C B Whether it was altruism, Immanuel Kant or religion, she had no patience for that with which she did not agree. While I'm glad she was as much outspoken about her atheism as she was with her right-wing views, a lot of what she wrote seemed to view man in a sort of vacuum.Yes, I am proud when I do a good job. And, I think one of the greatest feelings is not only achieving success, but deserving it. However, I work hard to impact the people around me. Whether it's for my customers or for my coworkers, it's why I put in the extra effort.As for my altruistic efforts (minor as they may be), they make up my "sense of life." On another topic, why she was so appalled by suicide is beyond me.I'm not a philosophy student, and I've never written about it, so please pardon any juvenile statements in this post. Thanks.

preppy-3 Documentary (narrated by Sharon Gless) about the life and times of author/philosopher Ayn Rand. Movies goes into exhaustive detail about her coming here from Russia, her "objectivism" philosophy, her books, her whole entire life. The film is too long (2 1/2 hours) and gets repititous at times (we hear about every single aspect of objectivism--it's not necessary and really weighs the movie down). Nonetheless, it is interesting and (I think) worth seeing for people who like or are interested in Rand. If you don't like her stay away.

atwoodsmith As someone who spent a lot of time reading and thinking about Rand's ideas many years ago, I found this film very informative and entertaining. It presents Rand with just the right breath of grandeur. It shows her the way I like to think of her.Like Thomas Jefferson, flaws in Rand's personal life throw a bit of shadow on her intellectual triumphs. This is not to suggest that Rand's achievements come close to Jefferson's. But, like Rand, his lifestyle contradicted his life's major achievement: the Author of The Declaration of Independence was a slaveholder.In Rand's case, the champion of individualism surrounded herself with a "Collective" of yes-men (and -women) that systematically excluded anyone who didn't toe the line on matters of philosophy, religion, aesthetics, and even cigarette smoking. Incredibly, this champion of "independent judgement based on facts" would actually forbid her followers from reading things written by people she deemed "evil."But, just as a tribute to Jefferson might not dwell on slavery at Monticello or mention Sally Hemmings, this love letter to Ayn doesn't explore her problematic social life or her peculiar band of followers. But I still think this documentary earned its accolades from the film industry. Ayn Rand probably would have approved of the film herself.

meebly Let's face it. Every documentary is biased. No matter how objective (forgive the situational wordplay) a documentary filmmaker wants to be in presenting his/her subject, he/she has a point of view, or else why bother making the film at all?The problem here is not Michael Paxton's bias, although he is clearly an adoring fan of the writer/philosopher. The problem is that in painting a portrait of this equally celebrated and vilified woman, he never shows, and only barely tells of, the vilification. As a result, he doesn't give viewers, not even her most ardent admirers, reason to celebrate her.The film mentions in passing some of her flaws as a person, and repeatedly talks of the criticism surrounding her ideas. But we never hear any of the criticism, any of the arguments against, anything at all to cast her in the light of "defender of the faith," or defender of anything at all, for that matter. She states her case time and again, in interviews, in excerpts from her novels and philosophical works, etc. But we're left with a feeling of "Great. Why should I care?"Not many people will see this film -- 2 1/2 hour docs rarely draw the masses in theater, on video or anywhere else -- so I'll make a rather simplistic analogy. Think of "Star Wars". How compelled would we be to root for the good of the force if we hadn't heard Darth Vader expound on the power of evil (the Dark Side)? How can you convince anyone of any point, positive or negative, without at least presenting the counterpoint?Viewers who already adore Rand will no doubt cheer this film. For them, it's very palatable candy. Her detractors shouldn't waste their time. But a documentary is supposed to educate viewers in some way, and the uneducated will get nothing more than a biography and an unquestioned statement of philosophy. That's not much for any doc, but especially for one this long.