Bidinotto

Hell, I can't see Angelina Jolie as a REAL female Indiana Jones, either. Or Anthony Hopkins as a REAL serial killer. Or William Shatner as a REAL astronaut. Or Bruce Willis as a REAL New York detective. But they all portrayed those characters, and convincingly enough to make a lot of money doing it. Yet people continue to try to associate the real-life personalities and philosophies of actors to their screen characters. That's silly. We call them "actors" for a reason. Apart from being just untalented and physically wrong for a part (e.g., you wouldn't cast Paris Hilton as Dagny), you have to abstract an actor from whatever you know about his/her personal life and ideas, and simply ask: Can this person convincingly project the personality traits and psychology of a specific fictional character? I think Jolie can. She IS a decent actress. While I think Ashley Judd is closer to the look of the Dagny character as described in the novel -- and while I think Judd has shown the skill and emotional range to portray the "Dagny type" of woman -- they could do worse than pick Jolie. So quit "casting" the movie based on the philosophical mutterings of the actors. That's the least of my concerns. My two major concerns, in order of priority, are the script and the director. If they get those two things right, they'll probably get a fine movie. If they don't, the cast won't matter.

Many reviewers have, correctly, described this new 007 film as a "reboot" of the franchise. The writers, producers, director, and actor have boldly declared, in essence: "Forget the James Bond in every previous film. THIS is the real James Bond." In fiction, you create imaginary worlds and people. The "James Bond" they've re-created here is a new character, sharply departing from previous visions, while more closely resembling the one that Ian Fleming originally conceived. So, yes: forget about "Q" and "Moneypenny" and the history of "M" and all the other trappings of the film "series." It was never actually a "series" to begin with, given the many 007s and their vast differences. But this one has no connection to those other films. This is a new film, and the beginning of a new series. It is sui generis, its own thing entirely. Don't try to connect it to the others; you have to evaluate it on its own terms. Rather than theorize endlessly about it, John, just go see it -- and with an open mind, judging it within its own fictional boundaries of character and plot.

Re today's post by Peter Reidy: “In a sense, I created Francisco in the tradition of the Scarlet Pimpernel – or Zorro… Francisco is the philosophical expression – the concretization in a human character – of what I heard in the operetta music I fell in love with in my childhood.” --Ayn Rand

Barbara writes: "Sure, Robert -- how else could I demonstrate my infinite superiority to the rest of disgusting mankind?" So! You feel the same way I do, then? Ah! A soul-mate!

Michael, your conclusion about Bush doesn't logically follow. If Bush is psychotic, he cannot be immoral, because psychosis (insanity) implies that one has no responsibility for his thoughts and actions. Likewise, if Bush is immoral, then he cannot be psychotic. Personally, I find Bush to be neither immoral nor psychotic; but what can you expect of an immoral, if not psychotic, "tolerationist" like me?

Right you are, Ellen. By this "standard," people like Aquinas and most of the Founders, including Washington and Jefferson, were "psychotics." More interesting to me is the issue of why some people seem to feel impelled to utterly dehumanize all those who hold mistaken beliefs. Must the words "You're mistaken..." always be followed by absurd, self-righteous posturing, e.g., "...which means you are also utterly immoral, irrational, and/or psychotic"?

See, folks? Millions of satisfied customers....

Casino Royale was the first novel Ian Fleming wrote to introduce the Bond character, and this film plays reasonably close to the book's story line -- certainly keeping with Fleming's characterization of 007. The earlier movie of this title was a comedy spoof of the novel, not really based on the Fleming story, except for its title. This film, by contrast, is a serious effort to adapt and update the plot of the novel. One thing to remember about Bond: the character in the novels is a trained, superlatively competent assassin for Queen and country. He is not a GQ fashion plate. His elegant demeanor in public settings is mainly camouflage, a practiced cover to allow him to get close to his rich and powerful targets. But like Francisco d'Anconia, James Bond is no playboy: he is primarily and essentially a tough guy. A VERY tough guy. The Armani mannequins who were successors to Sean Connery in the Bond film roles largely (and in Roger Moore's case, completely) lacked credibility as tough-guy assassins. No thanks to the screenwriters and directors, "suave elegance" became the essence of their characterization of Bond, rather than his icy, ruthless devotion to his grim missions. These pretty-boy actors soared above the mayhem largely unfazed and unruffled, never really getting blood on their hands. In short, they were simply unbelievable -- and so were most of the absurd stories, featuring a procession of Dr. Evils with maniacal laughs, hiding in multi-billion-dollar fortresses as they plotted to destroy the planet. In these films, the "Bond Girls" were cast from the ranks of vacuous runway models; Bond allegedly demonstrated keen "wit" with lame, unfunny puns at dire moments; and he rescued himself from artificial "perils" only with the aid of preposterous gadgets served up by an MI6 nerd named "Q." It short, the whole franchise quickly descended to tired, repetitious absurdity. Daniel Craig has mercifully rescued Fleming's indomitable hero from this multi-decade campaign of campy cinematic vandalism, returning to his roots as a cold, dedicated, hard-as-nails killer. He does some incredible things; but you never doubt for a second his ability to pull them off. His James Bond is no longer Cole Porter with a pistol: he is Jack Bauer in a tux.

