Impressions on First Seeing the Atlas Shrugged Movie

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Impressions on First Seeing the Atlas Shrugged Movie

Kat and I went this afternoon to see the opening of the Atlas Shrugged movie. Right here in Leftie-ville USA (Evanston, Il.). The house was about a third full for a five o'clock showing. Not bad for Leftie-ville.

Kat loved the movie. Sean (her son and my stepson who is lightly autistic) was with us and enjoyed it, too. He wanted to know why the logo on the poster was not in the film. Good question--one I never would think to ask. I had to elaborate quite a response to put it in terms that made sense to him. Having a child like that can be such a blessing... it keeps you on your toes mentally.

Anyway, I suppose this is a review, but inside, it feels to me more like some impressions I am sharing with friends. I have been waiting too long for this movie--and Atlas Shrugged has been too much of an impact on my life--for me to immediately come out and say, "I just saw the movie and here's my review," as if I were some kind of intellectual presenting my learned wisdom. I'm more in a state of gratitude and mind racing than wishing to show off my erudition.

But before I give any of my thoughts, let me heartily recommend this movie. Go see it. I mean it. They did a great job.

Did I say go see it?

Well, what are you waiting for?

Now, on with the show.

Obviously, my internal movie screen where I had seen Atlas Shrugged countless times before had many, many parts that were different than what I just saw on the real movie screen. I'm still assimilating and sorting out the differences as I write. At this point, all I can say is what I liked about the movie and what I didn't, both as a fan and as an artist. I definitely am not in the shoes of a movie critic right now. I'm just in my own.

What I liked

Here are some random thoughts about what stood out in no particular order.

One of Rand's characteristics as an artist is that she comes up with great gimmicks (and I mean that in a good sense of artistic competence). "Who is John Galt?" is one of them. I thought Dagny's increasing perplexity and irritation when constantly coming across the question was perfect. The timing was spot on from where I sat. When she finally announced to Jim that the new train line would be called The John Galt Line, briefly fishing for the term, then suddenly hitting on it with an amused defiant smile, it felt 100% right.

I don't know who came up with the reason for relying on train transportation in 2016--Middle East oil crisis allied to an economic meltdown and degradation of oil-dependent industries. That was sheer genius.

I liked the way the relationship between Dagny and Hank came from her--and grew from her--more than from him. He was a correct married man of his word and stayed true to his character until the point of no return. Even though this development line differed a bit from the way Rand did it, there was consistency and logic.

It was charming to see how Dagny's eyes lit up provocatively when she told Readon she would be going to his 10th wedding anniversary. At the party, I was at first shocked that she was the prompter in getting Lillian to exchange the Rearden metal bracelet for her diamond necklace (in the book, Lillian was being smarmy and Dagny called her on it). But then I thought about the plot through-line of Dagny being attracted to Rearden and going after him, and it made sense for advancing the plot. At the point of the exchange, Dagny was making a play to get Rearden's attention just as much as she was making a gesture of respect.

Some Rand fans might not like the idea that Dagny offered herself to Francisco as a last resort to get a loan from him for the John Galt Line, but I thought it worked well.

The producers and writers cleared up the perpetual motion problem for Galt's motor--which has been bashed for years as impossible by the more literal-minded--by introducing a more plausible sounding scientific approach (atmospheric vacuum or something).

Some of the photography was stunning, especially the long-shots of nature--the mountains, the final burning wall of oil wells. That sounds almost un-Objectivist, but it gave me a thrill as I thought about the taming effect much smaller human beings have on such vastness.

The opening sequence painting the world as a mess was not what I would call super-impressive or even emotionally troubling, but it did competently set the stage for the movie. More importantly, it was not boring, as sequences like that usually are (to me, at least), nor was it a prop to play a pop song.

The politicians and crony capitalists were excellent. People complained about James Taggart being too young, but he looked just like a snotty spoiled millionaire young man right out of college--the kind that goes into politics. I found him very good after I got over the shock--I have seen James as bland, older and heavy-set on my inner movie screen for years.

