Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 (1 Viewer)

[OC Zed]

And FTR I agree with most that she superficially appears to be very simplistic in her beliefs but that doesn't mean she is entirely wrong or that her beliefs shouldn't be explored on a deeper level.

IMO they resonate because she talks to peoples baser instincts. If you take any of her philosophy to it's logical conclusion it's easy to see it's just not sustainable in any kind of society we would want to live in.

Speak for yourself. I would like to live in that society.

 

[OC Zed]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Less and less. Everyone in here keeps saying that Rand's beliefs taken literally are unsustainable, unachievable, don't work, etc. Exactly how? And to the extent that they don't, we should keep pushing in that direction until they don't instead of forcing ourselves in the other direction as we have done in the last 100 years with very debatable results (quite poorly I would say).

 

[OC Zed]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Though Rand's followers would never admit this, the main impediment to her dream of producers being able to create new technology without government involvement or interference is the modern day corporation. There are extremely few large industries which are owned or controlled by a single person in the manner depicted in Atlas Shrugged. Because stockholders demand immediate returns on their investment, every 90 days, it is impossible for a private concern to spend the money and time on research and development that it would take to create, for example, a product like Reardon Metal. Realistically, that sort of technological advancement these days has to come from government investment, or not at all.

Even if a "Reardon Metal" was invented the corporation would hold off releasing it until the rest of their inferior products become unprofitable. They would also buy up any competitors who have even a remote change of inventing a similar metal. That way they would be able to maximize profits for as long as possible while at the same time having the comfort of knowing they could release "Reardon Metal" if necessary.

This is silly. Does Apple hold off releasing new versions of their products until their old versions become unprofitable? Have they bought up their competitors?

 

[Chaka]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Less and less. Everyone in here keeps saying that Rand's beliefs taken literally are unsustainable, unachievable, don't work, etc. Exactly how? And to the extent that they don't, we should keep pushing in that direction until they don't instead of forcing ourselves in the other direction as we have done in the last 100 years with very debatable results (quite poorly I would say).

Well Zed, as far as sustainability goes, according to her parlance, and if we take her beliefs to their logical conclusion, what exactly are we supposed to do with non-producers? I mean, realistically, what happens to the weak and lazy in Rand's utopia?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Less and less. Everyone in here keeps saying that Rand's beliefs taken literally are unsustainable, unachievable, don't work, etc. Exactly how? And to the extent that they don't, we should keep pushing in that direction until they don't instead of forcing ourselves in the other direction as we have done in the last 100 years with very debatable results (quite poorly I would say).

Well Zed, as far as sustainability goes, according to her parlance, and if we take her beliefs to their logical conclusion, what exactly are we supposed to do with non-producers? I mean, realistically, what happens to the weak and lazy in Rand's utopia?

Feudalism down?

 

[jdoggydogg]

As long as we're on the subject:

Ayn Rand Received Social Security, Medicare

Despite persistent rumors, Rand Paul was not named in honor of influential conservative thinker, Ayn Rand. His name is Randall.

It's good he was not named for Ayn Rand because her real name was Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum which she changed honoring her Rand typewriter.

Miss Rand, famously a believer in rugged individualism and personal responsibility, was a strong defender of self-interest. She was a staunch opponent of government programs from the New Deal and Social Security to the Great Society and Medicare.

A Library of Congress survey of the most influential books on American readers, "Atlas Shrugged" ranked second only to the Bible. Rand's influence is encyclopedic ranging from Alan Greenspan to Paul "I grew up on Ayn Rand" Ryan (R-Wis), a "Young Gun" who aims to cut or privatize Medicare and Social Security.

The Right should be commended politically for their ability to develop and stick to a unified message. But close inspection of this unified message reveals a disappointing secret identified by a student of the Godfather of Neo-conservatism, --- the University of Chicago's Leo Strauss. The student, Anne Norton ("Leo Strauss and the Politics of American Empire") identified what she called VIP-DIP meaning Venerated in Public, Disdained in Private. "Do as I say, not as I do." The list of vip-dipers on the Right runs from Harold Bloom to Newt Gingrich, but certainly not Ayn Rand. Right?

Say it ain't so Alisa Zinovievna Rosenbaum.

A heavy smoker who refused to believe that smoking causes cancer brings to mind those today who are equally certain there is no such thing as global warming. Unfortunately, Miss Rand was a fatal victim of lung cancer.

However, it was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn was a vip-dipper as well. An interview with Evva Pryror, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (husband Frank O'Connor).

As Pryor said, "Doctors cost a lot more money than books earn and she could be totally wiped out" without the aid of these two government programs. Ayn took the bail out even though Ayn "despised government interference and felt that people should and could live independently... She didn't feel that an individual should take help."

