RoboCop

RationalVisionary's picture
Submitted by RationalVisionary on Sun, 2010-05-02 00:08

Greetings, fellow Objectivist lovers of film. Today I feel -- no, I THINK -- that I have to share my ultra-rational view of the hit 1987 motion picture, RoboCop. Some of you may remember it as a very entertaining science fiction film, as I once did before I reached the age of reason. Now, my logic tells me that this film was not only detrimental to Objectivist principles, but to technological achievements as we know it. I suspect that the director, Paul Verhoeven, is a devious socialist (as most born in the Netherlands are). If Ayn Rand lived to see his illogical take on the future, she would agree that he is a monster.

Consider the opening scene. A man-made robot fails his programming, and kills a man at a meeting. Think about the way the inventors of the film are portrayed -- as incompetent fools. This certainly does not fit the portrayal of Ayn Rand's heroes in her literature, such as Howard Roark and Hank Rearden, who were extremely competent figures who stressed the perfection of their progressive achievments.

What is Mr. Verhoeven trying to accomplish with this scene? Is he trying to say that all technology is doomed to fail? Should Hollywood directors (also known as "looters" in "Atlas Shrugged") sit in their ivory towers, judging the inventive integrity of bright minds who are trying their best? Is he trying to say that we should be afraid of future innovations, rather than embrace them as a reasoning man should?

The protagonist, Murphy, is an altruistic family man. He lets his emotions get in the way, and I think this is weak. It would be enough to make Ayn Rand vomit. When he is nearly killed by thugs and turned into RoboCop, he becomes a fully rational being, forgetting his weak pathetic humanity. This was the highlight of the movie for me.

Unfortunately, it all goes down from there. RoboCop questions his being (WRONG; OBJECTIVISTS SHOULD NOT QUESTION THAT WHICH IS OBJECTIVELY OBVIOUS), and regains his humanity at the end of the picture. He even wishes to be called "Murphy" at the end, becoming like everybody else once again (see: collectivism).

Some folks may sit back and leisurely enjoy such "entertainment" while ignorantly neglecting its socialistic undertones, but it is my Objectivist right to realize the harmful effects of such SOCIALIST PROPAGANDA. Murphy was given a gift -- to become a fully rational being -- and he threw it away just to become as weak as the "human" victims of "Atlas Shrugged" (see: Philip).

It's a shame that socialist movies such as "RoboCop" become as popular as they are, but I suppose that's what happens in the sort of country that elects men such as OBAMA (One Big Ass Mistake America!). Hopefully now you know, my Objectivist friends, to steer clear of such propaganda.

If you are interested in other socialist propaganda to steer clear from, keep in mind of 'entertainment' such as "The Fountain" (not to be confused with the glorious "The Fountainhead,") "Spider-Man 3," George Carlin comedy specials, and "Animaniacs." Hopefully one day I will review one of these, as well.

Peace out, and stay rational.

--RationalVisionary


( categories: )

Animaniacs was socialist

Rick Giles's picture

Animaniacs was socialist propaganda?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.