What I didn't like

There was too much booze flowing throughout the film. I know, I'm suspect--I'm supposed to feel that way because of my former alcoholism. Believe me, I've thought about it. But I'm pretty sure this is not the basis of my inner dislike. I'm thinking as an artist.

The booze was featured prominently in so many scenes that it called attention to itself. It's always there in social settings. That means it should be a symbol or have some deeper meaning. I can't think of any other than it's just an arbitrary detail. That being so, there were too many close-ups on filling glasses, etc. At least I hope the production got some merchandising product placement money from advertisers. I found it to be a distraction. (But I can think of some folks in our subcommunity who might find it to be a virtue.)

There's an emotional pacing problem I didn't like. This made it seem like the acting was bland when it actually was not. I thought the acting was quite good overall. The emotional pacing comes more from the director and script than the actor, although I suspect a great actor makes sure it is there come hell or high-water. I believe the emotional pacing could have been vastly improved without detracting one iota from the philosophical message or plot.

To show what I mean, I will give an example of how they did one emotional sequence super-right. At the end, when Dagny is in the diner and sees the TV news report of Wyatt's oil field explosions, she is at first shocked, like anyone would be who had so much at stake. You can almost see her swallow the shock and fear and become numb as she rushed to the scene. But then you see her mounting fear and concern as she can't find Wyatt in his house, then growing as she went to see the fields burning, and this escalated to outrage and agony in one hell of a classic "Nooooooooo!" Then acceptance slowly started appearing on her face, but just slightly.

In other words, Dagny's underlying emotional through-line for the sequence (which runs in counterpoint to the action through-line) is shock --> numbed control --> increasing fear and concern --> outburst of agony and outrage --> beginning of acceptance.

That feels right. It's satisfying. It makes the story important on a deeper level than just the action and ideas.

Most of the scenes were emotionally understated, that is true, so there were not too many occasions for leading up to outbursts. But you don't need outbursts, just plausible and noticeable change. Actually, emotional understatement works well when there is emotional pacing. But if the sequence is static and understated, it comes off as bland. What I mean by static is a scene starts and ends with the main character of the scene feeling essentially the same thing.

A good example is the scene near the beginning of the movie where Hank comes home and gives his wife the bracelet of Rearden metal. He was distant and emotionally not there--not feeling hardly anything at all about where he was at or who he was with--at the beginning of the scene. And he was still feeling the same thing when his brother asked him to wire some money so his name would not go on the donation. The only change was a sudden, very light and distant, "You're kidding?" That was not enough for an emotional progression. His basic response to being insulted was just to turn away and stay distant.

Obviously, his indifference to them was the point, but here's a suggestion about what I mean (not a great one as it's coming off the top of my head, but it is emotional pacing). Since Rearden ended up looking at some report, he could have had a growing interest in thinking about some work problem to counterpoint with a growing distancing from acknowledging his family as their insults became more pointed. Say, he could have been reminded he was being talked to and responded with a "Huh? What were you saying?" or something like that as he became more lost in thought, with an appropriate sarcastic reaction from Lillian.

I think he actually did make some gesture in that ballpark when he was behind his desk and his brother came over, but it was because he picked up the report and started reading, not because he moved emotionally from one state to another. Emotionally, he was already there. He was still the same at that moment as when he showed up and walked through the door or when he gave the bracelet to Lillian. Static.

Rand always portrayed emotional pacing beautifully--in the book version of the scene under discussion, Rearden had a growing weariness and kept thinking, "What do they want from me?" The emotions constantly ebbed and flowed and transformed into others.

I could go through scene by scene and come up with similar observations, but I won't. My intention is to state an observation from an artistic view, not bash the film, which, once again, was very, very good as a whole. Anyway, this static emotional pacing is what I believe the critics are referring to when some of them say the acting was bland.

As I hinted before, there were some emotional through-lines that came off very well, the best being Dagny's increasing sexual attraction to Rearden. Graham Beckel as Wyatt just popped up in my mind. He actually did a good job in changing his emotions within a scene.

The static emotion pacing problem led to something else I missed--suspense. When I read the book, I couldn't put it down. I had to know what happend next, even on a second and third and fourth read. I didn't get that feeling in the movie except for a few isolated times. Most of the time, the scenes were somewhat interesting and that's all, not take-you-and-shake-you-up adrenaline rushes.