But alas she did and said it was wrong for everyone else to do so. Apart from the strong implication that those who take the help are morally weak, it is also a philosophic point that such help dulls the will to work, to save and government assistance is said to dull the entrepreneurial spirit.

In the end, Miss Rand was a hypocrite but she could never be faulted for failing to act in her own self-interest.

I don't know if we can rely solely on the account of a social worker that worked for her law firm, but even if taken at face value, her taking social security and medicare isn't necessarily contradictory to her viewpoint... she paid into those programs for decades and was taking out the money she put back in (probably much less as I think she was fairly affluent from the success of her books and screenplays). That doesn't necessarily exclude her from advocating doing away with these programs altogether.Do you think all of the other libertarian-leaning people in this country are going to turn down these funds?

I don't really care if they turn them down or not. But it shows the difference between the morality of the heart and ideals based on convenience. If one is anti-abortion, but elects to undergo the procedure when things aren't convenient, then those morals are rightly called into question.

 

[Josie Maran]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Less and less.

Seriously?

 

[Clarence the barber]

You guys are getting far ####### out. I just want to watch this movie.

 

[Biabreakable]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Though Rand's followers would never admit this, the main impediment to her dream of producers being able to create new technology without government involvement or interference is the modern day corporation. There are extremely few large industries which are owned or controlled by a single person in the manner depicted in Atlas Shrugged. Because stockholders demand immediate returns on their investment, every 90 days, it is impossible for a private concern to spend the money and time on research and development that it would take to create, for example, a product like Reardon Metal. Realistically, that sort of technological advancement these days has to come from government investment, or not at all.

Even if a "Reardon Metal" was invented the corporation would hold off releasing it until the rest of their inferior products become unprofitable. They would also buy up any competitors who have even a remote change of inventing a similar metal. That way they would be able to maximize profits for as long as possible while at the same time having the comfort of knowing they could release "Reardon Metal" if necessary.

This is silly. Does Apple hold off releasing new versions of their products until their old versions become unprofitable? Have they bought up their competitors?

Is it silly that you buy an apple product only to have it become inferior in every way to the latest apple product only months later? The monopolies are more subtle now with multinational corporations. But yes any company in a position to do so buys up their competition. Pretty sure Microsoft would have if they could have.

 

[OC Zed]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Less and less. Everyone in here keeps saying that Rand's beliefs taken literally are unsustainable, unachievable, don't work, etc. Exactly how? And to the extent that they don't, we should keep pushing in that direction until they don't instead of forcing ourselves in the other direction as we have done in the last 100 years with very debatable results (quite poorly I would say).

Well Zed, as far as sustainability goes, according to her parlance, and if we take her beliefs to their logical conclusion, what exactly are we supposed to do with non-producers? I mean, realistically, what happens to the weak and lazy in Rand's utopia?

She was against government forcibly redistributing wealth. She was not against people voluntarily helping others privately through charities and direct assistance.

 

[OC Zed]

I don't really care if they turn them down or not. But it shows the difference between the morality of the heart and ideals based on convenience. If one is anti-abortion, but elects to undergo the procedure when things aren't convenient, then those morals are rightly called into question.

This isn't about either of those things (and Rand would ask you what the hell does "morality of heart" actually mean anyways?). She was forced to pay into government programs for decades which she took from at the end of her life. If those programs were voluntary, I guaranty you that (i) she would not have paid into them from the very beginning, and (ii) she would not have used them later in life. That isn't what we are talking about here.

 

[OC Zed]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Less and less.

Seriously?

You think government's role in our society has shrunk in the last 100 years????

 

[Chaka]

I honestly wasn't worried about you being offended, but thanks I appreciate knowing you were not offended.

I think Rand's beliefs have much to offer and I think the best type of society tries to find the balance to limiting the constraints on entrepreneurship and creative thinking and protecting those who, for whatever reason, will not benefit (or create) from the free reign of same.

I have said repeatedly that I believe Rand does not work, even in a vacuum, but there is much we can learn from her beliefs and, for example, allowing creative industrialists a modicum of freedom to realize their visions ultimately benefits society as a whole.

Don't we already do this though?

Less and less. Everyone in here keeps saying that Rand's beliefs taken literally are unsustainable, unachievable, don't work, etc. Exactly how? And to the extent that they don't, we should keep pushing in that direction until they don't instead of forcing ourselves in the other direction as we have done in the last 100 years with very debatable results (quite poorly I would say).

Well Zed, as far as sustainability goes, according to her parlance, and if we take her beliefs to their logical conclusion, what exactly are we supposed to do with non-producers? I mean, realistically, what happens to the weak and lazy in Rand's utopia?

