Archive | Ayn Rand RSS feed for this section

Thoughts on Lizabeth Scott

LizabethScottLizabeth Scott is gone. She was 92. The actress, who reportedly died in Los Angeles on January 31, was striking, talented and unjustly undervalued and underemployed in Hollywood—where she was viciously smeared. But she was both luminous and, in a way, premature for a world that matched her ability. Having briefly met her, I think she probably knew it.

Many, possibly most, readers probably haven’t heard of her and there’s no reason why they should. The Scranton, Pennsylvania, native was raised as a Catholic, quit college to start working in New York City, and was discovered by legendary producer Hal Wallis (Casablanca, True Grit, Anne of the Thousand Days, Love Letters, The Furies, Now, Voyager, Sergeant York) who put her as the female lead opposite Robert Cummings in You Came Along (1945), directed by John Farrow and written by Ayn Rand. But she never truly got what she deserves.

Miss Scott was usually better than her parts and films. She possessed all the qualities being written about her in and throughout today’s media—the coastal Times newspapers predictably peg her as a ‘film noir’ actress—including the sexual intensity, the intelligence, the voice, the slightly androgynous air and the unaffected, tough exterior embedded with the will to submit at her discretion. She wore Edith Head’s glamorous costumes well and she was radiant, though she was rarely given the role in which to shine. From her early pictures, such as You Came Along, which she told me when we met was her first and favorite of her 22 movies, and The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946) to Loving You (1957) with Elvis Presley and Pulp (1972) with Mickey Rooney, she almost always added depth and at least brightness to the screen. She makes her films, which are mostly mediocre, worth seeing.

Miss Scott lived alone in the Hollywood Hills, evoking one of Scott’s heroines, screen legend Greta Garbo, and, throughout her career, she was an individualist, which left her open to ridicule and innuendo. Having once expressed that she wore men’s cologne and pajamas and confessed that she hated frilly dresses, she was smeared by a hack (and former Communist) who insinuated that Lizabeth Scott was a lesbian. This nearly destroyed her career. Citing damages, Scott sued for $2.5 million in 1955. The New York Times reports in Scott’s obituary that the lawsuit is “believed” to have been settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. As a leading lady in film noir and noirish pictures such as Desert Fury (1948) and Too Late for Tears (1949), Lizabeth Scott—who had co-starred with Burt Lancaster, Humphrey Bogart, Alan Ladd, Robert Mitchum, Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis, Michael Caine and with Charlton Heston in his film debut—was finished. She withdrew from movies, focusing on occasional television appearances, a musical recording career and auditing philosophy courses at the University of Southern California (USC).

When I met the actress briefly during an event at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) honoring her late co-star Barbara Stanwyck several years ago, she was still the would-be movie star, not so much moving through as glowing throughout the room and taking everyone’s breath away while leaving them bewildered as to why. I told her that I had enjoyed her performances and I expressed an interest in interviewing her, which she at first waved off. Then I mentioned her first film, You Came Along, the Ayn Rand-penned picture in which she portrayed a government worker who falls in love with a troubled soldier on a bond tour. At the mere mention of this movie, she paused, moving closer. Her eyes grew wide and she gripped my hand and said: “I loved Ayn Rand.” She explained her reasons and we talked about my favorite writer, whom she said was one of the few in Hollywood whom she felt understood her ability. Then, Lizabeth Scott turned to her escort and asked him to give me the contact information to schedule an interview. I later proposed to interview Miss Scott as part of a series for the Ayn Rand Archives, which had just produced the long-awaited 100 Voices. But, while I would have treasured the opportunity to interview Miss Scott, I remember my moments with her fondly and I am confident that her proper place in motion pictures will be recognized in time. As she once said:

I don’t want to be classed as a ‘personality,’ something to stare at. I want to have my talents respected, not only by the public but by myself.”