I also missed Ayn Rand's sassy put-downs. But I also am ambivalent about them in the book. Sometimes I think she's just being a smart-ass qua smart-ass. But she could set them up well. I wish the movie had done a few zingers. This is definitely a softer gentler interpretation of the story than the book. The only way in the movie to deal with wanting to see some sassy insults is to keep wanting.

Anyway, there is a good part to the low emotional scale. One of the best ways to stand out is be different. Since the Obama administration has created an enormous context for this film to stand out, and people are publicly bickering bitterly with some of the nastiest vitriol I have ever seen, being one more nasty-mouth is just being one more. The Atlas Shrugged movie is different emotionally than a normal Hollywood film, and it is extremely low-key compared to all the yelling in our culture, so that might end up being a plus for getting the political/philosophical message across to the public at large. In a backwards way, the emotional moderation makes the film memorable.

A note about the public reaction

On Rotten Tomatoes as of this writing, on a scale of 100 best and zero worst, it got a 6 critic rating (out of 18 reviews) and an 86 public rating (out of 6,291 user ratings).

I read some other reviews, too. Since the critics are going after Atlas Shrugged so hard and with such venom, I feel good about the film's prospects for success over the long haul. If the leftie critics were lukewarm, I would be worried. That would be an indication that the movie was a turkey to them and not worth their concern. As you can read in review after review, it is an object of their spite and hatred, almost increasingly so as time goes on. That means it hit the mark big-time.

Final note

These comments are far from complete. I will probably add more later on in the thread as my thoughts ripen. I'm still under the impact of seeing something I have wanted to see exist for years.

So please take my comments in the spirit of me thinking out loud, as saying what I, myself, would have done (both good and bad) had I been doing a movie (and what I will be doing in my own works since I am starting to write fiction), not as saying that I know better than the AS film people how they should have made their film.

They did a magnificent job and my hat is off to them. I am extremely grateful that they pulled it off and pulled it off well.

John Aglialoro is my hero.

That's just the way it is. You know...

Who is John Aglialoro?

Michael

[GALTGULCH8]

I haven't seen the film yet but will go to see it today with my wife who insisted that I wait to see it for the first time with her. I had wanted to see the film after I got out of work Friday evening as it was showing an hour after I punch out about half way home on an interstate. I decided to stop at the theater to find out if anyone showed up to see the movie at all. The manager said he was pleased with the turnout. In a 126 seat theater it was half full with about 62 people to see it in the evening. There were a smaller number to see it earlier in the afternoon showings as well. He said if it keeps up at that pace it will continue to be shown. If not it is only showing one week at a time.

I appreciate your comments, Michael. I wish you had wondered aloud whether you think it presented in such a way that people not familiar with the book and Ayn Rand's philosophy would be made aware that Rand offers an understanding of what is going on in our country today. Was there enough to entice anyone seeing the movie to read the book?

Do you suspect that those who saw the movie will be likely to recommend it to those they meet or to their friends and family and coworkers?

gulch

[Philip Coates]

Michael's really excellent lead off review is one of the better posts I've read on OL in a long time! Even though off the top of his head, it is developed at some length and shows a great deal of thought. He makes many interesing points about the movie and he comments on it from several different angles, not just focusing on one aspect.

(For some of us, these sort of detailed analyses are so much more valuable than the 'chat list style' of lazy one-liners that too many posters regularly rise out of their torpor to offer.)

I'll look for some of the things he mentions when I see the movie to see if I agree, and I'll be interested in his further comments.

Michael, yours is also one of the more developed, fleshed out reviews of the movie I've seen anywhere, pro or con.

Thanks!

[jriggenbach]

Michael's really excellent lead off review is one of the better posts I've read on OL in a long time! Even though off the top of his head, it is developed at some length and shows a great deal of thought. He makes many interesing points about the movie and he comments on it from several different angles, not just focusing on one aspect.

(For some of us, these sort of detailed analyses are so much more valuable than the 'chat list style' of lazy one-liners that too many posters regularly rise out of their torpor to offer.)

