Atlas Shrugged, Part 1 (1 Viewer)

[KCC]

From rottentomatoes.com:

tomatometer|All Critics|Top Critics6% Average Rating: 3.2/10Reviews Counted: 16Fresh: 1 | Rotten: 15

With all the easily entertained critics out there, I didn't know it was even possible to get a 6% on rottentomatoes. Needless to say, my initial enthusiasm for this film has taken a big hit. :(

 

[timschochet]

I will go see this movie today. Because the novel is one of my favorites, because I was so enraptured with much of its philosophy for a long time in my life (though not anymore) I have no choice but to watch this movie. I am not expecting much. I have always believed that trying to translate this novel to the screen would be a disaster, and that those who despise Rand anyhow are going to have a field day ripping this, while those who slavishly love her will praise it no matter what. For the Tea Partiers, this film may turn into a religious experience ala The Passion of the Christ.

I'll report back this evening with my impressions.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

From rottentomatoes.com:

tomatometer|All Critics|Top Critics6% Average Rating: 3.2/10Reviews Counted: 16Fresh: 1 | Rotten: 15

With all the easily entertained critics out there, I didn't know it was even possible to get a 6% on rottentomatoes. Needless to say, my initial enthusiasm for this film has taken a big hit. :(

Ouch.

 

[timschochet]

OK, before I review this movie, a comment on the audience: I saw the film in Orange County, CA, which is a bastion of the Tea Party. As I feared, the audience applauded every political line, then applauded and cheered loudly after the film, treating it as a religious experience. As I was leaving I heard comments such as "best film I've ever seen!" "A masterpiece," and "deserves an Oscar for Best Picture, but the Left will never allow it." OK.

Now for the film: they didn't spend a ton of money on this, and it shows. The novel is an epic with an epic feel; this movie feels small. In fact, it felt like an old 90s Lifetime channel TV movie, though the acting was considerably worse. Dagny Taggert is one of my favorite fictional characters ever because she is such a strong woman; the actress playing her managed to convey NOTHING of Dagny. She's a rather cute unremarkable blonde who delivers most of her lines in a monotone. After the first scene when she learns about a train wreck, we then see her slowly walking to work as if there was no emergency and it didn't matter if she got there or not. James Taggert, in the book a major villian, comes off here like a college frat boy caught cheating on a test. Hank Reardon was actually OK, and the woman playing his wife (Lilian) was the best actress in the movie, stealing every scene she was in. John Galt is never shown except in shadow, but unfortunately is given a bunch of ridiculous lines "I'm not trying to sell you something, I'm offering to give you a chance to live your life in individual freedom," etc. As I was afraid of, these lines which are interesting in the novel come off as corny in the movie and I couldn't stop laughing, which caused several people to glare at me, I'm afraid.

I have saved the worst two actors for last. The guy who played Francisco D'Anconia apparently bought too much into the "worthless playboy" aspect of that role, as he does nothing but drink heavily in every scene he's in. Even in the scene when he's trying to give Hank Reardon a taste of his philosophy, he merely comes across as a drunken gigolo which you wouldn't want to talk to. But worse than him is the guy who plays Ellis Wyatt. In the first 3rd of the book, before he disappears, Wyatt is a key figure, the young oil tycoon whose eyes are burning and commands authority. I have seen the guy who plays him before several times on television, always in the same role, as an old fat drunk. True to form, he played Ellis Wyatt as an old fat drunk, and anyone who read the novel will find this the most implausible of all the characters. However the film ends with his voiceover, saying (drunkenly) "Don't look for me, I am on strike!" to the cheers of the audience.

It was simply awful. Can't wait for pt. 2.

 

[quickhands]

tim I loved the book also. But it sounds from your description that dagny was played correctly. So was francisco.

and you have gone over the "cheap" thing. I think most people will cut it some slack, and suspend the " well that's just cheap" eye too it.

definitely will wait a week or sneak out next week to watch it in an empty theatre. I hate cheering in movies.

 

[pantagrapher]

From rottentomatoes.com:

tomatometer|All Critics|Top Critics6% Average Rating: 3.2/10Reviews Counted: 16Fresh: 1 | Rotten: 15

With all the easily entertained critics out there, I didn't know it was even possible to get a 6% on rottentomatoes. Needless to say, my initial enthusiasm for this film has taken a big hit. :(

Ouch.

Nobody could have seen it coming.

 

[saintfool]

definitely will wait a week or sneak out next week to watch it in an empty theatre. I hate cheering in movies.

you need to get to more midnight movies.

 

[badmojo1006]

OK, before I review this movie, a comment on the audience: I saw the film in Orange County, CA, which is a bastion of the Tea Party. As I feared, the audience applauded every political line, then applauded and cheered loudly after the film, treating it as a religious experience. As I was leaving I heard comments such as "best film I've ever seen!" "A masterpiece," and "deserves an Oscar for Best Picture, but the Left will never allow it." OK.

Now for the film: they didn't spend a ton of money on this, and it shows. The novel is an epic with an epic feel; this movie feels small. In fact, it felt like an old 90s Lifetime channel TV movie, though the acting was considerably worse. Dagny Taggert is one of my favorite fictional characters ever because she is such a strong woman; the actress playing her managed to convey NOTHING of Dagny. She's a rather cute unremarkable blonde who delivers most of her lines in a monotone. After the first scene when she learns about a train wreck, we then see her slowly walking to work as if there was no emergency and it didn't matter if she got there or not. James Taggert, in the book a major villian, comes off here like a college frat boy caught cheating on a test. Hank Reardon was actually OK, and the woman playing his wife (Lilian) was the best actress in the movie, stealing every scene she was in. John Galt is never shown except in shadow, but unfortunately is given a bunch of ridiculous lines "I'm not trying to sell you something, I'm offering to give you a chance to live your life in individual freedom," etc. As I was afraid of, these lines which are interesting in the novel come off as corny in the movie and I couldn't stop laughing, which caused several people to glare at me, I'm afraid.

I have saved the worst two actors for last. The guy who played Francisco D'Anconia apparently bought too much into the "worthless playboy" aspect of that role, as he does nothing but drink heavily in every scene he's in. Even in the scene when he's trying to give Hank Reardon a taste of his philosophy, he merely comes across as a drunken gigolo which you wouldn't want to talk to. But worse than him is the guy who plays Ellis Wyatt. In the first 3rd of the book, before he disappears, Wyatt is a key figure, the young oil tycoon whose eyes are burning and commands authority. I have seen the guy who plays him before several times on television, always in the same role, as an old fat drunk. True to form, he played Ellis Wyatt as an old fat drunk, and anyone who read the novel will find this the most implausible of all the characters. However the film ends with his voiceover, saying (drunkenly) "Don't look for me, I am on strike!" to the cheers of the audience.

