Spoiler alert: One or two parts of this review give away parts of the plot.
Rush (no, not the Ayn Rand-admiring rock group) is a biopic that portrays the 1976 Formula One motor racing season that put the late James Hunt (British) against Niki Lauda (Austrian). I was a mere 10-year-old boy when the season took place, and I remember watching motor races on my parent's old TV at my Suffolk home. The whole world of motor racing seemed very remote and glamorous to my young eyes. I have followed the sport on and off ever since. Endurance racing is something I also enjoy - I went to Le Mans in France this year to watch the famous annual 24-hour race.
So what is Rush like? I would say that, as far as films go, it is one of the best of its type in many years. You don't really have to be a petrol-head to enjoy the film (a bit of knowledge helps but is not important). The film nicely captures the look and feel of the mid-1970s in terms of fashion and so on, but these are done in a fairly stylised way; there is not too much painful obsession with absolute realism. The film-maker does work hard to convey the era of when motor racing was far more lethal than it is now.
From an Objectivist point of view, what is to like about this production? I think the performance of Daniel Bruhl, who plays Lauda, is noteworthy, and he raises important questions about motivation, sport, and risk.
Lauda comes from a rich, well-connected Vienna family. His parents expect him to follow in their business line; he refuses, and we get a scene fairly early in the movie when young Lauda, all seriousness, heads off and buys himself a place in a racing team. He is meticulous in preparing his car; like a sort of nerdy Howard Roark, he does not go out to be "one of the lads"; he tells a Ferrari engineer that his car is "shit" (this is unheard of in the temple of motoring) and is unafraid to be unpopular. Less admirably, he seems to play some of the politics of motor racing (James Hunt is very naive about this).
Lauda also takes a very methodical approach to calculating the odds of dying in a race (he won't race in conditions of a greater than 20 per cent chance of an accident). The cinema viewer is meant to regard Lauda as an unsmiling, geeky, buck-toothed obsessive who cannot even propose marriage nicely. The contrast with the laddish Hunt is deliberate. (In reality both men were pretty good mates.)
So how does all this hectic motor racing and Teutonic joylessness fit with any kind of pro-life ethic? Well, if one holds one's life, and happiness, as the supreme end, and believe that certain virtues are necessary to attain happiness and sustain life in a full sense, some risk-taking is worth it - along with a lot of hard work, if the result, in the rational calculation of a person (an adult motor racing driver) is great enough given the totality of a person's hoped-for life.
I think the answer might be that for Lauda, the enjoyment and thrill of racing and of doing something supremely well, were such important things that he felt fully alive even though he knew he could lose his life. He also wanted to overcome the fear of not being able to do something well, to prove to himself that he could do it. This rose to a new level after he was burned at the Nurburgring circuit in Germany. His desire to be the best is not so much arrogance as a desire to master himself.
Where perhaps there is a more troubling issue here from an Objectivist point of view is whether Lauda was at times too concerned with proving to other people that he was able to be the best. We have a scene of Lauda lying in his hospital bed, in agony, watching Hunt win races and getting all the glory (and all the women and champagne, dammit). An Objectivist remembers that impressing other people is not as important as living in reality even if that means you don't always beat the other guy. Life is not zero sum. Sure, it is great to impress people who are worth impressing - such as highly talented rivals (Hunt) or race managers, etc, but what really matters is impressing yourself and being happy and doing the best you can.
This point is well made when Lauda decides to pull out of the Japanese race in the pouring rain; in a way he showed as much courage in doing that as Hunt did in driving on. Lauda was honest with himself, and therefore, with his audience. He realised that what is important is not winning at any cost but being able to go on living and enjoying life even if that meant a step back for a while (Lauda went on to win F1 championships several times). There is a touching moment when both Hunt and Lauda wave to each other at the start of the Japanese race - a mark of respect between two immensely brave men.
As for James Hunt, the actor who portrays him, Chris Hemsworth, certainly looks the part with his long hair, eye for the ladies and enjoyment of life, but he also quite effectively conveys that fierce will to win behind the playboy facade. As we know from real life, however, Hunt soon retired from the sport, perhaps both out of a desire for self-preservation as well as perhaps a short concentration span. Hunt is entertaining; it is not clear whether he is particularly admirable, although his dogged willingness to keep on driving in appalling conditions testifies to a certain rugged determination.
Rush is one of the better films out there. It raises questions about willpower, the competitive spirit, risk-taking, and the choices one must make when one realises certain obstacles cannot be overcome.