Elysium and Atlas Shrugged: Getting Preached at from Both Sides By Michael Minkoff I saw Elysium a few days ago, and then, on a lark, ended up seeing Atlas Shrugged: Part II last night. These movies, and the plot construct behind them, are remarkably similar in many ways, yet the conclusions they come to are absolutely opposed. Both fictional worlds involve a rift between the wealthy and the unwealthy. In both fictional worlds, this rift eventually becomes (or became, in the case of Elysium) absolute—with the divorced civilization of the have-nots finding itself in total ruin. Both movies are also ideologically driven and even heavy-handed—preachy. The audience is not allowed to form its own conclusion. We are told what to think. To be fair, Elysium was less heavy-handed than Atlas Shrugged, but that says almost nothing. Both movies are built on an implausible construct and peopled by flat characters who experience only superficial development. But that is where the similarity ends. Reader beware: commencing spoliers. Elysium imagines a world where the earth has become so over-populated and polluted that wealthy people leave it for a shiny space station called Elysium[1] so that they can “preserve their way of life.” Earth is a slum. Elysium becomes the perfect haven for the bourgeoisie. Elysium has very little good to say about the inhabitants of Elysium. They are uppity, entitled, mean-spirited, oblivious, and self-indulgent. Matt Damon plays a determined young man who just wants to survive. It is a testimony to his acting skills that Damon, who in real life is one of the filthy rich people the movie demonizes, is able to play a poor slum rat so well. This slum rat has been trying to avoid the criminal lifestyle, but it is so hard. And then an uncaring corporation throws him out to die when an avoidable factory accident microwaves his body with a lethal dose of radiation. He has five days to live, and he is going to go to Elysium. Why? Because the space island of Elysium has medical bays in every house—beds reserved exclusively for Elysium’s citizens—that can heal pretty much anything pretty much instantly. And that is why “illegals” from the slum planet of Earth keep sacrificing every bit of their mortal substance to try to get into Elysium. An evil grasping war hawk played by Jodie Foster (who incidentally speaks remarkably good French) uses any means necessary to keep “illegals” from getting to Elysium. She shoots them down or rounds them up. The ones that don’t die are quickly deported so that the hapless citizens of Elysium can do whatever it is that they do without hardly having to see nary an “under-privileged” non-citizen. What exactly they do isn’t all that clear—I saw them in pools and drinking and stuff. Apparently none of them work. And, as far as the movie tells us, none of them has any charitable inclinations at all. Then with one fell swoop, Elysium addresses the illegal immigration issue and universal healthcare. In one not-so-glorious climax, both issues are miraculously solved by a little string of DOS code that instantly rewrites Elysium’s laws and equalizes all social disparities. Yay! Just one question, though. If the Earth below Elysium is so over-populated that people with money left it for Elysium, how will opening Elysium to citizens it obviously can’t hold benefit the hapless citizens of Earth? In the construct of the movie, there obviously isn’t enough wealth or living space to go around. So, what happens when all the wealth runs out? Everybody is poor and lacking medical attention? I guess that is fair, even if it’s miserable. But it doesn’t actually solve anything. The real answer of how to solve class conflict is not addressed at all—unless you count, “The lower class just needs to win the war on the upper class” as a solution. I don’t. I guess we could make all illegal immigrants citizens with the stroke of a pen and offer free universal healthcare to all citizens. But who would pay for that? And if injustice to one party is necessary to right previous injustices to another, would this not result (as it has resulted) in an endless and futile cycle of social retributions parading as equality and justice? Elysium vainly cheers its unwitting audience with an optimistic hope in an unachievable utopia. A utopia where wealth just exists, and there is presumably enough to go around. Sorry, guys. Reality begs to differ. Now on to Atlas Shrugged. Its propaganda is of an opposite sort, but just as ill-grounded. Like Elysium, it assumes that somehow producers can survive without consumers. It envisions an Elysium-like enclave as well, but it is a place where producers can go to get away from looters and leeches. In this scenario, the privileged citizens of Elysium are the good guys. The main ideological difference between the movies is which side to root for. Both movies take for granted that there are two hopelessly divided sides pitted in a struggle against one another for existence. There are differences of course. Elysium assumes a Marxist model of wealth distribution