It was simply awful. Can't wait for pt. 2.

So the movie was a

 

[timschochet]

tim I loved the book also. But it sounds from your description that dagny was played correctly. So was francisco.

and you have gone over the "cheap" thing. I think most people will cut it some slack, and suspend the " well that's just cheap" eye too it.

definitely will wait a week or sneak out next week to watch it in an empty theatre. I hate cheering in movies.

No Dagny was not played correctly, unless you think Dagny is a tall hot looking blonde with little acting skills. Francisco was not played correctly unless you picture him as Richard Gere from American Gigilo, except drunk, unshaven and about to cry.

 

[OC Zed]

I couldn't be more jubilant that timschochet thinks the movie sucked.

 

[Socrates11]

I couldn't be more jubilant that timschochet thinks the movie sucked.

Seriously. I now have hope that it's actually pretty decent

 

[Statorama]

From rottentomatoes.com:

tomatometer|All Critics|Top Critics6% Average Rating: 3.2/10Reviews Counted: 16Fresh: 1 | Rotten: 15

With all the easily entertained critics out there, I didn't know it was even possible to get a 6% on rottentomatoes. Needless to say, my initial enthusiasm for this film has taken a big hit. :(

Ouch.

Is it a huge secret that most movie reviewers are flaming liberals?

 

[KCC]

From rottentomatoes.com:

tomatometer|All Critics|Top Critics6% Average Rating: 3.2/10Reviews Counted: 16Fresh: 1 | Rotten: 15

With all the easily entertained critics out there, I didn't know it was even possible to get a 6% on rottentomatoes. Needless to say, my initial enthusiasm for this film has taken a big hit. :(

Ouch.

Is it a huge secret that most movie reviewers are flaming liberals?

I'm as liberal as they come and I was very much hoping they would do a great job with this movie (see my earlier posts in the thread.) Are you suggesting it's really a great film that is being unfairly trashed by a liberal conspiracy? Or is it at least possible that Hollywood has once again mangled the theatrical production of a great book?

 

[RedRaiders]

Down to 5% on Rotten Tomatoes now. This should have gone direct to DVD.

 

[Thread Killer]

I haven't seen the film, and probably won't. But it sounds like a lot of people here are threatened by Rand's ideas and are hoping with all their might that the film fails, thereby undermining the core philosophy.

 

[timschochet]

I haven't seen the film, and probably won't. But it sounds like a lot of people here are threatened by Rand's ideas and are hoping with all their might that the film fails, thereby undermining the core philosophy.

There might be some people who are against the movie because they dislike Rand's ideas. I doubt they are "threatened".But I loved this novel, and while I no longer agree with many of Rand's ideas, I still very much align myself with her core principle of a society which respects individual rights and freedom. This movie was an extremely poor effort.

I challenge anyone who watches this movie to watch The Conspirator soon afterwards. It's a completely different animal. The Redford films features brilliant acting, a fine nuanced and thoughtful script, great direction and editing, and no expense was spared in its production. The distinction is overwhelming.

 

[pantagrapher]