She was against government forcibly redistributing wealth. She was not against people voluntarily helping others privately through charities and direct assistance.

I know what she believed but I sincerely doubt there would be enough charitable donors to make up for the loss of government assistance.

 

[OC Zed]

Even if a "Reardon Metal" was invented the corporation would hold off releasing it until the rest of their inferior products become unprofitable. They would also buy up any competitors who have even a remote change of inventing a similar metal. That way they would be able to maximize profits for as long as possible while at the same time having the comfort of knowing they could release "Reardon Metal" if necessary.

This is silly. Does Apple hold off releasing new versions of their products until their old versions become unprofitable? Have they bought up their competitors?

Is it silly that you buy an apple product only to have it become inferior in every way to the latest apple product only months later? The monopolies are more subtle now with multinational corporations. But yes any company in a position to do so buys up their competition. Pretty sure Microsoft would have if they could have.

Wait, so a company is also bad if it releases a product that is better than the one they released previously?

And, no, not every company able to buy their competitors does so. And that also incorrectly implies that no new competitors would be allowed to ever enter the market thereafter.

 

[Courtjester]

Not to break up the debate, but this movie looks bad--like incredibly bad. A trailer is supposed to make you want to see a movie--I can honestly say there was not one thing in that trailer that made me at all interested in this flick.

It will flop, big time IMO

 

[OC Zed]

I know what she believed but I sincerely doubt there would be enough charitable donors to make up for the loss of government assistance.

People forget that our country thrived for 150 years without a government welfare system. And the government's welfare system has produced very shoddy results even as we continue to expand it by leaps and bounds.Still today, Americans are extraordinarily giving with private assistance. If government welfare programs were removed entirely, would the overall giving by the private sector be less than government money? Possibly, but you would also very likely have fewer people seeking to free ride off of that aid - which is good on a micro and macro level.

 

[NCCommish]

I know what she believed but I sincerely doubt there would be enough charitable donors to make up for the loss of government assistance.

People forget that our country thrived for 150 years without a government welfare system. And the government's welfare system has produced very shoddy results even as we continue to expand it by leaps and bounds.Still today, Americans are extraordinarily giving with private assistance. If government welfare programs were removed entirely, would the overall giving by the private sector be less than government money? Possibly, but you would also very likely have fewer people seeking to free ride off of that aid - which is good on a micro and macro level.

I think you need to look up the word thrived. The gilded age for example was good for the gilded and everyone else just struggled to survive in their shadow. This idea that we were a better nation before we started helping the least amongst is essentially Randian and points to what I said. It is not a philosophy that leads to a society most would want to live in.

 

[cstu]

Even if a "Reardon Metal" was invented the corporation would hold off releasing it until the rest of their inferior products become unprofitable. They would also buy up any competitors who have even a remote change of inventing a similar metal. That way they would be able to maximize profits for as long as possible while at the same time having the comfort of knowing they could release "Reardon Metal" if necessary.

This is silly. Does Apple hold off releasing new versions of their products until their old versions become unprofitable? Have they bought up their competitors?[

Apple doesn't have a "Reardon Metal", but the closest they have is their Retina display (2048x1536 resolution). Guess what display the iPad 2 isn't going to have?What I posted is exactly what you would learn in any business school in the country.

 

[Biabreakable]

Even if a "Reardon Metal" was invented the corporation would hold off releasing it until the rest of their inferior products become unprofitable. They would also buy up any competitors who have even a remote change of inventing a similar metal. That way they would be able to maximize profits for as long as possible while at the same time having the comfort of knowing they could release "Reardon Metal" if necessary.

This is silly. Does Apple hold off releasing new versions of their products until their old versions become unprofitable? Have they bought up their competitors?

Is it silly that you buy an apple product only to have it become inferior in every way to the latest apple product only months later? The monopolies are more subtle now with multinational corporations. But yes any company in a position to do so buys up their competition. Pretty sure Microsoft would have if they could have.

Wait, so a company is also bad if it releases a product that is better than the one they released previously?

And, no, not every company able to buy their competitors does so. And that also incorrectly implies that no new competitors would be allowed to ever enter the market thereafter.

The previous poster seemed to think these things don't happen. I was merely pointing out that they do. I never incorrectly implied your assumption at all. That is your creation. What I did say is that companies can and do buy out their competition. They also hold back products/patents if they believe that is in their best interest.

 

[cstu]

I know what she believed but I sincerely doubt there would be enough charitable donors to make up for the loss of government assistance.

