Small factoid: Gary Cooper, who was very much a believer in the book, insisted on putting the whole speech into the movie. Originally they wanted to cut it down.
And like Reagan the former FDR liberal Democrat after he married Nancy Davis the adopted daughter of a cruel selfish rich doctor who hated democracy and others of their ilk Cooper was a vicious right wing semi-Fascist. So was Jimmy Stewart who supported Reagan's nonsense as well. Reagan was the greatest villain in modern American history and it was his racist claptrap that led us to this racist Nazi bastard Trump and all the other Nazis in the current Republican Party. So you shouldn't hold Cooper or any of these other vaunted celebrities in such high esteem.
I admire Rand but I think Jason is right on this. She tended to get carried away by the exuberance of her own verbosity. I think cinematically the scene falls flat and the message drowned out by being overlong. Small incidental fact I was friendly with Cooper's charming daughter Marina and Nathaniel Branden was my therapist for a bit...until I decided I didn't like him.
I read this book this summer (2023) at the age of 44. I had been looking for this philosophy my entire life, and did not know it existed. Truly life altering. As a side note: don’t forget that Howard Roark had orange hair.
The Fountainhead champions the cause of individualism through the story of a gifted young architect who defies the tyranny of conventional public opinion. The struggle for personal integrity in a world that values conformity above creativity
Those 10's would not understand - if they knew even how to read or have the patience to read something longer than a tweet without having an aneurysm....
I just finished this book, I never thought that much of fiction, until recently, but there is a brilliance in stories constructed by that of the mind much more than it is today! The tranience of that, that which has taken its place has all but left us illiterate in so many ways the small screen we scroll all in the name of convenience or just bad habits has left us with the inability to truly enjoy the beauty of poetry and literature and what it means to be free in the twenty-first century.
this is what made me realize what the current war is about. Trump's election is only a temporary battlefield victory. The war between the socialist slavers and free men continues.
@@gregshirley-jeffersonboule6258 well, that's your opinion no doubt based on a very wise and educated opinion. Of course, what amounts to education these days is quite questionable.
I just finished the audiobook. I dont think I've been so enthralled with a novel, or at least it's been a very long time. I loved it, I love the idea of celebrating the best of us by encouraging that in ourselves, and the other three characters shook me to my core in how they're different corruptions of that ideal. It's also a reminder that I need to finish writing that music I've had writers block with, to practice gymnastics more on a consistent schedule, to take up fire spinning again, hell even to just clean and organize my apartment. And to want more of myself, and to never apologize for doing so. It took too many years of my life to de-program those chains from public school, and I'm still not perfect, but man this is a reminder of what to aim for in life. Kudos Rand. Thanks for posting.
Rand's history with the Soviet Union made her very astute at the motives of those who would take from others for the so-called common good. She knew the bad guys. I used to think her depiction of them was over the top, but now I think they are understated. She understood original sin even if she reputed the theology. But her atheistic beliefs are also at odds with the fact the all men are created in the image of God. As a result her heroes are, in their own way, more heartless, sterile, and barren that her antagonists. Read her for learning about the kleptocracy of the left but not for anything else.
Very true, because as the Declaration states, we are born with rights that are not subject to any government's jurisdiction, but there had to be a force that created that and set those rules in motion. Rand got as lost in humanism as the communist got lost in Marxism
The current leader of the right made a fortune taking the work of others, and then refusing to pay for those services. Six bankruptcies and decades of fraud were the tactic of the orange leech.
As an innovator in my science and field, I completely applaud Mr Roark. The parasites fool themselves into "thinking" they are entitled to the most valuable asset I have, my innovations. Without the sacrifice of the individual innovator, society would suffer tremendously.
True to a certain point. Nobody really knows how or where original ideas come from. Roarke could claim he is the conduit where the ideas are formed and expressed but to say that he is the creator of the idea and takes credit for it might not be exactly true because nobody really knows how people form thoughts. It seems to be a autonomous process which we cannot really control to any extent other than supressing it. Even in the field of modern architecture the ideas and theories about it were formed by many architects all over the world at the same time.
@@onetruekeeper true to the end-point. Apply the blood, tears and genius and you are entitled to the innovation. Without the rewards humans are reduced to the din of the mundane masses.
When the Group is valued above the Individual, the Individual can be marginalized, manipulated and crushed, without a second thought, to preserve the Group. The Group prospers, the Individual suffers. When the Individual is valued above the Group, both the individuals _and_ the Group prosper, because the Group is nothing but a collection of individuals.
She kind of does say that in the introduction. Haha At best she wrote it for the other Rourkes of the world, but she states pretty clearly that anything less than that level of person means nothing to her.
Agreed. Yet you don't have to search much to find people who hate Ayn Rand with all their heart. They call her hard, egoistic, cold, but all she stood for was freedom for the individual, for enough room for those creative and noble enough to create and invent independently of the judgement of others (within the rule of the law).
With out the help of others, Roark would have only built the greatest mud hut in history but know would know because there’s would be no publishing. No man is an island.
@@silviaquesada2499 sorry , I made a typo in the original. It should have read others rather than other. Further I have added to the original for clarity (I hope). The overarching point I was trying to put succinctly is that with out some measure of compromise and working for the interests of others nothing much gets done. Rand , through this speech is putting the will of each person in isolation. So we would all end up living in huts of our own building because helping someone else is not part of such extreme individual aims. I used mud huts for analogy because the character of Roark is an architect.
@@stretmediq Her books were platforms for outlining her concept of Objectivism. Sometimes it made her characters' speeches long and unnatural. Still, it's easier than slogging through your average philosophy text which is often dense and poorly written.
@@bigredracingdog466 as is the sloogish thoughts producing them. Often it seems only Rand possessed the clarity of thought we need for a modern phjilosophy.
I find it very difficult to reconcile anything being stated here about the supposed true nature of man with actual indigenous cultures I've interacted with - they were not filled with rugged, stoic individualists, but collectivist, extended-family oriented people with a strong sense of "belonging" to one another (though certainly rugged in their own way).
