RSS

Literature Commentary: We the Living

Though I don’t agree with much of her philosophy, I’ve been a fan of Ayn Rand’s writing for a long time. Her best-known books – “Anthem,” “The Fountainhead,” and “Atlas Shrugged” – seethe with a fiery intensity too often lacking in modern literature. Her heroes are bold, defiant individualists who persevere despite intense hardships…and remain true to themselves, no matter what the cost. Given that I’m spending most of my summer studying Russian, I looked forward to reading her first novel, “We the Living” – a semi-autobiographical work set in 1920s Soviet Russia. I expected it to be much the same as her other books – a story packed with electrifying prose, memorable characters, and overt philosophical underpinnings.

And while that’s true in some sense, “We the Living” is strikingly unique. More than any of Rand’s other novels, it is a story of human beings and their motivations. While Rand’s unique philosophy is certainly present, “We the Living” places drama above dogma.

The novel centers around Kira Argounova, a daring young Russian girl held back by her family name. In the wake of the Russian Revolution, proletarian zeal is at an all-time high, and anyone with questionable parentage is instantly blacklisted. As her family struggles to make a living in the rapidly changing city of St. Petersburg, Kira meets a strange man – Leo Kovalensky – who seems to share her passion and convictions.

The two soon embark on a passionate love affair, but are barely able to make ends meet. When Leo is diagnosed with incipient tuberculosis, Kira can find only one way to save his life: the world’s oldest profession. She becomes the lover of her old friend Andrei Taganov – a noble, idealistic young Communist high in the Party’s good graces. With help from Andrei, she is able to save Leo’s life…though neither Leo nor Andrei knows of the other’s existence.

At this point, it would be easy to write off “We the Living” as a sordid tale of sex and misery. Such a superfluous analysis, however, misses the point of the book. The heart of “We the Living” is its devastating critique of Soviet society, as shown through the eyes of three unique individuals. Though achingly painful at times to read, it plumbs the depths of human weakness to discern an important conclusion: life must have purpose in order to be meaningful.

What is this purpose? Rand doesn’t answer that question, although she hints at a nebulous concept of “personal achievement.” In many ways, “We the Living” reflects an emerging concept of Objectivism (her belief that self-interest is the ultimate good)…and her later works establish this philosophy in greater detail. Ironically, Rand suggests that there is more to life than mere profit. When an important character gains financial stability (through his own effort), he begins a loose and disparate lifestyle…which Rand portrays as grotesque. Perhaps even without realizing it, she reveals the greatest flaw of Objectivism: without moral standards that transcend the individual, life is ultimately empty and purposeless. And though Rand would later go on to repudiate altruism as an “evil” (since it interferes with self-interest), in “We the Living” self-sacrifice is celebrated.

The characters of “We the Living” are sharply different from those in Rand’s other works. There are no iron-willed, stoic warriors of individualism here…rather, the three characters at the heart of the story actually feel like real people. Themes of love, honor, and family are explored throughout, lending depth to an otherwise melancholy tale. It’s also worth noting that “We the Living” lacks long, impassioned philosophical speeches (such as Howard Roark’s courtroom address or John Galt’s radio broadcast). Rather, its themes are introduced more subtly.

Objectionable content is found in the form of strong sexual undercurrents throughout the novel. Though there’s nothing graphic or explicit, the emotional center of the book is a love triangle between three unmarried people. Importantly, these elements are not intended to titillate: rather, they provide a rough, raw look at human weakness and vulnerability. There’s a smattering of profanity and some disturbing imagery throughout, but little else problematic.

After finishing “We the Living,” I felt like someone should make a film version. It lacks much of the didacticism of “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged,” and is driven by characters rather than by philosophies. (Not to mention, the dark story is surefire Oscar bait). Though sometimes difficult to read, it carries a powerful, almost Shakespearean resonance that elevates it above other historical fiction. Recommended for fans of Rand’s other works, and readers interested in a powerful, provocative look at early Soviet Russia.

VERDICT: 8/10
Not Rand’s finest work, but a haunting, memorable story in its own right.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 26, 2011 in Historical

 

Movie Review: “Green Lantern”

I really wanted to like this movie. It has all the elements of a great-sounding superhero adventure…a reluctant hero forced to accept towering responsibilities, a complex underlying mythology, and intergalactic metaphysical monsters bent on destruction. But unfortunately, something went wrong with the execution – and next to “Thor” and “X-Men: First Class,” “Green Lantern” ends up looking like a bad TV pilot.

