"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews


Greybird

Recommended Posts

Let's use this thread to post links to, or the brief full text of, commentaries and reviews of the actual film as previewed or released — rather than to speculation or cultural commentary.

Edited by Greybird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 488
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Angela Keaton, of the staff of Antiwar.com, attended last night's screening in Culver City. I take it she won the producers' random drawing for that screening, or was on an Antiwar.com press pass. If the former, congratulations to her. If the latter, their good sense astounds and gratifies me.

At Facebook, she flagged this LewRockwell.com Blog comment:

Atlas Shrugged: The Screening

Posted by Angela Keaton on February 24, 2011 07:38 PM

Imagine if the producers of "As the World Turns" and "Dirty Sexy Money" got together and rewrote your favorite novel for the Facebook generation.

It’s not as bad as you think. It’s not bad at all. Dare say, given the timing, it’s actually important. This isn’t about pleasing Rothbardians, the moldy oldies at Cato, or Dr. Peikoff. The good news of Ayn Rand has finally and gratefully been liberated from the professional Objectivists.

A few hours ago I had the honor of viewing the first L.A. screening of "Atlas Shrugged, Part 1." On April 15, every Ron Paul fan under 30 should get a seat for the opening.

The YAL kids can get the Objectivist rap elsewhere. What young libertarians need are life lessons wrapped in an easy to watch package. Here they are without spoilers.

* If you do anything with your life, there is no shortage of parasitic in-laws, lawyers, and phony do gooders who will suck the blood from you then beat your lifeless body. Metaphorically speaking, if you are lucky. Grant Bowler manages to capture the put-upon Hank Rearden without ever eliciting pathos.

* Bullies yammer a lot about the poor. Play upon the decent and hard working man’s sense of justice. Always know more than you do about oppression, especially when they are well-heeled white, older men who work for “councils” in Washington, D.C.

* Women who aren’t slaves to whims, “hormones,” or learned helplessness will always be written off as “cold.”

102 minutes. No profanity, physical violence, or nudity.

She's since added at Facebook: "It's nice to see a movie where the female lead knows her way around the boardroom."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can. :(

A couple of years ago I predicted that when this movie was made, if it was made at least half the people who saw it would gnash their teeth and rend their garments.

Ah told yuh so!

There is no way Atlas Shrugged the novel can be rendered into a motion picture play at any reasonable cost.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men who are slaves to interests, "hormones" and acquired collegiality will always be written about as cool and awesome.

By me anyway

Anonymous

OL Groupie

That's not the opposite of what the "woman" wrote.

She said:

"Women who aren't slaves to whims, "hormones," or learned helplessness will always be written off as 'cold.'"

and the opposite would be

"Women who aren't written off as 'cold' are slaves to whims, "hormones," or learned helplessness."

That's quite an an insult to an awful lot of women who are not described as cold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can. :(

I am curious if you saw the Lord of the Rings movies, and if you were a fan of Tolkien before you saw them. My impression was that a hack director and screenwriter turned what was an earnest work of high art into a self-mocking action movie. Tolkien's work was incredibly rich in visual imagery. The movie adaptation largely butchered this, turning the forest of Lorien from an airy garden of trees with golden leaves and white flowers into a monochrome forest of what looked like haunted and petrified redwoods. Certain parts were done very well, the opening birthday party, the battle of Gandalf and the Balrog, the epiphanic transformations of Gandalf in the first movie and Galadriel in the second. But the color red and its adjuncts, pink, orange, yellow, magenta and purple were almost entirely lacking from the film. Original material was omitted, which could have been attributed to cutting for time, but then incongruous newly written written scenes were added. The elves, instead of being sad, noble, and timeless, were often inadvertently comical, the cast of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, recapping their role as a bunch of fay hair-drethers with long hair and pointy ears. Care was taken to show the moral conflict in such characters as Gollum, but then this was undercut by adding unnecessary comic relief, such as in the "dwarf tossing" scene.

Overall, my impression of Lord of the Rings was that 60% of the film was adequate, and 20% was excellent, but 20% was horrible, and horrible because of active decisions of the creators to second-guess Tolkien, or to have failed to understand his vision.

How does this compare with your reaction to Atlas Shrugged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men who are slaves to interests, "hormones" and acquired collegiality will always be written about as cool and awesome.

By me anyway

Anonymous

OL Groupie

That's not the opposite of what the "woman" wrote.

She said:

"Women who aren't slaves to whims, "hormones," or learned helplessness will always be written off as 'cold.'"

and the opposite would be

"Women who aren't written off as 'cold' are slaves to whims, "hormones," or learned helplessness."

That's quite an an insult to an awful lot of women who are not described as cold.