That's a very relevant observation. My own feeling is that human evolution is headed towards the free, but responsible, individual. Perhaps a parallel to that can be seen in the Old Testament, where everybody belonged to a group which was guided by 'elders', as compared to the New Testament, where personal integrity and self-respect are worked towards by individual, entirely-free sacrifice. That's just my take on the future of our species, but of course it isn't a comfortable path for anyone to follow.
And that's because it is a god awful movie that sneers at the greater society which was the whole point of that harridan Ayn Rand who saw anything good for everybody as Marxism. She was a mean spirited selfish bitch who labeled her meaness Objectivism as if it was a real authentic philosophy! But she saw nothing wrong with taking a free education from those bloody Bolsheviks. I guarantee you in a Marxist version of her she would have been a murderous blood soaked Stalinist.
I am generally enthralled by this movie and this speech. Refreshingly, Roark was motivated by esthetic integrity rather than sheer greed. However, he set his "terms of payment" via verbal agreement with the wrong person, a weakling who wouldn't stand up to the investors who held ultimate control. Under the circumstances, his "right" to address "denial of payment" by blowing things up is a bit sketchy (if admittedly direct and efficient in terms of removing the esthetic compromises which deprived him of his "payment"). For sheer "F you" impact, my favorite cinematic speech is the one given by Edward G. Robinson's underwriter character Barton Keyes to an insurance company executive following the executive's failed attempt to cast a fraudulent accidental death claim as a suicide in "Double Indemnity". In a way, it is even more powerful because the "F you" is delivered to a single smug corporate "suit" rather than "society".
A shame that this wasn't redone. I applaud Gary Cooper for his insisting on the whole speech. The movie was flawed and could be redone with a better script. Rand did her best storyelling with this book. I would most like to see a movie made from Anthem which I think has the greatest speech in any of Randsl's work.
As Johnny Paycheck sang, "take this job and shove it! I ain't work'in here no more..." or Ernest Tubb, "sixteen tons whatta ya get? Another day older and deeper in debt!"
If you find this inspirational, a speech by an actor of a character from a book, then you should be wowed by the real speech from a real person about a real subject. Maj Gen Smedley Butler, "War is a Racket". It is on YT as well as a published book/ PDF.
What is the difference between communism and fascism? On paper there are glaring differences, but in practice, especially as viewed from the perspective of the working class, there is _no real difference._ Big Brother is Big Brother, regardless of whatever mask he dons. People everywhere need to be aware of this fact. Uncle Sam is not your protector, not your benefactor, he is a tyrant. Period. Tyranny is the enemy of freedom and free thought, whether it hides behind a mask of religion, "law & order," or any other deception. Big Brother is the monster.
Both of them consider human begins as just a working class. Not thinking, but just working. I want to run for office. One of my slogans will be "Reject the baby sitter.", because with individual liberty protected by law, a good education system and free enterprise in your hands, we will do much better than the poverty the baby sitters promise us.
@@EarthSurferUSA If you do run for office, I wish you the best of luck. However: be prepared for your opponents to get dirty. That's what people do when presented with someone they don't like - they'll do anything to crush your credibility.
And how do you think capitalism views you? Factory fodder. Gotta have a pretty lame brain and be wilfully ignorant of civilization to not see how wrong you are. I guess that's why people like Rand, Peterson, Trump etc all prosper. Because most people are too lazy and ignorant to educate themselves.
Just like capitalism makes people think they have this amazing ability to get rich and yet in practice we still have big brother and a ruling class that make that extremely difficult and both can and do take whatever they want, including your wealth if you become too much of a problem to them.
So there is no balance between collectivism and individualism? Just as the body balances blood flow and clotting, there's a balance in economics and governing.
Ayn Rand died with little money dependent on the American Social Safety Net. Kind of makes all her ideals about self sufficiency hollow to my ears. The most successful societies on earth take care of their young, the old, and anyone else who is in need. It's the people who work to help others we should idolize, not misguided individuals who can't see past their nose.
Firstly, this is false, she wrote two best sellers and made money giving lectures. Secondly, even if it were true, Rand advocated for Voluntary taxation. Meaning that citizens would voluntarily donate to the Government rather than be forced to pay. Because of this, she viewed taxation as theft and therefore when the government gives you social security it should be viewed as a slight reimbursement.
Місяць тому
She was never against charity only those who were forced to provide their work or earnings with compensation or through the will of the person who produces.
Look how far we have come. We now have women on juries. Ethnic minorities on juries. Homosexuals and Queers on juries. Yep… Hollywood in those days really painted us a picture of how life was to be.
Almost nothing in this speech describing the process of human creativity and its consequences is historically accurate, as it defines out of the process an essential element that actually fuels much of the highest accomplishments: the force and value of human collaboration. The first man that discovered fire was burned at the stake? Ridiculous, either considered as history or as metaphor. That opening tale is a transparent attempt to claim unearned the status of righteous victim, an undignified posture for any person to adopt, but one that tells us at the opener that more of Rand’s unrealistic view of human progress and human creativity will be heaped upon us. Ayn Rand’s individualist view of creativity is largely a product of her imagination. She made it all up, in other words, especially the part where she imposes a counter-factual tale of artists being always punished by society for their innovations. That’s simply nonsense, as any art historian will tell you. Sure it’s happened that innovative artists have been suppressed. Solhenitsyn and Bulgakov are examples. But just as many have been upheld and supported and praised *including Rand herself*. She, after all, got her scripts made into movies , and landed bestseller status for her novels. This story told in this speech also dramatically fails in considering the progress of scientists and engineers in more technical fields. Certainly there is a grain of truth in her view of the lone artist and his struggle, but this is neither the artist’s universal experience, nor does it begin to tell the whole tale. Let’s take the greatest artists of the Renaissance. With a few exceptions, all of them actively exchanged ideas, conducted classes, had students, produced art together. One of Michelangelo’s masterpieces, the paintings in Sistine Chapel, were not the product of his sole work. www.ilariamarsilirometours.com/blog/michelangelos-assistants-in-the-sistine-ceiling#:~:text=The%20legend%20of%20Michelangelo%20being,with%20the%20complex%20fresco%20technique
The central problem of Ayn Rand’s work is this “great man theory”. It isn’t true that all advances or inventions are the product of single individuals working alone. They have always been the product over time of many peoples efforts.
