News
Opinion
The same day “Atlas Shrugged Part I” arrived in theaters, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I” came out on disk. A few days later the Oscar-winning “King's Speech” followed. These films vary dramatically in content and quality, yet they share an important theme: The fight against tyranny.
The hastily produced, low-budget “Atlas Shrugged” hardly does justice to Ayn Rand's epic novel, though it remains basically true to Rand's story and offers some good cinematography and acting. (It also offers some really bad acting in parts.) The film opened April 15 in Denver and other larger cities.
While the film misses the rich psychological complexity of the novel, it conveys Rand's critique of the political oppression of producers. The basic story is that a railroad executive and steel manufacturer go into business together to rebuild a Colorado rail line of vital economic importance. Meanwhile, bureaucrats and politically connected “businessmen” join forces to shackle and loot the producers. Mysteriously, the nation's top producers begin to disappear.
Part of the power of “Atlas Shrugged” is that much of the real world sounds remarkably like the novel. FreedomWorks even put a quiz online asking, “Can you tell the difference between quotes from elected U.S. government officials and [villains in] Ayn Rand's iconic book ‘Atlas Shrugged'?” Often it's difficult, with President Obama threatening to soak the rich and Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. castigating the iPad for displacing jobs.
Unlike the low-budget, limited release “Atlas Shrugged,” the Harry Potter film consumed an enormous production budget and earned the box office to justify the expense. Like Rand's works, the novels of J.K. Rowling offer richly complex characters that challenge the filmmaker.
While Rowling and Rand would clash over various political and philosophical issues, the writers would agree about the importance of defeating tyrants. The basic story arch of the Potter series follows Voldemort's rise to dictatorial power and Harry's quest to stop him.
(For more detailed discussion of Rowling's work, see the Expanded Edition of Ari's book, “Values of Harry Potter,” at ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.)
In many ways Voldemort resembles one of the 20th century's most vicious tyrants, Hitler, particularly in his bigoted cruelty. “The King's Speech” targets Hitler directly.
Mostly, “The King's Speech” is about a man with a speech impediment, a stammer, who works hard to overcome it. Only the man is King George VI, and his ability to speak becomes vitally important when he must lead his nation to war.
“The King's Speech” richly deserves its awards, having presented an inspirational story with a phenomenal cast on a limited budget. The film offers two lessons to the producers of “Atlas Shrugged.” First, a great film can overcome meager funding. Second, a film climaxing with a long and important speech, whether the king's speech or John Galt's speech, can keep the audience riveted if properly set up and presented. (Galt's speech does not appear until the third part of the story.)
True, as Christopher Hitchens warns us, “The King's Speech” downplays the missteps of George VI. For example, Hitchens writes for Slate, “When Neville Chamberlain managed ... to hand to his friend, Hitler, the majority of the Czechoslovak people, along with all that country's vast munitions factories,” George congratulated and supported him. Yet George and the English came through in the end, and that counts for a great deal.
When you watch “The King's Speech” on disk, be sure to listen to the original address on which the related scene of the film is based (or catch it on YouTube). It is moving seven decades later.
King George says, “We have been forced into a conflict. For we are called, with our allies, to meet the challenge of a principle, which if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the world. ... Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might makes right.”
The films about Harry Potter and George VI portray the defeat of a tyrant who would institute that primitive doctrine. Somebody like Hitler or his fictional counterpart Voldemort takes might, brute force, to its logical conclusion and attempts to impose universal enslavement.
Rand, too, had intimate knowledge of tyranny, having lived through Russia's bloody revolution and escaped the oppressive Soviet regime, which slaughtered even more people than the Nazis did.
But Ayn Rand went further and fully articulated the opposite principle of “might makes right,” the principle of individual rights, according to which each individual holds the right to his own life and the fruits of his labor. If we wish to restore vitality to the “civilized order in the world,” it is the principle of individual rights for which we must fight.
“The King's Speech” is spectacular, and the Potter film is very good. The film based on Rand's novel, though flawed, is good enough to view and at times very moving. But, after you enjoy these movies as works as art, take to heart their warning against tyranny.
