"The Fountainhead" book and movie

Cafe Society
41

Of course he was intelligent…and had creative talents. He was a writer after all, and they go through his early life where he seems to fit the bill as quite intelligent and resourceful…and he was a master at manipulation, and keeping that manipulation from the people he was manipulating. The difference is he makes a choice (Rand is big on such choices, especially for the main players) to use his talent for power (and evil :)) instead of for personal attainment and expansion of himself.

As for the 'real leftist leader’s not acting like that I have to say that you have a different viewpoint on that than I do. I’d say many (well, most or all IMHO) ‘leftists’ leaders who ran authoritarian Socialist/Communist governments (the kind Rand was talking about…i.e. various ‘Peoples States’) fit the bill perfectly. YMMV BG…I know it does in fact. :slight_smile:

-XT

42

I meant “real” as opposed to imaginary. Kim Jong Il has his faults, but his motives are nothing like Toohey’s. Much more conventional.

43

Okay, a few years ago, I read Atlas Shrugged, and now I’m going to give The Fountainhead a try. I found Atlas an ordeal, but I’m still glad I read it, especially as Fenris recommened Le Guin’s The Dispossessed as a good antidote.

Anyone got some suggestions for something that would help me swallow The Fountainhead, just so I don’t choke on it? Something leftist, preferably, even socialist would be welcome, although not Marxist, since I found Marx to be near unreadable.

Yes, I disagree with Rand, but I still think it’s important to read what she was about in order to better understand what people are talking about.

44

Try to read it with an open mind. The book is not as overtly political/economic as Atlas Shrugged. It’s more about the individual vs the collective in terms of creativity, artistic vision, and the right to follow one’s ideals. As such, it’s more palatable to left-wing types than Atlas Shrugged is. Think of it more as the conflict between those who would have everyone conform to what they think is best, and those who chart their own course and follow their own vision where it takes them.

It’s also a better read than Atlas Shrugged, in my opinion.

45

I agree that it was an easier read, especially if you drop the strange sex thing. Its much more of a story, less of a political philosophy discussion masked as a novel. Of course, it had less of a profound impact on me than Atlas Shrugged did when I read it originally…but I did get through it easier.

I also agree that an open mind should be kept…just read the book THEN decide you don’t like it or that its difficult to read. Instead of assuming you won’t like it and then slogging through it. Whats the point of reading it then? :wink:

-XT

46

Ah, good point. It’s just that I found AS so annoying. Mostly I just find her style, more than her politics, annoying. The long, purply prose. It’s the same way I feel about Anne Rice, come to think of it.

47

I thought there was a very Greek image of man in the book, particularly between Wynand and Roark. The scene on the boat between Wynand and Roark was particularly interesting with respect to that aspect. Very much a cult of the body and male beauty going on. Of course, also somewhat fascist, as every “good” male in the book must be a collection of sharp angles. Somehow I think (I’m not calling Rand a Nazi here, just elaborating from her description of male bodies) that every “good” man in Rand’s world looks like an SS poster.

I’ve had a similar experience. One Russian I spoke with (whose view I trust on these matters) said that in Russia, “Yes means yes, maybe means yes, and no means press the issue again in 5 minutes.”

48

Conversely, the villain of the story, Toohey, is a slight, whispy sort of fellow. At one point, Peter Keating reflects that he had “never thought of Toohey as having a physical body at all.”

49

Hmmm, I’m having a hard time picturing Toohey as a beanpole-in my mind, he’s a big fat blowhard.

All right, so I’m up to the part where Stoddard sues Roark for “malpractice” or whatever, (Dominque just gave her testimony) and I’m thinking-is that even POSSIBLE? The testimony is all opinion, hearsay, etc, it seems absurd that it would be allowed. Yes, I KNOW Rand was trying to prove a point, and I know it’s supposed to be The Way Things Should Be, but even then, it’s just throwing me out of the book.
My observations so far: It’s not as bad as I feared. Certainly, I still disagree with Rand, but I’m finding it interesting (dare I say, entertaining?) and I don’t hate the characters as much as I did in Atlas Shrugged. Well, except for Dominque. She’s annoying the shit out of me.

And I completely understand now why she calls it “rape by engraved invitation.” Dominque basically wants Roark, but she doesn’t want to make it easy for him, she can’t respect him, or herself if she gives in, so basically, in a way, she wants him to rape her. All in all, I think I can safely say that Dominque is one fucked up individual. She’s got some serious issues, some of them, I suspect, because of Daddy Dearest.

Roark isn’t nearly as bad as John Galt. He could definitely use a sense of humor, (oh, could he EVER), but he’s not a bad guy. Sometimes the deadpan, “But I don’t think about it,” cracks up the smart ass in me. And he’s a pretty decent friend to have, at least as far as Cameron and Mallory go.

And I don’t think that Rand really understood what altruism is really about, or what it means to be unselfish and giving. She tries to paint Toohey as the ultimate do-gooder, but it seems like Toohey just wants glory for being a Good Person. He helps other people, but he’s doing it for his own benefit. I wonder if she really was unable to believe that there are people who like to help others, for no reason at all, without being big blow-hards about it. He’s selfish, all right-just not about the things that Rand thought were worth being selfish about.

Peter Keating is a laugh riot. Such a sneaky little weasel! Always screwing people, taking credit for their work. It’s great!

And call me crazy, but I thought Rand was very pro-capitalism. In this book, it seems that she painted a very acurate picture of the capitalism we think of when we think of how you pander to the masses to make a buck, and it’s not about the individual, but about what sells. The mediocre, the banal-hell, why has Wal-Mart been so successful? Not because they’re new and daring, but they give the people what they want, and pander to the lowest common denominator.