People forget that our country thrived for 150 years without a government welfare system. And the government's welfare system has produced very shoddy results even as we continue to expand it by leaps and bounds.Still today, Americans are extraordinarily giving with private assistance. If government welfare programs were removed entirely, would the overall giving by the private sector be less than government money? Possibly, but you would also very likely have fewer people seeking to free ride off of that aid - which is good on a micro and macro level.

If only I had the power to send you back 150 years ago as a poor person in America...

 

[Thunderlips]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

 

[quickhands]

Even if a "Reardon Metal" was invented the corporation would hold off releasing it until the rest of their inferior products become unprofitable. They would also buy up any competitors who have even a remote change of inventing a similar metal. That way they would be able to maximize profits for as long as possible while at the same time having the comfort of knowing they could release "Reardon Metal" if necessary.

This is silly. Does Apple hold off releasing new versions of their products until their old versions become unprofitable? Have they bought up their competitors?[

Apple doesn't have a "Reardon Metal", but the closest they have is their Retina display (2048x1536 resolution). Guess what display the iPad 2 isn't going to have?What I posted is exactly what you would learn in any business school in the country.

I prefer the term "miracle metal". Really enjoyed all her books, I prefer her non fiction stuff. The movie will not bomb. It will make a ton. It will be short lived, though. She was in many ways a creature of her time. She was a far deeper thinker than a lot of people around here give her credit for. But in the end she was narcisstic, and a bit nutty. But I'm a fan.

 

[quickhands]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

This was posted earlier in the thread. It's funny and a bit small and mean.

 

[OC Zed]

I know what she believed but I sincerely doubt there would be enough charitable donors to make up for the loss of government assistance.

People forget that our country thrived for 150 years without a government welfare system. And the government's welfare system has produced very shoddy results even as we continue to expand it by leaps and bounds.Still today, Americans are extraordinarily giving with private assistance. If government welfare programs were removed entirely, would the overall giving by the private sector be less than government money? Possibly, but you would also very likely have fewer people seeking to free ride off of that aid - which is good on a micro and macro level.

If only I had the power to send you back 150 years ago as a poor person in America...

The standard of living of anyone in America 150 years ago - poor or rich - was far below what it is today. But we did not get where we were today because of government redistributing wealth to its deemed winners.

 

[Thunderlips]

I know what she believed but I sincerely doubt there would be enough charitable donors to make up for the loss of government assistance.

People forget that our country thrived for 150 years without a government welfare system. And the government's welfare system has produced very shoddy results even as we continue to expand it by leaps and bounds.Still today, Americans are extraordinarily giving with private assistance. If government welfare programs were removed entirely, would the overall giving by the private sector be less than government money? Possibly, but you would also very likely have fewer people seeking to free ride off of that aid - which is good on a micro and macro level.

If only I had the power to send you back 150 years ago as a poor person in America...

The standard of living of anyone in America 150 years ago - poor or rich - was far below what it is today. But we did not get where we were today because of government redistributing wealth to its deemed winners.

I imagine that pretty much the entire middle class that rose out of post war America was a result of government involvement. The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 was a huge key in increasing our standard of living.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Barbara Brandon on the movie:

I am delighted, overwhelmed, and stunned.

Yesterday, I saw Atlas Shrugged, Part I, the movie. In advance, I was tense and worried. What if it was terrible? In that case, no one would consider a remake for years, if ever. I didn't think it would be terrible, especially after I saw a clip from the film: the scene where Rearden comes home to his family after the first pouring of Rearden Metal. The scene was very good indeed. But. . . .

The movie is not so-so, it is not OK, it is not rather good -- it is spectacularly good. I won't go into detail; for this, see David Kelley's review, with which I am in agreement (http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged-movie-film-news) -- except that he rather understates the film's virtues.

The script is excellent, as is the acting. The music is first rate, and immensely adds to the tension that the action and the tempo of the film create. Visually, it is very beautiful. And wait until you experience the first run of the John Galt Line!

The film's greatest virtue is that, from the first moment, one steps into the world of Atlas Shrugged. The writers whose works live across time share an essential characteristic: their unique and personal stamp, their unique and personal spirit, emanates from every page of their writing, and one knows it could have been created by no other sense of life, no other intellect. The literary universe of Dostoievsky, for instance, its tone, its emotional quality, is instantly recognizable and can never be confused with that of Henry James or Victor Hugo or Oscar Wilde or Thomas Wolfe. And so with Ayn Rand: one turns the pages of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and one has entered a self-consistent new planet, formed in the image of the world view and the values that were hers alone.

To a remarkable degree, the movie captures the spirit, the sense of life, that was Ayn Rand's alone.

Does it have faults? I suppose so. I could not care less -- and I suspect you won't care either.

