The very first Nobel Peace Prize was given to a libertarian economist and peace activist.
A few years later, they started giving it to mass murderers.
The latter tradition seems to be the one theyve chosen to continue.
The very first Nobel Peace Prize was given to a libertarian economist and peace activist.
A few years later, they started giving it to mass murderers.
The latter tradition seems to be the one theyve chosen to continue.
The 1942 Italian film version of We the Living (Alida Valli, Rossano Brazzi, and Fosco Giachetti) the best of the Rand movies, and by Rands own admission better than the Rand-scripted The Fountainhead is finally out on dvd, and this version includes some cool extras.
First, theres 45 minutess worth of the hour or so of scenes that Rand chose to delete from the authorised version. Some were deleted for ideological reasons (e.g., anticapitalist and antisemitic rants that the fascist authorities insisted on adding to the script) and others for artistic reasons (for example, the film changed Andreis death from a suicide to a murder, and Rand changed it back). Still others were subplots that, though not inaccurate to the novel, Rand evidently regarded as distracting from the main plot. (I do wish there were also a version available of the whole movie as originally made.)
Second, theres a short documentary about the history of the film, the highlight of which is an interview with Massimo Ferrara, general manager of the studio that made the film, and a chief source of the claim that the movie was eventually banned by the same government that had originally authorised it. (R. W. Bradford has questioned the accuracy of Ferraras story; the points Bradford raised are worth thinking about, though I dont find them as compelling as he did.)
Theres also a brief visual clip of a funny Rand letter I dont recall having read before, where she jokes about having no non-intellectual activities to report.
The copy on the back of the dvd is misleading in one respect; it promises to include The Original Ending and Why Ayn Rand Changed It. The original ending is included in the deleted scenes feature, but theres no discussion of why she nixed it. Still, its obvious enough once one sees it; the whole point of that scene in the book is what Kira is thinking and feeling, but in the movie you can only see a pale figure in the distance and can barely even tell its Kira.
Some of Rands other hard-to-find movies are also available now on dvd, albeit in lower-quality versions that seem to have been copied off tv broadcasts from the excellent Love Letters (Joseph Cotten and Jennifer Jones; full script by Rand, albeit adapting someone elses novel), through the uneven but still worthwhile You Came Along (Robert Cummings and Lizabeth Scott; Rand revising someone elses script), to the disappointing Night of January 16th (Robert Preston, Ellen Drew, and Nils Asther; a barely recognisable adaptation of Rands Broadway play).
In mostly unrelated news (not completely unrelated, since Welles co-starred with We the Livings Valli and Love Letters Cotten in one of my favourite movies, The Third Man, as well as playing a character in Citizen Kane analogous to Raymond Masseys character in The Fountainhead), I cant tell whether this movie is any good, but Christian McKay definitely does an impressive job of capturing Orson Welles.
Im back from the APS which was fun, as usual.
For those in the Auburn area, therell be another session of caffeinated philosophy tomorrow at 5:00 at the Gnus Room (next to Amsterdam Café, near the corner of Gay and Samford). This time Ill be part of a roundtable discussing free will; check out the poster here.
Milton in Paradise Lost describes the fallen angels in Hell enjoying a similar discussion:
Others apart sat on a hill retird,
In thoughts more elevate, and reasoned high
Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will and Fate,
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute;
And found no end, in wandring mazes lost.
But Miltons fallen angels didnt have the benefit of the Gnus Rooms excellent coffee, so Im sure well get it all sorted out.
Some last-minute changes to the schedule for the upcoming Alabamaphilosofest.
To anyone wondering why I havent been reading and responding to blog comments as much lately as I usually do (or why Im even farther behind on email than usual) both my car and my home computer are currently malfunctioning, plus Im teaching a course overload this semester, so my time on the computer is limited to a few hours caught between classes at the office. Hope to have at least some of that fixed soon.
The Pythagoreans held that justice is a square number. Theres dispute about what this meant. But just in case I ever decide to write about it, I hereby lay claim to first formulation (at least I cant find precedent on the internet) of the ideal title for any such discussion: Justice As Squareness.
(Note: by laying claim I dont mean, of course, forbidding anyone else to use it. I just mean that if I do eventually decide to use it, and someone else has used it in the meantime, they wont be able to claim that I swiped it from them.)
(Note deux: and for those wondering why this title is ideal Justice As Fairness is the title or partial title of four (well, three and a half) different works by John Rawls, as well as a phrase used frequently throughout, and made famous by, his entire œuvre.)
M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
29 | 30 |