Here's a review from a liberal blogger

UNMITIGATED GALT. Whatever understandable prejudice you might have against Ayn Rand, you have to admit that the giant concrete block of her novel on which Atlas Shrugged: Part I is based could make a movie of some sort. Consider all that happens in it: Dagny Taggart, who wants her family's railroad to succeed on its own merits, is opposed by her weakling brother James, who prefers that it succeed via corrupt influences. Conglomerate head Henry Rearden wants success on his own terms, too, but is opposed by, well, the whole wide world, which instinctually recoils at his greatness. These two superior beings inevitably meet, are inevitably attracted to each other, and inevitably couple, after which they together work to find the solution to their mutual dilemma.OK, it's ridiculous, but no more so than Rand's The Fountainhead, out of which King Vidor, Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal made a silly and operatic but perfectly entertaining film. That was what I hoped for as I watched the thing last night, because as much fun as it is to slag rotten movies, it is much better to be surprised by a good one, especially when you've reached the stage in life where two hours in front of a stinker sets you dreaming of the warm couch and leftover sesame chicken that you left back home. But it is my great regret to inform you that Atlas Shrugged: Part I is neither good nor good-bad, but bad-bad-bad-bad. I dreamed, not of sesame chicken, but of my own swift and merciful death, and that of the director, not necessarily in that order. It is not a pleasurable surprise, not a hoot, nor an outrage; it is Rand's granite crushed, reconstituted, and spread across the screen with steamrollers.Taggart and Rearden are supposed to be important and accomplished producers of wealth, but we never see them doing anything productive. Rearden smiles as he watches steel poured in his foundry, and Taggart walks around purposefully with folders, but neither is shown engaged in actual work. In fact the filmmakers seem to go out of their way to avoid showing it: At one point Taggart appears outdoors at a worksite, and Rearden compliments her on her easy manner with the workers, but we never see Taggart actually interacting with them.It's as if the filmmakers couldn't imagine such a thing (nor can I: "Hello, factotum, your brute strength is useful to my enterprise, keep up the good work!"). In fact, it's as if they thought that the sight of either character doing anything like what real executives do would spoil the effect. Because executives make deals, and Taggart and Rearden can't deal with anyone but each other; the only thing like negotiation they perform is their own meet-cute, in which haggling over price becomes a romantic pas des deux. Everyone else they encounter, besides subordinates, is unworthy of their efforts, and thus can only be browbeaten or belittled. Consistent though this may be with Objectivist mythology -- noble producers standing among, but not of, ignoble looters -- it destroys any opportunity for actual drama. Atlas Shrugged has several villains, yet none of them is allowed to effectively challenge Ragny Dearden. The union boss and the government factotum are wusses who are easily glowered down; the director of the State Science Institute -- "the last science center on earth," we are informed, all the others having presumably been turned into global warming propaganda centers -- only appears to tell us how pathetic he is; and the D.C. players never even get to meet Tagny Raggart. It's like a version of The Dark Knight in which the Joker says "I don't understand you, Batman," and Batman says, "I don't think you'll ever understand, Joker," and the Joker slouches off to get drunk at the Ebbitt Grill while Batman smiles at his glistening Batmobile.The short shrift given the D.C. mob especially annoyed me, because their ringleader Mouch is played by the wonderful actor Michael Lerner, whom I thought might at least do something interesting if given a big confrontation scene with one of the principals, instead of being left to sit around being superbad with the other bad guys. In fact, Lerner is not even allowed to be interesting in his own milieu; when Taggart's supertrain succeeds, we see Mouch hearing the news on the phone; I hoped his pause before reacting presaged an explosion of some kind. Then he spoke as if nothing much had happened, and it became painfully obvious that Lerner had just been waiting for a cue, and that the phone voice had ended a beat too soon -- which is the opposite of what anyone should be noticing in a scene like that.This setup does no favors to the actors playing Dagden and Rearly, either. Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler show some chemistry in their negotiation duet, but after that they aren't allowed do much with one another until their ghastly sex scene. They show interest and admiration, but actual romance was presumably deemed too weakly looter-human for them. (In early scenes, Bowler actually starts to give Schilling a puppy-dog look, before dialing it back to something more suggestive of colonic irritation.) We've all seen movies in which lovers are obliged to restrain their feelings for one another (Cousin Cousine and Remains of the Day come to mind), but this is the only one I can think of in which, once the lovers finally have their night of passion, they emerge pledged to mutual pursuit of a perpetual motion machine. (Rearden's married, by the way. This is quickly dismissed as an impediment, because he and his wife hate each other. There's so much wrong with the movie that I can't even care about the morality of this, but I do wonder whether South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was thinking about Atlas Shrugged when he went hiking with his true love on the South American-Appalachian Trail.)The movie is so starved of humanity that the big turning-point scenes are about as thrilling as a Congressional budget negotiation. When the supertrain goes on its controversial trip over the bridge, we know that the bad guys want it to fail, and that the good guys want it to succeed. Drama, right? But not only are the good guys incapable of failure -- they're incapable of doubt, too. Not even the guy who's driving the train seems worried. So the train accelerates (the fastest any train has ever gone in America!), it approaches the bridge, we cross-cut, see the wheels going around, and -- guess what? It succeeds, just like we always knew it would. If the soundtrack swells it's only so we can't hear D.W. Griffith spinning in his grave. There is only one moment of true feeling and drama in the whole movie. Reardon has made a bracelet out of his precious supermetal for his hated wife, who doesn't understand it/him; at a party, said wife expresses her contempt for the bracelet to Taggart; Taggart impulsively offers to trade it for her expensive necklace. Suddenly, for a couple of seconds, the actors come alive -- because they at last have an ambiguity to play: A simple transaction that has deep emotional meaning underneath. The movie comes alive, too, because we have been wrenched from our preordained path onto something vivid, theatrical, and mysterious. Then Rearden interrupts, and Atlas Shrugged gets back on the supertrain to nowhere.Other observations:- The country at the time of the film (2016) is in some kind of chaos which is not well explained -- the Middle East is in crisis, gas is absurdly expensive, and plane travel is moribund, which somewhat justifies the otherwise perplexing and anachronistic interest in railroads. Poverty is widespread, signified by beggars and trash fires. No attempt is made to tie all this together, but it also suggested that the nation has been given over to sociamalism -- the opening montage shows protesters marching with signs touting those twin menaces, Martin Luther King and communism, and the D.C. guys talk about sharing the wealth in ways that have never been heard in Washington, nor anywhere in the United States except perhaps Louisiana in the time of Huey Long. I suppose this is the film's Tea Party tell, but I notice that it seems not to affect the actions of the principals in any direct way. This is made comically clear when Taggart, dressed in fancy duds, bolts from her brother's limo and walks home through an urban hobo jungle. I know the filmmakers were in a rush, but I marvel that they resisted the temptation to have Taggart explain her natural superiority to a bum, after which he would cower before the force of her logic instead of raping her and taking her purse. - A shadowy figure appears at intervals to give the good Galt news to select entrepreneurs. (Sample pitch: "I'm simply offering you a society that rewards individual achievement.") His targets then "go Galt," vanishing to be met up with at the Gulch later in the series. The last to slip the surly bonds of socialism in this film is the fat white guy who gets screwed by Taggart's brother and later becomes Dagny's and Rearden's best pal. He leaves his oil fields behind with a sign saying "I am leaving it as I found it" -- though when he acquired the property, it was probably not, as he leaves it here, in flames (to be put out by the union-looter fire department), nor unsuitable of any future use. But I expect the TP people will nod with understanding at his self-evident producer-wisdom.- It strikes me that the heroes of this series are enabled in their Galt-going journey by an as-yet unseen super-metal and a perpetual motion machine discovered behind a hidden door. The secret ingredient in Rand's Objectivist tale is magic beans.

 

[Statorama]

I can see that this movie has exploded a lot of liberal heads, especially those that review movies for a living.

It's not hard to see why. They are reviewing a film about the struggle between the producers of society and the parasitic moochers that live off of their hard work. It's not a stretch to associate that relationship to that of the people that actually create movies and those that leech off of that creative process by being a film reviewer. Essentially, the film reviewers had to sit through an hour and a half of a movie that told them they are worthless without those that actually produce something.

Is it a flawed film? Yes. But the central theme of the book is intact within the movie, making it a worthy view.

I just caught it in Menomonee Falls and the place was packed. That was good to see, given the intense hatred critics have poured on the film.

If you're a conservative and you haven't read the book, I urge you to check this out. Even though the film is based on a book that was written decades ago, many of it's wild predictions parallel the statements and actions of stone cold liberals like Obama.

This is a film that kicks liberal attitudes in the teeth. It's a merciless assault on those that want to "spread the wealth around". If you're one of the producers of society, give this movie a watch. It'll make you feel warm inside.

 

[Statorama]

it sounds like a lot of people here are threatened by Rand's ideas and are hoping with all their might that the film fails, thereby undermining the core philosophy.

I figured I better "put my money where my mouth is" and plunk down a few duckets to check it out. I would urge conservatives to give it a look, if for no other reason than to show hollywood that there is a market for conservative themed films. It's no coincidence that this movie is being portrayed critically like it is. The notion that hollywood might start producing conservative themed films is frightning to the Susan Sarandon crowd.When I went to see it today I was white knuckled in my seat, prepared for the stinkbomb of all time given the reviews I'd read. I was very relieved when it turned out to be a flawed but overall entertaining film with Rand's core message on full display (which is why liberals loathe this movie). I was also heartened that during an April snowstorm (!!!) the place was packed.I for one am looking forward to part two.

 

[timschochet]

it sounds like a lot of people here are threatened by Rand's ideas and are hoping with all their might that the film fails, thereby undermining the core philosophy.

