About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 12:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw this movie last night.  I thought it was brilliant.  Even from an Objectivist perspective, it's brilliant.  I'm surprised I haven't heard people talking about it on here.

The main character, Howard Hughes, is like a character straight out of Atlas Shrugged.  He's exactly like one of Ayn Rand's heroes--he's a maverick engineer/movie producer who takes great risks and fights a great fight; he's got the genius; he's got the integrity; he's even got the articulateness that Ayn Rand's heroes possess.  The villain of the movie is a congressman who's trying to pass a bill to grant a monopoly to Pan Am airlines, the competitor of Howard Hughes's TWA.  There could hardly be a better villain, from an Objectivist viewpoint.  The people in this movie who like socialism or communism are all portrayed negatively; when one aristocratic socialist tells Howard Hughes that she doesn't care about money, he says, "That's because you've always had it."  Speaking of the proposal to grant a monopoly to Pan Am airlines, Howard Hughes calls it "un-American."  Howard Hughes in this movie is a perfect example of the American spirit--a young daredevil who defies all conventions to do things nobody has ever done before.  God, I loved this movie.  If an Objectivist were going to go out and make a great movie, this would be it.

Have other people here seen this movie?  Has anyone been talking about it?


Post 1

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've always planed to see the movie but some how still hasn't.

In addition to all the extraordinary feats Howard Hughes had achieved when he was alive, his legacy lives on today in what stands as Hughes' most enduring accomplishment - the Howard Hughes Medical Institute , the sole heir of Hughes. The Institute is now the nation's largest private source of support for biomedical research and science education. It employs some 300 best scientists in biomedical research as investigators, among them are a slew of Nobel Prize winners. 


Post 2

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 2:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed Hudgins just wrote a brilliant review of this film. It is not yet on the TOC web site, but I expect it to be posted there soon, with a hyperlink from this page. Now I've been spared the job of writing my own review, as I had for The Incredibles, because this time Hudgins wrote everything I myself would have written. If only the man had a backbone as well as a brain... Anyway, not enough reason to work withTOC again, but enough to keep track. "He is wise who learns from everyone."

Post 3

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 7:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Oh Adam, you're such a pushover! :-)

Linz

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 7:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, Leonardo DiCaprio has just won the best actor Golden Globe Award for playing Hughes!

The HHMI laboratories in my medical school have planed to organize a group viewing of the movie. It will even be paid with Uncle Howie's money!

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 1/16, 8:05pm)


Post 5

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow again, The Aviator has just won the best motion picture Golden Globe! Good it is recognized by the critics as well. Can't wait for Ed Hudgins' review of it.

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Sunday, January 16, 2005 - 9:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Woo!  I finally got an Atlas icon.  It only took me like a year.

Everyone should go see this movie.  You'll all love it.  Glad to hear it's winning these awards.


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 11:04amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw this movie and loved it. Must see it again. It painted Howard Hughes as a real life hero...a man with uncompromising principles of honesty and integrity. I don't remember him well, but he used to be portrayed as a rich crazy guy in the media.


Post 8

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I saw The Aviator today, definitely one of the best movies I've seen in a long while. That such a tremendous genius was so tormented by mental disorder is a tragedy to be sure, but to me Hughes' victories seemed all the greater in those instances where he overcame one of his bouts of illness as well as whatever other obstacle was then in his way - most notably, when Hughes is at one of his lowest ebbs, having locked himself away in his cinema for days, he still finds the inner strength to return to the world and fight Brewster in the hearings.

It strikes me that there seems to have been a spate of very Objectivist-friendly movies in recent months, The Incredibles, somewhat more arguably Team America, now The Aviator and Atlas Shrugged supposedly in production - I wonder if this is the start of a trend?


Post 9

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 4:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

The incredibles is not an objectivist friendly movie.

 

The super-powers of the “incredibles” are inherited through blood, not earned through merit.

 

In fact, the only Objectivist-friendly aspect of the film is the evil villain. He wants, through the development of new technology to make everyone into a super hero. Quite an objectivist ideal if you ask me.

 

Therefore this film depicts the noble ideals of technology and innovation through reason and reality as being the ideals of a perverted and twisted villain!!! That is philosophically wrong headed!!!

 

I am not saying that the film is not entertaining as a comedy on a simple level. But it is basically a run-of-the-mill family sitcom film with a super-hero twist.

 

Objectivist-friendly it isn’t!!!!




Post 10

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 1:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus,

The Objectivist elements in The Incredibles have been discussed at length on SOLOHQ, notably following Adam Reed's brilliant review.

On a lighter note, why is there a constant abundance of exclamation marks in your posts? :-)

MH


Post 11

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 2:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, I hadn't seen the film when it was being discussed, but the facts still stand.

This film is the inversion of objectivist morality, if you ask me.