Technically you are right, but I wasn't trying to construct an opposite but a parallel-opposite (insult women-praise men); the original comment feels really dated (1970s?) and has been trashed many times in its many variations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angie, how did you (and Angela Keaton, who hasn't yet replied to my question about it) and all the others get these tickets in the first place? You can't all have won the producers' drawing. They only gave out one prize.

Steve,

To answer your question, it was by invitation but I can't speak for anyone else and by what means that brought them to attend the screening.

But I do want to say this now and get it on the record, my opinions are that of my own and I do not speak for anyone else. Please keep in mind, I do not want this movie to fail in the least. But unfortunatley not everyone is going to be satisfied for whatever reasons and each person will have the opportunity to judge the movie upon its release. This movie needs to be put out there to draw more attention to the philosophy and promoting it, especially the state of affairs that we're in now in our country. I was very excited to see this movie and I had high hopes going in and very happy to finally see the final product. But perhaps my expectations were too high and what I know the potential of the movie to be if appropriate funding and time is invested into it. I did not go in there with a negative, pessimistic attitude. In fact, it was the opposite going in and I was ecstatic to be there.

In a bit, I'll respond to Ted's post. My overall assessment of the movie is not all dire as there are aspects of the movie that are good such as the visual aspects and CGI for the most part and the foundation of the philosophy is there and I can't deny this and perfectly conveyed in the movie. I'm just a bit more critical of other issues such as the acting, no emotional draw and it was flat, one main area that contradicts the philosophy, some issues with lead ins and not so choppy to where you're like, where the hell did that come from, more substance and meat in the speeches such as Francisco to Hank at the party and so forth. But more later on this when I respond to Ted's post.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can. :(

Perhaps you misinterpreted the audience reaction, Angie.

Consider this: when I read or think about Atlas Shrugged -- and I KNOW I am not alone -- I am not moved to wild enthusiasm, but to growing despair and depression ("head into hands") about the state of our culture. It is SO MUCH WORSE than when I first read Atlas in the mid-60s. So much worse.

Another point: the silence following the movie could have been a 1776 moment. Watch the second episode of the HBO special "John Adams" and feel the unworldly, eerie mood that settles over the Congress immediately after it passed the Declaration of Independence. There was no wild cheering, until the proclamation was made several days later.

In other words, maybe some of the Atlas viewers were moved to cultural despair, others to deep solemnity. And maybe your response of disappointment in the movie was not typical.

But as Michael has said, each individual viewer's response and review is important, and I am ~still~ looking forward avidly to April 15, even if I have to travel several hundred miles and pay through the nose to see Atlas. :-)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can. :(

Perhaps you misinterpreted the audience reaction, Angie.

Consider this: when I read or think about Atlas Shrugged -- and I KNOW I am not alone -- I am not moved to wild enthusiasm, but to growing despair and depression ("head into hands") about the state of our culture. It is SO MUCH WORSE than when I first read Atlas in the mid-60s. So much worse.

Another point: the silence following the movie could have been a 1776 moment. Watch the second episode of the HBO special "John Adams" and feel the unworldly, eerie mood that settles over the Congress immediately after it passed the Declaration of Independence. There was no wild cheering, until the proclamation was made several days later.

In other words, maybe some of the Atlas viewers were moved to cultural despair, others to deep solemnity. And maybe your response of disappointment in the movie was not typical.

But as Michael has said, each individual viewer's response and review is important, and I am ~still~ looking forward avidly to April 15, even if I have to travel several hundred miles and pay through the nose to see Atlas. :-)

REB

Yes, Roger, and I agree to an extent with what you say. But I also heard the whispers and comments underneath the breathe afterwards which is more evidence that there are those that were disappointed in the movie and it did not live up to expectations. It pains me to say this but it is what it is. Given my expectations going in and then my being disappointed afterwards, I already anticipate seeing the movie again in hopes that my first impressions can be changed and perhaps the movie may "grow" on me.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also attended the private screening of the Atlas Shrugged Movie in Culver City tonight. I attended the 7 pm screening. I'm still speechless and a bit at a loss for words. Unlike the reviews that have come out thus far, I am saddened at what I saw and parts of the philosophy being butchered or completely changed altogether, lacking substance and shallow. Francisco was a good choice and well chosen for the part. He's the only one in my view that did a halfway decent job, flowed very naturally and conveyed conviction in what he was saying in his scenes, although the speech to Hank at the party was so short and nothing like it should have been. The discovery of the motor at the factory was also disappointing and how it went down. Literally a 5 minute to 10 minute part at the very most and it was over. The love scene between Dagny and Hank and their first encounter was the most disappointing and if remembering correclty which I know I am the philosophy, etc., was completely changed and censored perhaps. Amazing....

