RoR: Forum

Some of the recent discussions at Solo have reminded me of this quote.

George

Post 1

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 1:23pm

And of course, this quote needs an addendum that there exists not a dime's worth of difference between the two.

That said: Are you psychologizing, George? Don't be afraid to name names.

Post 2

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 3:36pm

So George, being fashionable is a matter of cowardice or anti-bourgeoisie immorality? Sounds to me like you're conventional and looking to rationalize it.

;-)

Post 3

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 10:42pm

This is exactly, exactly what is wrong with America's youth today! How funny that Ayn Rand has put it so truthfully and lucidly. This is something that makes me very, very angry. I made the horrible mistake of seeing the movie Napoleon Dynamite, which is probably the worst representation of this ideology (the fashionable non-conformist) which is currently in existence. A lot of crap is produced these days but this movie takes the cake.

ARRRGGGHHH!!!!! This is me shaking my fist at the smutty, snickering kids who I wish were not my peers!!

You are right, Robert, they are exactly the same. Yet, today's "fashionable non-conformism" is almost worse, because of it's blatant worship of randomness and irrationality.

When this movie played at my college a month ago, I decided to write up a protest article and hand it out to people going into the movie. It is amazing how angry these so-called nonconformists get when you don't conform to their standard of non-conformity.

Do you think you could point me in the direction of the discussions that made you think of this quote? I haven't been on Solo for quite some time.
Thanks!

Meg

Post 4

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 11:14pm

" I decided to write up a protest article and hand it out to people going into the movie. It is amazing how angry these so-called nonconformists get when you don't conform to their standard of non-conformity."

that's a lot of effort over a crappy movie. i'm deliberately not capitalizing any letters in this post to show how little effort i think its worth

Post 5

Friday, December 3, 2004 - 4:28am

num++: "So George, being fashionable is a matter of cowardice or anti-bourgeoisie immorality? Sounds to me like you're conventional and looking to rationalize it."

The quote refers to people who are non-conformists BECAUSE it is fashionable, not because such is their considered opinion.

Barbara

Post 6

Friday, December 3, 2004 - 5:57am

Meg wrote:

I made the horrible mistake of seeing the movie Napoleon Dynamite, which is probably the worst representation of this ideology (the fashionable non-conformist) which is currently in existence. A lot of crap is produced these days but this movie takes the cake.

When this movie played at my college a month ago, I decided to write up a protest article and hand it out to people going into the movie. It is amazing how angry these so-called nonconformists get when you don't conform to their standard of non-conformity.

I find your reaction to the film puzzling. I have to admit that I identified with the central character -- a guy who just does not quite fit into the local culture of public high school in a small and remote farming town. That he needed some rational guidance and failed to find any, and had to begin the arduous journey to self-guidance, struck a chord with me. Granted, this film does not strive for the noble ideal of romantic realism, but I still got a few belly laughs from it and certain aspects did resonate with me.

Rather than simply strive not to conform for the sake of not conforming, the characters Napoleon and Pedro found themselves socially and culturally isolated through events largely outside their immediate control. As a result, they had to struggle both with themselves and with outsiders to discover their Authentic Selves and then pursue that self-actualization. The movie ended with these and other characters on the road to this resolution, though the end result remained uncertain.

Again, this movie strives neither for romantic realism nor hero worship, but I still gleaned some value from it. If I had to name the school to which it belongs, I would probably call it comic naturalism.

I am more concerned about films like After the Sunset which glorify thieves, especially when those thieves clearly have enough age, intelligence and education to know better.

(Edited by Luther Setzer on 12/03, 7:51am)

Post 7

Friday, December 3, 2004 - 3:15pm

Ms. Branden, my Post (#2) was simply a light-hearted sarcasm of what went on on another thread, where I felt the same as Mr. Setzer - that such an obvious statement be the start of a mini-furore. I actually agree with Rand and Cordero here. Hence, the winkie (not smiley - this is a subtle philosophical nuance).

