RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Movies : Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (1998)
Starring: Sharon Gless (Narrator)
Director: Michael Paxton

Perhaps the most widely read philosopher of the 20th century, Ayn Rand has delighted and infuriated people of all ideologies and, like it or not, has helped to create the political realities we deal with every day. With Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life you can follow her life story, from her childhood in the turbulent years of revolution in her native Rus... (See the whole review)

(Added by Orion Reasoner on 10/15/2004, 10:23pm)

Discuss this Movie (34 messages)

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 6:54am

I truly loved this documentary. It was artistically done and greatly captured the spirit of Ayn Rand. Considering the length of the documentary, it was very comprehensive as well.

No doubt someone is going to jump in and immediately focus on the Peikoff interview, and the whole N. Branden affair issue. This has become beyond tiresome to me. Do I believe that it was poorly addressed in the film, yes. Do I believe that Peikoff was being disingenuous by selective omission, yes. Do I believe that the comment about Mr. O'Connor was ridiculous, yes.

What makes all this so tiresome for me, is the fact that the above issues tend to be the sole focus of some objectivist when viewing this film. It is as if they refuse to give credit where credit is due - solely because of L. Peikoff. Which is ironic to say the least.

As a whole, and leaving the above issue aside - the documentary was a fantastic achievement. I can well imagine that a person that has never heard of Ayn Rand or Objectivism, would come away highly inspired and curious about her after viewing this film. On that level it works, and very well. As an artistic mini-biography that conveys Mrs. Rand�s towering achievement and sense of life, once again, on that level it works. The film score was well done, the narration smooth, and the highpoints of the film captured her essence well.

Criticisms of the film being overly fawning are in my opinion ridiculous. Having viewed quite a few bio-documentaries ranging from the Wright Brothers to Leonard Bernstein, I can say that the documentaries are primarily focused on highlighting the persons great achievements - and are not intended as a platform for debates. If the latter is desired, there are more than enough examples of critical bio-docs. Many people responded as if there was an unwritten rule that this doc HAD to include these.

Lastly, I can fully understand and appreciate the reaction of persons that were pivotal in Ayn Rand�s life being upset that they were basically left as no more than a footnote in the doc. This IS a legitimate criticism of the film. That said, the film is nevertheless a wonderful tribute to one of the 20^th centuries greatest minds. A tribute that was long overdue.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 10/16, 7:04am)

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 1:49pm

George, good post and I think your assessment of the documentary is right on the money. It is a long overdue portrait of one of the greatest human beings ever to walk the face of the earth. Having witnessed the mountain of slander and hostility aimed at Ayn Rand in the seventies and the eighties and especially now with the advent of the internet, I was really overjoyed to see this ode to her life. She really deserved something like this to offset all the slander and hostility she had to suffer through all her life.

A great deal of the criticism of Ayn Rand is of such a petty nature that it pains me to even listen to most of it. After all, what was the great crime that she committed? That she wanted to see heroic beings walking the face of the earth giving life its best and enjoying every minute of it?

Listen, if you want Mickey Mouse one needs to go to Disneyland. If you want to enter Ayn Rand's world you have to pay the consequences. What do people think it means when you oppose everything and everyone in a culture? You can't have it both ways, and if you enter Ayn Rand's world, you better strap on your seat belt.

Ayn Rand was a great warrior, the general in the forefront of the battle, and she didn't back away from anything. She stood her ground and fought, and this type of position takes its toll on a personality something many libertarians don't want to know or understand because they don't want to know or understand that we are fighting for our lives.

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 5:08pm

George, as one of what you call the "pivotal" people in Rand's life who was wholly omitted from "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life," I'll tell you my assessment of the documentary.

1.It was beautifully done, and I was very pleased to see it. Much of what was said about her was important, and the photos of her throughout her life were a joy to see. It would certainly have the effect of sending viewers to bookstores to read Rand's books.

2.Much of the presentation of Rand, particularly by Peikoff, did her a disservice. He spoke of her as a totally happy woman, without the suggestion of a flaw. Anyone who knows anything about her life, (even apart from what Nathaniel and I have written), and anyone who knew her, recognizes that this is nonsense. And anyone who understands anything about human beings, will know he's dealing with a true believer in the person of Peikoff. That does not help the cause of Ayn Rand.

3. The omission from the documentary of Nathaniel Branden, of Alan Greenspan, and of me, was dishonest.

Barbara

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 6:03pm

Those omissions from sense of Life *were* dishonest, on a par with the usual conduct of the True Believers. Obviously Leonard should have been there, & was, but was it really necessary for the TBs to have the robotic Binswanger fronting as well? In any event, TOC are helping in a project to interview all the people who should have been in Sense of Life but were left out. At TOC-Vancouver we were treated to portions of interviews already done, with Joan Kennedy Taylor & Ed Snyder (who certainly doesn't mince his words when it comes to Leonard). Naturally Majesty is on the list too. :-) If Bill Perry or anyone else from TOC reads this, he might like to give us an uopdate.

Linz

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 8:06pm

Well, why isn't Greenspan mentioned? And I once read an article where they were talking about Ayn Rand, and Greenspan would not comment on his earlier involvement in her circle.

Why won't he? What's going on?

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 11:36pm

Orion, Alan Greenspan has very often commented publicly on Ayn Rand and his debt to her. And she was his guest at very special events in Washington. He has never hidden his association with her.

Barbara

Saturday, October 16, 2004 - 11:42pm

If his monetary policies are any indication, Greenspan has entirely recanted his old capitalist, hard-money views and is now committed to placing this country on the inflationist road to ruin.

Or perhaps this article has it right, and Greenspan is just trying to orchestrate an Atlas Shrugged-style economic collapse.

