"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[Xray]

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 probably never get to see the film but my guess is (please correct me if I'm wrong, Angie) that the film-makers considerabley 'softened' the violence in the first sexual encounter between Dagny and Hank, possibly to the point of not showing any of it.

P. 251: "it was like an act of hatred"

"He took her wrist and threw her inside the room", it says on p. 252.

P. 253: "She saw a bruise above her elbow with dark beads that had been blood".

P. 253: ... "after hours of a violence which they could not name now"

To show role model characters on screen engaging in a sexual encounter involving bruising and bleeding would be very tough stuff.

It was tough enough to read, but to get this into an audio-visual scenario would have even more shock effect.

(But maybe I'm way off base and the film does show the scene).

On a website I saw the scene in which Dagny confronts the union leader. The actress resembled so much the picture of Dagny I had in mind that my first reaction was: "That IS Dagny Taggart!"

(Although in the novel, Dagny is described as a brunette, I always imagined her as being blonde).

I also saw the scene where Hank Rearden comes home with the bracelet made of Rearden metal finds his family gathered in the living room.

My impression was that they 'softended' Rearden for the film too.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Although it isn't true that there was no one to appeal to -- there was still a judicial system in place where one could appeal to a jury of one's peers -- there probably was technically "no one to appeal to," at least if justice would be the goal of appealing to someone. Since Roark and Keating were guilty of violating Keating's contract with the owners of Cortland by committing the fraud of passing off Roark's work as Keating's, there would indeed be "no one to appeal to" who would agree that they were an injured party rather than that they had intentionally misrepresented themselves when entering into the contract.

Likewise, if I enter into a contract with my neighbor which states that I'll come up with the perfect plan to rob a bank, he'll carry it out to the letter, and then we'll split the money, there would rightfully be no one to whom I could appeal to complain that my neighbor deviated from my perfect plan when robbing the bank.

J

Keating and Roark agreeing on passing off Roark's work as Keating's also contradicts a fundamental principle of Objectivism itself: not to fake reality.

If you knew what you were talking about when you talk about these things you wouldn't be you.

The Fountainhead is not an exposition on Objectivism, but individualism vs collectivism inside a person as opposed to politics and the difference between the first-hander (Roark) and second-handers (his antagonists).

--Brant

talk about an example of historical "presentism"!--Rand hadn't even thought of AS yet

[anthony]

If you knew what you were talking about when you talk about these things you wouldn't be you.

--Brant

Another elegant 'Brant-ism'.

I hope someone's keeping a record.

[Selene]

If you knew what you were talking about when you talk about these things you wouldn't be you.

--Brant

Another elegant 'Brant-ism'.

I hope someone's keeping a record.

Yep.

As I just read Ms. Xray's post, my mind was saying, but Objectivism did not even exist in the mind of it's creator when she was writing this ode to the individual against the collective in the Fountainhead.

Please Angela, can you at least give those of us who venerate Ayn the respect to understand the progression of her conceptual growth?

Additionally, before you make a Texas Chain Saw Massacre out of the passionate safe, sane and consensual love making scene between Dagny and Hank, I remind you that no one was injured. Have you ever heard someone say that it "hurt so good" to describe everything from sex to running a marathon?

Surely you have experienced an intense physical event where your endorphins were pumping and you felt no pain...no fear...no guilt...

hmmm where did I read that again?

Finally, the PG [gag me!] rating for the film would eliminate any graphics from the Dagny and Hank scene as written in Atlas. However, I will let you know after I return from seeing the film next Friday.

Adam

[Selene]

Atlas Shrugged showing Sunday in Richland Washington canceled

Richland A showing of Atlas Shrugged sponsored by the Tri-Cities Tea Party and listed in this week’s AT section of the Herald has been canceled. The movie was scheduled for Sunday at the Richland Public Library.Tea Party organizers said the movie producer had withdrawn permission to show the film because of pressure from movie theaters not to allow private screenings of the independent film.

