Hollywood baffled by success of "Atlas Shrugged"

According to the film moguls (as reported by the Chicago Sun-Times), the film had an "awful" marketing plan. However, it is expanding its showings from the original 299 theatres to more than 1,000 by the end of April. The $5,640 per theatre take on opening weekend is described by the Sun-Times as "hefty."

It seems that what the producers did was to look for people that would like the movie, so they targeted their marketing to people like us -- Tea Partiers, Libertarians, and Ayn Rand enthusiasts. Outside of Hollywood, I believe this is known as "niche" marketing.

I suspect that what baffles them even more is how a movie can succeed that is so contrary to their basic values. John 8:32 all over again.

And those "Rearden metal bracelets" are selling so well at $159 a pop -- worldwide -- that they are back-ordered until May 9.

Atlas Shrugged - A review

I went to see Atlas Shrugged - Part I this morning (day after opening and only $5.00, woo-hoo!). I have read the book, but it was several years ago.

The movie has been panned by several critics, including at least one libertarian. I will go into my thoughts on that in a minute. The story is based on Ayn Rand's novel, published in 1957. The movie dates the action in the year 2016, but because of an extended recession, the period curiously has a look and feel like that of the 1950s. To be sure, we still had cell phones and computers, but the persistent oil shortage has made railroads the most feasible way to move people and materials.

The story begins with the takeover of the Taggart Transcontinental Railroad by Dagny Taggart, who finds her brother incompetent and a bit weasely toward Washington, which has become a full-blown fascist state with heavy-handed controls over industry. She finds the way to save her railroad is through innovation, so she forms a strategic alliance with Hank Reardon, of Reardon Steel. Using new technology, they plan to upgrade old railroad tracks in Colorado. However, at the same time, something odd is going on. Several major corporate executives have vanished suddenly. The only hint is the question, "Who is John Galt?"

The film has been panned by many critics, because the actors appear to lack emotional range. The film is not badly written, nor is it badly acted. The problem is with Ayn Rand (1905-1982). She wrote Atlas Shrugged to convey a definite point of view, and she chained her characters to her philosophy. Not that the actors could not have done a little better, particularly during a beautifully filmed and very tasteful sex scene involving Dagny and Hank. But the film, done in the style of a 1930s film noir, is a heavy drama, like the book itself. Miss Rand wanted to convey the idea that prosperity for the masses is only possible when individuals are free to carry out their dreams, without any hindrance either from government or from social pressure.

While I am a libertarian, I have some disagreements with Ayn Rand's philosophy. For one thing, Miss Rand was an atheist; which explains why her characters lack spiritual depth. She elevates selfishness into a moral virtue; rather than saying, for example, that building enterprises and acquiring wealth can provide the successful entrepreneur with the financial and personal freedom to give to those causes they find most beneficial. When Hank Reardon's brother asks for a $100,000 donation to a favored charity, Hank acts as though he were flushing money down the commode.

On the other hand, she correctly portrays government as an incompetent interloper that can only gum up the economy in ways that are corrupt and unfair. In Atlas Shrugged, the government is used to favor some business interests over others. Also on the positive side, she stresses the importance of personal integrity to success. She almost overdoes the comparison between the rock-solid integrity of a Hank Reardon, with the conniving corruption of Congressmen and federal bureaucrats.

This is the first film in a series of three. The answer to the question, "who is John Galt?" is reserved for a later segment. It is a good, but not great, movie. It will introduce younger viewers to the kind of world the libertarians want to build (with the caveat that most libertarians have more heart than the characters), and will suggest the values that will help build it. It is entertaining and instructive; but the film would have helped itself if it were a bit more entertaining, and less heavy-handed with the instruction.

With all those caveats, it is still well worth seeing, and I encourage you to do so.

Atlas Shrugged opens Friday

... at 18 theatres in Ohio (click on link in the sidebar at right for locations).