I'll comment more on the movie later. But what was most telling is at the end of the 7 o'clock screening that I attended, the audience was silent and it took a few people to start the applause as if forced and then others followed suit. Some in the audience leaned forward in their seats and put their head into their hands and obviously unhappy. There was no liveliness and happiness amongst the audience afterwards as is so typical when seeing a really good movie, let alone a good movie. As everyone proceeded out of the theater, there was very little talking, just silence. I'm saddened and floored and at a loss for words. I'll write more when I can. :(

I am curious if you saw the Lord of the Rings movies, and if you were a fan of Tolkien before you saw them. My impression was that a hack director and screenwriter turned what was an earnest work of high art into a self-mocking action movie. Tolkien's work was incredibly rich in visual imagery. The movie adaptation largely butchered this, turning the forest of Lorien from an airy garden of trees with golden leaves and white flowers into a monochrome forest of what looked like haunted and petrified redwoods. Certain parts were done very well, the opening birthday party, the battle of Gandalf and the Balrog, the epiphanic transformations of Gandalf in the first movie and Galadriel in the second. But the color red and its adjuncts, pink, orange, yellow, magenta and purple were almost entirely lacking from the film. Original material was omitted, which could have been attributed to cutting for time, but then incongruous newly written written scenes were added. The elves, instead of being sad, noble, and timeless, were often inadvertently comical, the cast of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, recapping their role as a bunch of fay hair-drethers with long hair and pointy ears. Care was taken to show the moral conflict in such characters as Gollum, but then this was undercut by adding unnecessary comic relief, such as in the "dwarf tossing" scene.

Overall, my impression of Lord of the Rings was that 60% of the film was adequate, and 20% was excellent, but 20% was horrible, and horrible because of active decisions of the creators to second-guess Tolkien, or to have failed to understand his vision.

How does this compare with your reaction to Atlas Shrugged?

Ted,

I have seen the movies but have not read the books so I cannot comment in regards to Tolkien's work and then the adaptation to the screen. Again, my opinions are my own and I do not speak for anyone else. I mean no disrespect to David Kelley but I do not have a vested financial interest in the movie and a financial benefit to myself such as Mr. Kelley has to get people in to see the movie nor do I have associations with TAS or ARI or any other Objectivist group nor do I fear reprisal such as being ostracized or smeared for being honest in my views such as may be the case with others who are directly involved with ARI or other groups who may also carry a pessimistic view but is afraid to speak up and express their opinions publicly.

The movie itself has the foundation of the philosophy and this is of utmost importance and it is portrayed well in the movie on this level but there are areas that I saw issues such as I had made comment in my earlier post to Steve, one that directly contradicts the philosophy and is well documented in Atlas and elsewhere. I'm unsure as to the motivating factor for this but can make an educated guess based on what I know and how others may respond to it and what I'm referencing now is the first romantic encounter between Hank and Dagny and it was downplayed and changed compared to how I know the philosophy to be. I truly was hoping that the movie would stick as close as it possibly could to that of Ayn's ideas and of her philosophy but unfortunately this was not the case.

Visually it is appealing without a doubt. The first minutes into the movie I was very impressed and thought to myself, Wow, this is going to be really good but then it flatlined. The movie started off very abruptly with no lead in other than pictures portraying the present state but nothing to build up and lead into the next scenes. It was abrupt and went almost straight in to the scene of Rearden's bracelet and it being given to Lillian and then Lillian's unpleasant reaction to being given such a monstrocity rather than diamonds or the like. There was no lead in at all. It was just, wham, there it was. Since I know the book, it was easy for me to pick up and to understand it. But if it is an individual new to the philosophy, it will leave them wondering what is going on and that of confusion. The movie did not flow at all. It was very choppy from scene to scene and almost as if being given still pictures from one to the next but nothing in between and giving it substance to lead into the next shot and to help make it cohesive. I thought to myself that I was watching Part 2 of the movie rather than Part 1 because of the way it started off.

I'm not going to go into painstaking detail with this but the actors leave much to be desired with the exception of the gentleman that portrayed Francisco as I think he did a pretty decent job. Aside from what I mentioned in earlier posts, the acting was very animated to the point oftentimes looked uncomfortable in their movements and deliberate movements rather than flowing smoothly as is most common when observing someone that is more natural and relaxed. It also lacked emotion throughout most of the movie such as in the John Galt Line scenes. Knowing the book and how Rand portrayed it so elegantly, I was expecting to see that of excitement and exhilaration going into it, the set up before and during it, passion and drive, but it fell short and unable to portray this successfully in the movie. Just a flatline, disconnect to it. Another is the ending of the movie and a bit surprised to hear blood curdling almost scream-queen B movie screams coming from Dagny -- almost as if it had been dubbed in and wasn't the actress herself screaming -- as she saw Wyatt's inferno, the facial expressions made by Dagny were strange. There are other issues that I saw with the movie but I'm not going into painstaking detail.