Post 12

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 3:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marcus,

As this thread is really about The Aviator I've sent a further response to you comments regarding The Incredibles over on the other thread attached to Adam's review.

MH


Post 13

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Being the father of twin three-year-olds I don't get to the movies as much as I'd like but this one would be next on my list.

I get The Objectivist Center newsletter which contained a glowing review.

Post 14

Sunday, February 6, 2005 - 8:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just saw this movie the other night and enjoyed it.  Go out and see it if you haven't already!

Post 15

Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 6:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes this film, the Aviator, gets the Marcus stamp of approval.

I now give it an Objectivist-friendly "non-PC" rating ;-)

"It's the way of the future."

(Edited by Marcus Bachler on 2/21, 1:17am)


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Tuesday, April 26, 2005 - 4:29pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I loathed The Aviator. Because it showed (briefly) the undeniable milestones in the giant life of a hero, and then focused languidly and lovingly (Scorcese's obvious interest in Hughes lay not in his achievements but in his flaws) on utterly unsubstatiated interludes of helplessness and madness, this effort is worse, to me, than a movie that simply glorifies mediocrity. Scorsese was mediocritizing greatness. If you know anything about Hughes's real life, you know that ALL of the scenes where Hughes is alone in a bathroom freaking out, alone in his office bugging out, alone in his screening room filling jars of piss, alone here, alone there, every time turning into Mr. Hyde between the publicly known and witnessed depictions of his extraordinary accomplishments, are complete fabrications -- and you will be sick to your stomach at the intent of this film.  All of these degrading scenes were made up from whole cloth to try to patch together the kind of schizophrenic persona that could lead to the portrait some have speculated Hughes had become by the end of his life -- which rumors, by the way, were denied by all of his friends and business associates. They present a jarringly confused movie, two movies seem to have collided, actually, creating an impossible man. A fictitious visit by Ava Gardner is even inserted to explain how he went from a naked, quivering savage in one scene to taking on the entire U.S. Congress (and winning) the next day, which, thankfully, was captured on film at the time.

Howard Hughes's recusal from public life is explainable by much simpler means than by inventing a split personality no one ever witnessed in reality. He suffered a horrible plane crash most would have perished in, and was disfigured by burns over most of his body. He had already conquered the world, had the greatest beauties on Earth in his bed, was the richest man, the fastest man, the aviation engineer who had invented commercial air travel and some of the most remarkable flying machines ever conceived. And then the government closed in on his life and invaded every aspect of his private and professional existence. It is far more likely that he just said, "TO HELL WITH ALL OF YOU," and retired to his own private Galt's Gulch for the rest of his days. Making up a story about his mother instilling paranoia about germs is simply not necessary or even artistically honest. Half of The Aviator is true (the public half, the half we have witnesses for, and film records, etc.) The other half is COMPLETELY MADE UP by the filmmakers, and always occurrs in private or unrecorded moments that are purely the speculation of Scorsesee and the screenwriters. And the film is clearly weighted toward these speculative imaginings of private madness. It is as though the world, when Hughes was alive, had to attack him because he stood so high above the crowd, and it is as though the filmmakers today ironically shared the same sentiment that drove him to say goodbye to all that.

So there's a different take on The Aviator.


Post 17

Sunday, August 7, 2005 - 1:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
   Interesting perspective Casey. Hadn't thought of that angle re 'purpose' of the movie maker, though Scorsese does seem to dwell on that 'flaw'-angle in most of his movies. Ntl the presentation of Hughes overcoming such (hypothetical? I guess I've read the wrong stuff when it was 'news') psych probs when needed wasn't exactly a 'minor' aspect of the movie. Indeed, it made me think of A Beautiful Mind where Nash uses the power of his mind to, if not overcome, then deal with the problems in it. --- Also, in the scene where Hughes meets Hepburn's family, Scorsese does play up the worth of 'the working man' vs inherited-wealth aristocrat-wannabee artiste-snobs. (On this, I've got to add that Cate Blanchett was absolutely fantastic as Katherine Hepburn.)

J-D

P.S: Shouldn't this thread be in Gallery Boards::Movies?


Post 18

Sunday, August 7, 2005 - 5:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I was very disappointed in this movie. Perhaps I'm shallow, but the visual aspect of a movie, obviously, is crucial, and toward this end I found the casting of the lead appalling. Visually, I cannot think of DiCaprio as anything but a baby faced teenager. Small body, baby face: not, for me, the physique/face of Hughes, or 'a' Hughes.

I watched the movie from start to end (my wife walked off in a huff half way through bored out of her mind) but I could not get myself past this aspect. Of all people to put in that role, why DeCaprio? I needed someone I could take seriously.

(Oh, I generally love Cate Blanchett's acting, but I thought her Katherine Hepburn was shallow - or was Hepburn really such a crud of a person as portrayed, and an airhead. She almost retrieved herself in the final scenes, but most of the movie she was playing a caricature.)




Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.