The efforts of many working together willingly produce progress,. That is different than the effort of a herd that is driven and controlled for the benefit of a single person.
I am not an objectivist but as much as objectivists themselves may deny it there is an undeniable, very alluring component of Nietzsche’s philosophy in the philosophy of Ayn Rand
@@mikel5582 yes I don’t like objectivism aside from the small vein of nietzschean thought or perhaps I should say attitude since ayn rand wasn’t one for deep thought
@@thatguyinelnorte I think the delivery was wooden because he actually read the book. Howard Roark was pretty damned introverted, and AR did a poor job of fleshing out his personality in my opinion. She was trying to hard to make him 'perfect'.
@@notcrazy6288 I agree, this is exactly how he would be, level and even, humourless and severe, but kind and friendly. open and unforgiving. He has no life outside his "work", none of them do. I have thought about these books that I read 30 years ago because someone tried to imply they were living a jet set lifestyle, there is not one mention of a material possession (Yachats, fancy Cars, mansions). To read the books as reality they have absolutely nothing but the cloths on their backs and passports, and a office to go to. They don't even eat. It's implied they are all wealthy because of their jobs and skill level, but Ayn does absolutely no Home and Garden chapters to display that wealth or go into what they do with it, everything is reinvested into the business.
@@streamofconsciousness5826 Fine, but it's one-dimensional, and I though so even as I read the book. It's a valid critique of Ayn Rand when she seems to suggest through her writing that the 'perfect man' has no personality or human foibles. I've met people who were total workaholics. They have character and personalities, and are often quirky and humorous.
The notion that "every new thought was opposed" is nonsense. So is the idea that innovators "lived only for their work". They lived to make money from their ideas. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that capitalists are selfless humanitarians.
@@realhorrorshow8547Yeah, that's why I said you didn't read the book or watch the movie. The theme goes against the very notion of altruism in favor of rational egoism. Not once was Rand pretending they were selfless.
As a young student in architecture in the late 60's this was required reading for me. It was an interesting book and a great film for self absorbed future architects. Then reality stepped in and I spent the next 50 years working in the profession. I don't know what Kevin McCarthy was thinking going against the collective GOP. He must have seen this film or read the book and actually believed it never thinking about the hypocrisy of his own party. Individual indeed!!
Atlas Shrugged is an excellent book. There is a cringeworthy chapter where she rails against organized religion and faith beyond ones self that is difficult to get through, but I understand why the thinking exists. The statist totallitarianism of communist society poisons those living under it to such a degree that any system with an organized leadership structure is terrifying. Basically, communism, aside from its other sins, destroys faith.
Bravo, Bravo and Bravo. There was a time (when this speech was made) that whether you were on the "left" or the "right" of a particular issue, that it was a given that it your RIGHT to have your opinion on that issue. It is now almost 50 years since I first saw this movie and this scene still rings truth, especially when Gary Cooper says, "Every horror and destruction has come from attempts of herding men into brainless, soulless robots without personal rights, hopes or dignity" and finally, "A man's right to exist for his own sake" I profoundly disagree with the character's destruction of property that was not his. That was absolutely wrong of him. The property did not belong to him. I can't see how anyone squares that.
@@paulrodberg Cooper's character designed Cortlandt. He gave it to Kent Smith's character under 1 condition and that was that the design was not to be altered. He did not charge Smith to design the housing complex nor was his name to be attached to it in any way. Kent Smith's character allows design changes so Cooper's character decides that his only option is to blow it all up? totally destroy it ? That isn't logical, practical or commensurate to what Cooper's character has "suffered"
@@anthonyc7045 I can certainly understand and agree with you. My perspective is different. First of all, this is a movie, symbolic in nature. Second, my personal experience is, in it’s own way, very similar. The ideas, values and actions of my life(at 71) travel the same road of altruistic projects opposed by ignorance etc. I’m sure these historic currents have not passed unobserved by you. P.S. I didn’t blow anything up yet, however many of us do have a list of deserving candidates.
@@paulrodberg I've read your comment and I understand what you are saying. I can't agree with the idea of injuring or destroying structures based upon non- agreeing with the designer or the reason the structure was built. Such philosophical debates should be just that, debates. Not a reason for violence.
@@anthonyc7045 Maybe we can think about this action as an exaggerated dramatic metafore/symbol underlining respect for agreements between adults for what today is called intellectual property.
A lot of rugged individualists don't realize the extent to which they have benefitted from collectivism. I guess they would rationalize it as restitution, as Rand did.
Why it’s almost like they conflate geniuses blazing trails with blazing trails make you a genius. But who would want to tell failures their misunderstood genus trailblazer not meandering idiots to get people on ur side. Surly not
Does he? I must have missed it. All I heard was "to hell with community." I'm as individual as anyone but I certainly can grasp the need for community. The human race wouldn't have made it without it. I suspect that just about every current problem in our nation can be traced to the bolstering of the individual and abandonment of community.
I agree: It’s just a product of Ayn Rand’s imagination (the notion of Objectivism). Almost all innovations are the product of teamwork and R&D, not some lone wolf innovator. Just having a creative idea is not enough.
@@markhodgeson8988 Teamwork? A team is a group of individuals working toward a common goal. What you forget, and what Rand understood, is that *_every_* group is made up of individuals.
Summing up capitalism.vs failed socialism. Perfectly once I split a chalkboard in half with a piece of chalk and on one side the left of course I listed the inventions of socialists and on the right side of course I listed those of capitalism. On the left side I only had the AK-47 the right side couldn't contain all the things the capitalists had invented and subsequently used worldwide
You missed the point entirely. When you work for your self-interest, you by need, draw others to their self interest in aid of you, thereby stepping everyone up to excel. An esoteric view of "it takes a village", but a village of individuals looking to succeed by their own work, and standard. Nothing wrong with the concepts of objectivism and enlightened capitalism except for people's very misunderstanding of the concepts.
I certainly support the fight against collectivism. However the number of geniuses that these ideals apply to are far fewer than many in society would have you believe. Very few people are out here creating anything frim nothing start to finish. Great things are achieved from co-operation, there are few yeoman farmers living there lives beyond the bounds of civilization asking for nothing, trading for nothing, living solely on what they produce!