I've just given a rave review to the new Bond film, "Casino Royale." Read my review here. I think this may well be the best 007 film -- and the best 007 -- ever. Daniel Craig dares to break the mold and make this character his own. Jump in your Aston-Martin and rush to the theater NOW.

Peter, I agree that -- for all my disagreements with Tracinski and the Speichers -- they have shown unusual courage and integrity in their stand on Peikoff's moronic and insulting attack on Objectivists who aren't enthusiastically endorsing and voting for Democrats. While I have no illusions that they would appreciate any praise from me, I want to be on record that they are to be commended for their intellectual independence. The broader implications have yet to play out, for these individuals and others are, in effect, challenging Peikoff's previously unassailable papal status in ARI circles, and are even demonstrating less-than-enthusiastic reactions to his new pet theory, the "DIM Hypothesis." Some are even suggesting in ARI-friendly blogs that Peikoff's DIM theory has become a framework from which he's rationalistically deducing a variety of dubious positions on issues in the absence of sufficient empirical facts. This once again demonstrates that Objectivism itself may ultimately prove to be the worst enemy of ARI dogmatists. Those better individuals at ARI who take seriously Rand's principles will find themselves increasingly at odds with those others who have been hijacking and warping them.

Here are my final, last-minute thoughts on this election. In addition, I have provided links there to the intramural bloodletting occurring within ARI ranks right now, in the aftermath of Leonard Peikoff's insulting and outrageous characterizations of those Objectivists who disagree with his idiotic defense of the Democrats. It appears that a big split is once again in the making within ARI, with long-time loyalists like Jack Wakefield, Stephen and Betsy Speicher, and columnist Robert Tracinski (editor of The Intellectual Activist) being viciously attacked for challenging Peikoff's lunacy. This is just another example of the kind of irrational tribalism that prompted David Kelley to write The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand, and to found an alternative to ARI. I can only hope that after Tracinski, the Speichers, and their allies get over their initial shock, they'll begin to understand the reasons that led so many of us to depart the Peikovian/ARI ranks.

Danneskjold, you may find this helpful: http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-34-1738-.aspx

Thanks again, Michael. Wait until you read the DECEMBER issue. It may be our best yet. Folks, for a free sample issue, go to www.newindividualist.com --Robert Bidinotto, Editor-in-Chief The New Individualist

No, Shayne, he meant this: "The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a 'good' Republican." The knucklehead meant annihilating the GOP, explicitly including even its "good" individual members. Of course, as we have seen on other issues, Peikoff and his collectivist entourage believe that annihilation is the cure for all political ills.

Roark would only blow sky-high those who seized his property. As for malignant guttersnipes, he would simply say, "But I don't think of you." Sometimes I wonder who most craves attention and wishes to goad people into reacting: the guttersnipes, in their angry obsession with "exposing evil" -- or their critics, in their equal obsession with the guttersnipes. I wonder, in short, if this is a symbiotic emotional relationship.

Dragonfly (and any others To Whom It May Concern): Don't you get it? ATTENTION is what they crave, and you are feeding that craving. Each new post about them grants them a new lease on life: fodder for many new threads, and -- more importantly -- something new that they can all unite and rally against. I've been saying for the past year that if everyone simply stopped paying attention to the fulminations of that tiny and ever-dwindling clique of anger-worshippers, they would turn on each other and self-destruct. And, predictably, it's been happening. But every time you post about their antics, either here or there, you provide them an "enemy" against whom they can unite and rally. That unity keeps them from imploding -- which, in turn, allows them to continue to mar Objectivism's public image. Is that what you want? What would Roark do?

Hahahaha. Thanks, Barbara. We considered several cover ideas involving elephants, but they just didn't quite grab us. When I came up with the final title for Ed Hudgins's cover article, the "battle for the soul" immediately conjured for me the image of angel-devil pachyderms on the GOP elephant's shoulders, whispering in his ears. (Yeah, I guess I watched too many cartoons as a kid....) Anyway, I asked our world-class art director, David Sims, what he thought of the idea. He liked it, and came up with this absolutely delightful execution. I think the covers and art direction in TNI top those of most major political and cultural magazines. Just wait till you see November....

