His conversion began because:

He saw he was Talking Left and Living Right, a condition common among American liberals, particularly the wealthy among them, who can, for instance, want to impose diversity requirements on private companies while living in monochromatic neighborhoods, or vote against school vouchers while sending their kids to prep school, or shelter their income while advocating higher tax rates. The widening gap between liberal politics and liberal life became real to him when, paradoxically enough, he decided at last to write a political play, or rather a play about politics. It was the first time he thought about partisan politics for any sustained period.

“This was after the 2004 election,” he told me in an interview last month. “I’d never met a conservative. I didn’t know what a conservative was. I didn’t know much of anything.”*

Aided by the work of Sowell & Friedman, Mamet allowed himself to see the country away from the group think of his upbringing and his profession.

He wondered:

“How did the system function so well? Because it does—the system functions beautifully.” How did the happiest, freest, and most prosperous country in history sprout from the Hobbesian jungle?

“I realized it was because of this thing, this miracle, this U.S. Constitution.” The separation of powers, the guarantee of property, the freedoms of speech and religion meant that self-interested citizens had a system in which they could hammer out their differences without killing each other. Everyone who wanted to could get ahead. The Founders had accepted the tragic view of life and, as it were, made it pay.

Indeed – this thing, this miracle, this U.S. Constitution. If only more people recognized it’s beauty – and it’s genius.

* All excerpts from Converting Mamet:A playwright’s progress by Andrew Ferguson in The Weekly Standard. Go read it all.

Oh, and here’s a bonus gem from a speech he gave at Stanford that was none too kind on the subject of higher education

“If we identify every interaction as having a victim and an oppressor, and we get a pellet when we find the victims, we’re training ourselves not to see cause and effect”

Excuse me while I go place my pre-order with Amazon

So, though the vocals were pretty mediocre and I don’t understand why they are touring again, it was still fun to see Detective Reagan busting a move instead of a bad guy.

I am also happy to see that, in spite of his obvious success in other arenas, Wahlberg hasn’t forgotten where he came from and is willing to go back for his band mates and his fans.

BTW: An old friend that did some work on the set of Blue Bloods says the general consensus from the crew was that Wahlberg is an all around good guy who treat stars & support staff with equal respect. I’ve always believed you can tell a lot about a person by the way they treat waiters, bus boys, hotel maids, etc.

Daryl Sroufe has given us a condensed version of Galt’s speech; 964 important words. Here are just three of the paragraphs that speak to me.

You’ve forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it’s your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn’t built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.

Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than its neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.

To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.

Personal responsibility and individual greatness. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Click to see where you can see Atlas Shrugged in your state?

I went to see this with a group; we had all levels of interest from “never read the book, no familiarity with Rand or Objectivism” to “read the book several times and have passages memorized” I am in the middle of that spectrum, having read the book 20-some years ago and being “Rand curious”. I am far right enough to embrace many, though not all, of her philosophies.

I’ve been looking forward to this movie almost since I read the book. Through the decades several casting choices were floated, some that seemed promising, some not so much. In the end, the lead roles went to “lesser known” actors (though you will recognize most of their faces).

Overall, I think they did well. I am gratified that Hank Rearden looks the part; truly a rugged individual, a man’s man. Some of the lesser characters were spot on; the sneering Lillian, the sniveling Phil, the snarling Ellis, the snakey Paul.

I was a slightly disappointed by Dagny. Regardless of her obvious hotness, her acting left something to be desired. A bit weak in her portrayal of such a strong woman, a bit wooden in her reactions to triumph & tragedy. The role would be a tough one to cast in the best of circumstances, but for a production with limited funds and even less acceptance by “Hollywood”, the actors willing to take part may have been scarce. Still, she did well and, should they decide to make the future installments, she may grow into the part.

