I have spent the last few days mourning Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
It would be an understatement to say that I was excited for Part 1 of this movie to premiere. About 2 years ago, I read Atlas Shrugged and it absolutely changed the way I think. I recommend the book to anyone who will listen, but it is literally impossible to read without time, dedication, a thesaurus and some experience with philosophical text. She is longwinded, overly detailed, and at times downright boring. The fact that most people don’t even have the attention span for the Harry Potter series, did not give me a lot of hope that anyone would actually take me up on reading (and furthermore finishing) Atlas Shrugged. Hence my excitement for the movie: finally a chance for everyone to hear Ayn’s philosophy of Objectivism! So on Friday, I drug my husband and our most politically-minded friend to see Part 1, and knew immediately that this movie was a farce, because the directors, writers, whomever, made the most critical error of setting the story in the future.
Ayn Rand’s work needs to be examined in the context of the late 1950’s when it was published. Her subject matter revolves around the innovation of metal and oil, the equal opportunity of women, and the astounding communication offered by the radio. Obviously examining those topics in the year 2016 is disorienting. If the protagonists actually had access to iPhones, the story would have been so much different.
Outdated as she may be, even in the late 1950’s Rand was hinting towards human innovations (such as the atmospheric motor) that would lead to cleaner and more efficient energy- the reason that oil tycoon Ellis Wyatt was such a strange character in the “futuristic” version of Atlas Shrugged. I am sure we can all agree that the topic of oil has changed drastically from 1957 to 2011. The fuel of the Industrial Age is no longer efficient, or even realistic. Ellis Wyatt (1957) was moving the world, Ellis Wyatt (2016) is draining it. If Rand was writing in the Information Age, Wyatt would have been working for Microsoft, not Exxon.
It is also important to understand that “Shrugged” is about the transformation of the protagonists. Part 1 (or Non-Contradiction as it is called in the novel) simply introduces them: high-powered innovative business people sick of being exploited by the “needy”. Because of this theme, when I first began reading AS, my parent’s response was “Hooray! You actually are a Republican!”. Well, sorry Mom and Dad, I’m really not. Rand was not talking about “conservative economic policy” as we know it. As one continues through parts 2 and 3, one realizes that her political manifesto was truly about the corruption of the dollar.
In a most eye-opening speech made in the novel (and ignored in the movie), Francisco D’Anconia, suggests that it is not money that is the root of all evil, but the love of money that is the root of all evil. His point is that money is nothing but a symbol of human innovation: a tactile tool used to trade the commodities of the human mind, body and spirit. For example, as a Pilates student, you pay me money for my expertise, knowledge, and time because money is a payment I accept. For future reference, I would also accept any kind of barter for YOUR expertise (cooking, drumming, swimming, skiing, sewing, gardening, etc). Money can buy these lessons, but so can your human innovation. If you are confused, go back and read this paragraph again (something you would have to do multiple times during Rand’s version of d’Anconia’s speech). The corruption of the dollar occurred when people’s motivation and production were no longer for knowledge and innovation but simply FOR money. It is no longer our goal as a society to learn, develop, and share our work with others, it is our goal to put in hours and leave with a paycheck. According to d’Anconia, and reiterated by me, money as a symbol is not evil, but money as a passion most certainly is. Throughout her novel, Rand implies that “money as a passion” is what is destroying the world. Instead of being productive humans, everyone is just complaining that they are poor (something that could easily be extrapolated to today’s society). However, if we take the power out of money, there is nothing to complain about. Bring economics back to supply and demand: have something worth trading for something you need.
I think that Rand predicted our 21st century society by talking about the corruption of the dollar. Our society does not see money as a symbol: it is our way of life. She had the foresight to envision the evil of the corporation that profited off of other’s hard work, the evil of an overstretched government able to write legislation for it’s own profit, and the evil of the looter who, having nothing, lives off the profits of others. I think that Rand would be turning in her grave knowing that the socially backwards Tea Party is supporting her work, and downright clawing herself out knowing some Hollywood movie producer is making a profit by defiling it.