I understand that the unions want to boycott the movie, which is based on Ayn Rand's libertarian novel. I strongly encourage anyone who wants to support libertarianism to go to the opening night and make a statement for freedom!

Strong weekend sales will speak volumes about what Americans want and what we believe.

Maybe there IS still hope...

PR Newswire reports that movie theater chains have been overwhelmed by the initial response to the April 15 release of Atlas Shrugged - Part I, based on Ayn Rand's libertarian novel.

I can easily imagine how controversial Atlas Shrugged must be in Hollywood. It is a direct challenge to the prevailing liberal values there. But in Middle America, it reflects our desire to return to an entrepreneurial (not bureaucratic) society.

No showings are yet scheduled anywhere near Ohio - the closest locations are in the Philadelphia area, Chicago, and Nashville, but you can demand that it be shown near you by going to the Atlas Shrugged Theaters page and pressing the "Bring Atlas to my town" button. At this writing the site shows 3,015 requests to show in Columbus (third highest on the list) and 935 in Dayton.

Virtual buckeye to Charlie Earl.

The difference between patriotism and nationalism

I am a patriot, but not a nationalist. Here is the difference, according to Joe Sobran, via Rebellion:

Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being "the greatest family on earth" (whatever that might mean) or for being "better" than other families. You don't feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don't feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.

While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it's often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.

The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other's foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.

The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home. He may even find the patriot's irreverent humor annoying.

Or, put another way, I would hold nationalists in the same esteem as Bill O'Reilly might hold "pinheads."

Quotation of the day

From Georgie Anne Geyer, on the Swiss constitutional amendment banning the construction of minarets in that country:

[T]hey can hardly be blamed, because they have acted to protect their culture and their principles. There is everything wrong with prejudice and hatred. But there is also something very wrong with not being permitted to defend what you have against those who would not join it but change it.

Let me add a comment. Minarets are not essential to the construction of a mosque. They are a cultural preference. As evidence, I present a photo of the Noor Islamic Cultural Center in Hilliard, near Columbus.

While the building definitely has Middle Eastern influences, it does harmonize with the suburban area around it; which reflects my personal experience with Muslim coworkers.

European-Americans should not be expected to commit cultural suicide any more than anyone else. Unique cultures are built on the harmonization of influences from the people who live within them, which is based on mutual respect -- a concept apparently foreign to Islamic extremists and certain "politically correct" activists.

"Secession isn't such a crazy idea any more"

In the forum Debate Politics 2.0, Erod is wondering whether the nation is reaching a tipping point on secession. The writer travels throughout the United States, and is finding he is not recognizing the east or west coasts anymore, in part because of the massive immigration. Erod wonders about a President described as "imprudent", a House Speaker "that has the same mental capacity as Elizabeth Taylor," and a California Governor that once played Conan the Barbarian.

Erod thinks the movie title Idiocracy aptly describes this kind of government.

"Liberals have dumbed down this country to the point that we'll eventually be electing porn stars [Linda Lovelace for President, an X-rated movie title from the 70s] and pro wrestlers [like former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura] to the leadership positions in our country. There's an ill wind coming. I smell civil unrest like we have seen in, oh, about 135 years. Secession isn't such a crazy idea any more."

Springtime for Hitler

Mel Brooks' The Producers was a play and movie that skewered creators of Broadway shows by creating a musical (funny, but in awful taste) entitled "Springtime for Hitler". The song ran through Bill Wilson's mind and my own as he reports on calls by the editors of the Washington Post and the New York Times for the Feds to create a Department of Culture.

The editorials focus on the problems arts organizations are having in securing funding. As a patron of the Columbus Symphony, which is currently on financial life support, I can certainly relate to their concerns. However, the editors apparently have forgotten that Departments of Culture tend to be used for more sinister purposes as agents of totalitarian régimes. Mr. Wilson recalls how the culture ministry was used for censorship by Adolf Hitler, and how the Communists directed their writers, composers, and artists to create bland and worthless works through their "unions". We have a National Endowment for the Arts that works reasonably well. There is no need -- and considerable danger -- to elevating it to a Cabinet department.