Some worried the production would suffer from a low budget; in fact, many of the pre-opening ‘reviews’ made a great deal of snarky hay about that problem. The issues suffered by the final product seem to have little to do with funding and more to do with a novice director. The scenes involving dialogue are a bit cramped, even awkward on occasion. The scenes involving the great outdoors are beautiful, but those involving the disintegrating cities are not quite gritty enough. And the limos. *drink* Limos driving down the street. Conversations in limos. Limos pulling up to the curb. Limos pulling away from the curb. *drink*

As far as conveying the message, I thought perhaps it was a bit heavy-handed (not a lot, but a bit – and the book was, too). However, I already know big government is bad, I already know how prophetically Rand’s story parallels the path America is on. For someone unfamiliar with the grand ideas of personal responsibility and individual greatness, maybe they will need to be hit with a 2 X 4.

I definitely recommend it, and I recommend you see it in a theater. There is something to be said for seeing an experience film with an enthusiastic crowd. Saturday at the Valley Art brought audiences who waited in long lines before the movie and applauded after. A rare thing, indeed.

UPDATE: Danno points out that in all those limo scenes, it is only the business types – not the government fat cats who would clearly be indulging in the luxury, as well.

More of our AZ bloggers thoughts on the film after today’s viewing:
Great Satan, Inc
Exurban League
SandCastle Scrolls

Also:
Ed Morrisey at Hot Air

Brian Doherty re: Taylor Schilling “She had moments where she conveyed the lithe, restrained, passionate steel of Dagny, but didn’t do so every moment. Some of her line readings fell flat, some of her expressions were too blank or sometimes too light and sunny. In what might count as a backhanded insult, she sometimes seemed too much like a normal human being for a Randian romantic heroine.”

Cross posted at Word of Mouth Scale

“…the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.”

It has been quite a while since I read Atlas Shrugged so I am sure there will be much that feels new in the upcoming film. However, since the film was announced and I began commenting on it, I have had many people throw in their 2 cents about the story.

I may not remember much of the book, but if your take away from the narrative is “Every man for himself”, as has been suggested, you either didn’t read it or your reading comprehension is terribly lacking.

“He knew no weapons but to pay for what he wanted, to give value, to ask nothing of nature without trading his effort in return, to ask nothing of men without trading the product of his effort.“

I also am glad that the casting worked out as it has. I have no doubt that having Dangy portrayed by Angelina Jolie, Charlize Theron or Maggie Gyllenhaal would have resulted in more media interest – but I think that interest would have pulled the focus. I also am not convinced either of those actresses have the right…demeanor…for that role.

Taylor Schilling has a limited resume but a familiar face, and from the trailer seems well suited to the role.

I look forward to seeing this opening weekend, even if I have to venture into Tempe to do so.

UPDATE: I wonder how Angie Harmon would have done with the part? I may be biased, though – you know how I feel about her.

UPDATE: Roger Ebert clearly one of those who never actually read the novel, or has ridiculously poor comprehension skills. His take away message, “I’m on board; pull up the lifeline.” And his review was clearly already decided before he even saw the movie.

Not sure why I thought of that in the midst of the ObamaCare debate….

(I wonder if there is a basement under the Capital building where possible “Yes” votes might find themselves passing the time? Who is our Walsingham? )

Possibly Related Posts:

1. The Liberal Triumph of the Century

Kate Bush – This Woman’s Work
as featured in John Hughes’ She’s Having a Baby

Possibly Related Posts:

1. Peripety, Hard Work & Following Your Passion?
2. Is That The Right Message

The Conscientious Objector

D has a great talent for finding small movies, indie gems and documentary gold. This week he found the compellingly told story of a Medal of Honor winner that NetFlix was streaming. When he put it on, I didn’t expect to be sucked in to the narrative. Boy was I wrong.

If Hollywood were to make a feature based on the heroics of Desmond Doss during World War II, most viewers would dismiss it as far-fetched nonsense. Terry L. Benedict’s documentary about Doss, “The Conscientious Objector”, illustrates how truth can often outdo fiction.

It’s hard to imagine a greater combination of morality, religious faith and courage than that which emerges in this story of an aging Virginian who received a Congressional Medal of Honor from President Truman.

I found myself exclaiming “Wow” out loud, more than once. Truly a story that sounds like the stuff of a dime-store WWII paperback novel, told here by the men that actually lived through it.