The content is now posted online. Check it out here.

Thanks, Michael. Incidentally, this issue of the magazine -- our biggest ever -- has also gotten its first newsstand placement, right on K Street in Washington, D.C. It's even in the front window, right next to the Atlantic Monthly and other major magazines. Can't tell you just how pleased and proud I am about the progress we're making. Thanks much for giving it your enthusiastic endorsements. While nothing beats actually having the magazine in hand, where you can appreciate its stellar graphics and read it in comfort, interested people can see past articles posted online -- or request a free trial copy, or subscribe -- by going here, to The New Individualist home page.

I invite a rereading of "The Roots of War," in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Don't think my view is any different than Rand's. I thoroughly endorse what she said in that essay, and my view of the desire for peace is exactly in the sense she meant it.

Robert Campbell: I also saw that O'Reilly Factor appearance by Peikoff, and was simply appalled -- not just by what he said, but by his eye-popping, strident-voiced demeanor. He looked completely out of control, a real moonbat. If you are saying radical things, you shouldn't LOOK and SOUND like a wild-eyed nutcase in your demeanor. That evening was a p.r. disaster for Objectivism.

To Roger's post #19: I meant that the Objectivist philosophy is the only philosophy of truly enduring peace among men: the only one that's based in both reason and individual rights, two essentials for peaceful interactions among individuals. Nor is a desire for peace a desire for peace at any price. That clarified, let me repeat what I said: These creeps are trying to hijack Objectivism, a philosophy of peace.

Years ago, when I first heard the tangled rationalizations by Peikoff about situations in which it was proper to lie, I was deeply troubled by the elasticity of the "standards" cited. I recall something about it being okay to lie on certain job or loan applications, because the "mixed economy" reduced work opportunities in certain career fields. I thought to myself, "Man -- that 'mixed economy' excuse could rationalize almost anything today!" Ayn Rand once wrote that "evil philosophies are systems of rationalizations." She was mistaken, however. As these creeps demonstrate, ANY philosophy can be warped into a system of rationalization -- most emphatically including Objectivism. When mass extermination is joked about, in the most grisly terms imaginable, you see the true face of evil; when you see a grand philosophy being cited to rationalize such things, you are seeing their evil compounded. Let me be the first to put it this way: These pseudo-Objectivists are hijacking a philosophy of peace.

Barbara, I'd say that we were "channeling" each other; but why give our enemies cheap ammunition?

In reply to Jerry's concerns: 1. The public announcement of the interest of Pitt and Jolie in this project made worldwide news; I saw links to stories published everywhere, even in remote backwater countries. Those many news stories carried no sneers or derision that I saw--to the contrary, they conveyed an undertone of "This is fascinating!" As for criticisms of the acting abilities of the pair, I have heard criticisms of virtually every other plausible actor who's been suggested; but those criticisms come almost entirely from the very tiny Objectivist camp, and mainly from those who have an axe to grind against the project, due to TAS's involvement. Most ordinary people, who'd constitute the real audience for this film if it's to succeed, don't share these negative views of Pitt and Jolie: Why do you suppose they are on the covers of every celebrity magazine in the world, every week? 2. The view that Atlas "is primarily a novel about ideas, not action (the action is secondary and is used to set up the numerous philosophic speeches)" would send Rand rolling in her grave. In her own articles about fiction writing and literature, she stressed that the most important elements in any novel are "plot, plot, and plot." Go read "The Goal of My Writing" in The Romantic Manifesto. If the film conveys Rand's basic story effectively, it will have conveyed her basic ideas effectively, too, because the "action" is the manifestation of her "ideas" in reality -- not some separate element, unintegrated to and independent of them. 3. Michael has it exactly right: If the hostility of critics were that important, it should have buried Atlas as a novel when it was first published. It didn't: millions have read the novel, and any film now begins with a pre-existing fan base that the novel didn't even have before it became a bestseller. Rand's ideas, once thought beyond the pale, are coming to be seen as more acceptable and worthy of consideration. She is controversial but intriguing to millions of people -- the perfect combination for huge box office success, regardless of what critics think. 4. Do you really have any conception of just how small the entire organized Objectivist movement is? And ARI is a fraction of THAT. No movie could succeed or fail based on whether a few thousand people go see it; film success depends on millions of viewers. Thus film can't be produced simply to appeal to arcane interests of a handful of Objectivists, or it will fail. And anything ARI does to impede or condemn the film publicly will have zero negative impact on its box office; quite the contrary: the controversy will bring more people into the theaters.