One of the most naive and ridiculous bits of scribbling ever rendered into celluloid. The author of the novel, of course, ended her life on welfare, despite all this malarkey about owing nothing to nobody and living free free free totally free.
I disagree… the individual flourishes in a healthy, compassionate society… the collective is what nurtures individuals. I believe it is possible to have two extremes… too much collectivism and also too much individualism. A healthy balance is ideal.
All these great achievements of singular individuals are nice. But, nothing gets done without workers. Workers built the pyramids, the great wall, the Grand Coolee Dam, etc. Nothing gets done without workers.
Can anyone explain to me the popularity of Ayn Rand among people who at one and the same time profess themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ? The two philosophies - Christianity and Objectivism - are utterly incompatible. The former stresses our obligations and duties to one another (the Good Samaritan?) while the latter claims our sole duty is to ourselves (see the Virtue of Selfishness)..
Small factoid: Gary Cooper, who was very much a believer in the book, insisted on putting the whole speech into the movie. Originally they wanted to cut it down.
And like Reagan the former FDR liberal Democrat after he married Nancy Davis the adopted daughter of a cruel selfish rich doctor who hated democracy and others of their ilk Cooper was a vicious right wing semi-Fascist. So was Jimmy Stewart who supported Reagan's nonsense as well. Reagan was the greatest villain in modern American history and it was his racist claptrap that led us to this racist Nazi bastard Trump and all the other Nazis in the current Republican Party. So you shouldn't hold Cooper or any of these other vaunted celebrities in such high esteem.
They really should have cut it down. Rand was a bloviated, self-important writer and this soliloquy loses steam after about 2 minutes.
And you achieved Bloviation in just two sentences. Congratulations.
1 and a half sentences really@@neosteeled001
I admire Rand but I think Jason is right on this. She tended to get carried away by the exuberance of her own verbosity. I think cinematically the scene falls flat and the message drowned out by being overlong. Small incidental fact I was friendly with Cooper's charming daughter Marina and Nathaniel Branden was my therapist for a bit...until I decided I didn't like him.
Calls them parasites to their face in a court of law...awesome!
Just about the entire government class are parasites now
Andrew Ryan from BioShock would be proud of Roark.
@@user-bz9of6tn6lAndrew ryans name literally is an anagram from Ayn Rand herself.
I read this book this summer (2023) at the age of 44. I had been looking for this philosophy my entire life, and did not know it existed. Truly life altering.
As a side note: don’t forget that Howard Roark had orange hair.
So did I. I just finished it. I'm 40 but I would've benefited a lot more had I read this in highschool. SMH
First read it last year when I was 24 book changed my life.
@@danielportillo5967can’t say smh at 40 grow up
Fo sho!
Read it in the early 90s.. I was 22 and it shook me to the core
The Fountainhead champions the cause of individualism through the story of a gifted young architect who defies the tyranny of conventional public opinion.
The struggle for personal integrity in a world that values conformity above creativity
ChatGPT has entered.
@@simpson3048 Hah!
yea, thinking the same. @@simpson3048
@@simpson3048 Probably stolen from two different analysis of the book then combined with some word changes.
The rights of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
This book, along with Atlas, changed my life at the age of 22
Hell yeah
The Fountainhead was also a great book
That’s depressing.
me too!
There's a few 10's of millions of today's people who need to hear this speech.
Yes, and also to read the whole book. Along with Atlas Shrugged.
@@StsFiveOneLima Good books, notice they are not used in schools these days? Can't encourage independent thinking can we.
@@JohnWilliams-iw6oq Most definitely not. That would pose a threat to the Reign of the Stupid.
Those 10's would not understand - if they knew even how to read or have the patience to read something longer than a tweet without having an aneurysm....
Ayn Rand, Alan Watts, Terrence McKenna and R. Buckminster Fuller are an excellent 4 square Foundation to be going on with! Then we can talk.
This speech and ideas are timeless and it's our responsibility to remember and cherish these words
I just finished this book, I never thought that much of fiction, until recently, but there is a brilliance in stories constructed by that of the mind much more than it is today! The tranience of that, that which has taken its place has all but left us illiterate in so many ways the small screen we scroll all in the name of convenience or just bad habits has left us with the inability to truly enjoy the beauty of poetry and literature and what it means to be free in the twenty-first century.
Nowadays the jurors would probably be reading social media on their phones while he gave his speech. Soma.
This means more today than ever.
It's a dumb now as it ever was.
@@darkson1969 What's dumb is dismissing it out-of-hand.
@@darkson1969truth is an irritant to the irritable
The universe threw this at me when I needed hear it most.
this is what made me realize what the current war is about. Trump's election is only a temporary battlefield victory. The war between the socialist slavers and free men continues.
From a time when actors could act, and writers could write.
Didn't Ayn Rand co - wrote the screenplay?
This is embarrassingly bombastic and juvenile writing. Cringe.
@@gregshirley-jeffersonboule6258 well, that's your opinion no doubt based on a very wise and educated opinion. Of course, what amounts to education these days is quite questionable.
Very well said.
@@gregshirley-jeffersonboule6258 every Marxist, Communist, and Socialist agrees with you. That's good company you keep.🙄
Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were two of the most influential books in my life! Thank you Ayn Rand.
Can you believe how controversial her writing was though?
@@annalisavajda252 ... and still is (in the eyes of the "parasites")
I just finished the audiobook. I dont think I've been so enthralled with a novel, or at least it's been a very long time. I loved it, I love the idea of celebrating the best of us by encouraging that in ourselves, and the other three characters shook me to my core in how they're different corruptions of that ideal. It's also a reminder that I need to finish writing that music I've had writers block with, to practice gymnastics more on a consistent schedule, to take up fire spinning again, hell even to just clean and organize my apartment. And to want more of myself, and to never apologize for doing so. It took too many years of my life to de-program those chains from public school, and I'm still not perfect, but man this is a reminder of what to aim for in life. Kudos Rand. Thanks for posting.
Gary Cooper was the perfect man to play this part.
someone should give that speech today!!!