I'll look for some of the things he mentions when I see the movie to see if I agree, and I'll be interested in his further comments.

Michael, yours is also one of the more developed, fleshed out reviews of the movie I've seen anywhere, pro or con.

Thanks!

Excuse me, but I just rose out of my torpor to offer the following lazy one-liner:

Ready?

Now that Michael has shown himself to be such a thoughtful poster, I guess I'm going to have to insult and vilify him until he either leaves the list or stops posting. It's damned unpleasant work, let me tell you, but it seems to me somebody has got to do it.

JR

[Jerry Biggers]

I haven't seen the film yet but will go to see it today with my wife who insisted that I wait to see it for the first time with her. I had wanted to see the film after I got out of work Friday evening as it was showing an hour after I punch out about half way home on an interstate. I decided to stop at the theater to find out if anyone showed up to see the movie at all. The manager said he was pleased with the turnout. In a 126 seat theater it was half full with about 62 people to see it in the evening. There were a smaller number to see it earlier in the afternoon showings as well. He said if it keeps up at that pace it will continue to be shown. If not it is only showing one week at a time.

I appreciate your comments, Michael. I wish you had wondered aloud whether you think it presented in such a way that people not familiar with the book and Ayn Rand's philosophy would be made aware that Rand offers an understanding of what is going on in our country today. Was there enough to entice anyone seeing the movie to read the book?

Do you suspect that those who saw the movie will be likely to recommend it to those they meet or to their friends and family and coworkers?

gulch

Well, that's the real question, isn't it? Not what Rand admirers think about it. Not what the committed leftists think. But how will the rest of the movie going public - those that are not familiar with Rand and have not read her books - react to this movie?

I must confess that I have no idea. I have been intrigued with the book since around 1963, so I am too close to be able to guess how it will be viewd by the non-Rand reading public. Roger Ebert, who predictably despised the film, thinks (hopes) that it will be unintelligible to those not familiar with the book. Whether that estimate will turn out to be prophetic, or merely his own unfulfilled wish, I do not know.

It may take a while to determine the answer to that question, since independent, low budget films have to gain momentum, since they do not have the advantage of opening simultaneously on a thousand-plus screens. And that may also mean that many people might be interested in seeing it on the big screen, but will not be able to. In that case, they will wait for the DVD, and then we'll have to see how many buy it. And then there's the cable TV/satellite/pay-per-view routes for other TV viewing.

Another thing that the movie may have going for it: just like the book, the critics hate the movie with a passion. The intensity of that kind of response probably spurred the continued growth and popularity of the novel. Maybe the movie will get a similar response.

[9thdoctor]

I just saw it, the 11:30 AM showing in South Miami. There were about 20 people there, including one very annoying ringer. She cackled and/or commented about every 60 seconds, I got up and moved to get as far away as possible after about 20 minutes. She put me in a pretty bad mood, but I don’t think it colored my evaluation too much. She was the only other person who stayed to the end of the credits, and she cooed “oooh, Nathaniel Branden” when his name went by. Folks, dear readers, please don’t act like this woman.

Anyway, my feeling is of generalized disappointment. Some specifics: I hated the John Galt as The Shadow aspect, that was a total cringe inducer. I felt Francisco’s dialogue in his scene with Rearden was too “on the nose” as they say in screenwriting circles, and the transformation Francisco is supposed to undergo as he starts the conversation didn’t register. I didn’t like the bracelet exchange scene, I don’t understand why they didn’t stick to the book for that. Lillian should be publicly mocking it, joking about how no one will exchange diamonds for it, and then Dagny calls her on it. Why forgo such a dramatic scene? Then the seduction/sex scene, it was way too tame, ridiculous even, Rearden asks her for a kiss? Didn’t he get an “engraved invitation” back during the bracelet scene? In the book, first he rips her clothes off, then Rand gives the scene a little fig leaf that she didn’t give us in The Fountainhead:

He stood looking down at her naked body, he leaned over, she heard his voice—it was more a statement of contemptuous triumph than a question: "You want it?" Her answer was more a gasp than a word, her eyes closed, her mouth open: "Yes."