I can't leave this off with such a dismal review of what I saw. There are a number of scenes in the movie that are well done. Some with tremendous potential but again flat lined after 2 or 3 minutes into it and left much to be desired. I will see the movie again. Unfortunately, I heard a number of people that I do not know say underneath their breathe that they would not see the movie again. If I don't see it in theaters, I will definitely buy the DVD and will watch it a few more times in hopes that my initial impressions can be changed. But right now, after what I saw, my optimism for the movie and being successful has diminished unfortunately to my dismay. I truly hope I am wrong and my expectations were way too high considering the limited budget and limited time invested into it and it ends up doing really well, much needed right now and the state of this country.

Will I recommend the movie to others? I'm unsure at this point after what I saw. I may very well suggest not to see the movie first but to read the book first PLEASE as the movie may be a complete turn off because of the way it is presented. Of course, given how complex the book is and the depth of ideas by Ayn, it'll be next to impossible to replicate if you will the book BUT I know there is tremendous potential there and how I know this movie could be -- a powerhouse hit without a doubt if appropriate funding and time is invested and in the right hands. But I know this was a serious issue because of potentially losing rights to the movie if production didn't start very quickly. I'm truly hoping that the movie will be a success and Part 2 and Part 3 if it is made more funding and time will be invested into it to make it the powerhouse hit I know it can be.

If I had to give it a percentage such as you did, Ted, in regards to portraying the basic foundation of the philosophy 70 to 75 percent adequate and enough to get the point across. But overall movie, 45 percent adequate, 5 percent excellent, 50 percent borderline not too good.

Again, everyone who is waiting eagerly for this movie will see it and I encourage those who are familiar with the philosophy to see it and make your own judgment. There will be those that are happy with the movie obviously not only myself but others and others that will be very critical and others that will downright hate the movie because of what it represents and the philosophy portrayed in it.

Angie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, for some reason I didn’t get invited to the private screening in L.A. (I can’t imagine why. You don't suppose the organizers read OL. . .) But here are two reviews by people who did.

Jeffrey Falk is an “aspiring writer concerned about the state of the world as the Enlightenment fades into the Endarkenment,” and clearly very sympathetic to Objectivism. Despite that, he obviously felt it was very important to discuss the film's numerous flaws, because people who have not read the book need to know what was missing.

The novel is a nonpareil integration of literature and philosophy (including politics). The film could not be much more disappointing in that aspect, and the abstruse motifs of ratiocinative epistemology and laissez-faire economics are largely lost in the slapdash, inadequate translation from script to screen...[The] novel's crucial connection of technology and material progress to the unfettered human mind and free economy is given short shrift...

Here is Falk's review:

Atlas Shrugged Part I : The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Some people have all the luck. John Sexton, who writes for the blog Verum Serum, says he just finished reading the novel two weeks ago. He not only got an invite, he sat at the same table with Nathaniel Branden, and his blog entry includes a picture of Branden with David Kelley. He talks about the experience here:

At the Atlas Shrugged Premiere

And here is his glowing (he really, really liked it!) review:

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 - High Speed Rail Done Right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.nathaniel...ie_reviews.html

Not that it is all that important, but I do have to think that Pig Boy over at Pig Slop Enterprises might find himself in a precariously pig-sloppily position (<--note natural-yet-cumbersome triple alliteration) over this. Consider: what if he actually likes the thing, but then he has to, Satan help him, AGREE with the Brandens (well, for now, at least one of them for sure) about something? I haven't gone over there to check, but I would expect the traditional scurrying, rat-like action.

On the other hand, it does position him (as these things always do for such creatures) to do some kind of sniffy, Toohey-like action upon it. The way that works is that, one way or another, they make it more about themselves than the thing in question. But we all know this.

More importantly, the film appears to be wonderful.

Best,

rde

Scurry, scurry. . .

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> motifs of ratiocinative epistemology and laissez-faire economics are largely lost...[The] novel's crucial connection of technology and material progress to the unfettered human mind and free economy is given short shrift [anonymous aspiring writer, Falk, on the web]

In the first third of the novel a lot of the abstract philosophical conclusions are only beginning to emerge. And that's as it should be both literarily in showing you a puzzle and philosophically in terms of induction (rather than deduction) in forming one's ideas: You see what is wrong with the world in some detail - (1) in human relationships, (2) in practical functioning of the economy, (3) in government oppressiveness and (4) in general injustice before you can begin to inductively formulate an alternative.

