The Fountainhead - Howard Roarke and Ellesworth Toohey

[DMaustrap]

This shit is still going on in the NYC animation circle. Liberal Disney wanna bees who hate Japanese animation and all who herald or have worked in that field. I came back from working in Japanese animation after 2 and half years and i get blacklisted after an argument defending Anime, fired by a so called friend of 12 years. I'm out of work and a career, but they're are still doing mediocrity.

So i don't think of them.

[The442nd]

"But I don't think of you", the phrase every left winger needs to hear

[cosg9531]

Gary Cooper was too old as an actor to play Roark. I understand that there is going to be a re-make of the movie, and it will be interesting to see who is chosen to play the major characters.

[RushLimborg]

@cosg9531

I'd advocate Chris Pine as Roark. He has the looks down pat, and he has the deep, slightly gruff voice Rand described.

Hugo Weaving as Gail Wynand.

For Ellsworth...I'd say either Johnathan Price or Bill Nighy.

[MsLaleeta]

this is the dialogue i'd love to hear everytime.....i DONT think of you

[Parrotguy1999]

Roark isn't saying it because he knows that it will get under Toohey's skin - that's not Roark's style, he isn't deceptive and he doesn't seek to inflict pain on others. Roark is just telling the plain truth here - he genuinely isn't angry at Toohey over the things he has done, because he genuinely doesn't think about Toohey at all. Other people's opinions and actions are entirely irrelevant to Roark.

[JosiahSCooper]

@Parrotguy1999

they are irrelevant as long as they don't get in his way, and that's what Toohey has been trying to do; though, I guess it hasn't been so effective

[Parrotguy1999]

@JosiahSCooper I think it actually goes deeper than that. Roark is utterly indifferent to what any other person thinks on any subject. That's why when Toohey gloats over ruining his career Roark just says "You're free to do what you choose." It's the same when people try to express approval of him - Roark just isn't interested in hearing it. He's the ultimate self contained man, the thoughts and opinions of others are of no interest to him whatsoever.

[JosiahSCooper]

@Parrotguy1999

So then, how is that possible? Surely, if there is a threat out in oblivion, he would take appropriate recourse in addressing it, lest he be obstructed and unduly. I've been fascinated by this "indifference" and "self-contained" universe ever since I heard of it. I've tried myself, in my own life, to apply Ayn Rand's picture of the ideal man to myself- but have failed utterly, with some few moments of exception- where in which I truly knew what 'freedom' meant- it's beyond this.

[Parrotguy1999]

@JosiahSCooper he doesn't care about threats, that's the point. Roark is an odd character, even more so in the book than the film. He listens and respond to people, but he doesn't ever really *engage* with them. He doesn't care for their approval or disdain; you could tell him you like him or that you loathe him, and he's indifferent to it because other people don't matter to him. Like much Ayn Rand philosophy, it's nice in theory but the reality is that the world and people aren't like that.

[JosiahSCooper]

@Parrotguy1999

well, people aren't, from what I've seen . . but I guess the real question is, can they be? It seems like it requires great ignorance for this to happen . . and complete focus: which never really lasts . .

[Parrotguy1999]

@JosiahSCooper I guess you can cut yourself off emotionally like that. From my experience it just leaves you miserable.

[billybobobenner]

@Parrotguy1999 Howard Roark DOES engage with people but only on his own terms. In the book he enjoys a mutual respect and companionship in different ways with Henry Cameron, the maverick architect, who he admires. Mike Donnigan an electrician who appreciates competence. Austen Heller who makes up his own mind to hire Roark in spite of what people say about him being a selfish non conformist, and Gail Wynand who he actually tells, that he respects more than he did Cameron.

[jay2rocks]

man when this happens in the book its so much better

[Kuner1]

@jay2rocks

it is. but cooper's delivery of the lines here is fantastic. when i read the book, this was exactly how i imagined roark to say them

[imreallyjin]

what i thought of toohey... has been corrupted by this scene.

[jeffpblues]

One of the best lines in all of fiction.

[mabu281]

"but i dont think of u" - my favorite! btw, the actors are too different from my imagination.

[LordoftheKaty]

Where are Toohey's spectacles? I could've sworn he wears glasses.

