**The Fountainhead- Discussion Paper**
In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark is an architect who we are repeatedly told is brilliant. However, he always has to go his own way, even if it means damaging his career. At the beginning of the film, we watch a montage of Howard Roark losing one opportunity after another. He gets kicked out of school. He gets kicked out of the top design firms. We can see that in our society today, many entrepreneurs go through many trials and tribulations that either stifle or push them to be greater when creating something of fair value to consumers but contrary to this Howard Roark had his own vision and he was not going to compromise. Roark’s a modernist, who creates sleek, powerful buildings that exist in defiance of the drab, collectivist architecture that surrounds them.
Howard Roark’s refusal to even consider compromising his vision threatens the rich and the powerful. A socialist architecture critic with the unfortunate name of Ellsworth Toohey leads a crusade against Roark. And yet, even with the world against him, Roark’s obvious talent cannot be denied. Dominique Francon finds herself enthralled by the sight of him working in a quarry. Fellow architect Peter Keating begins to beg Howard to help him design a building. Newspaper publisher Gail Wynard goes from criticizing Howard to worshiping him. At times innovators ideas seem bleak but can soon be recognized and praised as shown within the film. It if is not evident enough Howard Roark doesn’t believe in compromise, while reviewing the film many of the doubts had left halfway through the movie. That’s when Roark responds to a company altering one of his designs by blowing up a housing project. Roark is arrested and his subsequent trial soon turns into a debate between two opposite philosophies: individualism vs. collectivism. Within these two constructs we can see how those two interactions within the film are debated but we also can draw conclusions from them as well. cultural and personal values are relevant in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions; as such, the interplay between both value-levels deserves attention. Individualist values such as achievement, pleasure, self-direction and an exciting and stimulating life are related to entrepreneurial intention and activity, at both the cultural and personal levels. A double-effect of culture on entrepreneurial intention: the personal values effect ; a more individualist culture leads to more members exhibiting higher entrepreneurial intentions and the outlier effect; those who are more individualistic than average in their culture will exhibit a higher entrepreneurial intention. Within the two individualist dimensions considered where self-enhancement and openness to change mold the relationship of self-enhancement to entrepreneurial intention is stronger than that of openness to change. While collectivism breeds collaboration, democracy, leading to greater levels of productivity and overall peace and stability. Within the film you begin to mildly see that Roark was meant to be the ideal man, a creative individualist who has no doubt about his vision and his abilities.
Who, among those available in 1949, could have been convincing in the role of Howard Roark? King Vidor wanted Humphrey Bogart for the role but if Cooper seemed too old for the part, one can only imagine what it would have been like with Bogart instead. Henry Fonda probably could have played the role. For that matter, William Holden would have been an interesting pick. Montgomery Clift and John Garfield would have been intriguing, though Garfield’s politics probably wouldn’t have made Ayn Rand happy. If Warner Bros. had been willing to wait for just a few years, they could have cast a young Marlon Brando or perhaps they could have let Douglas Sirk make the movie with Rock Hudson and Lana Turner. Or, if you really wanted to achieve peak camp, they could have let Delmer Daves do it with Troy Donahue and Sandra Dee, but aside from my cinematic casting opinion I want to dive back into the necessary parts of the film.
Within the entertaining film we see that it proceeds in a specific direction and it shows as if it’s a fever dream. The film’s dialogue may be philosophical but it really gives a spectacular connotation of new insights and overall theme that we can tie to our entrepreneurs' lives today. Interestingly, the film ends with a suicide Roark addresses the court on his own behalf. He makes a very long and eloquent speech where he begins to defend his right to offer his own work on his own terms. He is found innocent of the charges against him. A guilt-stricken Wynand summons the architect and coldly presents him with a contract to design the Wynand Building, destined to become the greatest structure of all time, with complete freedom to build it however Roark sees fit. As soon as Roark leaves, Wynand pulls out a pistol and kills himself.
Because America is currently having a socialist moment, there’s a tendency among critics to be dismissive of Ayn Rand and her worship of the individual above all else. The film could be viewed often as dismissable as just being psychobabble, despite the fact that, in some ways, they often seem to be borderline prophetic. Here’s the thing, though as critical as one can be of Rand’s philosophy, there’s still something undeniably appealing about someone who will not compromise their vision to the whims of the establishment. That statement right there is so true for our innovators today to put it simply, it goes beyond politics and it gets to the heart of human nature. We like the people who know they’re talented and aren’t afraid to proclaim it. We like the people who take control of situations. We really like the people who are willing to say, “If you don’t do it my way, I’m leaving.” Actively and strategically running our hands over architectural models while trying to resist the temptation to compromise and accept something less than what we desire. Whether it is hard to digest and even admit, we admire the Howard Roarks of the world.