If any movie can even begin to suggest the above four things, it will have accomplished an order of magnitude more than any other movie I can think of. And that's leaving aside the really necessary thing: to project the book's "sense of life".

To just state very abstract and non-obvious conclusions from a branch of philosophy people have no familiarity with (epistemology) or a very radical conclusion - that government should be restricted to police, armed forces, and law courts - which is the way too many Objectivists try to spread their philosophy and convince the world - would be inappropriate. And incomprehensible at this point.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm beginning to detect two frequent patterns among those who haven't liked the trailer (and now the movie):

1. The Rand haters who are gunning for the movie will be prejudiced against any work of art which has her name on it, and who will denounce it no matter what.

2. The Rand admirers who are disappointed because they have an 'intrinsicist' or 'Platonic' perfectionist or 'floating abstraction' conception of what should be in the movie -- such as in Mr. Falk's statement above. They would love to see the philosophy in all its compelling power and detail in a movie. And, dropping context, are laying down criteria for what should be in the movie or how it should be done which are inappropriate for a couple hours or a filmed story. And -especially- for the first portion of the book.

This does not mean that everyone who doesn't like the movie falls into one of those two categories, especially since the movie is unlikely to be perfect and some will be more affected by one kind of flaw than others who will brush them aside as minor.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> motifs of ratiocinative epistemology and laissez-faire economics are largely lost...[The] novel's crucial connection of technology and material progress to the unfettered human mind and free economy is given short shrift [anonymous aspiring writer, Falk, on the web]

In the first third of the novel a lot of the abstract philosophical conclusions are only beginning to emerge. And that's as it should be both literarily in showing you a puzzle and philosophically in terms of induction (rather than deduction) in forming one's ideas: You see what is wrong with the world in some detail - (1) in human relationships, (2) in practical functioning of the economy, (3) in government oppressiveness and (4) in general injustice before you can begin to inductively formulate an alternative.

If any movie can even begin to suggest the above four things, it will have accomplished an order of magnitude more than any other movie I can think of. And that's leaving aside the really necessary thing: to project the book's "sense of life".

To just state very abstract and non-obvious conclusions from a branch of philosophy people have no familiarity with (epistemology) or a very radical conclusion - that government should be restricted to police, armed forces, and law courts - which is the way too many Objectivists try to spread their philosophy and convince the world - would be inappropriate. And incomprehensible at this point.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm beginning to detect two frequent patterns among those who haven't liked the trailer (and now the movie):

1. The Rand haters who are gunning for the movie will be prejudiced against any work of art which has her name on it, and who will denounce it no matter what.

2. The Rand admirers who are disappointed because they have an 'intrinsicist' or 'Platonic' perfectionist or 'floating abstraction' conception of what should be in the movie -- such as in Mr. Falk's statement above. They would love to see the philosophy in all its compelling power and detail in a movie. And, dropping context, are laying down criteria for what should be in the movie or how it should be done which are inappropriate for a couple hours or a filmed story. And -especially- for the first portion of the book.

This does not mean that everyone who doesn't like the movie falls into one of those two categories, especially since the movie is unlikely to be perfect and some will be more affected by one kind of flaw than others who will brush them aside as minor.

Phil: Do you think you have enough data to assert a "pattern", especially with the qualifier of your last paragraph? I would be surprised if you have enough information on that front. I have argued elsewhere that the movie deserves a good old fashioned benevolent benefit of the doubt. I think the same applies to those who have viewed the movie and, for whatever reason, find the movie wanting.

And, at the risk of stating the very obvious, there was only one Ayn Rand, and she was an artistic genius. Subsequent artists who pick up her work, in whatever form, are almost doomed to disappoint, and especially disappoint those of us conversant with Rand's nonfiction works. All of us might do well to "price this in" to our viewing of this movie.

Lest we forget, The Fountainhead is almost painful to watch in movie format.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Phil: Do you think you have enough data to assert a "pattern", especially with the qualifier of your last paragraph? I would be surprised if you have enough information on that front.

PDS, that's why I said "beginning to detect" and "among" those two groups and that there were other possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, everybody expected this to be a polarizing movie, and nobody is easier to polarize than Objectivists.

I won't get to see it (they ignored the Canadian market for some reason) but I'm sure I would like it better than the book.

I'm not a film buff though of course I have msny favourites, but I love well-done film reviews and have read thousands, of movies I never saw or wanted to see, just for the pleasure of reading Jay Scott or Pauline Kael, years after the films were forgotten and the reviewers dead.

I look forward to everybody's review here in April and in the meantime I hope more audience members from the screening will chime in. Has anyone mentioned the soundtrack yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look forward to everybody's review here in April and in the meantime I hope more audience members from the screening will chime in. Has anyone mentioned the soundtrack yet?