[nuggie9511]

why are they so old? I thought they were supposed to be like 22 or 23 in the book... i don't even want to watch this movie

[DSB33]

@nuggie9511 The book follows Roark from the age of twenty-two to somewhere around the age of forty, I believe.

[ScottishArtFan]

Absolutely adore this film - always remember the first time I saw it and this scene in particular. Very powerful retort that - "But I dont think of You". Non reaction and indifference. Summed up how insignificant Toohey was to him. Amazing film.

[sonrouge]

The equivalent of "Scram bub, you bother me."

[classoffrankster]

fuck, i thought that be a much more intense scene lol, but no toohey's just like "AW sadface"

[trufiend138]

terrible acting.

[TheMaverickanupam]

That is one of the best retort from a "thinking man" with volitional consciousness- what an inspiration!!!

[xburningheavensx]

That of course is what Ellsworth Toohey, (being the reptile he is) desires. To be thought of. Not to enjoy any other approbation than to be able to elevate and/or ruin whomever he chooses. He is an insidious infestation, and in him Ayn Rand made a compelling case for the cloaked evils of indiscriminate altruism.

[stickpussy]

Ellsworth was a real Miss THANG!

[elliotcheely]

lmao XD

thats how you deal with an insufferable troll

[RatRaceAce]

Also, why is Roark wearing a suit? Are his ideas of efficiency, functionality and so on limited only to buildings? Why didn't he analyze his clothing and make them more "efficient"? What functionality does a tie have? From history, the Croats wore a cloth around their necks when setting out to fight, thus giving us the mispronounced "cravat" and then the tie. What did Roark think about that legacy? Surely someone ready to destroy for his principles must be consistent with those principles?

[RatRaceAce]

Some other things didn't make sense. When Roark wasn't getting work, Keating asked him to do some work for him. Roark refused, because the designs were "wrong" and therefore against his principles. And yet, Roark later worked as a common construction worker on someone else's site, with even less control over the design. He refused to do Keating's work where he could have made at least some changes, but then accepted a construction worker job where he had no control at all. See the contradiction?

[RatRaceAce]

While I find Ayn Rand interesting in some ways, I thought Roark was excessively rigid. As an engineer myself, I understand things like functionality, simplicity etc., but why would I force these down everyone's throats? Why did everyone have a DUTY to design everything with only functionality in mind? What's wrong with someone wanting an extra decorative pillar or arch or whatever in their house that wasn't "functional"? They're paying for it, aren't they? Why regard them as imbeciles?

[Borrow919]

RatRaceAce,

You ask "why would I force these down everyone's throat?" That's an odd question. Roark didn't force his designs on anyone. He simply refused to change them. He was free to do so. Others were free to purchase his designs as they were or seek another architect.

[RatRaceAce]

Maybe it's the way Ayn Rand has presented it: that there are only two types of architects in the world: there are the smart ones like Roark, and there are the imbeciles of base character. The whole underlying tone of the book is that if your designs aren't 100% "functional" then they are trash and you are a contemptible and dishonest fool. That's the problem with her whole idea of "objectivity"; it sets aside human emotions which just happen to be the real driving force behind all our actions.

[Borrow919]

No, the underlying tone of the book is that these "contemptible and dishonest fools" are incopetent because their designs are copycats, not originals. "The Fountainhead" dramatizes the conflict between Roark's freedom of choice and Toohey's demand to subordinate personal preference to an arbitrary societal standard according to the tastes and opinions of the majority. The "incopetent fools" (Toohey's words) are conformists and that is what collectivits like Toohey are demainding of Roark.

[RatRaceAce]

I believe in "actions speak louder than words". I had made another two posts on specific actions of Roark, on his wearing a suit ("designed to an arbitrary societal standard according to the tastes and opinions of the majority") and his selection of a construction worker's job that totally enslaved him to another man's design when he had earlier refused a job with Keating that offered him relatively more control. The book portrayed two extremes, & at the end I could settle for neither of them.

[scuzzmang]

You're assuming that since suits are generally considered respectable courtroom attire that anyone who wears a suit is doing so because it is a societal standard. However, could he not have analyzed the concept 'suit' and then come up with his own opinion? Yes, he could.

[scuzzmang]

And as far as the job is concerned: Howard Roark's highest value was his architecture. As such, he loved everything about architecture, from the steel and granite, to the blueprints and his architect's ruler. Now, in order to survive, one must earn an income or steal. And when a rational man chooses to earn an income and, because of circumstance, must work for someone regardless of what field he chooses, should he not choose the field he is most interested in if he can?

