The Fountainhead is a story which leaves nothing to the imagination. It is a single dimension where nothing is insinuated or implied. This novel and its film counterpart are the answer to the shadows and newspapers of Piccadilly. The characters are as subtle as buildings. The psychological intrigues, hidden desires and ambiguities which are pivotal to other films, novels and artworks are made explicit in The Fountainhead. Everything in the work is physically represented.
The existence of the novel itself,as a precursor to the film, is physically present as a precursor in the film. The characters thoughts and feelings are stated plainly, be it through dialogue or an over dramatic staring at ones self in the mirror.
An attempt at subtlety may be seen in the scene where Dominique visits the quarry and first sees Rourke. I am a fan of euphemisms as much as the next former-catholic-schoolgirl, but seriously, suggestively drilling into stone doesn't leave much room for interpretation (of all the machinery he could be using?!).
The use of dialogue in this novel and the film is surprisingly refreshing. Very rarely do people explicitly state how they feel and what they think. This is because the characters in The Fountainhead are just that, characters and not people. They are not real, not layered, not morally and psychologically conflicted. They are the physical embodiment of an idea of a perspective.
Real Rebels?
The whole concept of a rebel architect was a little lost on me. I was unsure whether this was meant to be a serious issue. In the beginning f both the novel and the film, Rourke is expelled because he such a dangerous little architect. I could imagine the other architects being outraged that he refrained from using columns both inside or outside. And as their monocles fall into their glasses of champagne Rourke puts on a pair of aviator sunglasses and a leather jacket and rides off on a motorcycle.
This comical rebel reminded me of The Crying of Lot 49. A rogue postal service just doesn't seem that hardcore and yet they seem to think they are the message delivery mafia. Perhaps it is just the years of dramatic tales of good and evil and characters who are genuinely rebels which makes these institutions so funny.
Having no interest in progressive architecture (seriously, can you imagine how many people it will take to wash the windows on the new law school building?), I could not relate to the ideas of Howard Rourke. The coldness and flatness of his designs were matched only by the coldness and flatness of himself. They raised the issue of function over fashion as well as designer and audience. If Rourke wants to make his buildings without compromise then he and his ideas can live on the street for the rest of his life. Art is more eternal than anything functional. Function is temporal and is explicit and is not what people want. People want fantasy, not reality.
There are elements of The Fountainhead which did not annoy me. The explicit nature of the characters was a good thing. The unmediated honesty is a welcome change from other novels and films.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I had much the same reaction. Especially towards the architecture; I'm not into Modernism. The book's philosophy seems to be predicated on the idea that the bulk of society is wrong about art- and always will be wrong, unless they are accidentally influenced by someone and become right for the wrong reason.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed like a bit of a cheat; her characters represented an idea, and an idea that offered debate and interest. But then by making the characters flawed, or heroic, Rand tried to bludgeon you into believing the same of the idea.
Your reactions to Rand are definitely warranted, and I think many people feel this way about her philosophy and her novel and the subsequent film.
ReplyDeleteRand's philosophy is physically represented in this film and she doesn't even try to hide that she thinks that her way is the best way. I think Timothy said it best above me with the use of "bludgeon." It all feels a little relentless.
i thought it was really poor writing to make the characters so obvious the way the did in the movie. i mean, I KNOW they are supposed to represent the ideas, but it came across as preachy and pushy, and eventually just really bland because i had nothing or no one to relate to.
ReplyDeleteThe thing about modern(ist?) architecture as I probably don't need to mention is that the aesthetic had its roots in a much more inter-weaved discourse. it was all about function over form, big black squares on canvases, and books that said a lot but ultimately not very much.
ReplyDeleteAll that glass in the new law building would be there for a raft of reasons, all energy saving and green n that, and better than other materials if not at least for its visual or stylistic appeal. It could be self-cleaning when it rains, or if not, at least keep those damn-honest window-cleaners in business.
I thought exactly the same thing in the quarry scene.... not subtle at all! Although modernist architecture can be seen as the embodiment of function of form, I see how the sheer immensity and sharp style of the designs can hold a sublime appeal for those who stand before buildlings of such scale.
ReplyDeleteRe Roark's 'coldness and flatness' - I also found this, and found it hard to read the novel/watch the film with a view of him as the 'hero'. I understand Rand's philosophical positioning of Roark as the 'champion of individualism' etc....but if she wanted to convince others of her stance, why didn't she make him a more likeable/relatable character??
ReplyDeleteYeah I agree with your critique of the novel and film. In emphasising an oppressive social agenda, the film's aesthetic features are subordinated and undermined.
ReplyDelete