Note-I’m not saying this to start a discussion on capitalism, or debate about that, nor am I knocking it. Capitalism is what it is. We all know what works, and how people make money. I’m just wondering, if she was so for individualism, then why would she worship a system where sometimes, you have to give in to the public demand?

Interesting observations: major sexual inuendo and phallic symbols abound! Woohoo!
If they were going to remake it as a film, hmmm, I think it’s too bad Walter Mathau’s no longer around, because I think he’d make a good Henry Cameron. Maybe Jude Law could play Keating-he’s good at playing weasels.

50

Keep in mind what AR considers art to be: The selective recreation of reality. She’s purposely exagerating things-- otherwise she wouldn’t call herself a Romanticist.

Capitalsim. Don’t think for a minute that AR doesn’t advocate it. But not because it is inherently good, but because it is inherently free. GW is a failure because he didn’t do what he wanted to do, he did what other people wanted him to do. And he thought he had to “run things” in order not be run BY things. Turns out, it’s the same thing. If you read Atlas, then you know the difference between her kind of capitalist and the kind that just wants to make money for money’s sake. Money has no inherent value unless you get it from doing what you, yourself, want to do.

Altruism. She’s taking it to its logical conclusion-- complete selflessness. You also have to put her writings in historical persepective. At the time, socialism (even communism) was “the thing” among intellectuals.

51

Well, not exactly . . . Keating is no altruist, he’s entirely selfish and vain, yet at one point Toohey hails him as his greatest achievement, the “selfless man” – “selfless” because he has no real sense of his self, of what he really wants or values; he can see himself only through the admiring eyes of others. Thus he perverts and wastes his potential: He has some real talent as a painter, but he chooses a career in architecture because he expects it to bring him more fame. For the same reason, he spurns Toohey’s niece (forget her name), for whom he feels genuine affection, to marry Dominique Francon, who will look more impressive on his arm.

52

I love that, because it brings one of the more touching moments of the book. Roarke, the man for whom pity is disgusting, actually appears to momentarily break down when Keating desperately shows him his paintings. Roarke realizes the talent and ability Keating had and wasted, as the paintings contain something, but are somehow either marred by Keating’s years of wasted life, contain enough to show the promise but also that Keating is beyond the point where he can claim his true ability, or both.

Roarke looks at the paintings and says, softly (paraphrased), “It’s too late, Peter.”

53

Question-

does Gail Wynand have a stroke, or is he just basically broken after having to give in to the strikers?

And I’m with Otto-he’s hot to have him some Roark.

54

The latter, I think. In the book, that is. In the movie, Wynand commits suicide – leaving Dominique free to marry Roark. In the book she simply divorces Wynand. I suspect they made that change to make the story more morally palatable to a public still disdainful of divorce – an irony Roark himself would have appreciated! :stuck_out_tongue:

55

Yeah, but then

How did they get around her divorcing Keating to marry Wynand?

All right, I finished it. And here is my impression of the ending:

[spoiler]
All right, first, I have no sympathy for Roark blowing up the housing project. NOT because of all that parasites and creators claptrap, but because he, essentially, was committing fraud, by allowing Keating to cheat using his work. “Oh, well, I want the pleasure of seeing my work built!” Bullshit. The people who had a contract with Keating didn’t know he was involved, and thus, didn’t owe him jackshit. Sorry, you helped a cheater, screw you. It’s also incredibly immature and smacks of, “I’m taking my ball and going home because I can’t have my own way!” Well, if you wanted your own way, you should have been honest about it.

Second, I hated what Roark and Dominique did to Gail Wynand. Gail wasn’t so bad, and he loved them both, and he wanted so much to stand for what HE believed in, he almost destroyed himself to save Roark, and then Dominique leaves him, when he needed her most. Yeah, I know, that whole, “No self-sacrifice” thing, but then they shouldn’t have taken his help, nor should she have married him. I don’t believe you should USE people like that. That was really shitty.

I also dislike how she calls Dominique “the perfect priestess.” Basically, the female is only there to worship the male? WTF?
[/spoilers]

All in all, I liked it-I disagree with her philosophy, and I hate her politics, and I found that the villains were just a bunch of strawmen, but damned if it wasn’t entertaining. I’m glad I gave it a chance. A new movie would be interesting. I already suggested Jude Law for Keating, what about Christopher Walken as Toohey?

Am I forgetting anyone else important?

56

ARGH! Could a mod fix my coding, or could someone please report my post so it’s fixed?
Thank you!

57

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Yeah, but then

How did they get around her divorcing Keating to marry Wynand?

OK, I for one am not bothering with spoiler tags. The book is what, 75 years old and the movie is from half a century past. If anyone opens the thread and gets upset about getting spoiled, too bad for them.

In the movie, Keating and Dominique never married. They were engaged, and Keating agreed to break their engagement in exchange for a hugely prestigious commission.

Recall however Roark’s reasons for helping Keating. It had nothing to do with helping the poor, or the backers of the housing project. HR knew he would never get the project and working through Keating was the only way he could see his ideas come to fruition, and his only chance to work with the materials and solve the low-cost housing problem. HR was honest with the person with whom he had the contract, Keating. The backers of Cortland didn’t owe HR anything, but they did owe Keating the honoring of their contract with him. They broke thier contract with Keating, and Keating broke his with Roark, so Roark took back the thing he had contracted for.

But she married Wynand to degrade herself, not because of anything to do with Wynand. She gave Wynand the chance to keep her, but Wynand crumbled and threw in with the anti-Roark mob. And neither of them asked for Wynand’s help.

58

Gah. If a Mod wants to drop by and fix my coding (close the quote tag after the spoiler box) I’d appreciate it.