The problem with influential liberals is that they want the government to force us to pay for charities and arts that people should be voluntarily supporting out of their own pockets.

Culture is wonderful, but only if it is generated in a free society -- free, that is, from the government control that comes with taxpayer dollars.

WALL-E's purpose

Michael Tuggle yesterday posted a review of the new movie WALL-E. After giving his impressions of the movie and sharing a quotation from another writer about its significance, Mr. Tuggle concludes with a profound statement that gets to the heart of the secessionist movement: (Hyperlinks are brought over from the quoted text.)

"Something is in the air. There's an unshakeable sense that something is profoundly wrong in this country, and it cannot be blamed on one politician, one party, or even on one war. The system itself is broken, unable to respond intelligently or even consider changing course. Its fundamental error, as WALL-E so graphically warns us, is that we have fooled ourselves into believing we are not part of Creation; that we are free when we are disconnected from others, from heritage, from purpose, from need. In fact, such thinking is self-destructive.

"In fact, true freedom is the freedom to express our authentic selves, and that occurs in those moments when we are working toward a cause greater than any one person. Tradition, community, and the urgency of finding and holding on to 'a sense of place and of history, a sense of self derived from forebears, kin, and culture,' as Chilton Williamson summarized it, are what give us meaning and make life worth living.

"Maybe that's what distinguishes man from the beasts -- we need occasional reminders of who we are and what we're about to keep us going. And maybe a little rebellion now and then, too."

Secessionism is not about ideology or politics. It is nothing less than an effort to reclaim our humanity.

Just for fun

I have added to the Documentation site a list of films that were either shot or set in Ohio. Please feel free to comment or e-mail me to suggest others.

Christmas in the Heart

by Paul Laurence Dunbar

The snow lies deep upon the ground,
And winter’s brightness all around
Decks bravely out the forest sere,
With jewels of the brave old year.
The coasting crowd upon the hill
With some new spirit seems to thrill;
And all the temple bells achime
Ring out the glee of Christmas time.

In happy homes the brown oak-bough
Vies with the red-gemmed holly now;
And here and there, like pearls, there show
The berries of the mistletoe.
A sprig upon the chandelier
Says to the maidens, “Come not here!”
Even the pauper of the earth
Some kindly gift has cheered to mirth!

Within his chamber, dim and cold,
There sits a grasping miser old.
He has no thought save one of gain,--
To grind and gather and grasp and drain.
A peal of bells, a merry shout
Assail his ear: he gazes out
Upon a world to him all gray,
And snarls, “Why, this is Christmas Day!”

No, man of ice, -- for shame, for shame!
For “Christmas Day” is no mere name.
No, not for you this ringing cheer,
This festal season of the year.
And not for you the chime of bells
From holy temple rolls and swells.
In day and deed he has no part—
Who holds not Christmas in his heart!

Paul Laurence Dunbar (1872-1906) was an African-Ohioan poet and editor who lived in Dayton. He wrote both in standard English and in dialect. This poem was reproduced, courtesy of the Paul Laurence Dunbar Digital Collection at the Wright State University Library.

Close the door gently

To date, I have been leery of joining the debate on immigration. It is an emotional issue that has the tendency to bring out the worst in everyone. On the one hand, we rightfully demand respect for our laws and our borders. On the other hand, many of us have compassion for the people who have come over illegally. In particular, we remember that many of the Mexicans are victims of unscrupulous operators who carried them over the border making false promises. And to forcibly remove people who have lived here for over a decade on the basis of legal technicalities, seems a bit harsh.

The real problem with immigration lies with the Americans who do not respect their own laws, by insisting on putting illegal immigrants on the same footing as others for purposes of acquiring benefits from the state.