To me this was Gary Cooper best acting role of his career.
Magnificent Gary Cooper
Patricia Neil❤️
Rand's history with the Soviet Union made her very astute at the motives of those who would take from others for the so-called common good. She knew the bad guys. I used to think her depiction of them was over the top, but now I think they are understated. She understood original sin even if she reputed the theology. But her atheistic beliefs are also at odds with the fact the all men are created in the image of God. As a result her heroes are, in their own way, more heartless, sterile, and barren that her antagonists.
Read her for learning about the kleptocracy of the left but not for anything else.
....and the kleptocracy of the right. Remember 2008, anyone?
Very true, because as the Declaration states, we are born with rights that are not subject to any government's jurisdiction, but there had to be a force that created that and set those rules in motion. Rand got as lost in humanism as the communist got lost in Marxism
The current leader of the right made a fortune taking the work of others, and then refusing to pay for those services. Six bankruptcies and decades of fraud were the tactic of the orange leech.
@@geraldstephens6612 Whatever you need to tell yourself in order to sleep better at night.
Kleptocracy through central banking inflating the money aupply is entirely a left wing phenomenon. Central banks are a pillar of socialism.
As an innovator in my science and field, I completely applaud Mr Roark. The parasites fool themselves into "thinking" they are entitled to the most valuable asset I have, my innovations. Without the sacrifice of the individual innovator, society would suffer tremendously.
You can always rationalize being a self centered prick. Narcissism is your only friend, like fire is Satan's only friend.
I notice you don't claim inventor? It makes me wonder what you are innovating ? Whose work you are innovating?
True to a certain point. Nobody really knows how or where original ideas come from. Roarke could claim he is the conduit where the ideas are formed and expressed but to say that he is the creator of the idea and takes credit for it might not be exactly true because nobody really knows how people form thoughts. It seems to be a autonomous process which we cannot really control to any extent other than supressing it. Even in the field of modern architecture the ideas and theories about it were formed by many architects all over the world at the same time.
@@onetruekeeper true to the end-point. Apply the blood, tears and genius and you are entitled to the innovation. Without the rewards humans are reduced to the din of the mundane masses.
Even famous actors had to work odd jobs to support themselves while waiting for the next gig.@@19Borneo67
A man's right to exist for his sake. I wonder how many of the commenters on this page have read "The Virtues of Selfishness".
When the Group is valued above the Individual, the Individual can be marginalized, manipulated and crushed, without a second thought, to preserve the Group. The Group prospers, the Individual suffers.
When the Individual is valued above the Group, both the individuals _and_ the Group prosper, because the Group is nothing but a collection of individuals.
I guess if you complimented Ayn Rand on her work, she would say, "I don't care. I wrote these books for me."
She kind of does say that in the introduction. Haha At best she wrote it for the other Rourkes of the world, but she states pretty clearly that anything less than that level of person means nothing to her.
I think Ayn Rand would be grateful for a compliment and then try to begin a stimulating conversation regarding the book(s) and Objectivism.
I read this when I was in the Army 🪖 1983. Didn't even know there was a movie 🎥😊
Profoundly timeless. Only Gary Cooper could pull this off convincingly.
Wow thank you very much I have never seen that! It is quite something.
Appropriate for the time we are living.
Agreed. Yet you don't have to search much to find people who hate Ayn Rand with all their heart. They call her hard, egoistic, cold, but all she stood for was freedom for the individual, for enough room for those creative and noble enough to create and invent independently of the judgement of others (within the rule of the law).
With out the help of others, Roark would have only built the greatest mud hut in history but know would know because there’s would be no publishing. No man is an island.
Not sure where you are going with this, he grew up and is living in society.@@Pocketfarmer1
@@Pocketfarmer1 I am trying to understand what you wrote but fail to do so.
@@silviaquesada2499 sorry , I made a typo in the original. It should have read others rather than other. Further I have added to the original for clarity (I hope). The overarching point I was trying to put succinctly is that with out some measure of compromise and working for the interests of others nothing much gets done. Rand , through this speech is putting the will of each person in isolation. So we would all end up living in huts of our own building because helping someone else is not part of such extreme individual aims. I used mud huts for analogy because the character of Roark is an architect.
Timeless Truth.
In the book, that speech went on for days...
That's because Ayn Rand liked to hear herself talk
@@stretmediq Her books were platforms for outlining her concept of Objectivism. Sometimes it made her characters' speeches long and unnatural. Still, it's easier than slogging through your average philosophy text which is often dense and poorly written.
@@stretmediq And so do the rest of us. If only people heeded her briliiance instead of spewing their own underthought nonsense.
@@bigredracingdog466 as is the sloogish thoughts producing them. Often it seems only Rand possessed the clarity of thought we need for a modern phjilosophy.
in the book she named it „creator and second-hander“ parasite seems a kit more harsh
I find it very difficult to reconcile anything being stated here about the supposed true nature of man with actual indigenous cultures I've interacted with - they were not filled with rugged, stoic individualists, but collectivist, extended-family oriented people with a strong sense of "belonging" to one another (though certainly rugged in their own way).
That's a very relevant observation. My own feeling is that human evolution is headed towards the free, but responsible, individual. Perhaps a parallel to that can be seen in the Old Testament, where everybody belonged to a group which was guided by 'elders', as compared to the New Testament, where personal integrity and self-respect are worked towards by individual, entirely-free sacrifice. That's just my take on the future of our species, but of course it isn't a comfortable path for anyone to follow.
@@wardropperelders my ass.
The inventor of fire was hardly a collectivist.
@@johnwayne6646 How do you know fire wasn't created by more than one person?
@@johnwayne6646 oh cool, did you meet them?
Whow this is incredible Statment
from one of my favorite books 👍 i've never seen this before, thanks
Same here. I never knew there WAS a movie
You don't see The Fountainhead on any Gary Cooper marathons.
And that's because it is a god awful movie that sneers at the greater society which was the whole point of that harridan Ayn Rand who saw anything good for everybody as Marxism. She was a mean spirited selfish bitch who labeled her meaness Objectivism as if it was a real authentic philosophy! But she saw nothing wrong with taking a free education from those bloody Bolsheviks. I guarantee you in a Marxist version of her she would have been a murderous blood soaked Stalinist.
