On the film 'The Fountainhead' by Ayn Rand

I had previously watched Ayn Rand’s ‘The Fountainhead‘but have to admit that I forgot most of it because I was not really paying attention to it. I am not a big fan of black and white movies, not because they are black and white but because they tend to be a little static and lifeless. The actors in this film to me have no facial expressions and everything looks very staged. The story as such could have been told in about 30 minutes but that movie goes on and on and on aaand on for nearly 2 hours! Phew! I know some people were looking forward to this as it menat watching a movie rather than discussing texts but with final crits next week and so(!!!!) much to do before the holidays, it actually felt like it would last for ever and I did not really like it now that I have watched it for a second time; and actually paid attention this time, well…I kind of had to because I need to write about it but I also thought that I might change my mind and like it, as this has happened over the past few months with some of the previous texts. Unfortunately, it did not. The film is about the architect Howard Roak and his courage to stand by his work even in times of hardship. The movie starts with the expulsion of the young architect from his school for not following their, to him outdated, design traditions. He leaves to work for an architect in New York who he admires but who is not respected in the architecture world and finally retires completely bankrupt. At the same time one of Roaks’ former schoolmates, Peter Keating, starts a job at the renowned and successful architecture practice ‘Francon&Heyer’ and is able to become a partner very quickly ( well…and after causing Guy Francon’s partner Mr Heyer to have a stroke). Roak then opens his own little firm that he has to close down quite soon as he refuses to satisfy his clients’ design wishes. In order to stay financially solvent he takes up a job at a granite quarry in Connecticut where he meets the daughter of Guy Francon, Dominique, and is instantly attracted by her. Dominique, or Miss Francon as he calls her (numerous times, ohhh my god, at some point it got ridiculous, I stopped counting how often he actually says ‘Yes, Miss Francon’ in always the same tone), is bored by the mediocre architecture that surrounds her. She is also attracted by him as she fantasises about him and then destroys a granite panel in order for him to be called in to repair it. He does come in and looks at it but when the new panel arrives, a different worker arrives to install it, which makes her furious. This is actually one of the very rare scenes that I thought were actually funny. Roak later visits her again and rapes her which she kind of finds pleasure in thinking about it afterwards and searches for Roak in the quarry. But he had left. She leaves for New York as well and discovers Roak’s true identity when she realised that one of her favourite buildings was designed by him. They start dating in secret while she would try to destroy his career in public. The architecture critic Ellsworth Toohey starts to become famous for his view that architecture should be humble, he can be seen as the protagonist’s opponent. He hires a business man called Hopton Stoddard who he ordered to hire Roak in order to make him design a building for him only to sue him after it was finished. At the trial Dominique speaks up for Roak but he loses anyways and Dominique marries Peter Keating to punish herself for trying to help him. This is when Gail Wynand comes into play who publishes the newspaper ‘The Banner’ which would only say what the public wants to hear and the public would believe everything that paper publishes.  Wynand who has made fortunes with his newspaper is attracted by Dominique who he buys off her husband for promising him a contract. This is actually very disturbing I think, first the rape and the fact that she liked it and now someone buys a woman off her husband…Keating on the other hand wants Roak’s help with one of his housing projects. Roak agrees to design it for him under the condition that nothing of his design is changed and that everything gets build exactly like he intended it to look like. Of course this did not happen. He blows up the perfectly fine new construction and gets arrested without a struggle. During the trial he then explains that every man has to live up to his own principles and remain true to himself. He moans about how great creators like him pay the price for corrupt societies. He wins the trial and is found not guilty. He then marries Dominique and they lived happily ever after (ha,ha...). Wow ok, the summery got a bit longer than anticipated, so maybe the story could have been told in 45 minutes rather than 30, I give you that. This piece is actually quite the opposite of what we have read so far, Ayn Rand is a clear anti-communist, advocating individual rights. That is also demonstrated in her novel by the struggle of Roak to retain his individuality. He clearly is the hero of Rand’s book and he is the acting example of her political ideal and moral values, a stereotype. Roak at one point says that ‘invidual creators are the fountainhead of civilisation’ (hence the title I presume). In the end he is able to design to his own principles. And the moral of this story...well, I guess it is about the idea that individuals have to be selfish in a way and stand by their principles in order to be free. I don’t think that the world would work that way though. I f everyone would only strive after their own personal principles it would be total mayhem. Try to imagine, we would all be little Hadids and Le Corbusiers, giving a shit about context and history, just wrecking everything and then build our own little utopias. Nope, that’s not going to work. I mean don’t get me wrong, I do stand by my ideas as well and I think sometimes someone like Roak is needed to step forward and start something new, which will at first be declined and hated but after a while might become very famous and loved (there are many examples for this in our own little London, like the Gherkin for example). As an architect you got to have a love for what you do and you need to defend your design very often and it is important to stand by it, but not by all means. We design for someone, be it a private person, a family or a huge business, we design for them and we can’t completely ignore their wishes. They pay us to do something for them. They have the right to have a say. Of course you always have to stand by core principles of your design because this is your signature and they chose you because they like your style. Ok I do realise that this all sounds a bit odd probably. Don’t get me wrong, I do love to design and think my ideas are good most of the time but others might not and you simply can’t ignore other people. Even an architect is part of the society.