I figured I better "put my money where my mouth is" and plunk down a few duckets to check it out. I would urge conservatives to give it a look, if for no other reason than to show hollywood that there is a market for conservative themed films. It's no coincidence that this movie is being portrayed critically like it is. The notion that hollywood might start producing conservative themed films is frightning to the Susan Sarandon crowd.

When I went to see it today I was white knuckled in my seat, prepared for the stinkbomb of all time given the reviews I'd read. I was very relieved when it turned out to be a flawed but overall entertaining film with Rand's core message on full display (which is why liberals loathe this movie). I was also heartened that during an April snowstorm (!!!) the place was packed.

I for one am looking forward to part two.

Not surprised by your review Stat, but I am a little disappointed. If this movie had been at all good liberals would not have loathed it, because the story would have been too dramatic. I know plenty of liberals who love this novel while rejecting its philosophy. It's unfortunate that you can't perceive this. I can see this is going to be The Passion of the Christ all over again, the only difference being that Mel Gibson is at least a competent director, willing to spend money, and had some superb actors and professionals to work with. But otherwise, the analogy is a good one: this is going to be a religious experience for people.

 

[timschochet]

A paragraph from the Variety review perfectly encapsulates my feeling about this movie:

this hasty, low-budget adaptation would have Ayn Rand spinning in her grave, considering how it violates the author's philosophy by allowing opportunists to exploit another's creative achievement -- in this case, hers. Targeting roughly 200 screens, pic goes out hitched to a grassroots marketing campaign, hoping to break-even via by-popular-demand bookings and potential Tea Party support.

This is exactly right. Ayn Rand wanted her novel to receive epic treatment (at one point she had the famous screenwriter Sterling Silliphant working with her on the script), not this cheap bastardization, quickly made in a blatant attempt to capitalize on the Tea Party movement. (For what it's worth, I am betting Rand would have hated the Tea Party movement, since she hated all populist movements, and would have regarded its leaders much as she regarded Ronald Reagan, whom she considered the worst president of the 20th century.)

 

[timschochet]

And here is a review by Kurt Loder of Reason Magazine, a libertarian and huge Ayn Rand fan:

It’s a blessing, I suppose, that Ayn Rand, who loved the movies, and actually worked extensively in the industry, isn’t alive to see what’s been made of her most influential novel. The new, long-awaited film version of Atlas Shrugged is a mess, full of embalmed talk, enervated performances, impoverished effects, and cinematography that would barely pass muster in a TV show. Sitting through this picture is like watching early rehearsals of a stage play that’s clearly doomed.

The movie is especially disappointing because Rand’s 1957 book, while centrally concerned with ethical philosophy (and inevitably quite talky), has a juicy plot that, in more capable hands, might have made a sensational film. (That possibility, alas, may now be closed off.) As anyone reading this will probably know, the story concerns strong-willed Dagny Taggart, who’s fighting to save her family railroad, Taggart Transcontinental, from the inept leadership of her brother, James, a moral weakling, and from the metastasizing reach of government regulation. Dagny finds a kindred spirit in Henry Rearden, a principled industrialist who has formulated a new kind of steel that Dagny intends to use in upgrading Transcontinental’s decaying tracks. She and Rearden are opposed at every turn by collectivist politicians and corporate titans corrupted by their addiction to the government teat. Meanwhile, the nation’s most productive businessmen, demoralized by rampant political interference, are vanishing one by one from the public scene. And a mysterious figure named John Galt appears to have something to do with this.

The film was obviously a labor of love for producer John Aglialoro, a multimillionaire Randian who held movie rights to the book for 18 years, and made every effort to set it up as a professional production. (Angelina Jolie was famously attached at one point.) Then, last year, with his option running out, Aglialoro decided he had no choice but to make the movie himself. He quickly hired Brian Patrick O’Toole, a writer of low-budget horror films, to work with him on the script, and an actor, Paul Johannson (of TV’s One Tree Hill) to direct. He also managed to sign some seasoned professionals for the cast: Graham Beckel (Brokeback Mountain) in the role of oil magnate Ellis Wyatt; Edi Gathegi (from the Twilight movies) in the part of Dagny’s loyal lieutenant Eddie Willers; and two veterans of Coen brothers films, Michael Lerner and Jon Polito, to play political fixer Wesley Mouch and the collusive corporate sleaze Orren Boyle.

Unfortunately, Aglialoro then cast a pair of TV actors in the key roles of Dagny and Rearden. Taylor Schilling (Mercy) is an appealing performer, but she’s not really equipped to project Dagny’s passionate determination; and Grant Bowler (True Blood), an actor of low-key warmth, is too unassertive to hold the screen as the uncompromising Rearden. It may be unfair to judge these two on their work here—they don’t seem to have been given much in the way of useful direction, and they’ve been set adrift in a succession of poorly blocked and shot scenes. Because of budget constraints, presumably, the whole movie seems underpopulated; and the one big party sequence is so low on energy that it resembles a casting call for which the auditioning actors have turned up already in costume. There’s quite a bit of narrative padding and a woeful lack of action. We see rather too much footage of sleek trains speeding through countryside (assisted at times by surprisingly crude computer generation), and there are lingering shots of hilly, verdant landscapes shoehorned into the proceedings to no purpose. (At one point there’s even a close-up of a flower.)

Anyone not familiar with Rand’s novel will likely be baffled by the goings-on here. Characters spend much time hunkered around tables and desks nattering about rail transport, copper-mining, and the oil business. A few of these people are stiffly virtuous (“I’m simply cultivating a society that values individual achievement”), but most are contemptible (“We must act to benefit society”…“a committee has decided”…“We rely on public funding.”) These latter creeps should set our blood boiling, but they’re so cartoonishly one-dimensional that any prospective interest soon slumps. We are initially intrigued by the recurring question, “Who is John Galt?” But since the movie covers only the first third of the novel (a crippling miscalculation), we never really find out, apart from noticing an anonymous figure lurking around the edges of the action, togged out in a trench coat and a rain-soaked fedora like a film-noir flatfoot who’s wandered into an epoch far away from his own.

Rand’s book is set in an unspecified future that bears a startling resemblance to our own here-and-now. There’s a stock-market collapse, much populist demagoguery and union thuggery, and chaos in the Middle East that has driven gas prices to $37 a gallon (which purportedly explains the resuscitation of railroads as the only affordable transport for passengers and freight). The book is set in an unspecified future; the movie relocates the story to the year 2016, but it might as easily have been next week. These sociopolitical similarities might have been more rousing if they had been punched home more boldly. The occasional bursts of TV news footage employed here don’t really do the job.