We have to face the fact that we have made serious mistakes; but we have to correct the problem. Therefore, from now on, we must build effective border security that deports illegal aliens within hours of their entry into this country. I don’t know how to do this, but I suspect that it isn’t rocket science. Build physical barriers, increase air surveillance, establish strict enforcement protocols. Those who have been here less than two years should be summarily deported. For the others, we should grant temporary visas – but only once – to let them stay here and enable us to keep track of them. At the end of the visa, they can do one of three things: go on the citizenship track, justify an extension of their visa according to law, or go home. Employers who value these people should have no problem with assisting their employees in pursuing one of the first two options.

We should permit their children to be educated, and to receive a minimum standard of health care. It is not the children’s fault they came here illegally. To help illegal immigrants much more would move us from compassion to stupidity.

Please note that I am referring only to illegal immigrants. Legal immigrants were cleared to come here, are working or living with their families, and are taxpayers. They should be entitled to the same human and civil (but not political) rights as anyone else.

Ohio has a history of diversity in immigration, which obviously is not going to change. This diversity has enriched us culturally and strengthened us in our native capacity to innovate. We remain bound together by respect for our laws and by the English language. Now, let’s clean up the mess the Feds have made, and move forward.

Think locally, act locally

In today’s Vermont Commons, Jane Dwinell and Dana Dwinell-Yardley wrote an interesting Christmas piece entitled “Independence from the Holiday Machine.” It contains several interesting suggestions on how to celebrate the holiday, both more simply and more memorably. I’ll just give you the subheadings as a teaser: Buy less, buy local, eat local, spend the holiday doing something fun instead of opening gifts, and create new and meaningful rituals. While many of their suggestions are specific to the Green Mountain State, most of them can be used or adapted right here in Ohio.

Since one of the purposes of this blog is to promote Ohio culture, let me throw out this question for the Christmas season: What dishes come to your mind as being distinctively Ohio cuisine? Let us know in your comments to this post.

Positive signs in Ohio

Secessionism can be a gloomy business, stressing as we all do, the reasons that the Feds are no longer fit to live with. However, the Columbus Dispatch reports two very positive developments that are well worth reporting here.

The first story (actually a pair of stories) by Alayna DeMartini and Dean Narciso in the Metro and State section, reports the growth of environmental activism in the Clintonville neighborhood, and in the suburbs of Dublin, Upper Arlington, Westerville, and Worthington. The groups, known as Sustainable [area name], exist to educate their members and the general public on how we can minimize the waste of natural resources. Their approaches are all common-sense, and often take advantage of new technologies (such as porous driveways, to minimize runoff during rains). They also engage in activism to advocate the use of recycled materials where available.

The second, on the Business page, reports of a visit to Columbus by John Ratzenberger, best known as an actor in the television series “Cheers”; but who has recently become a vocal advocate for American manufacturing. He stresses that American manufacturing is essential, not only to our economic health as a nation, but to maintain quality and integrity in the global markets. He is looking forward to the day when we will be proud to tell others that our son will be a machinist, or our daughter a welder; because that will be a sign that our middle class is healthy and strong. The alternative, he fears, is that America will become a “slave nation” to China and India.

Mr. Ratzenberger will give a presentation at the Columbus Athenæum, 32 N. 4th St., Columbus, Thursday, November 8, at 6:30 pm. Admission is free and open to the public.

On the cultural front, I had some free time this afternoon and paid a visit to the Ohioana Library. The Ohioana is a unique cultural treasure, consisting of 45,000 books and pieces of sheet music, all written and composed by Ohioans or persons with Ohio connections. The institution is thriving, despite years of operating on a shoestring from limited state government funding. They hold two major events each year, the Ohioana awards ceremony recognizing Ohioans who have excelled in art, literature, and music; and a spring book fair, providing a collective opportunity for Ohio authors to promote current works. One of the roads to independence will be taken when we begin to appreciate and participate in the culture of our own state.

The Ohioana is a little hard to find -- it is at 274 First Avenue, Suite 300, behind the State Library in Columbus -- but then, treasures often are hard to find.