Well, I could go on and on, and I’m one of those people who really wants to like this movie. And it wasn’t a total train wreck. Speaking of which, during the run of the John Galt line, the ride in the conductor’s cabin sure was smooth. A little shaky camera action would have helped keep the tension up.

What I didn't like

There was too much booze flowing throughout the film. I know, I'm suspect--I'm supposed to feel that way because of my former alcoholism. Believe me, I've thought about it. But I'm pretty sure this is not the basis of my inner dislike. I'm thinking as an artist.

The booze was featured prominently in so many scenes that it called attention to itself. It's always there in social settings. That means it should be a symbol or have some deeper meaning. I can't think of any other than it's just an arbitrary detail. That being so, there were too many close-ups on filling glasses, etc. At least I hope the production got some merchandising product placement money from advertisers. I found it to be a distraction. (But I can think of some folks in our subcommunity who might find it to be a virtue.)

I thought the booze imagery made sense, did you notice the only time anyone really seemed to be enjoying their drinks? The Ellis/Hank/Dagny scene. Besides then, everyone’s getting drunk and busy evading.

The only product placement I noticed was a Dell computer monitor.

[Peter]

I am not going to read this thread quite yet. Yahoo had a front page news story about AS, and it is number three in ticket sales. 86 percent of those who saw it and who were polled, liked the movie. Roger Ebert did not.

Peter Taylor

[jriggenbach]

I just saw it, the 11:30 AM showing in South Miami. There were about 20 people there, including one very annoying ringer. She cackled and/or commented about every 60 seconds, I got up and moved to get as far away as possible after about 20 minutes. She put me in a pretty bad mood, but I don't think it colored my evaluation too much.

This is why I don't go to theatres.

JR

[Xray]

Obviously, my internal movie screen where I had seen Atlas Shrugged countless times before had many, many parts that were different than what I just saw on the real movie screen.

This is a frequent experience when we have read the book before seeing the film, and if we have a strong emotional connection to the book, the disappointment can be quite substantial.

The worst experience I have had in this respect was with the 1958 film version of The Brothers Karamasov.

I don't know who came up with the reason for relying on train transportation in 2016--Middle East oil crisis allied to an economic meltdown and degradation of oil-dependent industries. That was sheer genius.

I asked myself how the filmmakers would manage to convincingly "sell" train transportation in this modern film version.

This is an ingenious idea indeed.

There was too much booze flowing throughout the film. I know, I'm suspect--I'm supposed to feel that way because of my former alcoholism. Believe me, I've thought about it. But I'm pretty sure this is not the basis of my inner dislike. I'm thinking as an artist.

The booze was featured prominently in so many scenes that it called attention to itself. It's always there in social settings. That means it should be a symbol or have some deeper meaning. I can't think of any other than it's just an arbitrary detail. That being so, there were too many close-ups on filling glasses, etc. At least I hope the production got some merchandising product placement money from advertisers. I found it to be a distraction. (But I can think of some folks in our subcommunity who might find it to be a virtue.)

In his review of the film, Roger Ebert comments on the abundance of alcohol:

"More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs." (Roger Ebert)

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20110414%2FREVIEWS%2F110419990

While alcohol plays almost no role in the novel (the protagonists are quite frugal in this respect), nicotine does. Does the movie show the protagonists smoking a lot?

Edited April 16, 2011 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

This is why I don't go to theatres.

Early matinees are usually less well attended, the blue/gray hair types attend then, they’re supposed to have better manners. And they do have better manners, but it only takes one loudmouth to ruin things. So you won’t be going to see it at all?

While alcohol plays almost no role in the novel (the protagonists are quite frugal in this respect), nicotine does. Does the movie show the protagonists smoking a lot?

There's very little smoking, Mouch smokes a cigar, and Hugh Akston has a dollar sign cigarette. The actor who played Akston was a very odd choice, he looked like a washed-up surfer/stoner in his mid-40’s.

[jriggenbach]

This is why I don't go to theatres.