[RatRaceAce]

He certainly could have. However, I'd still love to hear his justification for the necktie, the possible equivalent of the Greek columns in architecture that he detests as pointless. I'd also like to know about any differences between the conventional suit and this concept suit of his.

By the way, there are many things in that book that I do agree with. I'm sure I'd love to have Roark build my home for me; I think that way too. And I certainly find Toohey and his kind detestable.

[scuzzmang]

This touches on something else in your other posts that I meant to address before: the false idea you hold that Roark cared for only function, which couldn't be farther from the truth. He cared for form and function, form being the key part you missed. He wanted his buildings to look as though they had sprung up from the spot where they sit. That is to say, if you came across one of his buildings, he would want you to look at it and think, "Of course. It could be nothing else."

[scuzzmang]

This implies a great deal of care not just for function, but for form. They must meet each other harmoniously. Now, in any endeavor you must use the tools available, assuming that in employing them you are not forced to work against your morality. Is there anything immoral about wearing a suit and tie? No. And while the courtroom can be like a three-ring circus, Roark would only have worked against himself if he showed up in a clown suit. The suit is merely an important tool. Function in form.

[RatRaceAce]

Form, yes, but that wasn't my real issue. Actually I would concur completely with his design ideas. I just don't understand why he needed to starve himself, especially in the early years. While waiting for the ideal job, he could have taken up less satisfactory jobs to earn a bit of money; do them anonymously if he was ashamed of them. Actors do that. Why make it look like a SIN? Hence my questions. BTW, I said nothing about clown suits. Do you mean that that would have been his ideal design?

[NotRadicalLogical]

Creating a work of art you despise to one day "maybe" land the ideal job is not something an artist would do if he loved his art- Roark is the romantic hero, what man can aspire to be. What would the message of the book be if he made junk buildings and then made his dream building? Sell out your beliefs for other people and you'll get what you want? That's not the point of the novel, you're trying to rationalize a point that has nothing to do with the intention of the novel.

[RatRaceAce]

The fact is that humans rarely take decisions objectively. In the end, the real driving force is our emotions, but we may then try to justify those emotional decisions by coming up with objective-sounding reasons. All our pretenses at objectivism cannot change this fact. Fond hopes must not be confused with reality. Humans are gregarious by nature, and not many of us can find happiness from walking alone. Actually, this somehow brings to my mind "The Island of Dr Moreau" by H G Wells.

[Borrow919]

Did you mean "make" decisions objectively? You could have simply said "human beings are normally not objective because they act according emotions not according to reason" and you would have covered all the bases. Is this suppose to prove that "Objectivism" is not objective?

[RatRaceAce]

Your summing up of my point is erroneous and doesn't "cover all the bases". Regarding "make decisions", I'm not sure if this discussion has descended to correcting grammar, syntax and structure. If so, perhaps I should be asking, do you mean "incompetent" and not "incopetent", "demanding" and not "demainding", "collectivists" and not "collectivits", etc.

Coming back to the topic, what it proves is that objectivism is unnatural for humans. It didn't work even in that poor lady's own life.

[passionforpiano11]

Ayn Rand is a genius. Loved the book. Wish I could watch the movie, but I can't find it anywhere -.-

[Wrz2e]

I read the fountainhead and unfortunately I found myself identifying more with the likes of ellsworth toohey and peter keating than with the hero Roark. I think roark is so ideal he is unrealistic while toohey and keating have human flaws

[ironguru777]

Yes...but Roark is an Example to strive for. Accepting Ellsworth Monkton Toohey or spineless Peter Keating is a lame excuse. If ever we see ourselves in Toohey or Keating...it should be a reminder of what is ugly in our lives and to quickly correct the ugliness with proper attitude and awareness. Roark is someone to look up to and strive for...why settle for parasitical existence?

[Crashtest517]

Of course you did, Roark is the ideal, what people should aspire for. Keating is more like the common man while Toohey is the result of man on a power trip. Keating is a warning, if you want to lie and cheat and use other people you'll never be "successful" you won't be happy, because you have achieved nothing and you'll never be able to lie to yourself because you know that truth. Toohey is a parasite who relies on other men to get what he wants, because he can't create his own happiness.

