![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ayn Rand rolls in her grave
Feb. 22nd, 2008 09:08 amI believe I already discussed my theory that the point of the play we're in is so complacent audiences can condemn the "heroine" for failing to conform to normal social conventions and morality, allowing Rand to feel superior to them because she recognizes that great people are above morality.
This can most easily be supported by looking at the closing arguments of the two lawyers. Neither one addresses any of the facts of the case. In fact, both almost completely ignore the defendent entirely. The defense attorney's argument is basically this: "The murdered guy flouted the rules of society, but he was a great man. If you believe in individualism and long for greatness, you must acquit the defendent. The jury is the one really on trial here." The prosecutor's argument is basically this: "The murdered guy was a criminal who dared flout social mores. If you believe that not even the great should be allowed to hold their heads too high above the masses, you must condemn the accused murderess. The jury is the one really on trial here."
That is to say, neither argument actually makes any sense as a closing statement.
Thing is, the actress playing the prosecutor is an actual trial lawyer. So the director let her rewrite her closing statement, and let the defense attorney rewrite her own as well. And now...they make sense! They're relevant! They're actual arguments about whether the jury should believe the heroine murdered her lover or not. And incidentally, we destroyed Ayn Rand's chance to make her big rant about objectivism.
Ha! Take that!
This can most easily be supported by looking at the closing arguments of the two lawyers. Neither one addresses any of the facts of the case. In fact, both almost completely ignore the defendent entirely. The defense attorney's argument is basically this: "The murdered guy flouted the rules of society, but he was a great man. If you believe in individualism and long for greatness, you must acquit the defendent. The jury is the one really on trial here." The prosecutor's argument is basically this: "The murdered guy was a criminal who dared flout social mores. If you believe that not even the great should be allowed to hold their heads too high above the masses, you must condemn the accused murderess. The jury is the one really on trial here."
That is to say, neither argument actually makes any sense as a closing statement.
Thing is, the actress playing the prosecutor is an actual trial lawyer. So the director let her rewrite her closing statement, and let the defense attorney rewrite her own as well. And now...they make sense! They're relevant! They're actual arguments about whether the jury should believe the heroine murdered her lover or not. And incidentally, we destroyed Ayn Rand's chance to make her big rant about objectivism.
Ha! Take that!