Read more: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/04/07/1441503/movie-atlas-shrugged-showing-sunday.html#ixzz1IxQQ8IUc

Utah firm plays a role in "Atlas Shrugged" movie

Rocky Mountain Pictures, a Utah firm whose specialty is religious and politically themed films, is putting "Atlas Shrugged, Part 1," the first of a planned trilogy adapting Ayn Rand's landmark 1957 pro-capitalism novel, in theaters this week. (It's not scheduled to open in Utah theaters until April 15 -- and the distributor has already let it be known that it won't be screened for those local commie pinko movie critics.)

P.J. O'Rourke's Lukewarm Review in Wall Street Journal

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

This man is hilarious!

‘Washington Post - Atlas Shrugged’ finally makes it to the screen

“I’m stunned the film is coming out,” says Jennifer Burns, author of “Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right.” “The book is unwieldy. . . . Rand had difficulty fitting action into an ideological message, and every character carries a specific message for the story to make sense.”

Rand always had a thing for the silver screen. Growing up in Russia, she was a film fan who bought American movie magazines and kept a diary in which she ranked more than 300 pictures she had seen. Rand “got her view of life in the Western world from films; they represented elements of glamour and freedom,” says Anne C. Heller, author of “Ayn Rand and the World She Made.”

Washington Times Review ‘Atlas Shrugged’ ready for screen Investor shoulders the burden

The conservative Heritage Foundation hosted an advance screening of the movie on Wednesday. Reflecting the enduring legacy of Rand and her “objectivist” celebrations of the individual and the capitalist spirit, the venue for the sneak peek ended up so full that it had to be moved to a larger auditorium.

“I am one of those people whose political thought has been shaped by this book,” said Heritage policy analyst Nick Loris, who said he had read Rand’s book as a senior in college.

Mr. Aglialoro, who met with bloggers at a separate Heritage event the day before the screening, said he thought that Hollywood’s aversion to a film adaptation of “Atlas” was probably caused not by the book’s controversial message, but because a movie version simply did not seem profitable enough.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My count as of the addition today of lots more theatres is 165

[PDS]

PJ O'Rourke is indeed pretty hilarious. And you seemed to have found the money quote.

To the outside world, Objectivists come across as exotic as Jehovah's Witnesses, with equally charming stories about the end of the world and the Original Prophet. If this movie takes off the way we think it might, wait til old videos of Peikoff blithely talking about making a parking lot out of Iran, etc. through the years start getting played. Then some of us are going to wish we were Jehovah's Witnesses.

Edited April 8, 2011 by PDS

[Selene]

PJ O'Rourke is indeed pretty hilarious. And you seemed to have found the money quote.

To the outside world, Objectivists come across as exotic as Jehovah's Witnesses, with equally charming stories about the end of the world and the Original Prophet. If this movie takes off the way we think it might, wait till old videos of Peikoff blithely talking about making a parking lot out of Iran, etc. through the years start getting played. Then some of us are going to wish we were Jehovah's Witnesses.

PDS:

Agreed.

I am entirely glad that I made the decision to distance myself from the Peikovian wing after the split. As sad as it made me feel, it was extremely consistent with my understanding of what was truly "Objectivism."

I had never been a "follower," but always willing to be a "team" player as long as I never sacrificed my own independent judgement. If that judgement

was right, or, wrong, I would live with my decision.

Now, I can, with pride, recommend the movie to folks I know because I have never been one of the drones. However, I am getting prepared for all

the knee jerk "stuff" that is going to come raging our way.

I intend to enjoy playing philosophical jujitsu with the attacks. I am looking forward to being able to absorb the thrusts and turn them into insights for the attackers.

Tai chi is quite valuable to my mind as well as my physical well being in terms of argument.

Real good observations PDS.

Adam

As the agnostic said to the Jehovah's Witness...hell I didn't even see the accident.