I should say, everybody's reactiions, I don't expect you all to write magazine-length analyses. Except of course Phil, from him I need fully referenced and annotated commentary with bibliography and index. I can wait the eight months.

I can tease Phl without fear until his Hachette is in his hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> motifs of ratiocinative epistemology and laissez-faire economics are largely lost...[The] novel's crucial connection of technology and material progress to the unfettered human mind and free economy is given short shrift [anonymous aspiring writer, Falk, on the web]

In the first third of the novel a lot of the abstract philosophical conclusions are only beginning to emerge. And that's as it should be both literarily in showing you a puzzle and philosophically in terms of induction (rather than deduction) in forming one's ideas: You see what is wrong with the world in some detail - (1) in human relationships, (2) in practical functioning of the economy, (3) in government oppressiveness and (4) in general injustice before you can begin to inductively formulate an alternative.

If any movie can even begin to suggest the above four things, it will have accomplished an order of magnitude more than any other movie I can think of. And that's leaving aside the really necessary thing: to project the book's "sense of life".

To just state very abstract and non-obvious conclusions from a branch of philosophy people have no familiarity with (epistemology) or a very radical conclusion - that government should be restricted to police, armed forces, and law courts - which is the way too many Objectivists try to spread their philosophy and convince the world - would be inappropriate. And incomprehensible at this point.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm beginning to detect two frequent patterns among those who haven't liked the trailer (and now the movie):

1. The Rand haters who are gunning for the movie will be prejudiced against any work of art which has her name on it, and who will denounce it no matter what.

2. The Rand admirers who are disappointed because they have an 'intrinsicist' or 'Platonic' perfectionist or 'floating abstraction' conception of what should be in the movie -- such as in Mr. Falk's statement above. They would love to see the philosophy in all its compelling power and detail in a movie. And, dropping context, are laying down criteria for what should be in the movie or how it should be done which are inappropriate for a couple hours or a filmed story. And -especially- for the first portion of the book.

This does not mean that everyone who doesn't like the movie falls into one of those two categories, especially since the movie is unlikely to be perfect and some will be more affected by one kind of flaw than others who will brush them aside as minor.

This is a fairly typical ploy of Phil’s: if you don’t like something someone says, don’t bother answering their specific arguments, whitewash all of it under the banner of "rationalism." Falk is excruciatingly concrete in his criticisms of the film—the casting, the locations, the gaffes in filming and direction, the postproduction, the closing credits, the characterization, the failure to flesh out the critical meaning of confusing events in philosophical terms, the prosaic dialogue, the passionless sex scenes, et. al.

He felt it would have been well worth it to add additional time to Part One to help those unfamiliar with the book make sense of what was going on in intellectual terms. A screenwriter with anything remotely approaching a grasp of the novel’s theme could have accomplished this easily, using dialogue which underscored intelligence, intellectual self-confidence and independent judgment as opposed to mental sloth. An obvious example (and I don’t actually know if this made it into the film version or not—I strongly doubt it) is Dagny’s conversation with James Taggart early in the novel (pp. 20-21):

[NOTE: The first speaker is obviously Dagny.]

“They’re not going to be steel. They’re Rearden Metal.”

[Dagny laughs at the look on Taggart’s face. Then her voice turns cold and harsh.]

“Drop it, Jim. I know everything you’re going to say. Nobody’s ever used it before. Nobody approves of Rearden Metal. Nobody’s interested in it. Nobody wants it. Still, our rails are going to be made of Rearden Metal.”

“But. . . “ said Taggart, “but nobody’s ever used it before! The consensus of the best metallurgical authorities,” he said, “seems to be highly skeptical about Rearden Metal, contending. . .”

“Drop it, Jim.”

“Well, whose opinion did you take?”

‘I don’t ask for opinions.”

‘What do you go by?”

“Judgment.”

“Well, whose judgment did you take?”

“Mine.”

“But whom did you consult about it?”

“Nobody.”

“Then what on earth do you know about Rearden Metal?”

“That it’s the greatest thing ever put on the market.”

“Why?”

“Because it’s tougher than steel, cheaper than steel and will outlast any hunk of metal in existence.”

“But who says so?”

“Jim, I studied engineering in college. When I see things, I see them.”

“What did you see?”

“Rearden’s formula and the tests he showed me.”

That is one conversational exchange that definitely should have made it into the screenplay with minimal changes. It dramatizes the very essence of Objectivism: Think, and be willing to stake your life on your independent judgment.

