"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[jriggenbach]

The conservative religious outrage/resistance to Rand has lessened over time as many have realized the extent to which she is an ally against big government.

Since when do conservatives oppose big government?

JR

Barry Goldwater pre-1965.

--Brant

my hero, with serious reservations

Brant:

Correct. Mine also.

Adam

http://mises.org/daily/3859

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Barry had a basic military mind set. He would have gone to West Point if not for his father dying. I suspect, however, he'd have been less interventionist than Johnson, but when push came to shove he'd have shoved back harder. Interventionism was the leitmotif of U.S. foreign policy in the 1960s (and 50s). Vietnam brought the whole issue into question, plus implicit faith in the federal government to do he right thing. By hook and crook and sheer luck we avoided general thermonuclear war and for that reason alone we must acknowledge we simply don't know if we would have if Barry had become President. Apropos the last, the main reason he was beaten so badly was the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination and Johnson still being given a chance to do the right job by hoi polloi Americano. However, Barry would NOT have ever been elected President without first being vice-President and succeeding to office like Ford did. The tragedy of 1964 was all the Dems elected to Congress who shouldn't have been, kick-starting The Great Society. They lost their advantage two years later, but the damage had been done.

--Brant

Edited March 10, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Backlighting]

Closing in on 1 million hits on Youtube.

[9thdoctor]

Have your morning coffee before plowing through this. I didn't even make it to the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ni2BxTPmgM

C'mon Yaron, pick up the pace!

[BaalChatzaf]

The conservative religious outrage/resistance to Rand has lessened over time as many have realized the extent to which she is an ally against big government.

Since when do conservatives oppose big government?

JR

Barry Goldwater pre-1965.

--Brant

my hero, with serious reservations

What are your reservations. My reservation was his opposition to Communism was more (quasi) religious than intellectual.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Greybird]

Have your morning coffee before plowing through this. I didn't even make it to the end. [...] C'mon Yaron, pick up the pace!

After introducing the ARI and its projects, only about 7 minutes or so has anything to do with the film. The remaining 9 minutes has Brook's thoughts on the importance of the book, the characters' motivations, whether it reflects current trends, and what its appeal is all about, especially to young people.

His main contentions regarding the film, all delivered (surprisingly, for me) with matter-of-factness and without rancor:

~ ARI was not involved in the production, and in the last 18 years since the rights were sold, neither ARI nor the Rand estate had any active connection with it, essentially only following general publicity in the media.

~ They had some "minor input" into early drafts of the screenplay, after having seen some fairly horrid attempts at screenplays over about the last 10 years. (Nothing is noted about how these first two points end up contradicting each other.)

~ Brook saw the film at the screening in Culver City (that Angie and others attended).

~ It doesn't do anything to directly contradict Rand's philosophy. (Admitting this must have galled him.)

~ There are moments he can praise in how the plot reflects the book, but it is otherwise "mediocre," especially in the lack of complexity of the characterizations, and in both Dagny and Rearden, which actors have no chemistry.

~ "I don't know of any adaptation that I would have been happy with."

~ The main concern Rand would have had and Peikoff had was to generate buzz for sales of the book, which he still hopes will be achievable.

~ "There's not enough in the movie and I don't think there's enough in the movie format" as such to make it a life-changing experience.

~ The major theme of the essential nature of rationality "at the level of personality, character, interpersonal relationships" is nearly completely omitted.

~ The 15 April opening date plays effectively to the politics of the book, but is essentially "a gimmick."

I report, to save your wasting a cup of coffee, and you decide. Brook is plodding, as usual, but not that difficult to listen to, and he does more of damning with faint or no praise than any outright slamming of the film. (No reference is made to this being "Part I," with two further installments being planned.)

Edited March 12, 2011 by Greybird

[Brant Gaede]

Nothing necessarily wrong with a "gimmick." A jury from the audience is a gimmick. A revolutionary motor running on atmospheric static electricity is a gimmick. "Who is John Galt" is Ayn Rand's biggest gimmick of all.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

The conservative religious outrage/resistance to Rand has lessened over time as many have realized the extent to which she is an ally against big government.

Since when do conservatives oppose big government?

JR

Barry Goldwater pre-1965.

--Brant

my hero, with serious reservations

What are your reservations. My reservation was his opposition to Communism was more (quasi) religious than intellectual.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Read JR's link in his post 226. I agree with most of it.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> Brook is plodding, as usual [GB]

No, he's not. Nor is he usually, from the talks of his I've listened to (such as the last part of the recent debate in NYC). This time he made lots of interesting and insightful points about the heart of the book, independent of the movie. I took quite a few notes on that aspect.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Greybird]

> Brook is plodding, as usual [Greybird]

No, he's not. Nor is he usually, from the talks of his I've listened to (such as the last part of the recent debate in NYC). This time he made lots of interesting and insightful points about the heart of the book, independent of the movie. I took quite a few notes on that aspect.

He repeats everything three different ways. He has done so every time I've seen him, including twice in person. (Except on Napolitano's otherwise admirable show on Fox Business. There, the panelists rarely have enough time to even make a coherent point once.) That may be useful in a classroom or a peroration, but not in a publicity-serving video or audio release.

With his avowed agenda — trash a movie that isn't "theirs," but not so much that newcomers won't go buy a copy of the book — his style is both deceptively calm and full of cognitive dissonance. When I know someone wants to hose me, I get either outraged at attempted manipulation, or stupefied at plodders' wasting my time. ARI isn't worth outrage, not any more.

