Not Much Substance in Tyler Cowen’s Review

In response to the release of the trailer last week, Tyler Cowen‘s post tried to be provocative:

Apart looking like a bad movie, I found this jarring. It should be in black and white, or muted colors, with the palate and overall look of a Visconti film. It has some Art Deco architecture (good), but signs of the modern world intrude at the wrong moments. It should not have high-speed rail (will this confuse conservatives? Did those governors end up cutting Medicaid and coughing up the money?) and it should not postulate unrealistic speeds for freight trains. It should not have 2011 cars and Dagny Taggart should not look like a mousy actress imitating Nicole Kidman playing a local news reporter. “If you double cross me, I will destroy you” doesn’t ring true. Hank Rearden’s line about only wanting to earn money comes across as either a parody of Gordon Gecko or as something worthy of Gecko’s parody. To be properly post-Wall Street, Rearden must somehow contain and yet leapfrog over Oliver Stone’s vision; a pretty boy look will not suffice.

Unfortunately, there is no substance to his marginal criticisms, and more inflammatory than substantive. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he only observed two minutes from the movie, so he doesn’t have the background. Rand’s novel is set the day after tomorrow. It’s both timeless for its political and economic themes, and timely for the challenges that we currently face. To be sure, the themes are even more relevant today than they were in 1957, which is why Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in the last twelve months than in the twelve months after its first publication.

Become a fan! Visit http://www.soulofatlas.com

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive or off-topic.

2 thoughts on “Not Much Substance in Tyler Cowen’s Review

  1. I am appalled that anyone thinks one can combine Ojectivism and Christianity.

    What this tells me is such a person does not understand Objectivism NOR Christianity. One is based on reason and fact while the other is based on feelings and faith.

    Sad.

  2. I’d resist checking my brain at the door if I were you. I chose Christianity after wrestling intellectually and applying reason. And belief in atheism takes a good deal of faith as much as proponents try to hide behind pure reason. The truth is that we are all chosing what we think is the smallest leap of faith.

    please don’t be an intellectual lemming. Its so tiring hearing your ilk parrot the same narrow-minded stuff.

Comments are closed.