The controversy over Rearden metal was one of the key plot elements used by Ayn Rand to dramatize the importance of independent thinking, and it started very early in the novel. The fact that this was not understood by the director or the screenwriter can be observed by a single line from the trailer, when Dagny says to Rearden: “I’m gambling your new metal can do what you say it can.” Like the word ‘destroy,’ this appears to be a subtle difference, but the change in wording makes all the difference in the world. Ayn Rand would never have let Dagny describe a scientific thought process as “gambling.” (I contrasted Dagny's use of the word 'destroy' vs. the word 'kill' on another thread.)

Later in the novel (page 315 in my hardback version), there is a discussion about Midas Mulligan’s decision to invest in Rearden Steel and help the upstart Rearden become an enormous success in the steel industry.

“. . .When an economist referred to him once as an audacious gambler, Mulligan said: ‘The reason why you’ll never get rich is because you think that what I do is gambling.’”

There is one word which captures the essence of Phil’s ritualistic use of rationalism as a way to smear and demean his intellectual opponents.

Rationalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I don't expect you all to write magazine-length analyses. Except of course Phil, from him I need fully referenced and annotated commentary with bibliography and index. I can wait the eight months.

Did you hear the story about how Peikoff complained to a roomful of people about receiving an overly detailed, long-winded series of questions - and everyone knew immediately who it was? :mellow:

> I can tease Phil without fear until his Hachette is in his hands.

I may then have to do a hachette job on you. Better watch it with these cutting remarks, Daunce. You are axing for it.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He felt it would have been well worth it to add additional time to Part One to help those unfamiliar with the book make sense of what was going on in intellectual terms. A screenwriter with anything remotely approaching a grasp of the novel’s theme could have accomplished this easily, using dialogue which underscored intelligence, intellectual self-confidence and independent judgment as opposed to mental sloth. An obvious example (and I don’t actually know if this made it into the film version or not—I strongly doubt it) is Dagny’s conversation with James Taggart early in the novel (pp. 20-21):

[NOTE: The first speaker is obviously Dagny.]

“They’re not going to be steel. They’re Rearden Metal.”

[Dagny laughs at the look on Taggart’s face. Then her voice turns cold and harsh.]

“Drop it, Jim. I know everything you’re going to say. Nobody’s ever used it before. Nobody approves of Rearden Metal. Nobody’s interested in it. Nobody wants it. Still, our rails are going to be made of Rearden Metal.”

“But. . . “ said Taggart, “but nobody’s ever used it before! The consensus of the best metallurgical authorities,” he said, “seems to be highly skeptical about Rearden Metal, contending. . .”

“Drop it, Jim.”

“Well, whose opinion did you take?”

‘I don’t ask for opinions.”

‘What do you go by?”

“Judgment.”

“Well, whose judgment did you take?”

“Mine.”

“But whom did you consult about it?”

“Nobody.”

“Then what on earth do you know about Rearden Metal?”

“That it’s the greatest thing ever put on the market.”

“Why?”

“Because it’s tougher than steel, cheaper than steel and will outlast any hunk of metal in existence.”

“But who says so?”

“Jim, I studied engineering in college. When I see things, I see them.”

“What did you see?”

“Rearden’s formula and the tests he showed me.”

That is one conversational exchange that definitely should have made it into the screenplay with minimal changes. It dramatizes the very essence of Objectivism: Think, and be willing to stake your life on your independent judgment.

The controversy over Rearden metal was one of the key plot elements used by Ayn Rand to dramatize the importance of independent thinking, and it started very early in the novel. The fact that this was not understood by the director or the screenwriter can be observed by a single line from the trailer, when Dagny says to Rearden: “I’m gambling your new metal can do what you say it can.” Like the word ‘destroy,’ this appears to be a subtle difference, but the change in wording makes all the difference in the world. Ayn Rand would never have let Dagny describe a scientific thought process as “gambling.” (I contrasted Dagny's use of the word 'destroy' vs. the word 'kill' on another thread.)

Above sequence from her book is in the movie but has been changed and quite a bit dropped that I can remember. Some of what is in the trailer such as the above and "gambling" is not in the movie itself that I can remember. I remember when seeing that part of the movie I thought to myself what I saw in that part of the trailer was absent in the actual movie. There's another area of the trailer that was edited where she says something to the effect of, "If you double cross me, I'll destroy you" or something to that effect in the trailer. The sentence right before she said that sentence was...I've never hurt a living thing in my life but if you double cross me, Jim, I'll.....or something to that effect.

Later in the novel (page 315 in my hardback version), there is a discussion about Midas Mulligan’s decision to invest in Rearden Steel and help the upstart Rearden become an enormous success in the steel industry.

“. . .When an economist referred to him once as an audacious gambler, Mulligan said: ‘The reason why you’ll never get rich is because you think that what I do is gambling.’”