Miss Scott was constantly compared to the late Lauren Bacall, another sultry, smoky-voiced actress from the same era in movies. But I think Miss Scott might have been the better actress, with wider range and a more compelling presence on screen (I mean no disrespect to Bacall, whom I appreciate in pictures such as Howard Hawks’ To Have and Have Not and The Shootist with John Wayne). It is too bad that Miss Scott is remembered as an early film noir prototype and not much else. The term femme fatale does not do her justice. Sadly, it is too late for that now. I think that it is probably still too soon for Lizabeth Scott and that the world is possibly not yet ready for the actress she might have become. But I experienced firsthand that Lizabeth Scott was ready for the world and on her own terms—and this is a grand lifetime achievement.


Reference links

Movie Review: Too Late for Tears (1949)

Interview: Leonard Maltin on Lizabeth Scott (2015)

Interview: Robert Osborne on Lizabeth Scott (2015)

 

Movie Review: Atlas Shrugged, Part 3

ASP3WIJG posterAs I previewed last month, the new and final part of libertarian businessman John Aglialoro’s independent movie trilogy adaptation of Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, features Christian libertarian ex-congressman Ron Paul of Texas. It’s a plot point that, however small, makes no dramatic sense. Like much of this movie, easily the worst of the three pictures, Ron Paul’s cameo both distracts from whatever remains of Rand’s philosophical theme and distorts the meaning of Atlas Shrugged.

Introduced by John Stossel, screened at this year’s libertarian FreedomFest in Las Vegas and opening in theaters nationwide this September, the film, Atlas Shrugged: Who is John Galt?, fundamentally changes Rand’s plot (stop reading this if you insist on seeing movies without any essential plot knowledge).

I’ll get right to the fact that Atlas Shrugged 3 gives Rand’s brilliant story a happy and, even on its terms, undeserved ending. With an awful cast (the emaciated actress playing Dagny this time misinterprets the character’s rationality as a blank slate) and forementioned transgressions peppered throughout the 90-plus minute picture, the movie pastes a news montage and begins in earnest with a poorly staged adaptation of the 20th Century Motor Company scene. Everyone looks like an actor and the extras overemote. They’re not alone. John Galt is portrayed by an actor who means well but is apparently directed to come off as a soap or soft core porn star. “This is John Galt speaking…” should be delivered with a blended sense of heart-skipping dread and anticipation, both crashing down and cashing in on the events preceding the great, momentous line. Here, it plays as a self-conscious voiceover. This is Galt as studmuffin, not as the man who invents – and stops – the motor of the world.

As depicted, Galt’s Gulch could double for a Hallmark Christmas movie, complete with luminaria, and Francisco d’Anconia, who is supposed to have grown up with Dagny, is played by an actor who appears to be old enough to be her grandfather. At least he projects competence. This Dagny is so vacuous she couldn’t run a rinse cycle let alone a transcontinental railroad. When she awakens after Part 2s plane crash in the Valley, the face with no fear, no pain and no guilt achingly portrayed in Rand’s poetic scene is nowhere to be found. Neither is Ayn Rand’s crucial line about never needing to take any of it seriously. There are only actors who resemble the Marlboro man (Ellis Wyatt), male model types in neatly trimmed facial hair (Ragnar) and Foster Grants (Galt) and lots of bugs around Hugh Akston. Somehow, Taggart Transcontinental, the best thing about Part 1, became the equivalent of a commuter rail line. Forget about making love on the train tracks, too.

It gets worse. With chants of “We Want Galt!” from the American public, the opposite of Rand’s point in the novel, which dramatized that the reader faces a fundamental philosophical choice, and cameos from Fox News personalities, Bitcoin and Glenn Beck, the central thesis that the power of the West is fading in proportion to enslavement of the man of ability is utterly trashed. In its place, without a single reference to altruism or self-sacrifice (on the contrary, Dagny silently sanctions sacrifice) is a bastardization (that is the word for this movie) of Atlas Shrugged as populism. With Eddie Willers saved, dispensing with another key point from the novel about what happens in such a collapse, and Cherryl’s life cruelly tossed aside as an afterthought – betraying what Rand’s philosophy holds as the ultimate value – the theme here is that libertarianism will save the world. Among the glaring inconsistencies and inversions are Dagny’s ever-changing hair from straight to permanent wave and back, clean-shaven villains and facial-haired heroes and, worst of all, Galt’s agonizing torture minimized in every sense; the counterpoint to Christ on the cross is reduced to a carefully posed and partially clothed actor making faces to special effects.