and Atlas Shrugged adopts Ayn Rand’s version of individualist capitalism. But in both cases, the dichotomy and antagonism between the classes is assumed. This is the fatal flaw in both movies, and in both ideas. For instance, I had so many practical questions concerning the economic situation in Elysium. How did people perpetuate wealth in Elysium? By selling things to themselves? Did they have to go back to Earth when they lost everything in a stock market crash, or were those things just frozen? I don’t get it. The whole idea in Elysium seems to be that wealth is not earned or produced, but merely owned and used, but never spent. Those in Elysium just happen to hold wealth, but they are no more entitled to it than anyone else. While watching Elysium, I kept wondering how the people there made a living. Carlisle, a wormy military contractor, is fighting to get a contract with the only place that matters—Elysium. But wouldn’t all rich military contractors be trying to get that contract? What happens when the other companies don’t get it? You see then that classes must develop even in Elysium. Further, why wouldn’t entrepreneurial capitalists in Elysium cash in on the massive market on Earth? If there is a medical bed in every house in Elysium, why not send one solitary bed to a private hospital on Earth and charge the slum citizens a small charge to use it? The initial investment is already made, and you can be sure that such an investment would quickly pay for itself. The citizens there are willing to pay everything to get to Elysium for medical care. Surely they would be willing to pay just as much to get into a medical bay on Earth. It makes no sense that the greedy Elysiumites wouldn’t have cashed in on that, even if it did benefit the people on Earth. But similar questions arise from a logical expansion of the events in Atlas Shrugged. The genius producers leave society to let it burn. They expect society to completely disintegrate while they build a society of geniuses in utter seclusion. That sounds great except for one thing. You have railroads and steel mills and coal and ore and gold, but why? Railroads to what and for whom? Where are these geniuses going to find the unremarkable peons who will run their trains, pour their steel, and buy their products? Visionaries obviously relate to a person like Steve Jobs more than they do to the average iPhone user zombie-walking around the mall, but you wouldn’t even know Steve Jobs’s name without millions of those same zombie-walkers. Producers need consumers. Consumers need producers. In most cases where the civil government doesn’t intervene, they get along just fine and live in a symbiotic relationship of relative harmony. The fact is that great people and average people need not hate each other or be at war with each other over resources. We are connected and inter-dependent. If we were willing to be anyway. We all have a purpose to fulfill. Both Elysium and Atlas Shrugged overlook this possibility. In their paradigm(s), either the individual or the collective has to win. This is stupid. We must jettison the poisonous idea that the classes must be at war. In that war, everyone loses ultimately. Both parties in the over-simplified Marxist bifurcation can win—both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, labor and management, so-called haves and so-called have-nots. All we must do to achieve this harmony is for each of us to learn his calling and pursue it with all his might. If you are a waiter, be the best waiter you can be. There is no shame in that. If you are a factory owner, be the best factory owner. Make the best product, have the most efficient and most productive employees. There is no shame in that. If you are in the movies, make the best movies. And on that note, perhaps the people who made Atlas Shrugged[2] and Elysium might want to rethink their callings in life—or at least make better movies. eaglerising/1323/elysium-and-atlas-shrugged-getting-preached-at-from-both-sides/ Notes: By the way, Elysium is the ancient Greek paradise. The gods allowed heroes and semi-gods to live there near Olympus in harmony and peace. The Elysium space station is like heaven in the heavens—the place all slum children long to go when they grow up. [↩] I do find it quite ironic that a movie apparently touting the power of profit and the value of individual genius and excellence should be so devoid of genius and excellence and so unprofitable. Yet Part III will be forced on an apathetic public nonetheless. [↩] Tags: Atlas Shrugged, atlas shrugged: part II, Ayn Rand, Elysium, Marxism, Matt Damon About the author: Michael Minkoff Michael Minkoff writes, edits, and typesets from his office in Powder Springs, Georgia. He honestly does not prefer writing about politics, but he sincerely hopes you enjoy reading about it. He also wonders why he is typing this in the third person. 