[DonMeaker]

Keating is a RINO. He goes along though he knows better. Toohey is a typical liberal interested in power first, and doing mischief afterwards.

[JackusABackus]

u know for some weird reason i always thought of Toohey looking like the old man in Hellboy.

he just seemed older than everyone in the book

[ginobarracuda]

I thought that too.

I pictured him like Mr. Potter in "It's a Wonderful Life", played by Lionel Barrymore for some reason.

[JackusABackus]

did she ever state his age?

[KingBowser22]

well some one just poast the entire movie I can`t seem to find it

[lordhighexecutioner]

He thinks of him all right as he plots terrorism. This movie promotes terrorism.

[Crashtest517]

This movie promotes terrorism? Do you believe a man wanting to live for himself and not wanting other's to live for him is terrorism?

[RushLimborg]

LOVE how Rand effectively DESTROYED the old cliche of the evil supervillian gloating about his evil plot, while the hero nods respectfully, and goes, "Diabolically clever...."

NOT THIS TIME, TOOHEY!!!

[Crashtest517]

I love how quickly Roark can see right through his bullshit, Toohey pathetically only finds happiness in making Roark miserable and "defeating" him, when Roark could care less about what he is doing.

[Monty1994]

i just hope hollywood doesn't make Atlas Shrugged. They would destroy it. It would have to be a 10-15 hour miniseries to get all the detail, each of which are extremely important to the story.

[RushLimborg]

It's interesting--in the book, Elsworth doesn't explain to Roark what's going on, per se. He keeps pressing Roark with "Don't you get it, Roark? Do you not see any point to all this?"

To which Roark replies, "I see none in discussig it."

In the movie, Toohey's demanding that Roark fear him. In the book, he just demands that Roark AKNOWLEDGE his vile deeds.

[mjkirk12]

"But I don't think of you." - classic phrase!

[BrunoJazzmanLeicht]

That's a powerful film. Period. Thanks for putting up this scene.

Brew, a fan

[SatanicCod]

Maybe the most righteous scene in the Hollywood movie history.

[LilyPhoenix333]

The final line is the only part of this scene that was portrayed perfectly. Cooper seems angry when he speaks, not lightly indifferent, like Roark. His movements are too rigid and reactionary, rather than fluid. The music makes the scene laughable. What a disappointment.

[arf153]

Motion picture history's greatest put-down! This film is powerful and stands on it's own two feet despite comparisons to the original work. Check out Bonfire of the Vanities if you want to see how bad the screen version of a fine novel can be.

[powrboy77]

lol he does look like a mobster

[GeneralGrievous117]

I wish they could make the characters so accurate. Dominque has long black hair, not short blond hair. Roark has long orange hair, not sliched back brown hair. Ellsworth Toohey is very old, fragile, and pathetic looking, here he looks like a mobster.

The portrayal oft hese characters detracts from the books.

[RushLimborg]

Actually, Dominique DID have blond hair, but yes--it was long.

[GeneralGrievous117]

Yeah sorry, I posted that when I was in the beginning of the book, and didn't see the hair color. I just imagined her with black hair because of how they described her manner. But yes, it was blonde hair, my mistake.

[dyhanendra]

you know, i envisioned her with shining black hair as well...must be some deeply-implanted cultural stereotype.

[AlessandroDeGranazia]

A mobster ?

Did you know that in real life, Robert Douglas (Toohey) was over 8 years younger than Cooper (Roark) ? Now that's good acting.

[senseimak]

so glad I will never see this movie

[drtwilight]

This was fantastically written, but Ayn Rand's characters are so carnally written, it's difficult to portray them accurately

[GeneralGrievous117]

I feel like she didn't get the whole Collectivist vs. Individualistic theme down. The movie was jumping from scene to scene, you had to have read the book to get the full impact of the movie.

[abhi20]

Yes.. It's always the case. No movie captures any book justifiably

[Boringasslifevlog]

i will change that! this film is not the last of its kind

[BakAtDarkCorner]

The movie cannot accurately portray a characters thoughts, so there is no way Roark can mean in the movie what he did in the book. It is unfortunate because the book was so powerful and this movie takes away from that.

[lnd3005]

Yes, this scene is disappointing.

[whygreen44]

The best part is that he really doesn't think of him at all.