That it’s all dramatized in the style of a flat, boring cable movie where nodding off makes not a lick of difference seems to fit what has turned out to be an ill-conceived undertaking by a businessman who does not understand the novel. The proof of this comes straight from the businessman’s mouth. As Aglialoro told the premiere audience, he made this trilogy to “save America from government.” Herein lies the libertarian’s anti-intellectual error across the decades. Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged (and Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism) do not in any sense seek to save America from government. Atlas Shrugged dramatizes the heroic tale of a life lived large and, to the extent it’s about the collapse of the West, it’s about saving America from government control. Atlas Shrugged Part 3, as part of the libertarian’s counterfeit claim to Rand’s philosophy, totally fails to check its premises.

Preview: ‘Atlas Shrugged Part 3’

ASP3 posterAccording to the filmmakers, and this is a so-called spoiler alert, former Congressman Ron Paul appears in a cameo in the third and final installment of the independent movie trilogy, which they’re calling Atlas Shrugged: Who is John Galt? (Read my reviews of Atlas Shrugged Part 1 and Atlas Shrugged Part 2).

I’ve learned that Ron Paul, a libertarian Christian who does not grasp let alone advocate and practice Rand’s philosophy, appears in a scene following Galt’s speech. Besides Ron Paul, Atlas Shrugged Part 3 includes appearances by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Grover Norquist, Matt Kibbe, Jonathan Hoenig and other conservatives, libertarians and fans of Rand’s work. The film is directed by James Manera, produced by Harmon Kaslow and John Aglialoro, and it features Kris Polaha as John Galt and Laura Regan as Dagny Taggart. The film also includes Rob Morrow, Joaquim de Almeida and Greg Germann. I’m planning to post a review this summer before it opens in September.

Whatever the artistic merits of the picture, which I expect to be bad or mixed, the press release about Congressman Paul’s appearance includes a quote with which I partly agree: “Atlas Shrugged is a fantastic book, but [it’s] much more than a story – [it’s] a philosophy. It’s influenced millions of people already and because of its greatness [it’s] going to continue to influence a lot of people.” Actually, her novel is a literary presentation of Rand’s philosophy. The question, besides “Who is John Galt?” is whether anyone whom the novel, its theme and Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, influences will be free to think, create and live. This, as Rand dramatizes in her 1957 masterpiece, is up to each of us.

Victory in Virginia

ECofficialRepublican Eric Cantor has served Virginia’s 7th Congressional district since the turn of the century. Today, in a stern rejection of Cantor’s moderate views, voters of his own party chose to terminate his service. It’s the American way. But the historic defeat – Cantor is the first House Majority Leader to lose his party’s primary – represents a fundamental repudiation of the status quo, left and right, Republican and Democrat.

The GOP challenger, an economics professor who claims to have been influenced by Ayn Rand but quoted the Bible in his victory speech, Dave Brat, co-wrote a paper titled “An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand.” Whether devout Catholic Brat takes Rand’s Objectivism seriously or not (remember when Objectivsts were excited that Paul Ryan had praised Rand?) what matters most is that Brat beat Cantor based on his assertion that Cantor was a moderate and, in this assertion, he is right on. Cantor is soft on Big Government at almost every pivotal and procedural turn as President Obama dismantles the law and destroys the nation, from ObamaCare to compromise with the White House over immigration. Brat (read more about him here) didn’t convince voters that he deserved to win as much as persuade them that Cantor deserved to lose. As CNN’s John King observed, it’s not just that Tea Party types trounced Congressman Cantor, who is as oily as Clinton and Gingrich; a key part of the defeat is caused by Cantor’s usual rank and file conservatives not showing up to vote. The status quo defenders – the knee-jerk Bush sycophants that wink, nudge and sidewind about opposing ObamaCare while muttering in mock confidentiality that no one can really expect to repeal ObamaCare – gave up the fight, stayed home and lost. This indicates a weakening of the entrenched welfare state mentality that feeds the Washington beast.