14 Comments Gene Mathis on Aug 20, 2013 at 12:16 pm Michael, you just don’t get it, do you? Ayn Rand, who wrote Atlas Shrugged, did not “assume”, as you have, that the classes would always be in conflict. The premise of Atlas Shrugged is that the socialist system creates this controversy, not “the wealthy”, and only if capitalism is allowed to flourish will the various classes exist in harmony. I’m glad you seem to understand that both groups need each other, but your assumption that these divisions will always exist is flawed. Capitalism allows anyone to move upward if they choose, while socialism demands that all groups remain mired in abject poverty. Don’t take my word for it. Examine history, and then show me just one socialistic country that has succeeded. As Margaret Thatcher put it, socialism succeeds until it runs out of other peoples money! 80 Rate this Harry Livermore on Aug 20, 2013 at 12:59 pm Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. I first read it in 1960 when, as a young teacher with a growing family, our television went out, and I was looking for a large book to read in my spare winter hours. Being a conservative, it appealed to me, but–as we say today–I thought Ms Rand was over the top. She had done a better job with The Fountainhead in about 80% less space. Gary Cooper was to play the leading character Roark in the movie version of it. It too was heavy handed philosophically, but it did not beat you over the head with its message like Atlas Shrugged did. Later, I directed her play, The Night of January the 16th. It had been on Broadway in the 30s, and my junior class really enjoyed doing it. 00 Rate this Bob Lewis on Aug 20, 2013 at 1:01 pm There seems to be one important factor that is left out of both scenarios. We do need both producers and consumers, but what we do not need,at least to the extent that we have now, is a class that puts themselves above both. That is, a ruling class that has no checks and balances and therefore sets forth rules and regulations that so prohibits the manufacturing sector that even the consumers cannot afford to purchase the products. 40 Rate this Becky Wiggins on Aug 20, 2013 at 1:10 pm Your title is correct, but your characterization of “Atlas Shrugged” is in error. I am assuming that it is because you are basing your analysis on “Atlas Shrugged” on the story taken out of context (Part II without I or III). You have also not read the book upon which the movies are based. The dichotomy in “Atlas Shrugged” is not between the Haves and the Have-Nots; it is between the Doers and the Non-Doers at the levels of power. You can be a Have-Not (like James’s wife before she married him) and be a Doer. There are also many Non-Doers (Reardon’s wife; Wesley Mouch; all the government people) that are part of the Haves. The book is about what happens when Non-Doers control Doers to achieve power. The analogy is exactly what is happening with the federal government in DC (a nonproductive bunch) trying to control society to (in my opinion) garner power for themselves. Not all of the escapees to Galt’s Gulch are the filthy rich; their commonality lies in their drive to achieve, whether it leads to richness and power or not. My favorite scene from the book is where one of the geniuses has retired to a truck stop (not in Galt’s Gulch) to make hamburgers because he’d rather be allowed to do that to perfection than be forced by the government to sacrifice his principles by spouting or teaching propoganda. You made this exact point in your analysis: “If you are a waiter, be the best waiter you can.” Dagny becomes a maid and cook for a short time in Galt’s Gulch because she would rather work to support herself in the only way possible than simply sponge off others. You have a point about the scarcity of consumers in Galt’s Gulch, but the geniuses are perfectly willing not to build country-wide railroads. They adapt their skills to the by tackling projects compatibile with the scale of the community, not necessarily what they did in the outside world. That being said, this IS fiction. One of the reasons that I only watched “The Wizard of Oz” movie once was because it did not remain true to the books. I was a big fan of the books (all 14 of them) and Dorothy did NOT dream going to Oz; she went there. In fiction, you sometimes let yourself believe impossible things because you want to escape. What kind of logical expansion would a real Oz lead to? Even though your point is that class warfare is not a real life solution, and “Atlas Shrugged” is not about class warfare, your point might stand about the necessity for “groups” at all not being a true requirement. I guess you aren’t a big fan of the “good” vs “evil” paradigm in fiction. However, I would suggest that you wait for Part III of “Atlas Shrugged” to compare the movies (or just watch 1/3 of “Elyseum” and then write a critique. I might also suggest you read the book, even though it is VERY long and, I freely admit, it pushes very hard to make its point. Much of what it says about the political structure is eerily similar to what is going on today in DC. (Spoiler: there is a 60 page rant towards the end on the radio by one of the major characters that you can completely skip and not lose anything.) I don’t agree with everything in the philosophy, but if there were a Galt’s Gulch, I would be headed there right now. 30 Rate this David Wilcox on Aug 20, 2013 at 1:46 pm If you took the time to read the book, “Atlas Shrugged,” you would find that much of what you say in the final paragraph is what Rand advocated. Also, note that the battle between producers (haves) and takers (have nots) has gone on for all of mankind’s history. Unless something changes soon, the takers will plunge us into an abysmal state. 