Although Rand’s novel is well over a thousand pages long, one can’t help wondering if, with a radically compressed script, it couldn’t have been turned into a tightly edited two-and-a-half-hour film—into a real movie, in other words, not just a limply illustrated literary classic. Now we may never know. But this picture is too lusterless to stir much indignation. Instead, it leaves us feeling, in Rand’s words, “the merciless zero of indifference.”

 

[timschochet]

And so I can only conclude that Ayn Rand, if forced to watch this movie, would attempt to dynamite every copy of it in imitation of her hero, Howard Roark.

 

[OC Zed]

A paragraph from the Variety review perfectly encapsulates my feeling about this movie:

this hasty, low-budget adaptation would have Ayn Rand spinning in her grave, considering how it violates the author's philosophy by allowing opportunists to exploit another's creative achievement -- in this case, hers. Targeting roughly 200 screens, pic goes out hitched to a grassroots marketing campaign, hoping to break-even via by-popular-demand bookings and potential Tea Party support.

This is exactly right. Ayn Rand wanted her novel to receive epic treatment (at one point she had the famous screenwriter Sterling Silliphant working with her on the script), not this cheap bastardization, quickly made in a blatant attempt to capitalize on the Tea Party movement. (For what it's worth, I am betting Rand would have hated the Tea Party movement, since she hated all populist movements, and would have regarded its leaders much as she regarded Ronald Reagan, whom she considered the worst president of the 20th century.)

And for what it's worth, I am absolutely 100% sure that Rand would have hated you surmising what her thoughts might be. Please stop.

 

[timschochet]

A paragraph from the Variety review perfectly encapsulates my feeling about this movie:

this hasty, low-budget adaptation would have Ayn Rand spinning in her grave, considering how it violates the author's philosophy by allowing opportunists to exploit another's creative achievement -- in this case, hers. Targeting roughly 200 screens, pic goes out hitched to a grassroots marketing campaign, hoping to break-even via by-popular-demand bookings and potential Tea Party support.

This is exactly right. Ayn Rand wanted her novel to receive epic treatment (at one point she had the famous screenwriter Sterling Silliphant working with her on the script), not this cheap bastardization, quickly made in a blatant attempt to capitalize on the Tea Party movement. (For what it's worth, I am betting Rand would have hated the Tea Party movement, since she hated all populist movements, and would have regarded its leaders much as she regarded Ronald Reagan, whom she considered the worst president of the 20th century.)

And for what it's worth, I am absolutely 100% sure that Rand would have hated you surmising what her thoughts might be. Please stop.

No thanks. People have done this ever since she died, just as they do with all great thinkers. I only wish my comments on this were original, but plenty of people over the last few days have pointed out how horrified she would be by this movie.

 

[KCC]

I can see that this movie has exploded a lot of liberal heads, especially those that review movies for a living.It's not hard to see why. They are reviewing a film about the struggle between the producers of society and the parasitic moochers that live off of their hard work. It's not a stretch to associate that relationship to that of the people that actually create movies and those that leech off of that creative process by being a film reviewer. Essentially, the film reviewers had to sit through an hour and a half of a movie that told them they are worthless without those that actually produce something.Is it a flawed film? Yes. But the central theme of the book is intact within the movie, making it a worthy view.I just caught it in Menomonee Falls and the place was packed. That was good to see, given the intense hatred critics have poured on the film.If you're a conservative and you haven't read the book, I urge you to check this out. Even though the film is based on a book that was written decades ago, many of it's wild predictions parallel the statements and actions of stone cold liberals like Obama.This is a film that kicks liberal attitudes in the teeth. It's a merciless assault on those that want to "spread the wealth around". If you're one of the producers of society, give this movie a watch. It'll make you feel warm inside.

I was a huge fan of the book and have not yet seen the movie. Having said that, the reviews of it have been as bad as I've seen for any movie and I think your idea of a liberal movie-reviewer conspiracy as the sole explanatory mechanism for those poor reviews is

 

[Fensalk]

I can see that this movie has exploded a lot of liberal heads, especially those that review movies for a living.It's not hard to see why. They are reviewing a film about the struggle between the producers of society and the parasitic moochers that live off of their hard work. It's not a stretch to associate that relationship to that of the people that actually create movies and those that leech off of that creative process by being a film reviewer. Essentially, the film reviewers had to sit through an hour and a half of a movie that told them they are worthless without those that actually produce something.

Film reviewers create something. They create interest. They drum up a crowd. Or drive them away. They are essentially part of the PR department of the filmmaking industry.A film producer without a PR department creates a film that no-one sees. Film producers are worthless without PR.One good is tangible (the film) and one is abstract (interest) but both are actually valid goods.

 

[Statorama]

 

[OC Zed]

I saw the film this afternoon. Let me say upfront that I am a giant Ayn Rand fan, so I went into this with a strong positive bias.

I enjoyed the film overall, but I left feeling it could have been so much better. The tiny budget was not an issue. And the no name cast was surprisingly good, particularly Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler as Dagny Taggert and Hank Reardon, respectively... each playing their roles faithfully to the novel. One big detraction about the casting, however - Matthew Marsden feels out of place as James Taggert - Marsden just looks way too good looking and competent to truly play the part. Graham Beckel who plays Ellis Wyatt would have been much better in that role. Beckel (as Timmaaaayy pointed out above) is much older than Wyatt in the book, but for what it's worth, he still plays that role sufficiently.

The major flaw of the film lies in the screenplay. The most appealing elements of the book to present day readers is how prophetic Rand was in the world she created - government's reach causing more and more problems which in turn is used to apply even more government reach. Recreating this world in the movie should have been a layup, but the script and direction ultimately provides for too many scenes with too little dialog and/or too much dialog without enough time to digest what is really going on. Kurt Loder's review posted above discussing that those people not familiar with the novel will be lost in the movie is highly accurate.

A couple other nits about the screenplay and direction... John Galt's presence in the film is somewhat hokey, but still more or less true to the book. Dagny's and Hank's discovery of the motor, however, comes off as very silly and feels almost slapped on to the end of the film.

With all of that being said, the basic gist of the movie comes through. Rand lovers will enjoy it. Rand haters will hate it. People unfamiliar with the book will probably be confused and a little angry at trying to follow what the hell is going on.

 

[saintfool]

maybe "atlas shrugged" would be better suited as a

a kind of serial for the objectivist set.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Sounds like a Harry Potter movie in a "if you've read the book, you'll 'get' it...otherwise you'll be lost/disappointed" sort of way.