[Xray]

As I just read Ms. Xray's post, my mind was saying, but Objectivism did not even exist in the mind of it's creator when she was writing this ode to the individual against the collective in the Fountainhead.

Ayn Rand may not yet have chosen the term "Objectivism" for her philosophy, but the ideas and principles of Objectivism certainly did exist in her mind when she wrote TF.

From TF to AS, there is no "earlier" Rand evolving into a "later" Rand changing her perspective on things.

Rand has always been clear as a bell in terms of her premises.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

As I just read Ms. Xray's post, my mind was saying, but Objectivism did not even exist in the mind of it's creator when she was writing this ode to the individual against the collective in the Fountainhead.

Ayn Rand may not yet have chosen the term "Objectivism" for her philosophy, but the ideas and principles of Objectivism certainly did exist in her mind when she wrote TF.

From TF to AS, there is no "earlier" Rand evolving into a "later" Rand changing her perspective on things.

Rand has always been clear as a bell in terms of her premises.

Ms. Xray:

And this piece of ignorant sophistry on your part is based on your extensive reading of Ayn's body of work?

Have you read the Heller book which contradicts your statement?

Adam

getting ready for the old "razzle dazzle" and "shuck and jive"

[Jonathan]

As I just read Ms. Xray's post, my mind was saying, but Objectivism did not even exist in the mind of it's creator when she was writing this ode to the individual against the collective in the Fountainhead.

Ayn Rand may not yet have chosen the term "Objectivism" for her philosophy, but the ideas and principles of Objectivism certainly did exist in her mind when she wrote TF.

From TF to AS, there is no "earlier" Rand evolving into a "later" Rand changing her perspective on things.

Rand has always been clear as a bell in terms of her premises.

Ms. Xray:

And this piece of ignorant sophistry on your part is based on your extensive reading of Ayn's body of work?

Have you read the Heller book which contradicts your statement?

Adam

getting ready for the old "razzle dazzle" and "shuck and jive"

From here:

Tom Snyder: When did you discover, or think up, or allow Objectivism to become your philosophy?

Rand: From the time that I remember myself which was two and a half, the first incident I can remember in my life I was two and a half...and from that time on the the present I never changed my convictions - only at two and a half I didn't know as much as I know now, but the fundamental approach was the same. I've never had to change.

[Selene]

As I just read Ms. Xray's post, my mind was saying, but Objectivism did not even exist in the mind of it's creator when she was writing this ode to the individual against the collective in the Fountainhead.

Ayn Rand may not yet have chosen the term "Objectivism" for her philosophy, but the ideas and principles of Objectivism certainly did exist in her mind when she wrote TF.

From TF to AS, there is no "earlier" Rand evolving into a "later" Rand changing her perspective on things.

Rand has always been clear as a bell in terms of her premises.

Ms. Xray:

And this piece of ignorant sophistry on your part is based on your extensive reading of Ayn's body of work?

Have you read the Heller book which contradicts your statement?

Adam

getting ready for the old "razzle dazzle" and "shuck and jive"

From here:

Tom Snyder: When did you discover, or think up, or allow Objectivism to become your philosophy?

Rand: From the time that I remember myself which was two and a half, the first incident I can remember in my life I was two and a half...and from that time on the the present I never changed my convictions - only at two and a half I didn't know as much as I know now, but the fundamental approach was the same. I've never had to change.

Jonathan:

I know the interview. Do you believe that statement? I don't.

Adam

[caroljane]

Did Ayn Rand actually proudly state that her entire philosophy was consistent with the perspective of a two-and-a half-year old child?

[Selene]

Did Ayn Rand actually proudly state that her entire philosophy was consistent with the perspective of a two-and-a half-year old child?

Carol:

Yep.

Disproving the old rule about what comes out of the mouths of babes!

She was a very conflicted woman when it came to her personal history.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> Did Ayn Rand actually proudly state that her entire philosophy was consistent with the perspective of a two-and-a half-year old child?