Early matinees are usually less well attended, the blue/gray hair types attend then, they're supposed to have better manners. And they do have better manners, but it only takes one loudmouth to ruin things. So you won't be going to see it at all?

Yet, in a matinee attended by fewer than two dozen people, you had to pay to put up with the lump of talking excrement you described.

No, though the recent expansion of venues did bring it to Houston and vicinity, after thinking about it, I decided I'll wait for its release on DVD or as a download. I'm betting that'll happen by Xmas.

JR

[Philip Coates]

> I decided I'll wait for its release on DVD or as a download. I'm betting that'll happen by Xmas.

Jeff, I trust you won't let not having seen the movie stop you from commenting on how my review [once I've seen the movie and posted some comments] would not represent a view that would be shared by anyone who was sophisticated or expert in the areas of movie-making, literature, the arts, philosophy, acting, and/or cinematography.

[jriggenbach]

> I decided I'll wait for its release on DVD or as a download. I'm betting that'll happen by Xmas.

Jeff, I trust you won't let not having seen the movie stop you from commenting on how my review [once I've seen the movie and posted some comments] would not represent a view that would be shared by anyone who was sophisticated or expert in the areas of movie-making, literature, the arts, philosophy, acting, and/or cinematography.

Not having expert knowledge of "movie-making . . . acting, and/or cinematography," I couldn't be sure what view would most likely be adopted toward any particular film by a person who did have such expert knowledge. When I find myself in such a position, I generally make no comment. I know that you prefer to blunder forward with great confidence in such circumstances and then angrily defend your supposed expert knowledge if it happens to be questioned by someone who knows more than you do about the subject at hand, but I don't favor that approach myself. Though I admit that the common human flaw of pride sometimes defeats me here as it does others, I prefer to try not to claim knowledge I don't actually have, not to atttempt to pass myself off as knowledgeable about subjects I have only passing familiarity with, and to confine my comments to subjects I actually know something about.

JR

[9thdoctor]

No, though the recent expansion of venues did bring it to Houston and vicinity, after thinking about it, I decided I'll wait for its release on DVD or as a download. I'm betting that'll happen by Xmas.

Ah, c'mon, you'll be that much better equipped to give Phil his due. Make an exception. Take a field trip.

[George H. Smith]

No, though the recent expansion of venues did bring it to Houston and vicinity, after thinking about it, I decided I'll wait for its release on DVD or as a download. I'm betting that'll happen by Xmas.

Ah, c'mon, you'll be that much better equipped to give Phil his due. Make an exception. Take a field trip.

Atlas Shrugged is scheduled to premiere in Bloomington on the same day as jazz concerts, lectures on libertarianism, and other intellectual/cultural events that interest me.

I'm not sure when this very special day -- known as When Hell Freezes Over Day -- will arrive. But until it does, I will happily contribute my thoughts about a film I have not yet seen.

Ghs

[Selene]

Eden PrairieBUY TICKETS

GOOGLE MAPAMC Eden Prairie Mall 18

8251 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344

looks like seven miles west of you on 494? no?

[Jonathan]

Eden PrairieBUY TICKETS

GOOGLE MAPAMC Eden Prairie Mall 18

8251 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55344

looks like seven miles west of you on 494? no?

George is in Illinois, Adam. Different Bloomington.

J

[Jonathan]

My wife and I attended a matinee showing yesterday, and we both thought the film was very good. We thought that most of the actors effectively delivered a sense of who their characters were, including those who didn't have all that much time on-screen -- for example, we thought that within only a few seconds, Rebecca Wisocky's demeanor established who and what Lillian was, and Graham Beckel did the same with his portrayal of Wyatt.

The only thing that really seemed seriously out of place and poorly done was the shadowy-figured, Batman-voiced handling of John Galt, but I think even that could have worked if Galt's lines had been better crafted.

After we talked about the film over dinner, we came home and I looked up some of the reviews online, and saw that Roger Ebert had made fun of what he took to be the film's "beautiful landscape photography of the deserts of Wisconsin." It sounds as if he's referring to the scenery which was shown when Dagny and Hank were leaving Colorado for Wisconsin. Apparently Ebert believes that when characters are shown traveling, all of the scenery must be of their destination and none of the region that they're leaving. What a dipshit.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Thanks for the gush.