 

[saintfool]

Sounds like a Harry Potter movie in a "if you've read the book, you'll 'get' it...otherwise you'll be lost/disappointed" sort of way.

sounds more like Rand fans are just happy to see her work making it to the big screen. it may be bad but at least they didn't take much of any artistic license with it.

 

[OC Zed]

Sounds like a Harry Potter movie in a "if you've read the book, you'll 'get' it...otherwise you'll be lost/disappointed" sort of way.

To a certain degree in terms of getting all of the details and nuances of what is going on. But the general gist of her message is hammered home - only not as well as it could have been.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

They should do a THX-1138 style movie for Rand's "Anthem".

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

From Megan McArdle's review:

And it isn't that Atlas Shrugged couldn't possibly make a good movie. To be sure, it is the size and weight of a pretty solid doorstop, filled with approximately 1 squillion characters, and almost as many sub-plots. But the same could be said of Lord of the Rings, which made a terrific trilogy.

That's the approach that the director took with Atlas Shrugged--the screener I was sent was merely for Part I. I wish I could report that the movie holds out the same kind of promise that the first Lord of the Rings movie did. Unfortunately, it's . . . how do I say this . . . an incoherent mess that put me less in mind of Peter Jackson than Tommy Wisseau. It was a huge mistake to watch it on a laptop; I spent the entire time fighting a nearly overpowering urge to check my email.

I know that some Rand fans who like the movie are going to accuse me of sucking up to my liberal cocktail-party attending friends by unfairly slamming a damn fine film. The sad truth is that I don't attend that many cocktail parties--certainly not as many as the people in this film. Ayn Rand's characters are already so understated as to be nearly wooden--her sensibility was heavily influenced by the "strong but silent" aesthetic of the penny adventure serials of her youth. And in the hands of these actors, they're practically petrified. In lieu of emotions, the entire cast seems to have turned to drink. Half the action takes place over a glass of wine or a tumbler of whiskey. I suppose this is what you have to expect from a roomful of rigid, controlling people who have difficulty speaking about any emotions that don't involve metallurgical studies.

Of course, "action" is a strong word. Most of these scenes consist of people drinking in hotel lobbies, drinking at restaurants, drinking at cocktail parties, and drinking in their bedrooms. In between, they do a little bit of striding purposefully. Also, sometimes they sit behind improbably neat desks. When drama is required, they stand up.

 

[NCCommish]

it sounds like a lot of people here are threatened by Rand's ideas and are hoping with all their might that the film fails, thereby undermining the core philosophy.

I figured I better "put my money where my mouth is" and plunk down a few duckets to check it out. I would urge conservatives to give it a look, if for no other reason than to show hollywood that there is a market for conservative themed films. It's no coincidence that this movie is being portrayed critically like it is. The notion that hollywood might start producing conservative themed films is frightning to the Susan Sarandon crowd.When I went to see it today I was white knuckled in my seat, prepared for the stinkbomb of all time given the reviews I'd read. I was very relieved when it turned out to be a flawed but overall entertaining film with Rand's core message on full display (which is why liberals loathe this movie). I was also heartened that during an April snowstorm (!!!) the place was packed.I for one am looking forward to part two.

I'm not threatened. Her "philosophy" is selfish and juvenile. A perfect fit for the Tea Party I guess but not for thinking adults who are past their me, me, me, stage.BTW all you conservatives should really check out all her thoughts.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I'm not threatened. Her "philosophy" is selfish and juvenile. A perfect fit for the Tea Party I guess but not for thinking adults who are past their me, me, me, stage.

BTW all you conservatives should really check out all her thoughts.

The biggest part of her philosophy is that nobody ever gets past this stage. It's baked in our DNA.

 

[Chaka]

I'm not threatened. Her "philosophy" is selfish and juvenile. A perfect fit for the Tea Party I guess but not for thinking adults who are past their me, me, me, stage.

BTW all you conservatives should really check out all her thoughts.

The biggest part of her philosophy is that nobody ever gets past this stage. It's baked in our DNA.

And the ones doing the me, me, me thing stand on all sides of the political spectrum.

 

[OC Zed]

From Megan McArdle's review:

And it isn't that Atlas Shrugged couldn't possibly make a good movie. To be sure, it is the size and weight of a pretty solid doorstop, filled with approximately 1 squillion characters, and almost as many sub-plots. But the same could be said of Lord of the Rings, which made a terrific trilogy.

That's the approach that the director took with Atlas Shrugged--the screener I was sent was merely for Part I. I wish I could report that the movie holds out the same kind of promise that the first Lord of the Rings movie did. Unfortunately, it's . . . how do I say this . . . an incoherent mess that put me less in mind of Peter Jackson than Tommy Wisseau. It was a huge mistake to watch it on a laptop; I spent the entire time fighting a nearly overpowering urge to check my email.

I know that some Rand fans who like the movie are going to accuse me of sucking up to my liberal cocktail-party attending friends by unfairly slamming a damn fine film. The sad truth is that I don't attend that many cocktail parties--certainly not as many as the people in this film. Ayn Rand's characters are already so understated as to be nearly wooden--her sensibility was heavily influenced by the "strong but silent" aesthetic of the penny adventure serials of her youth. And in the hands of these actors, they're practically petrified. In lieu of emotions, the entire cast seems to have turned to drink. Half the action takes place over a glass of wine or a tumbler of whiskey. I suppose this is what you have to expect from a roomful of rigid, controlling people who have difficulty speaking about any emotions that don't involve metallurgical studies.

Of course, "action" is a strong word. Most of these scenes consist of people drinking in hotel lobbies, drinking at restaurants, drinking at cocktail parties, and drinking in their bedrooms. In between, they do a little bit of striding purposefully. Also, sometimes they sit behind improbably neat desks. When drama is required, they stand up.

I can't say there is much that is inaccurate here, although this was an inherent difficulty in making this film... it's tough creating visual drama over business and political fights. Sword fights between elves and goblins (i.e., Lord of the Rings) is much more compelling on a screen.

 

[timschochet]

From Megan McArdle's review:

And it isn't that Atlas Shrugged couldn't possibly make a good movie. To be sure, it is the size and weight of a pretty solid doorstop, filled with approximately 1 squillion characters, and almost as many sub-plots. But the same could be said of Lord of the Rings, which made a terrific trilogy.

That's the approach that the director took with Atlas Shrugged--the screener I was sent was merely for Part I. I wish I could report that the movie holds out the same kind of promise that the first Lord of the Rings movie did. Unfortunately, it's . . . how do I say this . . . an incoherent mess that put me less in mind of Peter Jackson than Tommy Wisseau. It was a huge mistake to watch it on a laptop; I spent the entire time fighting a nearly overpowering urge to check my email.

