One Against Many

 

 

This is a comment on the film the Fountainhead. I would like to point out that this about the film adaptation of Ayn Rand novel, not the book itself; although Ayn Rand happens to have written the screenplay for the film as well.

The story follows the life of an architect: Howard Roark, who refuses to compromise his work to the views of the collective; “the world of the mob”. When first watching the movie, I, like probably most, want Howard Roark to succeed, be able to come out on top. Every time he gets a client and is able to create his own work, you can’t help but cheer. Throughout the film, the world is sold on the idea that you can’t survive unless you compromise, bend to popular demand. Howard Roark proves them wrong. In his closing argument of his defence, he states that it is through the fight, through hardship, it is when people were alone and fought, suffered that man has evolved, developed: man will continue to become greater through the aspiration of something better, through the belief in himself and his work. “A man was free to seek his own happiness, to gain and produce, not to give up and renounce. […] To hold as his highest possession a sense of his own personal value. And his highest virtue, his self-respect.”

Even though you can’t help but be happy that Howard Roark won the trial, and was able to prove that you can win above the rest of the world. Yes, he unlike the ‘bad guy’, Toohey, doesn’t try and corrupt anyone and change their minds. I even agree with most of what he said in his defence speech: your first drive should be yourself, your want to create, achieve his ambitions. However, I can’t help but have an image in my head on a lone bull charging, with no care for anyone else, no worries what he runs into and what destruction he causes. He will follow his ideals no matter what and that ultimately is scary: he has nothing to stop him. There is danger in having such a closed minded ideal, which can be even more dangerous when it is not just one person but thousands who only think/do as they think is right. There needs to be a moral sense of what is right and wrong. There is a need for wisdom. Taken to extremes, and with the lack of rationality, the outcomes can be very dangerous. If you only had your own interest in mind, with nothing stopping you, you would a psychopath. I am not saying that Howard Roark is psychotic; he uses reason, he is rational. However if the main of his ideas are taken to the extreme, society would not survive. Even in certain scenes I can’t help but think, just for a second, that Howard Roark has psychopathic tendencies. He doesn’t many close relationships: he is a bit antisocial. His relationship with Dominique is really strange and is violent at times, and his friendship with Wynand mainly stems from Wynand’s respect and admiration for him. Moreover, his individualistic ideas tend towards egocentricity. It is his reason that makes him act like this and it is his reason that saves him.

Howard Roark is the voice of reason, but there is a lack of humanity in him. There is a need for compassion. Through The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand promotes the individual, his self-interest, and criticizes selflessness. But without a sense of benevolence, a sense of social conscience, society could not exist: there needs to be a balance between your thoughts, ideals, wants, and a care for the fellow man, and without both you wouldn’t be human. Following this idea, by caring for your fellow man, you wouldn’t want to stop him from his goals either, and possibly helping each other achieve your goals. A person needs others to survive. A person shouldn’t compromise who they are but there needs to be some middle ground; you can’t just be the little kid by himself believing he’s always right, because chances are he isn’t always right, he isn’t perfect: he is human, and he makes mistakes.

As a last point, I wanted to make a quick comparison between this movie and another film: ‘12 Angry Men’. In ‘12 Angry Men’, the protagonist, only known as juror 8, tries to convince the other 11 jurors that there is possible doubt in the guilt of a boy accused of killing his father. In both its one man against the rest, and the rest are trying to make him fold (and coincidentally both ‘heroes’ in these films are architects). In 12 angry men, Henry Fonda’s character is willing to listen to the others’ arguments, to let them try and convince him of the accused’s guilt. However, the tables end up turning on them, when he is able to disprove all their arguments, and one by one get them to agree with him that there is not enough to decide if the accused is guilty or not. In both films the ‘hero’ uses facts, logic, and reason to defend their ideas. There is stubbornness in both characters: stubbornness for the side of reason. However it is my opinion that the juror 8 use of reason is steamed from his belief of justice, and that everyone deserves to be fought for. Howard Roark inflexibility comes from him fighting for only himself. (– He doesn’t even fight for Dominique, who he apparently loves. He basically tells her that wherever she will go, he knows that she’ll come crawling back to him so there is no point in fighting for her.) Only in Juror 8 do I really find that there is a balance between reason, justice, feeling of doing what is right, and actually caring for his follow man.