20 Rate this Ellen_L on Aug 20, 2013 at 1:48 pm Movies are too short to give a full view of epic novels. If you actually read Atlas Shrugged you will get a different view than you got from the second part of a three part movie. Part of Ayn Rand’s message is precisely that consumers and producers should be two sides of the same people. Some produce more than others but when those who do not produce take it on themselves to distribute wealth and to try to control the producers it cuts this connection and leads to terrible results. After long enough people are not willing to keep producing for those who steal from them. Rand told the story in dramatic terms with heroic characters (there were more average characters but they are mentioned not the main actors). Today we are approaching such a world in medicine and other parts of the economy where people are not willing or able to work at a loss due to forcible interference with the market. 20 Rate this Garth Grimm on Aug 20, 2013 at 1:55 pm Interesting analysis, and a good read. I’ve not seen Elysium, but I’ll take your analysis of it as correct. But from what you suggest about Atlas, I wonder if you just watched Part II of the movie, or if you’ve read the entire book. Elysium is what Atlas would end up being if the producers didn’t go on strike. The government, their enforcement mechanisms, and the wealthy who acquired wealth by political means would be living in the spaceship. Those with the brains and braun to actually produce really useful things would be on the planet. Only in Atlas, those producers leave before it gets that far, and go off to live in a “Utopia” where each individual both produces and consumes. If they didn’t leave, the social structure would continue down the path of the “takers” dictating to the “producers” how things will work until you end up in an Elysium type construct. 10 Rate this Bruce A. Frank on Aug 20, 2013 at 2:05 pm My son’s and my discussion on Elysium was all about the gaping holes in the story and the impossibility of the ending’s “solution.” But, I am going to have to disagree with your assessment of Atlas Shrugged II. The story there is about the destruction of capitalism at the behest of the government. The producers told the government that their policies were unsustainable and destroying the structure of society. The government would make no changes in their polices, but continued to delay the eventual collapse by paper shuffling and co-opting the surviving businesses to support the government “Just till we get our second wind!” Galt’s Gulch is not going to be a long term establishment. The collapse is inevitable. The government turned a deaf ear to the ideas that would actually fix the situation, so the solution is, as viewed by the producers of the society, to withdraw completely speeding the final collapse providing the opportunity rebuild capitalism based economy and government from scratch. Sooner rather than later. I do have to agree that the presentation, acting, and action of the Atlas Shrugged II movie was flat. The book covering that sequence, both the printed version and the ‘talking-book’ CDs, was more exciting. 20 Rate this Arcturus6 on Aug 20, 2013 at 2:23 pm Dear Mr. Minkoff: I read your article with interest. Sir, I will take Ann Rand and Atlas Shrugged anytime over the garbage propagated by that piece of human garbage Damon in Elysium. Damon is, in my considered opinion, a menace to any civil order that values liberty, freedom, and decency over Marxist garbage. He epitomizes the very worst of what is wrong with this nation today. 20 Rate this Adrian Vance on Aug 20, 2013 at 2:37 pm It is the unequal distribution of wealth that drives men to dream. Without it nothing happens. That is the secret of capitalism. See The Two Minute Conservative via Google or: adrianvance.blogspot and when you speak ladies will swoon and liberal gentlemen will weep. 30 Rate this GJ on Aug 20, 2013 at 3:57 pm Consumers and producers are one in the same; Traders. A laborer is just as much a producer as a factory owner or “genius” and vice versa. They both produce in order to live, which requires consumption. Atlas Shrugged is not about the wealthy against the un-wealthy its about the looters and leeches (who are usually wealthy) using government force against traders in order to live without producing. The “greedy Elysiumites” likely have no need of money because they likely print it, so the question of why they haven’t “cashed in” is just a confusion of money with wealth. There are so many other confusions of “classes” and false premises in this essay that I drought it could be unraveled enough to make any rational sense. “Reality begs to differ,” and ” … where government doesn’t intervene” offer some hope for this writer to maybe check his premises, research and understand his subjects and straighten out this fog of questions and confusion before writing else he only adds to the confusion in the same way in which he correctly faults the movies for doing. 