I know that some Rand fans who like the movie are going to accuse me of sucking up to my liberal cocktail-party attending friends by unfairly slamming a damn fine film. The sad truth is that I don't attend that many cocktail parties--certainly not as many as the people in this film. Ayn Rand's characters are already so understated as to be nearly wooden--her sensibility was heavily influenced by the "strong but silent" aesthetic of the penny adventure serials of her youth. And in the hands of these actors, they're practically petrified. In lieu of emotions, the entire cast seems to have turned to drink. Half the action takes place over a glass of wine or a tumbler of whiskey. I suppose this is what you have to expect from a roomful of rigid, controlling people who have difficulty speaking about any emotions that don't involve metallurgical studies.

Of course, "action" is a strong word. Most of these scenes consist of people drinking in hotel lobbies, drinking at restaurants, drinking at cocktail parties, and drinking in their bedrooms. In between, they do a little bit of striding purposefully. Also, sometimes they sit behind improbably neat desks. When drama is required, they stand up.

I can't say there is much that is inaccurate here, although this was an inherent difficulty in making this film... it's tough creating visual drama over business and political fights. Sword fights between elves and goblins (i.e., Lord of the Rings) is much more compelling on a screen.

I disagree with this. Conversation can be very compelling and dramatic. But one of the problems with the film is that they dumbed it down. Take the confrontation, for example, between Dagny and Dr. Robert Stadler. In this book this is one of the best early scenes IMO. In this movie they cut it to 30 seconds, and had a guy playing Stadler which made no sense.

 

[saintfool]

From Megan McArdle's review:

And it isn't that Atlas Shrugged couldn't possibly make a good movie. To be sure, it is the size and weight of a pretty solid doorstop, filled with approximately 1 squillion characters, and almost as many sub-plots. But the same could be said of Lord of the Rings, which made a terrific trilogy.

That's the approach that the director took with Atlas Shrugged--the screener I was sent was merely for Part I. I wish I could report that the movie holds out the same kind of promise that the first Lord of the Rings movie did. Unfortunately, it's . . . how do I say this . . . an incoherent mess that put me less in mind of Peter Jackson than Tommy Wisseau. It was a huge mistake to watch it on a laptop; I spent the entire time fighting a nearly overpowering urge to check my email.

I know that some Rand fans who like the movie are going to accuse me of sucking up to my liberal cocktail-party attending friends by unfairly slamming a damn fine film. The sad truth is that I don't attend that many cocktail parties--certainly not as many as the people in this film. Ayn Rand's characters are already so understated as to be nearly wooden--her sensibility was heavily influenced by the "strong but silent" aesthetic of the penny adventure serials of her youth. And in the hands of these actors, they're practically petrified. In lieu of emotions, the entire cast seems to have turned to drink. Half the action takes place over a glass of wine or a tumbler of whiskey. I suppose this is what you have to expect from a roomful of rigid, controlling people who have difficulty speaking about any emotions that don't involve metallurgical studies.

Of course, "action" is a strong word. Most of these scenes consist of people drinking in hotel lobbies, drinking at restaurants, drinking at cocktail parties, and drinking in their bedrooms. In between, they do a little bit of striding purposefully. Also, sometimes they sit behind improbably neat desks. When drama is required, they stand up.

this is why i think it looks like a daytime soap opera.

 

[pantagrapher]

Twelve days after opening “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film.“Critics, you won,” said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1,” which covers the first third of Rand’s dystopian novel. “I’m having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2.”“Atlas Shrugged” was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film’s second week in release even as “Atlas Shrugged” expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.***“Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?” Aglialoro said. “I’ll make my money back and I’ll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike.”

 

[Chaka]

Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film."Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2.""Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.***"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I'll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."

Similar shouting down by the mob happened with the Golden Compass.Then again both movies aren't very well done and probably wouldn't be worthy of sequels based on their theatrical merits (or lack thereof).I wonder why atheists didn't do something similar with Chronicles of Narnia, which are also pretty awful films.

 

[El Floppo]

Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film."Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2.""Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.***"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I'll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."

Similar shouting down by the mob happened with the Golden Compass.Then again both movies aren't very well done and probably wouldn't be worthy of sequels based on their theatrical merits (or lack thereof).I wonder why atheists didn't do something similar with Chronicles of Narnia, which are also pretty awful films.

I enjoyed the first one.

 

[Chaka]

Twelve days after opening "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," the producer of the Ayn Rand adaptation said Tuesday that he is reconsidering his plans to make Parts 2 and 3 because of scathing reviews and flagging box office returns for the film."Critics, you won," said John Aglialoro, the businessman who spent 18 years and more than $20 million of his own money to make, distribute and market "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1," which covers the first third of Rand's dystopian novel. "I'm having deep second thoughts on why I should do Part 2.""Atlas Shrugged" was the top-grossing limited release in its opening weekend, generating $1.7 million on 299 screens and earning a respectable $5,640 per screen. But the the box office dropped off 47% in the film's second week in release even as "Atlas Shrugged" expanded to 425 screens, and the movie seemed to hold little appeal for audiences beyond the core group of Rand fans to whom it was marketed.***"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?" Aglialoro said. "I'll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."

Similar shouting down by the mob happened with the Golden Compass.Then again both movies aren't very well done and probably wouldn't be worthy of sequels based on their theatrical merits (or lack thereof).I wonder why atheists didn't do something similar with Chronicles of Narnia, which are also pretty awful films.

I enjoyed the first one.

It was still mediocre film, no better than GC. The difference is one has a built in audience of hundreds of millions of people and the other was actively and vehemently campaigned against. I think Atlas Shrugged is getting similar treatment.I wonder how many people chose not to see it because they heard it was a whacko tea-party movie? Or went into it with a similarly predefined opinion?

 

[timschochet]

Prior to the Lord of the Rings live action films being made, there was an animated version over 20 years earlier.

This gives me hope that someday, someone will do another version of Atlas Shrugged, either for the big screen or as a television drama (ala Pillars of the Earth.) The way to properly do this film is, instead of updating it as a cheap means to make a quick buck off the Tea Party, to place it where it properly belongs, in the 1950s, except in a fantasized 1950s that meets the vision of the novel. This will give the film an extraordinary look and feel. Then, rather than skim quickly through Rand's dialogue as this film does, repeat that dialogue in depth, in order to make the characters real and interesting.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is from early April, but I don't think it's been linked to in this thread: P.J. O'Rourke's review.

Atlas shrugged. And so did I.