The Fountainhead deseves to be its own streaming series. And the sequel could be Atlas Shrugged. Can you imagine?
Wow - 700 Billion Views? I think some people watched it twice!
Applies to so may innovators-today still. I wish the aspect ratio was not stretched out.
Great book and movie.
A good example is how many hate Elon Musk precisely because of his individualism.
I am generally enthralled by this movie and this speech. Refreshingly, Roark was motivated by esthetic integrity rather than sheer greed. However, he set his "terms of payment" via verbal agreement with the wrong person, a weakling who wouldn't stand up to the investors who held ultimate control. Under the circumstances, his "right" to address "denial of payment" by blowing things up is a bit sketchy (if admittedly direct and efficient in terms of removing the esthetic compromises which deprived him of his "payment").
For sheer "F you" impact, my favorite cinematic speech is the one given by Edward G. Robinson's underwriter character Barton Keyes to an insurance company executive following the executive's failed attempt to cast a fraudulent accidental death claim as a suicide in "Double Indemnity". In a way, it is even more powerful because the "F you" is delivered to a single smug corporate "suit" rather than "society".
2:40 Howard Roark: Man thinks and acts on his own. The reasoning mind cannot be controlled.
Elon Musk: Hold my Neuralink
"reasoning" mind. Not a subsidized one. :)
@@EarthSurferUSA Neuralink is a thing that connects your mind to the cloud for the purpose of monitoring and controlling it.
@@DreamingConcepts or will be...
A shame that this wasn't redone.
I applaud Gary Cooper for his insisting on the whole speech.
The movie was flawed and could be redone with a better script.
Rand did her best storyelling with this book.
I would most like to see a movie made from Anthem which I think has the greatest speech in any of Randsl's work.
Cool acoustics.
Gosh he makes greed sound all noble and purty!
Thank you for posting. I finally understand what a load of horse s*** objectivism is
As Johnny Paycheck sang, "take this job and shove it! I ain't work'in here no more..." or Ernest Tubb, "sixteen tons whatta ya get? Another day older and deeper in debt!"
Not Ernest Tubb. Tennessee Ernie Ford.
@@YSLRDActually, the song was written by and first recorded by Merle Travis.
If you find this inspirational, a speech by an actor of a character from a book, then you should be wowed by the real speech from a real person about a real subject. Maj Gen Smedley Butler, "War is a Racket". It is on YT as well as a published book/ PDF.
What is the difference between communism and fascism? On paper there are glaring differences, but in practice, especially as viewed from the perspective of the working class, there is _no real difference._ Big Brother is Big Brother, regardless of whatever mask he dons. People everywhere need to be aware of this fact. Uncle Sam is not your protector, not your benefactor, he is a tyrant. Period. Tyranny is the enemy of freedom and free thought, whether it hides behind a mask of religion, "law & order," or any other deception. Big Brother is the monster.
Both of them consider human begins as just a working class. Not thinking, but just working. I want to run for office. One of my slogans will be "Reject the baby sitter.", because with individual liberty protected by law, a good education system and free enterprise in your hands, we will do much better than the poverty the baby sitters promise us.
@@EarthSurferUSA If you do run for office, I wish you the best of luck. However: be prepared for your opponents to get dirty. That's what people do when presented with someone they don't like - they'll do anything to crush your credibility.
Communism simply backs up their tyranny with military force! Otherwise, pretty much the same. -🇺🇸😣‼️
And how do you think capitalism views you? Factory fodder. Gotta have a pretty lame brain and be wilfully ignorant of civilization to not see how wrong you are. I guess that's why people like Rand, Peterson, Trump etc all prosper. Because most people are too lazy and ignorant to educate themselves.
Just like capitalism makes people think they have this amazing ability to get rich and yet in practice we still have big brother and a ruling class that make that extremely difficult and both can and do take whatever they want, including your wealth if you become too much of a problem to them.
It seems quite the synch to find this today considering the nature of the game.
Just finished this book and it’ll always be one of the most fulfilling experiences of my bum life.
So there is no balance between collectivism and individualism?
Just as the body balances blood flow and clotting, there's a balance in economics and governing.
INDEED!
Capitalism is the nutrient-rich blood. Government is the parasite that feeds off it.
Mine too!
Brilliant and True!!!!
That's Ayn Rand speaking.
So how could the first man to discover fire be burned at the stake? No one else knew how to burn anything.
Those type of men are all but dead and gone now.
What we have today is a world full of sheep and snakes.
So much for "progress"...
sheep and snakes? rather they're moochers and looters...
@@thatguyinelnorte
Nothing but Semantics and word juggling to appear somehow more informed.
Sad, but predictable...
zzzzzzzzzzz
The idea of collectivism did not begin with Karl Marx. It is as ancient as fear.
Also my favorite F You speech !
Ayn Rand died with little money dependent on the American Social Safety Net. Kind of makes all her ideals about self sufficiency hollow to my ears. The most successful societies on earth take care of their young, the old, and anyone else who is in need. It's the people who work to help others we should idolize, not misguided individuals who can't see past their nose.
Firstly, this is false, she wrote two best sellers and made money giving lectures. Secondly, even if it were true, Rand advocated for Voluntary taxation. Meaning that citizens would voluntarily donate to the Government rather than be forced to pay. Because of this, she viewed taxation as theft and therefore when the government gives you social security it should be viewed as a slight reimbursement.
She was never against charity only those who were forced to provide their work or earnings with compensation or through the will of the person who produces.
What are the odds that Roark would be found "Not Guilty" in today's United States? In a country where water is declared a right, but speech is not...
Close to ZERO odds.
Speech is a right; blowing things up when a verbal agreement is not honored is a bit sketchier . . . 🤔
Look how far we have come. We now have women on juries. Ethnic minorities on juries. Homosexuals and Queers on juries. Yep… Hollywood in those days really painted us a picture of how life was to be.
Almost nothing in this speech describing the process of human creativity and its consequences is historically accurate, as it defines out of the process an essential element that actually fuels much of the highest accomplishments: the force and value of human collaboration.