The film opens with a prologue explaining the backstory: the universe is protected by an organization of space-policemen known as the Green Lanterns, who draw their energy from the willpower of sentient beings. Their power rings allow them to create virtually any object they can imagine, which they then use to enforce the will of the Guardians (ancient aliens allegedly responsible for creating the cosmos). Unfortunately, one of the Guardians went rogue and attempted to draw upon the power of fear, which turned him into the soul-sucking monster Parallax. Now, released from an ancient prison, Parallax seeks vengeance upon the Guardians and Lanterns who banished him. (It’s probably worth noting here that the color green represents willpower, and yellow represents fear…no real explanation for this is given, but it’s an important plot point.)

Cut to Earth. Test pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a risk-taking daredevil (a la Tom Cruise in “Top Gun”) working for a defense contractor. After a particularly rash misadventure, he finds himself out of a job. Shortly thereafter, he discovers the body of a dying Green Lantern (the victim of an encounter with Parallax), who entrusts him with the ring of power.

The rest of the film plays out almost exactly how one might expect. Hal travels to Oa, planet of the Green Lanterns, for training…but quits after his first attempts are met with failure. Back on Earth, he tries to abandon his Green Lantern identity, but must ultimately assume responsibility when Parallax attacks Earth. In a year of superhero movies driven more by plot than by effects, “Green Lantern” is a sad regression.

But there’s a lot more to “Green Lantern” than its predictable plot.

The biggest problem with “Green Lantern” is the jarring disconnect between its two worlds. I found myself thinking that “Green Lantern” really should have been two completely separate movies: a story about alien warriors battling an ancient fear-monster, and a story about a reckless daredevil who learns about maturity. When “Green Lantern” doesn’t try to connect the two concepts, it’s not bad at all – some of the early scenes on Earth are genuinely well-done. And to be fair, it’s a good-looking science fiction movie. But when the two worlds collide, the movie takes on an unbelievably hokey feel.

Perhaps a contrasting example is in order. The great strength of “Spider-Man” is that Peter Parker lives in a realistic world and deals with realistic issues (not being able to pay the rent, problems with girls, etc.). Postulating an elaborate alien civilization distracts from the human element, rendering the film choppy and convoluted. At the very least, the film is far too short to adequately develop its storyline: a 3-hour movie would’ve been more appropriate, if most of that extra time was allocated to character growth.

Given the whole fear-versus-will conflict, there are certainly a lot of interesting worldview elements here. Most notably, the film takes a sharply existentialist turn as Parallax approaches Earth: when the Guardians (“gods”) refuse to help Hal save his planet, he promptly chooses to go it alone. In the end, it’s human willpower (literally) that trumps divine planning. At no point are the Guardians portrayed as sympathetic or even involved with their creations…and Hal’s act of defiance is the catalyst of ultimate victory.

Unfortunately, much of the metaphysical complexity in “Green Lantern” is quickly jettisoned. Parallax isn’t so much an embodiment of fear as he is a giant smoky octopus-monster…which makes Hal’s battle much simpler. The simple message “be brave and have willpower!” is substituted in place of real character depth. And for that matter, Parallax is criminally underused: a villain of this size and scope should be reserved for a trilogy-ending final battle, not an inaugural outing.

Now, to be fair, there are some really interesting directions the filmmakers could take this franchise. If green is the color of will and yellow is the color of fear, how about introducing some Red Lanterns that draw their power from anger? Blue Lanterns that draw power from hope? There’s clearly a lot of potential in the “Green Lantern” universe…it’s a shame that this had to be audiences’ first impression.

Objectionable content isn’t any more pronounced than, say, “Spider-Man.” There are a few innuendoes, a few swearwords, and a fair amount of stylized comic-book violence, but nothing that pushes the PG-13 rating. It’s not as squeaky-clean as “Thor,” but it doesn’t have the content issues of “X-Men: First Class.”

Should you see it? Probably not. There are far better films in theaters right now, and unless you absolutely can’t get enough superhero action, “Green Lantern” is one to skip. Save your money and see “Super 8” instead.

VERDICT: 5.5/10
A woefully underdeveloped comic-book adaptation.

Normalized Score: 1.0

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on June 22, 2011 in Sci-Fi