Review: Watching Megalopolis Through a Randian Lens
Francis Ford Coppola's new film has traces of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Francis Ford Coppola spent an estimated $120 million (most of it borrowed against his successful wine business) to make Megalopolis, a dream project of personal artistic expression.
Coppola's was an extravagant gesture reminiscent of Howard Roark, the architect hero of Ayn Rand's 1943 novel The Fountainhead, who made only what he wanted to make, irrespective of market demand. Megalopolis' content is somewhat Randian as well—hero Cesar Catilina (Adam Driver) is both an architect, like Roark, and an inventor of a miracle building material, like Hank Rearden, from Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged.
Part of the movie's failure is that Coppola's politics and morality are not nearly as compelling or clear as Rand's. Megalopolis tries to recreate both dying Roman Republic's corrupt family feuds and Robert Moses–like giant public redevelopment projects reimagined as Randian Promethean artistic vision. (Does Catilina's supercity, full of glowing swooping lines, moving walkways, and transport via rolling balls, live up to the hype? Not really, which hurts in this visual medium. Better, perhaps, simply to imagine how cool Roark's buildings looked.)
Rand, with a more consistent message combining individualist artistry with capitalism and liberty, produced huge novels that have been bestsellers for decades. Coppola's confused mix of artistic heroism with gonzo redevelopment projects and random sci-fi silliness pulled roughly $10 million at the box office.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I don't think you get Rand, to be honest.
An uber-moral adulterer? "Ayn Rand, the Russian-born author, referred to Native Americans as 'savages' and defended the genocide committed against them."
She was not anything but pro-Ayn-Rand.
They were indeed savages, and there was no genocide.
No, they were not savages, they just had a different culture. The Comanches were a great example. They were anarchist nomads, practically lived in the saddle, had no ways to preserve meat, so anyone who did not share his hunting kill was immoral because it would otherwise rot and go to waste. Hoarding was the ultimate sin.
When they ran up against Europeans, with ranches and farms, factories, stores, and all that hoarding, their reaction was natural for them -- they confiscated what was being immorally hoarded.
Both parties thought the other was savage and immoral. Both were right. Unfortunately for the Comanches, their culture depended on the wide open plains, and farmers and settlers could pack far more people into the same space that only supported a few anarchist nomads.
You're an idiot.
The "anarchist nomads" who "practically lived in the saddle" had nothing to saddle until Europeans brought them horses.
They were ignorant of basic preservation methods BEFORE they ever got horses.
So they wandered around taking stuff? Like locusts --eating it all as quick as possible and not saving anything because "hoarding was the ultimate sin"?
They were savages. Savages living in a state that Europeans had passed through, had graduated from long ago. The most advanced civilization in the Americas when the Europeans got to them was late stone age.
But most were still hunter gatherers just past the mud hut stage.
They weren't just savages--they were stupid savages.
By your standards, we today will all be judged savages in a few hundred years.
Did you have any relevant thoughts?
Lol. Is there a society on this planet living a far more advanced existence than we are at this time in history?
What a dumb reply.
Was anything in your reply even close to relevant?
also, "atlas farted" and "debbie does dallas"