[caroljane]

The volume on my computer is unadjustably low, so I did some amateur body-language analysis on Yaron brook, who I never saw before though I have heard of him.

Obviously he is thoroughly media-trained. His hand movements are restricted and his elbows seem to be glued to the table. At some points he makes open-handed gun-signs, close-to-the body prayer signs, and clenched-hand signs that I don't know what they mean, if anything.

I got the feeling that he would have liked to throw up his arms and wave them around, but I could not hear anything he was actually saying.

[BaalChatzaf]

The volume on my computer is unadjustably low, so I did some amateur body-language analysis on Yaron brook, who I never saw before though I have heard of him.

Obviously he is thoroughly media-trained. His hand movements are restricted and his elbows seem to be glued to the table. At some points he makes open-handed gun-signs, close-to-the body prayer signs, and clenched-hand signs that I don't know what they mean, if anything.

I got the feeling that he would have liked to throw up his arms and wave them around, but I could not hear anything he was actually saying.

Y.B. appears quite often on PJTV which produces vids with better volume.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dennis Hardin]

Have your morning coffee before plowing through this. I didn't even make it to the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ni2BxTPmgM

C'mon Yaron, pick up the pace!

His pace and energy level reflect his unbridled enthusiasm for the film.

Parts of the film are mediocre. The script was much better than others I have seen. The movie focuses mainly on the political message. The story follows the book fairly well, but the underlying philosophy is missing. The release date suggests the superficiality of the movie. But we hope it will spark additional interest in the book.

Damning with infinitesimal praise.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Dennis Hardin

[Philip Coates]

>He repeats everything three different ways. [GB]

Not really. What he did was give more than one example of an abstract point to drive it home.

> With his avowed agenda — trash a movie that isn't "theirs,"

How do you know? Can you read his mind? Do you have evidence that his criticisms are not honest ones?

[Philip Coates]

Go to YouTube and google "Yaron Brook at Tea Party Patriots Summit" to see him speak with passion and fire.

Greybird, I want to add a wider point to my previous post. Not just you, but others on this site make the mistake of attributing bad motives, dishonest or dishonorable motives widely to people "on the other side".

In this case, Brook, but more broadly anyone associated with ARI.

(Several posters did it a number of times with regard to Diana H, saying her motives were 'careerism'.)

You don't know those things and it is psychologizing to do so.

Please stop it. Just one more case of following the Great Adhominizer (Lindsay Perigo) and imitating his frequent example.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Philip Coates

[9thdoctor]

Here's a couple more trickling in. A positive review in The Objective Standard:

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-spring/atlas-shrugged-part1.asp

And a new interview. I'm listening to it now. I'm getting bored with the subject, let's just see the movie already!

[merjet]

Review from The Objective Standard.

[kiaer.ts]

Go to YouTube and google "Yaron Brook at Tea Party Patriots Summit" to see him speak with passion and fire.

Greybird, I want to add a wider point to my previous post. Not just you, but others on this site make the mistake of attributing bad movies, dishonest or dishonorable motives to anyone "on the other side" -- in this case, Brook, but more broadly anyone associated with ARI.

(Several posters did it a number of times with regard to Diana H, saying her motives were 'careerism'.)

You don't know those things and it is psychologizing to do so.

Please stop it. Just one more case of following the Great Adhominizer (Lindsay Perigo) and imitating his frequent example.

Note the bad movies behind Phil's dishonest and dishonorable argument here.

Edited March 13, 2011 by Ted Keer

[9thdoctor]

Note the bad movies behind Phil's dishonest and dishonorable argument here.

I think you mean "motives".

I don't think Phil is accurately abstracting the defining characteristics of Perigo.

About the Yaron Brook clip, I think he just hadn't had his coffee, I don't read much into it. He's usually not this boring.

[Greybird]

Greybird, I want to add a wider point to my previous post. Not just you, but others on this site make the mistake of attributing bad motives, dishonest or dishonorable motives widely to people "on the other side". [...]

After more than a quarter-century of openly proclaimed intellectual Stalinism from ARI, and the which-is-top-dog-now ass-kissing from the likes of Mrs. Hsieh, I don't have to "attribute bad motives" — they're in plain view, openly proclaimed. Wake up, Phil, from this wide-eyed disingenuousness of yours — the bad faith is on open display.

And I hold no brief for TAS/TOC/IOS, either, as such. It's just that tactically stupid is easier to endure than moralizingly oppressive, any day of the week.

[Philip Coates]

> About the Yaron Brook clip, I think he just hadn't had his coffee, I don't read much into it. He's usually not this boring.

ND, that could be, but I think he's a bit 'down' that the movie is not as good as it could be. He mentions that it's okay but doesn't quite do what it could in sort of a tired or flat tone.

[Philip Coates]

> I don't have to "attribute bad motives" — they're in plain view, openly proclaimed.

Greybird, motives are exactly what is not in plain view.

They are inside the person.

No matter how bad the viewpoints or positions, it's another step to conclude that there is no possibility of honest error when one says something foolish.

You have stated a conclusion about the immorality of a particular person (Brook) you do not know.

[kiaer.ts]

Note the bad movies behind Phil's dishonest and dishonorable argument here.

I think you mean "motives".

No, I meant movies. See the original post.

[9thdoctor]

Note the bad movies behind Phil's dishonest and dishonorable argument here.

I think you mean "motives".

No, I meant movies. See the original post.

Oh, I see. It's Phil's post that doesn't make sense. Probably a typo.

[Philip Coates]

> Probably a typo.

I meant motives...I went back and fixed it.