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 1:29am

Barbara,

Well, I know that he wrote two chapters in her collection, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, but within the past two years, I saw a cover article on Ayn Rand in USA Today in which they reported that they attempted to interview him and he had no comment on his involvement with her... and I also recall him having the same reaction when Time Magazine was doing a story on the influence of her writing.

All of this was within the past 2 years.

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 1:33am

Well, I do think that Greenspan has a rough row to hoe. First, there is gold-backed currency; then there is currency not backed by gold; now, there are electronic money numbers not backed by paper or coin, or even gold.

To the best of my understanding, under the current state of things, the government can apparently now just "mint" money, by literally typing in greater numbers into its computer treasury systems. No wonder inflation is a constant.

Money is more plentiful -- and worthless -- than ever.

(Edited by Orion Reasoner on 10/17, 1:33am)

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 7:19am

Orion, Alan Greenspan may simply be tired of constantly repeating the same thing. He's said it, loud and clear and very often. That ought to be enough,

Barbara

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 9:33am

Okay, then that makes sense. Thanks for the answer, Ms. Branden.

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 2:23pm

Orion: �First, there is gold-backed currency; then there is currency not backed by gold; now, there are electronic money numbers not backed by paper or coin, or even gold.�

Gold-backed currency dates back to 1816, so it�s a relatively recent and short-lived innovation. Paper currency had been in use in Europe for several centuries before then.

�Electronic money numbers�, paper and coin are in fact different forms of the same thing: money. So there�s no way that electronic money could be �backed� by paper or coin. Ultimately, any currency is backed by the strength of a country�s economic activity.

Brendan

Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 8:56pm

I was trying to explain how electronic money figures aren't even indirectly backed by gold. The quantity and value of those "numbers" is purely arbitrary, ultimately.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 11:51am

SOL captures the heroic essence of AR's life and portrays her in a positive light for the world to see.

To my eyes, the movie PASSION never captures the essence of AR, ignores her mission of establishing the "Ideal Man" and portrays Frank O'Connor and Nathaniel Branden mostly from the negative side, bordering on slander in regards to their personal lives.

If one is of the mind that we at war and that Ayn Rand is the answer to the anti-life stranglehold of the media and the universities, SOL is a welcomed addition and an excellent vehicle for introducing newcomers to the world of Ayn Rand.

From my point of view, the important thing with SOL is the big picture and its ability to give a positive vision of Ayn Rand, and not its imperfections. On a personal level, I use it to introduce Ayn Rand to people who are native Spanish speakers and who are studying English, and show an interest in knowing about the world. In this sense, I find it a dynamic vehicle to advance the vision of Ayn Rand.

No doubt like all things it has its imperfections and it is too bad that Barbara Branden is omitted as well as her ground-breaking biography. Yet, I disagree with her negative assessment of Leonard Peikoff, nor is she correct about the omission of Nathaniel. In my opinion, Leonard projects a very strong, heroic image, and the other ARI people interviewed as well as Al Ramblus and Tom Snyder, also appear in a very attractive manner. What Barbara sees as True Believers, I see as admiration for the life of a great woman.

In the end, it is not about resentments or past history, but fighting a very hostile culture. Most spiritual programs that deal with healing, tell us we must let go of the past, especially the resentments that act as the number one offenders for destroying our vision of the future. Isn't it time to move on and address the present, the real enemies eating at the foundation of the house?

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 4:11pm

Alan, tell Peikoff to let go of the past, not me. I would not dream of omitting Peikoff from an account of Rand's life -- nor did I.

Barbara

Tuesday, October 19, 2004 - 6:42pm

Lindsay,

Bill Perry and Barbara Branden alerted me to your discussion of SENSE OF LIFE and I wanted to weigh in. I totally agree with your views on the film. It is not merely "imperfection" for SOL, a film that purports to be a biography, to willfully and dishonestly omit essential chapters of a person's life.

Thanks for your comments about the video interviews shown at the TOC conference in Vancouver. It was partly due to the distortions in SOL that those interview were conducted as part of The Objectivist History Project. The men and women who worked with Ayn Rand to launch Objectivism are in their seventies or older. These are the people-- writers, philosophers, economists, artists�who were the first to embrace the core ideas of Ayn Rand�s novels and envision the possibilities for a philosophy that could change the world. Many, if not most of these individuals were deliberately omitted from SOL for the crime of thinking for themselves. Very few of them have written books or been interviewed about this period.. When the day comes when these exceptional individuals are no longer with us, their accounts of Objectivism�s beginnings will be gone forever.

Through the History Project, we I�m attempting to permanently preserve on videotape their stories, eyewitness accounts, and viewpoints. I'll send you an update on the progress of the Project in the next few days, but SOLO readers can learn more by visiting www.objectivisthistory.org

Thanks, Duncan

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 2:46am

Thank you, Duncan - much appreciated! And welcome to SOLO!

Linz

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 11:45am

For all the things missing from the documentary.

What I am surprised about in retrospect is that Peikoff admitted that Ayn Rand had an affair. Since then I was told that Peikoff had denied that for many years - so wasn't that some progress?

Didn't they say in the documentary who the affair was with? If they said Nathaniel, then he is indeed mentioned.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004 - 1:19pm

Marcus,

I recall that Peikoff admitted to the affair as early as 1986, when the Passion biography came out. He said he had been looking through Rand's papers since her death in 1982, and found some journal notes indicating that there was an affair between her and Nathaniel Branden. In the SOL movie, it is also stated that the affair was with Nathaniel Branden.

Michelle

Wednesday, October 27, 2004 - 4:08pm

P.S. The companion book to the movie includes a two-page account of Nathaniel Branden's relationship with Rand, including a picture of him and Rand in the 1960's.