If you want to know the specifics of the CMH citation, you can read it here, but I would recommend watching the film. So much more compelling to make the full journey with Doss from childhood through “outstanding gallantry far above and beyond the call of duty”.

A rare 5 of 5 on the Word of Mouth scale because I can’t imagine anyone in my circle who would not appreciate this well made flick.

No Rotten Tomatoes ratings available.

Because he is followed by everyone who is anyone, and many of his followers are witty, as well, there were some fun suggestions. I figured I would share them here, in case anyone else is looking:

• @Anthropocon: “Smith & Wesson”

• @CLTPatriot: “Blue” “Jake” “Newt” “Lippy” “Roscoe” “Jasper” Augustus “Gus” & “Woodrow” (all from Lonesome Dove) “Houston” “Bandit”, as a pair “Blue & Bandit” (good fit for them) “Waylon & Willie”
• @cprater: “Hope & Change”, “Itchy and Scratchy”, “Cain & Abel”, “Starsky & Hutch”, “Rand & Galt”, “Castor and Pollux”, “Lock & Load”, “Shock & Awe”, “Uday & Qusay”, “Bisbee & Phoenix” (love the place name names), “Cap & Trade”, “H1 & N1″, “Digg & Reddit”, “Pete & Repeat”*
• @dahwg: “Smith & Wesson”
• @ExurbanJon: “Bait & Switch”, “Siegfried & Roy” <--so not happening, “Cap & Trade”, “Created & Saved”, “Smoot & Hawley”, “Tango & Cash”
• @GreatSatanInc: “Wally & Roo”
• @IrishSpy: “Stan & Oliver”
• @nuclear_cowboy: “Kermit & Fozzy”, “Chaos & Destruction”, “Malcolm & Jane”, “Punky & Brewster”, “Beta & Gamma”, “Ford & Zaphod”, “Dresden & Murphy/Mouse”, “Tavi & Sextus”
• @paulvalach: “barney & fred” “starsky & hutch” “splish n splash{ ok those were my beta fish”
• @sceptress: “Sun(ny) & Moon(shine)”, “Quisp & Quake”
• @VoxAZ: “Kiwi & Bonzer”, “Ruff & Tumble”, “Cheney & Rumsfeld”, “Bud & Lou”, “Pancho & Cisco”, “Frank & Jesse”, “Jake & Elwood”, “Butch & Sundance” (that was D, not me), “Brisco & Green”, “Benson & Stabler”
• @vrtsflipflop: “Tweet & Retweet” <--LOL
• @Wrymouth: “Statler & Waldorf”, “Mason & Dixon”
• @5280tweety: “Lex and Mia” – hard to explain… anyone speak OPS5?

In the end, the names @ExurbanJon suggested to start the thread were the ones that stuck – Tango & Cash. I was trying to come up with something from one of D‘s favorite movies (like Wyatt & Doc from Tombstone). How could I completely forget Stallone & Russell in a flick that is definitely among his favorite not-so-guilty pleasures? The names work for me since they are a great combo, but also stand on their own, they are short and easy to understand/differentiate for humans or dogs. They also fit these pooches perfectly.

Thanks, Jon

* For sheer volume and humor value, @cprater has to be the winner. I think she could have kept at it for days

Possibly Related Posts:

1. What’s in a Name?

I’ve heard a lot about it, including hearing it was the “scariest movie ever”. I don’t think I would go that far, but it was definitely creepy.

The thing is, it was also funny – for a couple of reasons.

1. The couple was really good; the way they played off each other was very believable, the little benign interactions, even the looks she gives him when he’s a jerk. There were a lot of laugh lines.
2. We saw it in a theater filled with people, predominantly Hispanic. There was a lot of reaction to what was happening on screen – hearing the guy at the end of the row say, “Duuude” was pretty amusing.

All-in-all, definitely worth seeing, though I would like to know what the original, non-Spielberg’d ending was.

And you’ve gotta love a $15,000 investment that pays off with over $9 million the first weekend of release.