them actually sustain themselves if the bosses suddenly disappeared? You know the answer. And so do the millions who've read "Atlas Shrugged" since its publication in 1957.
I heard an interview the other day with one of the movie's producers. Apparently, they tried to buy advertising for the movie on all the major networks, just like all big Hollywood producers do. But every network rejected the ads "for (unspecified) editorial reasons," except for one (luckily for the producers, that one network is Fox, which regularly trounces the others in ratings). The producer diplomatically said he'd have preferred a more detailed explanation for the rejection. I will go further, and say I would wish network executives could find a less chicken-crap way to come out and proclaim their statist leanings.
So you have to look pretty hard to find an ad for this movie. I think that's reason enough to go see it... why don't the networks want you to?
Meanwhile, you also can't find a good review of the film... and I can assure you it's not as bad as the liberal critics make it out to be. It's a pretty good movie... but the reviewers have decided, since they don't want you to absorb the content, to sell out any remnant of objectivity they ever had and over-shred the execution of the production. Again, you have to ask yourself: why don't the movie critics want you to see this movie?
Finally, you have to search high-and-low to find a theater brave enough to buck Big Hollywood and actually show the movie. But when you do, and if you go see the movie, you'll be surprised. I've seen it twice now - once with my daughter on a Thursday evening (not a prime showing), and again with my son the other day during a Sunday matinee (also not "prime time"). On both occasions, the person at the box office told me it was their number-one attraction (among a dozen offerings). Both times, the theater was packed (on Sunday, there were people sitting in the aisles). And both times, the end of the movie was greeted with serious applause. When's the last time you had that experience at the movie theater? And again... why don't the theater executives want you to see this movie?
Over a hundred years, "progressive" collectivists have taken substantial control of all institutions in the U.S. which influence public opinion: the government, the news media, the education and labor communities, and even the entertainment industry. They simply don't want you to see this movie, because they like presenting only one side of the argument - the "compassion" of big government and entitlement spending. They don't want you to see a fair presentation of the other side - the inherent viciousness and authoritarian failure in what begins with such well-intended compassion.
Constitutional conservatives are derided by the elites who now control those influential institutions. They'll tell you we're just putting forth crazy paranoid conspiracy theories. You don't need to work so hard, they'll say... don't start your own business, we'll take care of you with handouts! You don't need to worry your pretty little head about such silly things as hyper-inflation and world war... everything's fine! You don't have to produce anything... we'll get those who do produce things to share them with you, at the point of a gun! No, they'll constantly assure you, there's no conspiracy here. Everything's fine. Go back to sleep.
But it's just a movie, right? Why don't they want you to see it? Why are they so desperate, to the point of turning down advertising and box office revenue when they could really use it, to make sure you don't see this movie?
Who is John Galt?
No comments:
Post a Comment