P.J. O’Rourke

APRIL 6, 2011

The movie version of Ayn Rand’s novel treats its source material with such formal, reverent ceremoniousness that the uninitiated will feel they’ve wandered without a guide into the midst of the elaborate and interminable rituals of some obscure exotic tribe.

Meanwhile, members of that tribe of “Atlas Shrugged” fans will be wondering why director Paul Johansson doesn’t knock it off with the incantations, sacraments and recitations of liturgy and cut to the human sacrifice.

Upright railroad-heiress heroine Dagny Taggart and upright steel-magnate hero Hank Rearden are played with a great deal of uprightness (and one brief interlude of horizontality) by Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler. They indicate that everything they say is important by not using contractions. John Galt, the shadowy genius who’s convincing the people who carry the world on their shoulders to go out on strike, is played, as far as I can tell, by a raincoat.

The rest of the movie’s acting is borrowed from “Dallas,” although the absence of Larry Hagman’s skill at subtly underplaying villainous roles is to be regretted. Staging and action owe a debt to “Dynasty”—except, on “Dynasty,” there usually was action.

In “Atlas Shrugged–Part I” a drink is tossed, strong words are bandied, legal papers are served, more strong words are further bandied and, finally, near the end, an oil field is set on fire, although we don’t get to see this up close. There are many beautiful panoramas of the Rocky Mountains for no particular reason. And the movie’s title carries the explicit threat of a sequel.

But I will not pan “Atlas Shrugged.” I don’t have the guts. If you associate with Randians—and I do—saying anything critical about Ayn Rand is almost as scary as saying anything critical to Ayn Rand. What’s more, given how protective Randians are of Rand, I’m not sure she’s dead.

The woman is a force. But, let us not forget, she’s a force for good. Millions of people have read “Atlas Shrugged” and been brought around to common sense, never mind that the author and her characters don’t exhibit much of it. Ayn Rand, perhaps better than anyone in the 20th century, understood that the individual self-seeking we call an evil actually stands in noble contrast to the real evil of self-seeking collectives. (A rather Randian sentence.) It’s easy to make fun of Rand for being a simplistic philosopher, bombastic writer and—I’m just saying—crazy old bat. But the 20th century was no joke. A hundred years, from Bolsheviks to Al Qaeda, were spent proving Ayn Rand right.

Then there is the audacity of bringing “Atlas Shrugged” to the screen at all. Rand devotees, starting with Rand herself, have been attempting it for 40 years. The result may be as puzzling as a nude sit-in anti-Gadhafi protest in Tripoli’s Green Square, but you have to give the participants credit for showing up.

In “Atlas Shrugged” Rand set out to prove that self-interest is vital to mankind. This, of course, is the whole point of free-market classical liberalism and has been since Adam Smith invented free-market classical liberalism by proving the same point. Therefore trying to make a movie of “Atlas Shrugged” is like trying to make a movie of “The Wealth of Nations.” But Adam Smith had the good sense to leave us with no plot, characters or melodramatic clashes of will so that we wouldn’t be tempted to try.

“Atlas Shrugged” presents other problems for a moviemaker. The book was published in 1957 and set in an America of the future. But time seems to have taken a U-turn, so that we’re back in a worse Great Depression with a more megalomaniacal business competition-loathing FDR-type administration. All sorts of things have been uninvented, such as oil pipelines so that oil has to be shipped by rail, railroads being the dominant form of transportation. Airplanes exist, but knowing where to fly them apparently doesn’t, because a secret hidden unknown valley in the Rocky Mountains figures in the plot, which also hinges on a substance that’s lighter and stronger than steel. This turns out to be a revolutionary new steel alloy! Because Rand forgot about plastics.

The “Atlas Shrugged” movie simply accepts these unimaginative imaginings. No attempt is made to create a “future of the past” atmosphere as in the movies about Batman (a very unRandian figure, trapped in his altruism costume drama). Nor is any attempt made to update Rand’s tale of Titans of Industry versus Gargantuas of government.

An update is needed, and not just because train buffs, New Deal economics and the miracle of the Bessemer converter are inexplicable to people under 50, not to mention boring. The anti-individualist enemies that Ayn Rand battled are still the enemy, but they’ve shifted their line of attack. Political collectivists are no longer much interested in taking things away from the wealthy and creative. Even the most left-wing politicians worship wealth creation—as the political-action-committee collection plate is passed. Partners at Goldman Sachs go forth with their billions. Steve Jobs walks on water. Jay-Z and Beyoncé are rich enough to buy God. Progressive Robin Hoods have turned their attention to robbing ordinary individuals. It’s the plain folks, not a Taggart/Rearden elite, whose prospects and opportunities are stolen by corrupt school systems, health-care rationing, public employee union extortions, carbon-emissions payola and deficit-debt burden graft. Today’s collectivists are going after malefactors of moderate means.

Hence the Tea Party, and Ayn Rand is invited. Not for nothing is Kentucky Senator Paul named Rand. The premise of “Atlas Shrugged” applies to every maker in a world of takers. What if, pace Adam Smith, the takers do indeed expect their dinner “from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker”? And what if the Safeway meat-cutter, the beer-truck driver, and the guy who owns the Dunkin’ Donuts franchise say to hell with “their regard to their own interest”? What if they go off with John Galt to a secret hidden unknown valley in the Rocky Mountains? A lot of people will be chewing air and drinking puddle water.

“Atlas Shrugged–Part I” has to be praised just for existing, for keeping the premise available. Perhaps Hollywood progressives—inveterate takers—will take it. Many another movie could be made about a labor action by those who perform life’s actual labors. Maybe it’s a slacker comedy where Zach Galifianakis shaves, loses weight and refuses to speak in non sequiturs. Maybe it’s a sci-fi thriller where the Internet has gone on strike and mankind must face a post-apocalyptic world without Twitter. Or maybe it’s a horror film set at my house, “Wife on Strike!”

 

[pantagrapher]

WOOOOHOOOOOOOO!

 

[saintfool]

WOOOOHOOOOOOOO!

From the comments:

Jefferson said: "Mankind are more disposed to suffer evils while evils are sufferable than right the institutions to which they have become accustomed." At what point will it become obvious our only recourse is resistance?

to which i replied:

But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]

 

[jdoggydogg]

WOOOOHOOOOOOOO!

From the comments:

Jefferson said: "Mankind are more disposed to suffer evils while evils are sufferable than right the institutions to which they have become accustomed." At what point will it become obvious our only recourse is resistance?

to which i replied:

But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

[Leads the Deltas out of the hearing, all humming the Star-Spangled Banner]

Talking trash about an Ayn Rand movie. Dork alert!