00 Rate this James Holloway on Aug 20, 2013 at 4:03 pm Michael Minkoff is correct in his assertions regarding “Elysium” but is so wrong on “Atlas Shrugged” that I wonder what world he was raised in. Atlas Shrugged is about families, business,economics, government and the politics within each area and how they interrelate and conflict. With the power balance skewed by those who don’t produce against those paying “ALL THE COSTS” it is obvious from the peripheral scenes that propaganda is the devise of choice for those that want inordinate amounts of power and control. That said those garnishing that power have no idea of how to use it without waste and mayhem at every level. Those same people have no idea of what truly motivates people to achieve or produce. The answer is so simple that it eludes them( or is blatantly ignored by them for selfish reasons of theft), it simply is to profit from their efforts and abilities to help others to produce. The warfare between classes is really based upon ignorance and the acceptance of propaganda produced by government thugs and thieves to support big brother in their efforts and to secure their power base. If he’d paid attention he’d noticed that deflection of responsibility is a key element of those that do not produce but plunder the efforts, skills and achievements of those that have the ability to enrich society, the community and themselves. Same thing going on today! Some times I think this mental process is really group envy. I would have hoped that someone penning this type of article would have used their life and education to understand after some time reflecting rather than spouting the politically correct trash that is so prevalent through our government and society today. In other words, I’m saying he is observant enough and he doesn’t think for himself, but is willing to spout the propaganda that he says he is against. Either ignorant or a hypocrite. I’ll let him choose. It is very telling about him however. “Tell the masses a lie long enough and it will become true.” -Adolf Hitler 10 Rate this Independence Hall on Aug 20, 2013 at 4:34 pm I agree with comments posted here that suggest the author of the column completely missed the point of Atlas Shrugged, and thus misrepresented the story and the argument it makes. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that the author has not read the novel, and has only seen Atlas Shrugged Part 2, and possibly Part 1. Atlas Shrugged is not a novel about the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. It is a novel about producers, creators, workers, etc., living in a nation and world controlled by individuals who do not produce, create, or do productive work. It is a novel about people who wish to control other individuals vs. the heroes who have no interest in controlling anyone. In a way the author appears to have almost accidently backed into the truth about the characters who reside in Elysium when he stated that “Apparently none of them work.” However, since the author misses the point of the novel Atlas Shrugged, he fails to associate the residents of Elysium with the non-producers or parasitical power-hungry individuals who are the villains in Atlas Shrugged. Elysium and Galt’s Gulch have nothing in common. Residents of Galt’s Gulch are producers, creators, and workers. Residents of Elysium are apparently non-productive, non-creative, parasites. Residents of Galt’s Gulch have no interest in controlling or dominating any other individuals. Residents of Elysium are all about controlling and dominating other individuals. The author of the column would have been more accurate in his argument if he had associated Galt’s Gulch with the people who remained on Earth, rather than those people in Elysium, as the residents of Elysium would seem to have much more in common with the villains in Atlas Shrugged than the heroes who become the residents of Galt’s Gulch. 10 Rate this Anthony Ibbott on Aug 20, 2013 at 5:41 pm That lengthy speech in Atlas (Galt’s radio speech) is actually the most brilliant condensation of Objectivism that I know of. I had to skip over it on the first reading because it was too heavy to absorb, but I’ve been studying it ever since. It’s also an integral part of the story. The ramifications and implications of that speech are phenomenal and require years to fully grasp. If America is ever to recover from the political horrors we are now witnessing, it is the ideas in that speech that will be essential.
Posted on: Tue, 20 Aug 2013 23:33:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015