MovieChat Forums > The Fountainhead (1949) Discussion > Nominate for worst film ever

Nominate for worst film ever

posted 12 years ago by alg11297
12 replies | jump to latest

About 10 minutes into this film you have to ask yourself: Is this a joke? Why would Warner's make this? My mom told me the novel was a best seller years ago and maybe they wanted to cash in on that.
Whatever you think of Ayn Rand (a really phoney name if I ever heard it) philosophy this attempt at a movie is comical. The characters aren't realistic, there is no sense of comedy, humanity or or even emotion. Gary Cooper could have been replaced by a stick of wood and Neal looks beautiful but her voice sounds like she slid it over sandpaper first.
Remember Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay and according to the notes insisted that Cooper played the lead. Who else should we blame for the failure of this movie?
Did you notice how all the sets were trying to be huge? Massey's office looks like it's the size of Yankee Stadium. What was the point?
It could be that Rand was so jealous of rich folks she invented an world were only rich folks talked.
Forget it. The most comical scene was when the guy is addressing what looks like a crowd of people and defends what he admits is medeocrity and the audeince all yell that it's a great idea.
Okay....clearly archetecture is supposed to be a metaphor for something. You got me? "These plans are so unique we can't build them" Could you make it just more subtle?
I began reading the book and gave up after like 50 pages. If you want to make a philosophical point write a book on philosophy.
What's scary is that Rand is making a comeback of sorts. They just released the second part of Atlas Shrugged as a movie.
Someone please explain her philosphy to me....I mean other than being obnoxios?

[–] spamdumpj 12 years ago

I got mine. F.U. I owe nothing to you or anyone else. I am special. You're not. Special people get to follow special rules. God is dead. Worship money. F.U. again.

That's about it.

[–] aciolino 11 years ago

How nice that they let you use a computer! Do they also let you feed yourself? Take walks? Play with the other patients, uh. . .visitors?

[–] spamdumpj 11 years ago

How pathetic that when you come across an opinion you do not like, your response is to make jokes about the mentally ill.

[–] mls4182 7 years ago

Excellent synopsis. People why buy into that get slapped down fast. Tgere are very few geniuses who can call all the shots.

This movie is an u realistic fantasy for the unremarkable masses.

[–] discmann262 11 years ago

Ok, think of it this way...

Randian philosophy (Egoism, Objectivism, or Objective Egoism) is like the trickle down theory of economics, but in more philosophical terms. If you have a talent, you owe it to yourself to exploit that talent for all its worth, get the rewards that will come from the fruits of your talented labors, and then once you are on top, you can be a pillar of goodness and the community will benefit. It(society) will benefit by you directly or indirectly. Indirectly meaning: Your influence upon others, or how your ideas will trickle down into something more useful to the masses. This all happens after you 'get yours' so to speak.

Does this help?

[–] DrProfessor 11 years ago

A good example of this is, Bill Gates.

[–] spamdumpj 11 years ago

Except that Rand very specifically condemned altruism in any form. Her followers today were furious at Warren Buffett for suggesting that the extremely wealthy should give away a portion of their wealth, as no one should be goaded by guilt into giving away anything. Rand herself spoke of giving to those who were less fortunate only if they were worthy of help. She would probably castigate Gates for spending money on schools (Rand opposed public education) or AIDS prevention, (as it only keeps inferior people alive, so that they could demand more from the producers.) Rand would probably argue that Gates should have stayed at Microsoft and made more money because, well, just because.

[–] atlasmb 9 years ago

A lot of your post is speculative. But it is true that Rand condemned altruism because it is, by definition, selfless. However, she had no problem with people helping others. But never because of coercion. And obviously guilt is not a valid reason for doing anything, but a person has the freedom to act on his guilt if he wants.

[–] DrProfessor 11 years ago

Rand's philosophy was heavily influenced by the Bolshevik revolution, which left her family poor, after they had worked hard to become successful. Clearly she had very little tolerance with institutions and philosophies which subverted individuals to the will of the people, or for the 'greater good.'
As individuals, we have the right to take this stand, and in fact, most people who describe this as selfish, would be bitching and moaning if their taxes were raised, or forced military service were instituted, or they were forced off their land.

[–] aasoloway 9 years ago

It's stylish, melodramatic and a little kinky. The philosophy behind it could be considered thought-provoking. I wouldn't call it a bad movie.

Maybe it's not your cup of tea.

Here's a tip: If you don't want an "obnoxious" response don't use a title bound to inflame fans.

[–] Crystal (534) 6 years ago

I agree.

[–] johnmiller (3340) 6 years ago

I think that it's a great movie! Yes, it is arch, it is melodramatic, it is over the top. But, high melodrama has to be committed to work. And, this movie is VERY committed. So, I think that it works.