The first man that discovered fire was burned at the stake? Ridiculous, either considered as history or as metaphor.
That opening tale is a transparent attempt to claim unearned the status of righteous victim, an undignified posture for any person to adopt, but one that tells us at the opener that more of Rand’s unrealistic view of human progress and human creativity will be heaped upon us.
Ayn Rand’s individualist view of creativity is largely a product of her imagination. She made it all up, in other words, especially the part where she imposes a counter-factual tale of artists being always punished by society for their innovations.
That’s simply nonsense, as any art historian will tell you.
Sure it’s happened that innovative artists have been suppressed. Solhenitsyn and Bulgakov are examples.
But just as many have been upheld and supported and praised *including Rand herself*.
She, after all, got her scripts made into movies , and landed bestseller status for her novels.
This story told in this speech also dramatically fails in considering the progress of scientists and engineers in more technical fields.
Certainly there is a grain of truth in her view of the lone artist and his struggle, but this is neither the artist’s universal experience, nor does it begin to tell the whole tale.
Let’s take the greatest artists of the Renaissance. With a few exceptions, all of them actively exchanged ideas, conducted classes, had students, produced art together.
One of Michelangelo’s masterpieces, the paintings in Sistine Chapel, were not the product of his sole work.
www.ilariamarsilirometours.com/blog/michelangelos-assistants-in-the-sistine-ceiling#:~:text=The%20legend%20of%20Michelangelo%20being,with%20the%20complex%20fresco%20technique
The central problem of Ayn Rand’s work is this “great man theory”. It isn’t true that all advances or inventions are the product of single individuals working alone. They have always been the product over time of many peoples efforts.
The efforts of many working together willingly produce progress,. That is different than the effort of a herd that is driven and controlled for the benefit of a single person.
Individualism has a dangerous allure...beware.
Yes. The allure of freedom from the shackles of other people's small minds.
Believe it or not bitcoin bought me here in a roundabout kind of way...
'not to plunder?. The u.s. has plundered from the start. We've never stopped. The cost of empire.
I really liked this when I first saw it. Ayn Rand kind of comes across as word salad now.
I am not an objectivist but as much as objectivists themselves may deny it there is an undeniable, very alluring component of Nietzsche’s philosophy in the philosophy of Ayn Rand
Comparing Ayn Rand to Nietzche is like comparing Taylor Swift to Stravinsky.
@@mikel5582 yes
I don’t like objectivism aside from the small vein of nietzschean thought or perhaps I should say attitude since ayn rand wasn’t one for deep thought
@@mikel5582 I burst out laughing when I read your comment!
@@mikel5582 a secular, watered down facet of the will to power, but yes.
Nietzsche was a determinist who inspired the Nazis. Watch Stephen Hicks comparison between the two.
Good writing, good speech, decent directing, robotic performance.
That's Gary Cooper in a nutshell... one of the best out of Hollywood; but I got splinters from his wooden delivery... And yet I kept on watching...
@@thatguyinelnorte I think the delivery was wooden because he actually read the book. Howard Roark was pretty damned introverted, and AR did a poor job of fleshing out his personality in my opinion. She was trying to hard to make him 'perfect'.
@@notcrazy6288 I agree, this is exactly how he would be, level and even, humourless and severe, but kind and friendly. open and unforgiving.
He has no life outside his "work", none of them do.
I have thought about these books that I read 30 years ago because someone tried to imply they were living a jet set lifestyle, there is not one mention of a material possession (Yachats, fancy Cars, mansions). To read the books as reality they have absolutely nothing but the cloths on their backs and passports, and a office to go to. They don't even eat. It's implied they are all wealthy because of their jobs and skill level, but Ayn does absolutely no Home and Garden chapters to display that wealth or go into what they do with it, everything is reinvested into the business.
@@streamofconsciousness5826 Fine, but it's one-dimensional, and I though so even as I read the book. It's a valid critique of Ayn Rand when she seems to suggest through her writing that the 'perfect man' has no personality or human foibles. I've met people who were total workaholics. They have character and personalities, and are often quirky and humorous.
I guess a symphony orchestra is anti-Rand.
The notion that "every new thought was opposed" is nonsense. So is the idea that innovators "lived only for their work". They lived to make money from their ideas. There's nothing wrong with that, but let's not pretend that capitalists are selfless humanitarians.
Nobody pretended that. you didn't watch the movie or read the book.
@@ProudAjaxI watched this video, which is what I'm commenting on.
@@realhorrorshow8547Yeah, that's why I said you didn't read the book or watch the movie. The theme goes against the very notion of altruism in favor of rational egoism. Not once was Rand pretending they were selfless.
So funny he swears to god before his speech for self determination
Actually, THERE IS NO CONFLICT, because THE CREATOR gave us FREE-WILL todetermine where we go....
@@19Borneo67
So?
Our consideration for others is called CHARITY! The INDIVIDUAL is THE MOST IMPORTANT!
To bad Ayn Rand did not view GOD’s plan. She was a brilliant human who could have been saved as a special person.
She viewed religious belief as silly and aboriginal.
As a young student in architecture in the late 60's this was required reading for me. It was an interesting book and a great film for self absorbed future architects. Then reality stepped in and I spent the next 50 years working in the profession. I don't know what Kevin McCarthy was thinking going against the collective GOP. He must have seen this film or read the book and actually believed it never thinking about the hypocrisy of his own party. Individual indeed!!
Telling a Randian hero that they did something for selfish reasons is just *asking* for it.
I clicked because I thought it was Jean Claude van Damme making the speech
Atlas Shrugged is an excellent book. There is a cringeworthy chapter where she rails against organized religion and faith beyond ones self that is difficult to get through, but I understand why the thinking exists. The statist totallitarianism of communist society poisons those living under it to such a degree that any system with an organized leadership structure is terrifying. Basically, communism, aside from its other sins, destroys faith.
Bravo, Bravo and Bravo.
There was a time (when this speech was made) that whether you were on the "left" or the "right" of a particular issue, that it was a given that it your RIGHT to have your opinion on that issue.