She said: "From the time that I remember myself which was two and a half...from that time on the the present I never changed my convictions...the fundamental approach was the same."

That's not saying: Same philosophy. It's saying she never changed her convictions or fundamental approach. Very different. A fundamental change might be from whim worship or irrationalism or altruism or being an evader. That's pretty fundamental, a sea change. A fundamental conviction might be that life is worth living, plunging headlong into, worth knowing, etc. In that sense, I would say that I and probably many people on this list haven't changed our fundamental convictions. (Where I'd quibble with the word choice is that very young children may have 'attitudes' but they don't yet have 'convictions'.)

Edited April 9, 2011 by Philip Coates

[anthony]

Tom Snyder: When did you discover, or think up, or allow Objectivism to become your philosophy?

Rand: From the time that I remember myself which was two and a half, the first incident I can remember in my life I was two and a half...and from that time on the the present I never changed my convictions - only at two and a half I didn't know as much as I know now, but the fundamental approach was the same. I've never had to change.

I hadn't read this before, and it's fascinating.

Dramatic licence? Bragging? Not necessarily; I don't find this hard to swallow.

If you look at most children, you can see a recognition in them that life is interesting and pleasurable (ie, knowable), and they are up to the challenge of living. (ie, self-confidence.)

Then, somewhere, comes a sense of defeat and confusion, and this wonderful period is consigned to the past.

(Around 5 years, or so, I clearly recall the feeling that the world was my oyster, for me to enjoy. How did it disappear as I grew up?)

Take a young genius, with outstanding confidence and uniquely clear sight, who never doubted herself, or her growing sense of reality, and it is possible that she was one who slipped through the net.

If it was nothing more than her sense of life, this I think is what grabbed us on first reading her: that in our past, it was once possible and we let it go.

Tony

[9thdoctor]

This one's no biggee, just a generic, positive review:

http://www.boortz.com/Player/100914891/

[Selene]

As I just read Ms. Xray's post, my mind was saying, but Objectivism did not even exist in the mind of it's creator when she was writing this ode to the individual against the collective in the Fountainhead.

Ayn Rand may not yet have chosen the term "Objectivism" for her philosophy, but the ideas and principles of Objectivism certainly did exist in her mind when she wrote TF.

From TF to AS, there is no "earlier" Rand evolving into a "later" Rand changing her perspective on things.

Rand has always been clear as a bell in terms of her premises.

Ms. Xray:

And this piece of ignorant sophistry on your part is based on your extensive reading of Ayn's body of work?

Have you read the Heller book which contradicts your statement?

Adam

getting ready for the old "razzle dazzle" and "shuck and jive"

From here:

Tom Snyder: When did you discover, or think up, or allow Objectivism to become your philosophy?

Rand: From the time that I remember myself which was two and a half, the first incident I can remember in my life I was two and a half...and from that time on the the present I never changed my convictions - only at two and a half I didn't know as much as I know now, but the fundamental approach was the same. I've never had to change.

Folks:

Brant stated that:

The Fountainhead is not an exposition on Objectivism, but individualism vs collectivism inside a person as opposed to politics and the difference between the first-hander (Roark) and second-handers (his antagonists).

--Brant

talk about an example of historical "presentism"!--Rand hadn't even thought of AS yet

Then I made my comment above about Ms. Xray's statement.

Then Jonathan employed Ayn's statement in apparent support of Ms. Xray's position [Jonathan can clarify my understanding of why he posted that clip, if he so chooses].

My last statement was as to whether Jonathan believed Ayn's statement and whether that statement supported the Ms. Xray's assertion about The Fountainhead, Objectivism and Atlas Shrugged.

