RoR: Forum

Thanks, Richard.

I really appreciate these videos. This one, however, I appreciated the least. There has to be a least-appreciated one, right (and a most-appreciated one)?

I have to say that the sex scene -- obviously included for shock-value -- was too much for me. Now, I'm no prude. I've had out-of-norm sexual experiences. But I just think that that scene was over the top for Galt's speech. I'm curious: Did you second-guess putting it in there?

Another way that I personally would think that a mistake could have been made -- so that you can understand what I'm saying -- is to show some of the horrifying footage captured in video format as is done in "Faces of Death" or some of the images found at rotten.com.

For example, at rotten.com, there is a photo of a man at the table with a fork in his hand and something in his mouth -- and a vivid view of a bloody, half-eaten human baby on his plate. In my view, it would have been a mistake for you to show that picture of that man eating that baby -- because the shock-value drowns out the point and is then, in a performatory manner, inappropriate.

That's the trouble I had with the sex scene.

Ed

Post 1

Friday, October 3, 2008 - 3:20pm

Sorry Ed, I did second guess, but I found it to be a perfect example of the kinds of things we see every day and never point out how dehumanizing and pointless they are- it's not a sex scene- its a beer commercial with gratuitous dehumanization of a woman. It seemed to combine the "liquor soggy brain" and the "mindless slut" and the "animals race" (if you look at the female as an animal being ridden). Thought a while before keeping it but I thought it was clear it wasn't for gratuitous shock but as an instance of what we as a culture are inured to- that we would actually find that funny or that anyone could sell a product that way and not be run out of town for it. I had praise on the choice from others. I try to make the bold choices. I think the context keeps it from being sexy. Most importantly- Seventeen spotlights images of true romantic affection - I knew they were coming so I put this in as an antipode and contrast: the death worshipping degradation of sex. It makes the scenes with the kids and adults in love even more emotionally satisfying. Glad to hear as much feedback as folks want to provide. I will also be doing a future edit based on the feedback i get (as long as i agree of course!)

Post 2

Friday, October 3, 2008 - 3:43pm

I may be closer to a prude than Ed... (or not) but the sex scene seemed to fit the words and flow out of the other scenes. I didn't find it took away anything from me. It may have distracted me a just a touch, but maybe that's an issue with my values being a touch superficial at times :-)

It is an extraordinary job you are doing!

Post 3

Friday, October 3, 2008 - 6:15pm

You were upset about that sex scene bit??/ good grief!! that was indeed a perfect exampling of what was being said [lol - from the commenting, was expecting something gross]...

Post 4

Saturday, October 4, 2008 - 9:15am

Rumors of my understanding have been greatly over-exaggerated

Apparently, I missed something. Unable to walk and chew gum at the same time -- or to split my concentration between listening to words while watching images -- I misunderstood the sex scene. I thought it was meant as an argument for the morality of pleasure (but an inappropriate one), not as an argument against vulgar hedonism.

Apparently, I was not enough of a prude (by only slowly second-guessing the objective morality of the behavior in the beer commercial) to understand the point immediately. Part of my misunderstanding has to do with my prejudice that artists (which includes Richard) are, statistically, folks who struggle with hedonism moreso than others do. This has more to do with the 'Fall (from grace) of Art' which Rand discussed in The Romantic Manifesto -- i.e., my personal and contemporary experiences with artists -- than something inherent to art as Rand understood art.

At the bookstore yesterday, I saw the cover of an art magazine with a sculpted man with holes for eyes and with blood coming out of the holes and running down his chest (if someone is aware of this magazine issue, please post the picture here) and I thought to myself: "F-ing hedonists! They have no idea about the objective value of man as a hero. Those GD nihilist-existentialist, willfully-ignorant hedonistic artists!"

For me, artists start-out on a relatively low rung of morality -- and then rise as I get to know about their values. Perhaps more experience with artists will change this, but it is what I have come to consider appropriate behavior according to my past experience or history with them.

My biggest beef (aside of Rembrandt) with artists is the moral snobbishness of an "uppity" cosmopolitan who thinks "others" just don't "get it." There's no great difference between a self-righteous mystic and between that kind of a person.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/04, 9:17am)

Post 5

Saturday, October 4, 2008 - 11:08am

Well, I liked it.

Perhaps we could do a tally of least and most favorites. Myself, I would prefer fewer images from the 30s and 40s and more from the 90s. Huey Long or whoever just lacks impact. Among my favorites was the one on Evasion. I used that in a criminology class. I also liked the one before, Choice. The images from romantic-realist paintings were appropriate.

Again, the entire series is excellent.

We are like guests at a gourmet banquet complaining that the sauce had a titch too much taragon.

Post 6

Saturday, October 4, 2008 - 1:35pm