Movies and indoctrination....

Last night I was attending a showing of an old movie called "Born Yesterday". This is something that happens every week in Grant Park and my girlfriend and I enjoy going out and having a cheap date under the Chicago skyline while watching famous classic movies (most movies now days are junk).

To those who are not familiar with the plot of "Born Yesterday" I will give a brief summary: a bully of a racketeering businessman and his ex-chorus girl "fiance" go to Washington DC so that the businessman and his lawyer can bribe and lobby Congressman for legislation to ensure scrap metal prices (his business) for years to come. When they get there, he realizes that his "fiance" is lacking in social abilities and overall intelligence so he hires a newspaper writer to educate her and to teach her to act properly. The writer begins by showing her the city and its sights while explaining about the history of the US and the principles it was founded on.

I won't spoil the ending of the movie for those who haven't seen it, but I was really surprised at how mixed-up the ideas were that were presented. It would have been a great opportunity for the real principles to be presented to a wide audience and it would have slid itself nicely into the script without altering any of the plot. However, what was presented was a jumbled view of what it means to be American and what our country stands for.

For example, there were a few scenes that focused on the founding fathers and the Bill of Rights. The main characters see the museums and monuments and discuss what it means for man to be born free and to be granted rights in our constitution. But then in another scene the writer is explaining a poem that he wrote and how he would rather be a simple, ignorant peasant than to of been Napoleon. I realize that Napoleon didn't adhere to many Objectivist standards and was by most measures a conqueror and tyrant, but as in the context of the movie the writer was promoting a simple life with simple pleasures ("the autumn sun kissing the grapes red") as opposed to striving for greatness.

The protagonists of the story are obviously the writer (one who has intelligence) and the fiance (his eager student). The antagonist is the mob-style bully of a businessman who is the polar opposite of the writer. A character who rose to the top of the scrap metal industry not with intelligent savvy decisions but with bare knuckles and intimidation. Several times in the movie the writer describes the antagonist as selfish fascist. Being selfish doesn't lead to fascism. Fascism is bred from collectivism/nationalism (the opposite of selfishness) where a dictator assumes power and governs all aspects of the nation (industry, law, etc...) with an iron fist. The writer was probably referring to the mob-boss' brute force way of handling problems but that has nothing to do with being selfish. It would be the same as calling him a magenta fascist (it just gives magenta a bad image).

Later on, the main character states that his (the mob-bully's) existence is proof that the democratic system is flawed and it won't be good again until his kind is rooted out and legislation is enacted to prevent them from surfacing again! (cue enthusiastic clapping from red-blooded Americans) This part echos a little bit to close to the Bernie Madoff story of recent news. It is very obvious that the antagonist is NOT acting in accordance with many laws, but the writer mentions more regulations for preventative measures. Bribery and coercion are against the law and the main character thinks that a few more regulations will stop people from doing them? I can't imagine what regulations or laws would be set in place to stop bribery and coercion. It would be the equivalent of imposing a dusk curfew to stop muggings. Further, his statement that his kind is what is wrong with democracy reminds me of religions' stance that man is inherently bad because he is born. Democracy is not flawed or wrong, the existence of people breaking laws is simply proof that some people want to break laws. They have that choice and will be required to answer for their actions when they are caught.

Overall this movie simply used the word "selfish" as slanderously as possible. I suppose I had higher expectations for movies made in 1950 but this is what Rand had to put up with. It just further emphasizes how long ago the "selfish = bad" indoctrination began. It was particularly potent in this instance because the bad guy and his lawyer were so obviously self-destructive which is not being self-ISH at all.

Side Note: I enjoy it when I am having a conversation with someone and something gets said like, "I don't care if I'm being selfish, I've earned it". I always answer that remark with, "But it's not bad to be selfish, it is both essential to human existence and GOOD! Just think of how you feel when you do something for yourself that you have earned. Saying that selfishness if bad is like saying sex is bad." (This usually works because I know my 20-30 yr. old audience enjoys sex). My reward quickly comes when the entire audience of the group looks at me like I reaffirmed something that they have always known but have been afraid to say. It's great.

I guess the real disappointment is in how this story could have been told to show exactly what I have been writing about. The main character could have pointed out to the attractive young student why the mob-boss is not actually selfish, but self-destructive and how America has laws against the kinds of actions he is doing. He also could have taught her that force over reason does lead to fascism and that individual rights permit one to become selfish and to strive for greatness. The movie could have played out the same but with a much more positive and coherent message. Oh well.

--TK