My contention is that the formal philosophy of Objectivism did not exist at the time of Ayn writing The Fountainhead and, in addition, thematically the foundational conceptual basis of The Fountainhead was the struggle of the individual versus the collective whereas the foundational conceptual basis of Atlas Shrugged involved the fundamental philosophical elements of the formal philosophy of Objectivism. That philosophy still needed fleshing out as many have since argued. Additionally, that philosophy may not, as some have argued even qualify as a philosophy.

Brant can state his position as it is probably different from mine.

Adam

Post script: This thread was started by Steve for posts for reviews of the movie Atlas Shrugged - just thought I should mark the record - lol

Edited April 9, 2011 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand also rewrote parts of We The Living for a later edition to take out some rather nasty fundamental approach stuff (which was typical of people enthralled with Nietzsche), but she said she only "clarified" it or whatever.

People start doing this stuff as the narrative of their own legends gets formed over the years. Some Objectivists get really pissed when you say it, but Rand was a human being with normal human failings--and she fought her own inner demons just like everyone else did. This knowing her fundamental philosophical approach at two and a half thing is an example.

Exaggerating (or even altering) your past to fit a present narrative is a very common trait in humans and Rand succumbed to it at times.

I don't think noticing it takes away one bit from her achievement nor her heroism. (Her harsh critics may say this proves she was a hypocrite or something like that, but usually their purpose is propaganda, not clarification.) Having an inflated opinion of your past does not denigrate the work you have achieved in life.

Interestingly, if Rand had her approach set in stone at two and a half, how on earth did she expect to teach others to adopt it?

The message she transmits when she exaggerates that way is, "I was born that way. You weren't. But it's simple to learn to become that way. Just stop being like you are and be like I am."

Well, I'm glad we got that out of the way. And the way to stop being sick is to become healthy. Or the way to get out of poverty is to get some money...

One of the problems I've always had with her heroes is that they all seemed to be born into an attitude of productive competence and moral correctness--almost like royalty being born into power. They didn't have to learn any of it. Their learning consisted of acquiring technical skills for dealing with the outside.

There is no method I know of that she presented for dealing with normal inner human limitations so a person can grow beyond them--with the exception of telling people to identify and reject sanction of the victim. (There were a couple of cases where she tried to use art when she took on some informal therapy that she wrote about, but that's about all I can recall. Anyway, the moral of those stories was to reject sanction of the victim and achieve happiness.)

I'm glad NB's work pointed the way.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Here's a new, lengthy piece on the movie from Reason magazine.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/08/atlas-shrugged-the-movie

The main bit of news I took from it is that there's tension with the director.

[Jonathan]

Xray wrote:

Keating and Roark agreeing on passing off Roark's work as Keating's also contradicts a fundamental principle of Objectivism itself: not to fake reality.

Adam replied:

Objectivism did not even exist in the mind of it's creator when she was writing this ode to the individual against the collective in the Fountainhead.

Please Angela, can you at least give those of us who venerate Ayn the respect to understand the progression of her conceptual growth?

Phil added:

That's not saying: Same philosophy. It's saying she never changed her convictions or fundamental approach.

So, the specific issue at hand is whether or not Rand's convictions and fundamental approach, at the time that she was writing The Fountainhead, put her in opposition to "faking reality." I think they did. It would be quite a significant change in convictions to believe at one age that faking reality was perfectly acceptable, but then later to be adamantly opposed to it.

Howard Roark's actions were not moral, just, rational, fair, etc., according to the convictions that Rand held at the time, just as the heroic criminals in The Night of January 16th and her unpublished novel The Little Street did not behave morally according to Rand's beliefs at the time.

As Rand wrote (Journals of Ayn Rand, 22):

I do not think, nor did I think when I wrote this play, that a swindler is a heroic character or that a respectable banker is a villain. But for the purpose of dramatizing the conflict of independence versus conformity, a criminal – a social outcast – can be an eloquent symbol. This, incidentally, is the reason of the profound appeal of the "noble crook" in fiction. He is the symbol of the rebel as such, regardless of the kind of society he rebels against, the symbol – for most people – of their vague, undefined, unrealized groping toward a concept, or a shadowy image, of man's self-esteem.