It is now almost 50 years since I first saw this movie and this scene still rings truth, especially when Gary Cooper says, "Every horror and destruction has come from attempts of herding men into brainless, soulless robots without personal rights, hopes or dignity" and finally, "A man's right to exist for his own sake"
I profoundly disagree with the character's destruction of property that was not his. That was absolutely wrong of him. The property did not belong to him. I can't see how anyone squares that.
The destruction was of the intellectual property that came first
@@paulrodberg Cooper's character designed Cortlandt. He gave it to Kent Smith's character under 1 condition and that was that the design was not to be altered. He did not charge Smith to design the housing complex nor was his name to be attached to it in any way. Kent Smith's character allows design changes so Cooper's character decides that his only option is to blow it all up? totally destroy it ?
That isn't logical, practical or commensurate to what Cooper's character has "suffered"
@@anthonyc7045 I can certainly understand and agree with you. My perspective is different. First of all, this is a movie, symbolic in nature. Second, my personal experience is, in it’s own way, very similar. The ideas, values and actions of my life(at 71) travel the same road of altruistic projects opposed by ignorance etc. I’m sure these historic currents have not passed unobserved by you. P.S. I didn’t blow anything up yet, however many of us do have a list of deserving candidates.
@@paulrodberg I've read your comment and I understand what you are saying.
I can't agree with the idea of injuring or destroying structures based upon non- agreeing with the designer or the reason the structure was built. Such philosophical debates should be just that, debates. Not a reason for violence.
@@anthonyc7045 Maybe we can think about this action as an exaggerated dramatic metafore/symbol underlining respect for agreements between adults for what today is called intellectual property.
A lot of rugged individualists don't realize the extent to which they have benefitted from collectivism. I guess they would rationalize it as restitution, as Rand did.
😊😊😊
Nowadays, people willingly sign away their intellectual property rights as a condition of employment.
Why it’s almost like they conflate geniuses blazing trails with blazing trails make you a genius. But who would want to tell failures their misunderstood genus trailblazer not meandering idiots to get people on ur side. Surly not
“ He tells what collectivism really means! “. …
Yes.... My favorite speech....
Please sub if you haven't.
Strengthen the individual lecture by Dr. Jordan Peterson m.ua-cam.com/video/CwcVLETRBjg/v-deo.html
Does he? I must have missed it. All I heard was "to hell with community." I'm as individual as anyone but I certainly can grasp the need for community. The human race wouldn't have made it without it. I suspect that just about every current problem in our nation can be traced to the bolstering of the individual and abandonment of community.
The human race wouldn’t of made it without dogs
@@boobyhatch7897 Or community.
Jarring jump cut at 3:55 snaps you right out of the speech. Sloppy continuity.
So many assumptions made in this speech that just aren't true. It is a house of cards built on fallacies.
I agree: It’s just a product of Ayn Rand’s imagination (the notion of Objectivism). Almost all innovations are the product of teamwork and R&D, not some lone wolf innovator. Just having a creative idea is not enough.
@@markhodgeson8988 Teamwork? A team is a group of individuals working toward a common goal. What you forget, and what Rand understood, is that *_every_* group is made up of individuals.
Summing up capitalism.vs failed socialism. Perfectly once I split a chalkboard in half with a piece of chalk and on one side the left of course I listed the inventions of socialists and on the right side of course I listed those of capitalism. On the left side I only had the AK-47 the right side couldn't contain all the things the capitalists had invented and subsequently used worldwide
A ridiculously simplistic, ignorant notion. 🤦♂️
Just more Ayn Rand claptrap.
In fact no man is an island.
A combination & balance of capitalism & socialism yields the best results.
When has socialism ever worked.
And all the idiots who hate Ayn Rand, have really never understood her.
I don't hate Rand. She simply denies the idea of community. Everything is measured in degrees. Her scale was out of balance.
Your sentence structure and sophomoric vocabulary suggest that you're not in any position to brandish the insult "idiot" so recklessly.
@@mikel5582 Well then parse that sentence for me, how else will I learn.
Somebody's gotta say it: you can't burn shit down.
What? Sure you can. If you have a right to. And he had the right.
Heard Shane Gillis talking about how this guy is real and the rest are just phonies
What did he say?
this attitude will destroy the world
say what bro?
Well-articulated propaganda. Rationalizing greed and avarice is a institutional industry;
Ayn Rand won.
Everyone should act in their best interests, self determination.
You missed the point entirely. When you work for your self-interest, you by need, draw others to their self interest in aid of you, thereby stepping everyone up to excel. An esoteric view of "it takes a village", but a village of individuals looking to succeed by their own work, and standard. Nothing wrong with the concepts of objectivism and enlightened capitalism except for people's very misunderstanding of the concepts.
How to be a self centered sociopath in 5 easy steps.
I certainly support the fight against collectivism. However the number of geniuses that these ideals apply to are far fewer than many in society would have you believe. Very few people are out here creating anything frim nothing start to finish. Great things are achieved from co-operation, there are few yeoman farmers living there lives beyond the bounds of civilization asking for nothing, trading for nothing, living solely on what they produce!
No man is an island.
And no man is born a slave.
@@talbenavraham1478 Nice theory, never been true. Lots of people have been enslaved at birth.
OMG it's a crime to have a mind of one's own?
One of the most naive and ridiculous bits of scribbling ever rendered into celluloid. The author of the novel, of course, ended her life on welfare, despite all this malarkey about owing nothing to nobody and living free free free totally free.
I disagree… the individual flourishes in a healthy, compassionate society… the collective is what nurtures individuals. I believe it is possible to have two extremes… too much collectivism and also too much individualism. A healthy balance is ideal.
We have too many parasites today.
Adolescent philosophy at best
darson1969 Can you back up your empty opinion with sound argument?
What is collectivism? And where does it exist today? Adolescents love Rand.
All these great achievements of singular individuals are nice. But, nothing gets done without workers. Workers built the pyramids, the great wall, the Grand Coolee Dam, etc. Nothing gets done without workers.
Can anyone explain to me the popularity of Ayn Rand among people who at one and the same time profess themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ? The two philosophies - Christianity and Objectivism - are utterly incompatible. The former stresses our obligations and duties to one another (the Good Samaritan?) while the latter claims our sole duty is to ourselves (see the Virtue of Selfishness)..