[RushLimborg]

One of the best hero/villian exchanges in the history of fiction:

"Why don't you tell me what you think of me--in any words you wish?"

"But I DON'T think of you...."

Roark knows that Toohey wants the satisfaction of seing him lose his cool. So he words his response in a way that makes TOOHEY mad instead!

Rand was a genius--and she's one of my all-time favorite authors!

[awil88]

@RushLimborg Wrong. Roark does not respond that way in order to make Toohey mad, because he simply does not care. He rather answered in that fashion, because he, as a matter of fact, does not think of him at all. He does not react to him in one way or another.

[RushLimborg]

@awil88

Oh, I know. Still, that doesn't change the fact that it's one of the greatest verbal turnarounds in movie/book history....

[awil88]

@RushLimborg It is exactly why it is one of the greatest. :)

[AlessandroDeGranazia]

Heinous actors? Good grief that's strong !! These were the stars when people went once; twice; three times, weekly to the cinema. They were of an age, and I wish I'd been around for all of it. I suppose if even the late great Gary Cooper does n't impress, I'd be wasting my time mentioning Robert Douglas then(Toohey). This man started out in theatre in 1927; was a company manager by 1933; acted in films from the 1930s to the 1950s+ and then went on to a prolific directing career in US TV. Genius

[Egoist1957]

Howard Roark is so cool.

[lampeiro]

I'm thinking I could be a movie director...

At least, I woudl have done a better work with a scene like this. Everthing was said and done so fast that this memorable scene (in the book) became ridiculous...

And the acting sucked as well.

[ISmellLikeASexyGuy]

the acting really is terrible, but it's not just in this movie. all movies from this era feature heinous actors. apparently, all acting was hideous back then.

and the casting is pretty awful, too

[CandidateZero]

I've thought this through all the clips I've seen -- the acting's horrible. After reading the book, that portrayal of Roark is an injustice to his character.

[grantsinmypants2]

It's mostly because there weren't as many resources available. They had to go on fewer takes and the editing techniques were limited.

Another reason, in the film's defense, for why you think thing the acting is poor is that you're simply not used to it. Philosophical ideas just aren't clearly expressed in films today. That's mostly because today's philosophical ideas aren't clear to begin with.

[ezk2517]

lol. pwnd.

[kenrubes]

hahahaah

[Ciada91]

Frank O'Connor was the ideal man? He drank himself into oblivion because of AR's affair with a man young enough to be her son, (Branden). Instead of putting time and effort into having a healthy marriage, she had affairs, all in the name of, "rational selfishness." GMAB!

[thefranmann]

Profound Post

TY 4 Sharing

[KtBdOKW]

Great dialogue !

Never heard nor seen a better way to insult a man !

5*****

[yoschi84]

yep. i will remember that ^^

[32doors]

My God they butchered this scene. What terrible acting. I wonder if King Vidor wanted to intentionally undercut Rand's novel. I hope it wasn't simple incompetence as a director.

[Keljeck]

Gary Cooper is not a terrible actor.  Honestly, what are they supposed to do with Ayn Rand's dialogue? It's meant to be read, not heard.

[EntertainedWatcher]

I recently listened it as an audiobook and it was WAY more enjoyable than the movie version. It's not that it's not meant to be heard, if the voice acting is good, that is, but for it to be seen, to make a movie worthy of the book with fitting pictures, that's the difficulty.

[royerood]

thanks for that info  roy

[remoman]

suuure he doesn't think of him... yeah suuuure.

[royerood]

This is one of my favorites too. My wife hates it becuse she says no Christian can say, "But I dont think of you". Of course Ayn was not a Christian, but I argue that a STRONG Christian must agree with Howard. After all Paul made it clear that WE SHOULD NOT BE PLEASING MEN. If we do we will accomplish very little. Toohey said, "In any words you wish", but no one could write a more powerful sentence than the one Ayn wrote. thanks for posting it roy e rood, tampa

[funnyaccent]

Actually, when talking about her husband, frank o'connor, ayn rand stated that he was her ideal man and that she based a lot of her protagonist's qualities on him; the exact quote of "but i don't think of you" in a situation similar to Roark's came from her husband.

[grantsinmypants2]

"Strong Christianity" haha.

Drop it. You can't have you cake and eat it too.