I would have loved to see George respond with a mock '"Analyze" not rationalize.', where the symmetry of the two threads would have been pleasing. But alas, twas not the case. Setting these things up takes more foresight than mine, I suppose.

Ms. Branden, we're even! I've mistaken your sarcasm for the real thing in another thread. I presume all this was unintended (caboose of a departing train shrinks to the horizon).

This is also the second time you've busted a 'head-game'. The first was George's himself.

You do upset the balance of nature.

Cheers.

num++

Post 8

Friday, December 3, 2004 - 10:49pm

Luke writes: "I am more concerned about films like After the Sunset which glorify thieves, especially when those thieves clearly have enough age, intelligence and education to know better."

I haven't seen the movie, or heard of it, so I don't know the context, but I wonder how it compares to some of Rand's stories about thieves? Ragnar, Ivan, Henry Dorn's fictional thief in "THE SIMPLIST THING IN THE WORLD"...Of course, she used thieve symbolically as trickster characters who invert the morals of society...

Post 9

Saturday, December 4, 2004 - 12:02am

Luther Setzer wrote:
"Rather than simply strive not to conform for the sake of not conforming, the characters Napoleon and Pedro found themselves socially and culturally isolated through events largely outside their immediate control. As a result, they had to struggle both with themselves and with outsiders to discover their Authentic Selves and then pursue that self-actualization. The movie ended with these and other characters on the road to this resolution, though the end result remained uncertain."

I think you're trying to find something that isn't there. I didn't see any struggle toward self-actualization of the main characters or any movement down any type of road. All I saw was random, pointless actions that led them nowhere, and in the end they were rewarded for this.

The movie presents a dichotomy between the superficial popular people and the geeky unpopular people. It says, "cheer for the underdog" when there is no reason to do so. I saw no evidence that Napoleon or Pedro were thinking people. They are completely irrational. Not only is that movie not heroic, it was blatantly anti-hero. What values is it promoting? Strength, honesty, intelligence? No. It is worship of non-quality.

Why go to the effort? When I first saw it it made me really angry - mostly over the time I wasted. When it played at my school it was a perfect opportunity to exercise my persuasive writing skills and I've never protested anything before. It was actually quite fun, the arguments I got into.

And, it's not just the movie that makes me angry. It's the whole nihilistic culture behind the popularity of it.

Meg

Post 10

Saturday, December 4, 2004 - 12:57am

Meg, Luke, can I play mediator for a moment?

Regarding NAPOLEAN DYNAMITE: I haven't seen in myself, but I am intrigued by the dual interpretations. I am wondering if there may be an element of truth to both your claims?

Meg, judging from the commercials for the movie, and from short clips, I might be inclined to agree with you; the main character seemed to have be a nerd who compensated by reversing the usual derision aimed at nerds by attacking first and insulting everything. Without having seen the movie, I don't know the context for his behavior, which could be part of the random, pointless behavior you claim to see. It could be an expression of nihilism, if there is a story supporting that. And he really comes off as arrogant, but I wonder, based on the commercials, what his arrogance is based on? He seems to be the type of person who thinks himself superior but has done nothing particularly inspiring himself. Could it be "hatred of the good for being the good?"

But Luke saw something different, and points to the films unresolute ending, which made me wonder if there may be a certain vagueness to the movie in order to allow for individual interpretation, to allow the viewer to project his own situations where he may have issues of conformity versus non-conformity? If so, this could explain why you saw random, pointless action, and Luke was able to see struggle and self actualization.

This is not uncommon in art, especially in comics and cartoons: some characters are drawn more completely, photorealistically, leaving little room for misinterpretation of the image, others are drawn more abstractly, or iconically, suggesting a character, but leaving room for the viewer to project themselves in the character. Icons are an example of this.

Now I am intrigued to see the damn thing...I'll wait to video.

Post 11

Tuesday, December 28, 2004 - 10:03pm