I have an urge to make some quip, but I notice I never say thank you to you plain and simple.

So it's just thank you.

From the heart.

Michael

[Xray]

This is why I don't go to theatres.

Early matinees are usually less well attended, the blue/gray hair types attend then, they're supposed to have better manners. And they do have better manners, but it only takes one loudmouth to ruin things. So you won't be going to see it at all?

Yet, in a matinee attended by fewer than two dozen people, you had to pay to put up with the lump of talking excrement you described.

No, though the recent expansion of venues did bring it to Houston and vicinity, after thinking about it, I decided I'll wait for its release on DVD or as a download. I'm betting that'll happen by Xmas.

JR

People who disturb a performance by always commenting or noisily rustling the cellophane paper as they reach for the jelly babies can indeed dampen one's enjoyment considerably.

Sitting in a movie theater while watching scenes which can trigger tears makes me uncomfortable as well because I have always felt embarrassed about crying in public. A few weeks ago, I went to the movies with two colleagues; the film had some very poignant scenes where my eyes filled with tears and I sat there in the dark, careful not to blink my eyes for fear of the rivulets running down ...

On the other hand, it can be a great feeling to watch a wonderful film in a theater together with many others who enjoy it as much.

When the lights get dimmer immediately before the film starts, the expectant hush falling over the audience oneself is part of, all this cannot be replicated at home in front of the TV. Nor can the close-ups on the big screens which have so much intensity.

Then there are the films which are just made for the big screen and which lose a lot of their effect if watched in smaller format.

I won't get to see AS in movie theater here, but if I had the choice, would try to see it on a big screen.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

Atlas Shrugged is scheduled to premiere in Bloomington on the same day as jazz concerts, lectures on libertarianism, and other intellectual/cultural events that interest me.

I'm not sure when this very special day -- known as When Hell Freezes Over Day -- will arrive. But until it does, I will happily contribute my thoughts about a film I have not yet seen.

Ghs

And I will speculate on what I think they did with the film because it interests me whether I'm right or wrong.

I believe the film was 'softened' considerably because AS is a very tough book.

For example, how did they present the tunnel train catastrophe where many perish who have wrong premises?

In case the film has too much 'fabric-softener' in it, there is the danger of it being not polarizing enough to trigger interesting controversial discussions.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Xray

[PDS]

MSK:

I too found the prevalence of booze in the film a little disconcerting. I don't think you are being over-sensitive on this issue.

[Selene]

MSK/PDS...m -o -u -s-e (sorry Maslowian moment)

Until I read both of your similar reactions,

I thought I was being a might picky, but the drinking was subtly and not so subtly intrusive to my senses.

I was particularly offended by its imposition on Francisco character. It just grated on my impression from the book of the cost of his asceticism. His almost spiritual withdrawal from the pleasures of life as a striker.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia defines it as the "...spiritual exercises performed for the purpose of acquiring the habits of virtue."

I found his swilling alcohol constantly whenever he was on the screen as completely oppositional to his character in the book.

However, I loved the film.

I was surprised by the ample presence of it though.

Adam

Edited April 17, 2011 by Selene

[Ellen Stuttle]

The actor who played Akston was a very odd choice, he looked like a washed-up surfer/stoner in his mid-40’s.

Ever since I saw the 1998 impending-comet-collision movie "Deep Impact," in which Morgan Freeman plays the US president, I've wanted to see him as Hugh Akston. He's too old now, but as he was back then, I think he could have perfectly portrayed the depth and dignity.

I'll be seeing Atlas-1 tonight, at a multiplex theater about 40 miles from our house. Larry already saw it on the small screen at the NYC reception Thursday, and he liked it, but I'm scared I won't much. I'm especially rather dreading, from descriptions, the portrayal of Francisco.

Ellen

[Xray]

I must admit I had no idea that Eddie Willers had been in love with Dagny before I arrived at the part in the novel where he inspects her clothes cupboard and finds men's clothes in it.

Does the film bring out Eddie's love for Dagny?

Edited April 17, 2011 by Xray