 

[OC Zed]

Barbara Brandon on the movie:

I am delighted, overwhelmed, and stunned.

Yesterday, I saw Atlas Shrugged, Part I, the movie. In advance, I was tense and worried. What if it was terrible? In that case, no one would consider a remake for years, if ever. I didn't think it would be terrible, especially after I saw a clip from the film: the scene where Rearden comes home to his family after the first pouring of Rearden Metal. The scene was very good indeed. But. . . .

The movie is not so-so, it is not OK, it is not rather good -- it is spectacularly good. I won't go into detail; for this, see David Kelley's review, with which I am in agreement (http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged-movie-film-news) -- except that he rather understates the film's virtues.

The script is excellent, as is the acting. The music is first rate, and immensely adds to the tension that the action and the tempo of the film create. Visually, it is very beautiful. And wait until you experience the first run of the John Galt Line!

The film's greatest virtue is that, from the first moment, one steps into the world of Atlas Shrugged. The writers whose works live across time share an essential characteristic: their unique and personal stamp, their unique and personal spirit, emanates from every page of their writing, and one knows it could have been created by no other sense of life, no other intellect. The literary universe of Dostoievsky, for instance, its tone, its emotional quality, is instantly recognizable and can never be confused with that of Henry James or Victor Hugo or Oscar Wilde or Thomas Wolfe. And so with Ayn Rand: one turns the pages of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and one has entered a self-consistent new planet, formed in the image of the world view and the values that were hers alone.

To a remarkable degree, the movie captures the spirit, the sense of life, that was Ayn Rand's alone.

Does it have faults? I suppose so. I could not care less -- and I suspect you won't care either.

Interesting, although the linked review was written by a consultant to the film's script.

 

[The Ref]

Barbara Brandon on the movie:

I am delighted, overwhelmed, and stunned.

Yesterday, I saw Atlas Shrugged, Part I, the movie. In advance, I was tense and worried. What if it was terrible? In that case, no one would consider a remake for years, if ever. I didn't think it would be terrible, especially after I saw a clip from the film: the scene where Rearden comes home to his family after the first pouring of Rearden Metal. The scene was very good indeed. But. . . .

The movie is not so-so, it is not OK, it is not rather good -- it is spectacularly good. I won't go into detail; for this, see David Kelley's review, with which I am in agreement (http://www.atlassoci...movie-film-news) -- except that he rather understates the film's virtues.

The script is excellent, as is the acting. The music is first rate, and immensely adds to the tension that the action and the tempo of the film create. Visually, it is very beautiful. And wait until you experience the first run of the John Galt Line!

The film's greatest virtue is that, from the first moment, one steps into the world of Atlas Shrugged. The writers whose works live across time share an essential characteristic: their unique and personal stamp, their unique and personal spirit, emanates from every page of their writing, and one knows it could have been created by no other sense of life, no other intellect. The literary universe of Dostoievsky, for instance, its tone, its emotional quality, is instantly recognizable and can never be confused with that of Henry James or Victor Hugo or Oscar Wilde or Thomas Wolfe. And so with Ayn Rand: one turns the pages of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and one has entered a self-consistent new planet, formed in the image of the world view and the values that were hers alone.

To a remarkable degree, the movie captures the spirit, the sense of life, that was Ayn Rand's alone.

Does it have faults? I suppose so. I could not care less -- and I suspect you won't care either.

Interesting, although the linked review was written by a consultant to the film's script.

You had to kill it for me didn't you.

 

[El Floppo]

Barbara Brandon on the movie:

I am delighted, overwhelmed, and stunned.

Yesterday, I saw Atlas Shrugged, Part I, the movie. In advance, I was tense and worried. What if it was terrible? In that case, no one would consider a remake for years, if ever. I didn't think it would be terrible, especially after I saw a clip from the film: the scene where Rearden comes home to his family after the first pouring of Rearden Metal. The scene was very good indeed. But. . . .

The movie is not so-so, it is not OK, it is not rather good -- it is spectacularly good. I won't go into detail; for this, see David Kelley's review, with which I am in agreement (http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged-movie-film-news) -- except that he rather understates the film's virtues.

The script is excellent, as is the acting. The music is first rate, and immensely adds to the tension that the action and the tempo of the film create. Visually, it is very beautiful. And wait until you experience the first run of the John Galt Line!