That a career of crime is not, if fact, the way to implement one's self-esteem, is irrelevant in sense-of-life terms. A sense of life is concerned mainly with consciousness, not with existence – or rather: with the way a man's consciousness faces existence. It is concerned with a basic frame of mind, not with rules of conduct.

J

[Brant Gaede]

Nice post, J. I liked the way Rand analyzed this.

--Brant

[Greybird]

Here's a new, lengthy piece on the movie from Reason magazine. [link] [...]

From that history (the fullest summary yet of the travails in bringing this to the screen) and on-the-set report, this comment from the director:

The movie is "not about a woman and a railroad and a man and metal," Johansson insists. "It's about human achievement and the nobility of the human spirit." While he is aware of the rabid Rand fan community waiting to dissect his work, "I can't make a movie for this imagined group out there, whether Rand lovers or haters. That would be like art by committee."

That attitude augurs very well for this movie, methinks. Anyone who'd even consider the absurdity of shaping such a film according to what's called for on Objectivist Living — or SOLO Passion or Speicher's fan-site or Objectivism Online, for that matter — would be certifiably insane. Fandoms are not creative. Individuals are.

[Selene]

Huffington post reviewer blames Hollywood for this version of Atlas Shrugged! Wow

"I admire anybody who makes a movie, and any movie that gets made is a minor miracle. But doesn't an important book like this deserve better? And at the end of the day, isn't Hollywood to blame for this mess, not a well-meaning financier who tried his darndest and should be honored for putting in yeomen's work?

Shouldn't some of the time, talent and treasure that went into making movies like The Pope Must Diet or Kinsey have been diverted into the making of Atlas Shrugged? "

This is an interesting take on the "cancellation" of Atlas Shrugged's pre-screening in Washington State

"And really, when you think about it, what group with a political agenda — and this film’s producers have one — has ever been intimidated by what others think? I doubt the Tea Party gives a rip about what the theater chains think.

Even if the producers are having a small showing of this in other venues, the area theater chains are not going to turn down booking a movie that will generate popcorn and soda sales and a box-office cut. This is especially true if the film will bring in big box office numbers.

If their estimates are that the film will not generate big numbers, then they’re not going to be all that bothered by the few people that will attend them at screenings in those other venues.

Think about it. How many people can the Richland Public Library hold anyway? Not the kind of numbers that is going to upset a theater chain.

The movie actually opens nationwide April 15 in select theaters in larger markets. So this ultimately sounds like a push to get you to contact Regal, Carmike or Fairchild Cinemas and beg them to book the film in the Tri-Cities soon after.

Jeff Fairchild of Fairchild Cinemas told me he has received a few emails about the movie. At this point, he has no plans to show the film.

Bob Scarborough, who books movies for Carmike, told me he has been in touch with the film’s distributor. A decision as to whether the film will open in Tri-Cities depends upon how well it does in the larger markets next week.

I was unable to reach the person who books films for Rega"

Read more: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2011/04/08/1442675/mr-movie-tri-city-theaters-have.html#ixzz1J3WemZZ7

[Selene]

Last e-mail I received puts the film in 238 theaters

and it started with 11 or 12 ...

[Xray]

I just showed the latest trailer to appear on the movie website to my wife who was suitably impressed. I haven't seen a mention of it here anywhere yet. It is a scene in which Dagny talks with the delegate from the locomotive engineers union.

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-scene-dagny-confronts-union

If this is an example of the quality of the movie as a whole we are in for a treat.

My criticism of this is that there are a few precious seconds wasted lingering on the sleazy union delegate at the end rather than on the actress who plays Dagny.

I don't think the seconds are wasted because showing the two opposing positions casts a light on the philosophical theme of the novel.

Excellent performance in this scene by the actress playing Dagny.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Xray