---------------------------
Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.
The hastily produced, low-budget “Atlas Shrugged” hardly does justice to Ayn Rand's epic novel, though it remains basically true to Rand's story and offers some good cinematography and acting. (It also offers some really bad acting in parts.) The film opened April 15 in Denver and other larger cities.
While the film misses the rich psychological complexity of the novel, it conveys Rand's critique of the political oppression of producers. The basic story is that a railroad executive and steel manufacturer go into business together to rebuild a Colorado rail line of vital economic importance. Meanwhile, bureaucrats and politically connected “businessmen” join forces to shackle and loot the producers. Mysteriously, the nation's top producers begin to disappear.
Part of the power of “Atlas Shrugged” is that much of the real world sounds remarkably like the novel. FreedomWorks even put a quiz online asking, “Can you tell the difference between quotes from elected U.S. government officials and [villains in] Ayn Rand's iconic book ‘Atlas Shrugged'?” Often it's difficult, with President Obama threatening to soak the rich and Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. castigating the iPad for displacing jobs.
Unlike the low-budget, limited release “Atlas Shrugged,” the Harry Potter film consumed an enormous production budget and earned the box office to justify the expense. Like Rand's works, the novels of J.K. Rowling offer richly complex characters that challenge the filmmaker.
While Rowling and Rand would clash over various political and philosophical issues, the writers would agree about the importance of defeating tyrants. The basic story arch of the Potter series follows Voldemort's rise to dictatorial power and Harry's quest to stop him.
(For more detailed discussion of Rowling's work, see the Expanded Edition of Ari's book, “Values of Harry Potter,” at ValuesOfHarryPotter.com.)
In many ways Voldemort resembles one of the 20th century's most vicious tyrants, Hitler, particularly in his bigoted cruelty. “The King's Speech” targets Hitler directly.
Mostly, “The King's Speech” is about a man with a speech impediment, a stammer, who works hard to overcome it. Only the man is King George VI, and his ability to speak becomes vitally important when he must lead his nation to war.
“The King's Speech” richly deserves its awards, having presented an inspirational story with a phenomenal cast on a limited budget. The film offers two lessons to the producers of “Atlas Shrugged.” First, a great film can overcome meager funding. Second, a film climaxing with a long and important speech, whether the king's speech or John Galt's speech, can keep the audience riveted if properly set up and presented. (Galt's speech does not appear until the third part of the story.)
True, as Christopher Hitchens warns us, “The King's Speech” downplays the missteps of George VI. For example, Hitchens writes for Slate, “When Neville Chamberlain managed ... to hand to his friend, Hitler, the majority of the Czechoslovak people, along with all that country's vast munitions factories,” George congratulated and supported him. Yet George and the English came through in the end, and that counts for a great deal.
When you watch “The King's Speech” on disk, be sure to listen to the original address on which the related scene of the film is based (or catch it on YouTube). It is moving seven decades later.
King George says, “We have been forced into a conflict. For we are called, with our allies, to meet the challenge of a principle, which if it were to prevail, would be fatal to any civilized order in the world. ... Such a principle, stripped of all disguise, is surely the mere primitive doctrine that might makes right.”
The films about Harry Potter and George VI portray the defeat of a tyrant who would institute that primitive doctrine. Somebody like Hitler or his fictional counterpart Voldemort takes might, brute force, to its logical conclusion and attempts to impose universal enslavement.
Rand, too, had intimate knowledge of tyranny, having lived through Russia's bloody revolution and escaped the oppressive Soviet regime, which slaughtered even more people than the Nazis did.
But Ayn Rand went further and fully articulated the opposite principle of “might makes right,” the principle of individual rights, according to which each individual holds the right to his own life and the fruits of his labor. If we wish to restore vitality to the “civilized order in the world,” it is the principle of individual rights for which we must fight.
“The King's Speech” is spectacular, and the Potter film is very good. The film based on Rand's novel, though flawed, is good enough to view and at times very moving. But, after you enjoy these movies as works as art, take to heart their warning against tyranny.
---------------------------
Linn Armstrong is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son, Ari, edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.