The film's greatest virtue is that, from the first moment, one steps into the world of Atlas Shrugged. The writers whose works live across time share an essential characteristic: their unique and personal stamp, their unique and personal spirit, emanates from every page of their writing, and one knows it could have been created by no other sense of life, no other intellect. The literary universe of Dostoievsky, for instance, its tone, its emotional quality, is instantly recognizable and can never be confused with that of Henry James or Victor Hugo or Oscar Wilde or Thomas Wolfe. And so with Ayn Rand: one turns the pages of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and one has entered a self-consistent new planet, formed in the image of the world view and the values that were hers alone.

To a remarkable degree, the movie captures the spirit, the sense of life, that was Ayn Rand's alone.

Does it have faults? I suppose so. I could not care less -- and I suspect you won't care either.

Interesting, although the linked review was written by a consultant to the film's script.

Doesn't mean he can't be Objectivist about it.

 

[pantagrapher]

Barbara Brandon on the movie:

I am delighted, overwhelmed, and stunned.

Yesterday, I saw Atlas Shrugged, Part I, the movie. In advance, I was tense and worried. What if it was terrible? In that case, no one would consider a remake for years, if ever. I didn't think it would be terrible, especially after I saw a clip from the film: the scene where Rearden comes home to his family after the first pouring of Rearden Metal. The scene was very good indeed. But. . . .

The movie is not so-so, it is not OK, it is not rather good -- it is spectacularly good. I won't go into detail; for this, see David Kelley's review, with which I am in agreement (http://www.atlassociety.org/atlas-shrugged-movie-film-news) -- except that he rather understates the film's virtues.

The script is excellent, as is the acting. The music is first rate, and immensely adds to the tension that the action and the tempo of the film create. Visually, it is very beautiful. And wait until you experience the first run of the John Galt Line!

The film's greatest virtue is that, from the first moment, one steps into the world of Atlas Shrugged. The writers whose works live across time share an essential characteristic: their unique and personal stamp, their unique and personal spirit, emanates from every page of their writing, and one knows it could have been created by no other sense of life, no other intellect. The literary universe of Dostoievsky, for instance, its tone, its emotional quality, is instantly recognizable and can never be confused with that of Henry James or Victor Hugo or Oscar Wilde or Thomas Wolfe. And so with Ayn Rand: one turns the pages of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged and one has entered a self-consistent new planet, formed in the image of the world view and the values that were hers alone.

To a remarkable degree, the movie captures the spirit, the sense of life, that was Ayn Rand's alone.

Does it have faults? I suppose so. I could not care less -- and I suspect you won't care either.

lol

 

[pantagrapher]

And a Q&A with the Producer™.

 

[KCC]

<!--quoteo(post=12910853:date=Feb 12 2011, 01:24 PM:name=KCC)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KCC @ Feb 12 2011, 01:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=12910853"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm clearly in the minority of being excited about this film. It's based on a great book full of contrarian ideas and I'm intrigued by their decision to go with a modern day setting considering the book came out over fifty years ago. It won't gross nearly as much as the numerous tired sequels and superhero movies it will likely be competing against, but it will hopefully have considerably more substance than those films.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Given that someone up above nailed the 1,000 page book in one sentence, I think you'll find more substance in Iron Man II.This <i>is</i> going to be a straight-to-DVD release, right?

I would respectfully disagree with your first point. As for your second, it is entirely possible to make a horrible movie from a highly original and revolutionary book (sadly, there are many past examples of this), but I sincerely hope that won't be the case.

 

[5Rings]

Selfishness run amok. Imagine where we would be as a country if we did what was best for the whole country.

Maybe you should read the book.

 

[OC Zed]

And a Q&A with the Producer™.

Oof.

6. Have you decided how you’ll tackle John Galt’s epic speech in part three?

Well, I’m looking at a number of different things. Having John Galt give that speech, it might be in a casino environment. It might be that he is at a mountain retreat, rather than being where he is captured, not…that violent scene at the end. But we’re going to take a look. It doesn’t have to copy just that.

No, it absolutely will be a concentrate of entertaining words with a total, philosophic…But, you know, part three could be a musical…like a Les Miserables kind of a musical. That’s part of the impact and I guess I haven’t said this publicly yet, but I’m looking at it completely different if part three is a musical with quality music that’s done in a certain way that people will like. I mean, if you saw the play Les Miserable without the music, and then with the music, you may go in there saying, ‘oh hell, I would never want to see that great book in a musical.’ That’s going to shock a lot of people to see part three be a musical, and part two may be very different from part three and very different from part one. It has to be new, you know…We get a freshness, a vitality about it, and yet it has the same, rock-solid principles and philosophies that we all know and love.

WTF?

 

[dickey moe]

You're trying pretty hard in here.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Opens next Friday already?

- Doesn't look completely horrible at all.

 

[freakinback]

It's like he is afraid of this movie.

 

[pantagrapher]

Just wait until they make it into a book!