There is one word which captures the essence of Phil’s ritualistic use of rationalism as a way to smear and demean his intellectual opponents.

Rationalism.

This of course is not in Part 1 of the movie. The issue with the movie and in talking with a few other people is that there are bits and pieces taken out from the entire book and pieced together. There are parts in the movie that is in the first part of the book, second part of the book, and the ending of the book and this is one of the reasons the movie is a bit hard to follow and to watch. Painful perhaps.

This is something I wrote a bit earlier elsewhere. I can go into specifics on the film but just leaving where it is at here but will include this..

Bill, I got your message and will respond soon. You know, as for an overhaul, I don't think it could be done in a month unless they work long tiring hours going through footage, etc. But they can do tweaks here and there to make it more appealing but honestly I doubt they're going to do this. It may be changed here and there but nothing major I'm sure. But the problem is is that it's not just one or two scenes that are issues..the issues run the entire movie. There was a shot in there that threw me and won't forget it. It wasn't the characters at a party, etc., but the camera man messed up and they left it in the movie and the final product. Wow... During the scene, it was a bit out of focus and then the camera zoomed in enough for it to be noticable and then zoomed out again real quick and you had to adjust your eyes a bit. It was very distracting from the movie. It's just little stuff like that as well as all the other issues that I've mentioned. It's one little snowball and with all the other issues turns into an avalanche. I don't think this camera mistake was intended "effects" for the movie and the way they were wanting to shoot this scene because this seemingly camera blooper does not appear anywhere else in the entire movie. Out of the 102 minutes of the film, this camera style or zooming in and out is shown only once in the entire movie and lasts a few seconds but nonetheless enough of a blooper to make an impression and for it to stick in your head because it was very distracting.
Honestly, I don't think there are many Objectivists involved in it...the actors for one, production staff, ones who are working close with David Kelley, etc., and they don't understand the ins and outs of the philosophy and it's showing.

I don't expect them to nail the book in all its glory into film. It would take a lot to do this. Don't think they would be able to do it without Ayn here to help.

As for the characters, Dagny is okay. Not what I envision her to be but she gives the appearance for the most part to be a strong businesswoman but lacking in other areas and too timid looking but does okay. Actor that plays Hank is a better choice and does well with his strength and perseverance and being very determined in his goals. Other actors are so so. John Galt character is or seems to be very far from what is portrayed in the book but seems to have gotten his overall stature right. He's a built man, big in stature, walks tall but looks to be a bit older than Rand portrayed and he is missing the beautiful long blonde flowing hair that she made a point in her book to draw attention to. In the movie, he has the stature but looks older and has or looks to have from what I saw underneath his hat to be short brown scraggly hair....not the luxurious picture of masculinity that Rand made a point to portray when he rescues Dagny and sweeps her off her feet when her plane crashes and she comes to in his arms and being carried and Dagny looks up at John and notices his features, hair, striking blue eyes, etc. The John Galt portrayed in the movie in what I saw of him doesn't seem to fit this picture at all. I can think of a number of men in Hollywood that would fit this persona of hers.

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of the movie is a B movie. But unfortunately the ending is sooo horrific and that's what you leave off with. It reminds me of Carrie on stage with faint lights on her before the blood is dropped on her. The overly exaggerated faces, very animated, with the blood curdling screams from Dagny and then the CGI in this part is like eeekkk...literally scream queen stuff.

There's a lot of deviations that I see. One huge one that ARI and those who really admire and love Rand and wanting to keep the philosophy as Rand wrote it and her life's work will FREAK OUT and they are going to have a heyday with it. The first romantic scene between Dagny and Hank, it's supposed to be or many hints of BDSM, chains, submission, a bit of blood flowing from Dagny's wrist, etc., and they butchered this part of the movie and the philosophy and changed it to how they want it to be portrayed. Changed Rand's philosophy as they see fit. Rand would be rolling in her grave shitting big bricks right now.

Unfortunately, I don't even have a desire to see Part 2. It's like, okay, if it looks anything like Part 1, yikes, the only time I may watch it is going to the dollar bin of movies that won't sell and picking it up then. I was told that if this is the final product, Fountainhead is a MUCH better movie. That's pretty bad because I know Fountainhead movie had issues and people say that it is quite painful to watch.

If I am turned off by it and not looking forward to the rest of the movies, what does that say for someone that is new to the philosophy when they see it? Not good. I'm sure it will bring in people wanting to understand as it appeals to them on different levels because it makes sense to them but this overall rush of people into the philosophy, I doubt very very very seriously this is going to happen. Honestly, I believe it is going to get bad reviews and may lose money on it. Or they may very well only release it in "select" theaters only but it won't go any further than that and you won't hear much about it after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now