It is crucial to understand this aspect of Brat’s victory; that the win is less a galvanizing of support for Dave Brat for Congress than it is an exhausted abandonment by Republicans of fraudulent figures like Cantor pretending to be opposed to Big Government. As John Cassidy writes in the New Yorker, Brat “kept hacking away on the immigration issue, saying, “A vote for Eric Cantor is a vote for open borders. A vote for Eric Cantor is a vote for amnesty.” This is true, too, and what is obvious to anyone watching Cantor, who with his fake smile embodies the worst of Washington politicians, was made explicit by voters in his district, who could no longer ignore or evade Cantor’s complicity in aiding Obama. Brat may be an honest, conservative Catholic who once sought to understand Ayn Rand’s ethics of egoism, and now he will be up against another college professor from the same faculty and voters may get an intellectual contest between a Christian professor whose program was funded by the head of the Cato Institute and a sociologist Democrat.

In the victory speech, Brat quoted the Bible and exclaimed that: “This is a miracle from God!” Lest apologists interpret this as an aberrant outburst, he later told Sean Hannity on Fox News that he is “humbled that God gave us this win.” On his Web site, Brat describes himself as “a man of deep faith” and it will be easy to challenge a professed advocate of capitalism on religious grounds because pure capitalism is based on an egoistic, not altruistic, premise. But, unlike Cantor and the Washington establishment, Brat opposes the NSA’s indiscriminate mass surveillance and he made a point to differentiate himself from Cantor on this issue. Unlike Cantor, Brat vows to repeal ObamaCare.

Dave Brat, like most Americans, holds mixed premises. Whether Brat thinks he is a vessel of God, and the anti-abortion conservative wrongly claims that “[o]ur fundamental rights … come from God, the Author of Nature”, there is no denying that Cantor’s defeat is a blow to Big Government’s establishment. Thus, today’s electoral end of the House Majority Leader is a victory for America. It may be too late to save the nation. It may be too soon for an American renewal of our founding principles. But Eric Cantor was an obstacle to liberating Americans from what’s becoming a totalitarian state and that makes his decisive defeat a timely and welcome result.

New Title, Art for Peikoff’s First Book

TCOHGOn November 25, Penguin gives a new title, cover art (pictured here) and author’s preface to Leonard Peikoff’s brilliant first book, The Ominous Parallels: The End of Freedom in America.

The book, The Cause of Hitler’s Germany, is an exhaustive philosophical study of what caused Nazi Germany. As the publisher’s new promotional material promises, Dr. Peikoff examines self-sacrifice, Oriental mysticism, racial “truth,” the public good and doing one’s duty—seductive catchphrases that circulated in Weimar Germanyand he demonstrates how unreason and collectivism led a seemingly civilized society to become Nazi Germany. Peikoff, who grew up in western Canada, lives in southern California and teaches a writing course in which I am enrolled, worked closely with Ayn Rand for 30 years. The preeminent Rand scholar and estate heir taught philosophy at Hunter College and New York University. Here, he offers a breathtaking comparative study and analysis of the rise of fascism in the United States. This was the first book by an Objectivist author other than Rand that I read and I found it utterly absorbing, like taking an intellectual odyssey in a style distinctly different from Rand’s non-fiction in the form of a cogent and captivating lesson in the modern history of philosophy culminating in the Nazi atrocities while ingeniously integrating what the author warns is the impending meltdown of the New Left. I was fascinated to learn that most Germans possessed, read and accepted Hitler’s Mein Kampf and to see how the ideas of Schopenhauer, Hegel and Kant continue to spread and influence the world around me. Philosopher and podcaster Peikoff, who was Ayn Rand’s long-time associate, has written two other books, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and The DIM Hypothesis: Why the Lights of the West Are Going Out.

This volume includes the original introduction by Rand, who endorsed The Cause of Hitler’s Germany as “[a] truly revolutionary idea…. Clear, tight, disciplined, beautifully structured, and brilliantly reasoned.”