 

[flufhed]

If I plan on watching the movie, should I read the book first? Seriously

Yes.

It's funny to see the absolute rancor Ayn Rand inspires for some people.

= "absolute rancor?"

 

[Statorama]

The ode to small government and individual freedom comes to the big screen on April 15th.

With everything going on in Wisconsin, it's a perfect time to watch a movie about the world's producers and the parasites, looters, and moochers that feed on them.

 

[saintfool]

"Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

 

[timschochet]

The main flaw with Atlas Shrugged is not the political philosophy, but the ridiculous love stories between Dagny and Francsico, Dagny and Hank Reardon, Dagny and John Galt. If any of that atrocious and completely laughable dialogue gets onto the screen this movie will be worse than Battlefield Earth.

 

[timschochet]

I had no idea this movie was being made by people associated with Nathaniel Brandon and Barbara Brandon. For those who don't know, Brandon was Ayn Rand's young lover whom she disowned and cast out of Objectivism when he revealed he had a girlfriend (not his wife Barbara, whom Ayn felt fine about sharing with him.) Throughout the rest of her life Rand regarded anyone connected with the Brandons as traitors. I amazed her ward Leonard Peikopf would have sold the rights of this movie to the Atlas Society. Rand would be rolling over in her grave.

 

[dickey moe]

The main flaw with Atlas Shrugged is not the political philosophy, but the ridiculous love stories between Dagny and Francsico, Dagny and Hank Reardon, Dagny and John Galt. If any of that atrocious and completely laughable dialogue gets onto the screen this movie will be worse than Battlefield Earth.

Yeah, the romantic bits are the worst aspects of the novel.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Atlas Shrugged - The Musical!

 

[saintfool]

gault

 

[kface]

Opens next Friday already?

Call me crazy but that looks like its straight to DVD quality. You can practically pass that clip off as a 'joke' clip on you tube.

 

[Polish Hammer]

Opens next Friday already?

 

[medium aristotle]

Bruce Edward Walker / The Michigan View.com

"This isn't a movie, it's a newsreel," commented my "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" viewing companion - an old Mackinac Center colleague. Spot on.

The film's source material is more than a half-century old and its author, Ayn Rand, is often characterized as a Cassandra predicting dystopian outcomes for New Deal policies, ever-expanding government intervention in the marketplace, and rent-seeking corporations. In 2011, those predictions have bore fruit: a $14 trillion deficit; a government shutdown; regulatory bureaucrats run amuck; bailouts of banks and automotive companies; and corporate donors such as Google's Eric Schmidt and General Electric's Jeff Immelt receiving most-favored status at the presidential table.

Our current situation is dire, and Rand - ever the scold even 29 years after her demise - speaks from her grave: "I told you so."

Full disclosure: I was never a fan of the 1,200-page doorstop Rand dared call a "novel." Sorry, Randroids, it's the lit major in me. The tome suffers from poorly drawn characters, plodding plotting, and stilted, didactic dialogue that could've been supplied by any given window washer at the end of the exit ramp. It may be one of the 20th century's best-loved books, but while it succeeds as a novel of ideas it's not literature in this author's humble estimation.

But generations of readers have overlooked those failings to latch onto its themes. And they're admittedly good 'uns. A tale for the ages, even.

Whereas the book would have benefited from a heavy dose of editing, the film avoids Rand's narrative pitfalls. So far, at least. If the next installments of the trilogy are as good as "Part I," I offer my wholehearted endorsement.

Yes, the miniscule - by Hollywood standards - budget of $15 million means obscure actors in a story chock-a-block with characters. Bonnie Raitt's ex-husband is in there. So are the tubby schlub who played Bill Paxton's business partner on Big Love; the creepy guy in the diner from Mulholland Drive; the fat, bald guy who screams a lot in a couple of Coen brothers' movies; a beleaguered wife from St. Elsewhere; and that alien Quark guy from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, too. Everyone else in the cast elevates Kathy Griffin to B-list. But that's hardly a distraction.

The honorable characters are good-looking. The remaining no-goodnik looters, mooches, and rent seekers seemed to have been cast from a #### Tracy strip: oily, pockmarked, and weaselly thespians who acquit themselves well.

Whereas the talky, preachy, self-absorbed characters of the book grate, the film's rendering of them gives them dimension. Pages of dialogue are reduced to three-sentence conversations. That's good.

Director Paul Johansson performs a yeoman's job of directing. (Johansson, Michiganians might note, is the son of Earl "Ching" Johnson, who was a member of the 1954 Stanley Cup-winning Red Wings. The director serves double duty as the shadowy John Galt in the film, emphasizing the "shadowy" aspect by appearing in Part I only as an apparent Lamont Cranston impersonator).

A $15 million budget tackling the scope of "Atlas Shrugged" may seem like going into an Aston-Martin showroom on an Aveo budget, but the production retains a professional sheen. Computer-generated sets and backgrounds are employed adroitly by the production crew to create a world where fabulously wealthy industrialists believably coexist with caviar-gorging politicians, out-of-work corporate flacks, and unemployed masses.

The big question for moviegoers, however, is whether the makers of "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" succeed in capturing on film the spirit of Rand's ideas concerning Big Government criminals and their corporate bedfellows. In this, I can affirm with a resounding yes.

Ignore the book at your discernment. Ignore the film at our peril.

Bruce Edward Walker is a the View’s art critic and managing editor and research fellow for The Heartland Institute’s Infotech & Telecom News. “Atlas Shrugged, Part I” opens nationwide April 15 (tax day, appropriately enough).

The Detroit News

 

[saintfool]

Bruce Edward Walker / The Michigan View.com

"This isn't a movie, it's a newsreel," commented my "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" viewing companion - an old Mackinac Center colleague. Spot on.

The film's source material is more than a half-century old and its author, Ayn Rand, is often characterized as a Cassandra predicting dystopian outcomes for New Deal policies, ever-expanding government intervention in the marketplace, and rent-seeking corporations. In 2011, those predictions have bore fruit: a $14 trillion deficit; a government shutdown; regulatory bureaucrats run amuck; bailouts of banks and automotive companies; and corporate donors such as Google's Eric Schmidt and General Electric's Jeff Immelt receiving most-favored status at the presidential table.

Our current situation is dire, and Rand - ever the scold even 29 years after her demise - speaks from her grave: "I told you so."

Full disclosure: I was never a fan of the 1,200-page doorstop Rand dared call a "novel." Sorry, Randroids, it's the lit major in me. The tome suffers from poorly drawn characters, plodding plotting, and stilted, didactic dialogue that could've been supplied by any given window washer at the end of the exit ramp. It may be one of the 20th century's best-loved books, but while it succeeds as a novel of ideas it's not literature in this author's humble estimation.

But generations of readers have overlooked those failings to latch onto its themes. And they're admittedly good 'uns. A tale for the ages, even.

Whereas the book would have benefited from a heavy dose of editing, the film avoids Rand's narrative pitfalls. So far, at least. If the next installments of the trilogy are as good as "Part I," I offer my wholehearted endorsement.

Yes, the miniscule - by Hollywood standards - budget of $15 million means obscure actors in a story chock-a-block with characters. Bonnie Raitt's ex-husband is in there. So are the tubby schlub who played Bill Paxton's business partner on Big Love; the creepy guy in the diner from Mulholland Drive; the fat, bald guy who screams a lot in a couple of Coen brothers' movies; a beleaguered wife from St. Elsewhere; and that alien Quark guy from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, too. Everyone else in the cast elevates Kathy Griffin to B-list. But that's hardly a distraction.

The honorable characters are good-looking. The remaining no-goodnik looters, mooches, and rent seekers seemed to have been cast from a #### Tracy strip: oily, pockmarked, and weaselly thespians who acquit themselves well.

Whereas the talky, preachy, self-absorbed characters of the book grate, the film's rendering of them gives them dimension. Pages of dialogue are reduced to three-sentence conversations. That's good.

Director Paul Johansson performs a yeoman's job of directing. (Johansson, Michiganians might note, is the son of Earl "Ching" Johnson, who was a member of the 1954 Stanley Cup-winning Red Wings. The director serves double duty as the shadowy John Galt in the film, emphasizing the "shadowy" aspect by appearing in Part I only as an apparent Lamont Cranston impersonator).

A $15 million budget tackling the scope of "Atlas Shrugged" may seem like going into an Aston-Martin showroom on an Aveo budget, but the production retains a professional sheen. Computer-generated sets and backgrounds are employed adroitly by the production crew to create a world where fabulously wealthy industrialists believably coexist with caviar-gorging politicians, out-of-work corporate flacks, and unemployed masses.

The big question for moviegoers, however, is whether the makers of "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" succeed in capturing on film the spirit of Rand's ideas concerning Big Government criminals and their corporate bedfellows. In this, I can affirm with a resounding yes.

Ignore the book at your discernment. Ignore the film at our peril.

Bruce Edward Walker is a the View’s art critic and managing editor and research fellow for The Heartland Institute’s Infotech & Telecom News. “Atlas Shrugged, Part I” opens nationwide April 15 (tax day, appropriately enough).

The Detroit News

cato institute will be reviewing the film next?