"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[Xray]

My 10 year old daughter loved it...

If that is the case, my initial speculation (I haven't seen the film) that they have 'softened' several scenes considerably in comparison to their radical description in the book (definitely not suitable for ten-year-olds imo) seems to be confirmed.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

Peikoff has a funny little anecdote in his latest podcast, to the effect that AR tried to legally restrict the casting of the Atlas Shrugged movie to assure no facial hair.

http://www.peikoff.com/2011/05/09/is-it-true-that-ayn-rand-detested-facial-hair-on-men/

[Backlighting]

Capitalism Magazine on-line review of AS:

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/movies/6399-cortlandt-homes-redux-why-john-agilardo-s-adaption-of-ayn-rand-s-novel-atlas-shrugged-utterly-fails.html

[9thdoctor]

Capitalism Magazine on-line review of AS:

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/arts/movies/6399-cortlandt-homes-redux-why-john-agilardo-s-adaption-of-ayn-rand-s-novel-atlas-shrugged-utterly-fails.html

Agilardo? They can't even spell the guy's name right. Bodes ill. They don't come more useless than Ed Cline.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

I want this one on record before they fix it. I did a screenshot and highlighted the error.

Call it getting in touch with my inner ornery.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

BEWARE! This movie undermines the Gospel.

[BaalChatzaf]

BEWARE! This movie undermines the Gospel.

If I were inclined to thank invisible deities I would thank the G-D of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that I am not a Christian.

Colson has what is called in Yiddish, a goyische kopf.

Rabbi Akiba had a better principle: He said:

If I am not for myself, then who is for me.

If I am only for myself, what am I

If not now, then when

Of course he said it in Hebrew.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

Rabbi Akiba had a better principle: He said:

If I am not for myself, then who is for me.

If I am only for myself, what am I

If not now, then when

I thought that was Rabbi Hillel.

[BaalChatzaf]

Rabbi Akiba had a better principle: He said:

If I am not for myself, then who is for me.

If I am only for myself, what am I

If not now, then when

I thought that was Rabbi Hillel.

Quite so. I had a senior moment. Akiba would have said it if he had though of it.

That is what happens when I rely on my memory. I should have looked it up. It is saying 1-15 in Perke Avot.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[9thdoctor]

They don't come more useless than Ed Cline.

He's baaack, unloading another pile of DO NOT WANT!!! on the film.

But this time he's giving a review of a review, attacking the positive review that appeared the The Objective Standard. He takes the opportunity to liken the film to this painting by Picasso:

Um, what can one say?

[9thdoctor]

Penn liked it, but he doesn't seem enthusiastic.

[william.scherk]

They don't come more useless than Ed Cline.

[Ed Cline]'s baaack, unloading another pile of DO NOT WANT!!! on the film.

[ . . . ]

But this time he's giving a review of a review, attacking the positive review that appeared the The Objective Standard. He takes the opportunity to liken the film to this painting [*] by Picasso:

Um, what can one say?

Well, he is is an Objectivist Mother Superior, so I expect we can only tug our snoods over our faces and nod, and scuttle back to our cells in the cloister . . .

Mother Superior Cline is surely reading from Scripture when he says this about Picasso's La Vie:

The Picasso painting is a “Blue Period” monochrome that initially is repulsive, and on inspection is depressing. Aside from the annoying blue, the figures in it are anatomically impossible, none of figures or the four groups is thematically connected to any of the others, and the malevolence of the picture telegraphs itself from across the gallery. The whole work seems to be an arbitrary jumble of random figures that just happen to be on the same canvas. The composition is erratic and happenstance. Its theme is the futility of existence. The figures could just as well be inanimate objects or a menagerie of zoo animals. It doesn’t matter.

Meanwhile, ASII is still holding at #22 in the rankings at Box Office Mojo.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Mother Superior Cline is surely reading from Scripture when he says this about Picasso's La Vie:

The Picasso painting is a “Blue Period” monochrome that initially is repulsive, and on inspection is depressing. Aside from the annoying blue, the figures in it are anatomically impossible, none of figures or the four groups is thematically connected to any of the others, and the malevolence of the picture telegraphs itself from across the gallery. The whole work seems to be an arbitrary jumble of random figures that just happen to be on the same canvas. The composition is erratic and happenstance. Its theme is the futility of existence. The figures could just as well be inanimate objects or a menagerie of zoo animals. It doesn’t matter.

Oh, wow.

Here's the painting again:

Initially, I find it lovely, and restful, though I think there is a deep sadness upon inspection. I like the blue. However reactions might differ on the pleasingness or non, and on the "theme," what is he looking at in describing the work as "seem[ing] to be an arbitrary jumble of random figures that just happen to be on the same canvas" and in saying that "The composition is erratic and happenstance"?

Would that the Atlas Shrugged movie had a fraction of the painting's compositional skill.

Ellen

Edited May 16, 2011 by Ellen Stuttle

[George H. Smith]

Penn liked it, but he doesn't seem enthusiastic.

[video deleted]

This is a review? I generally like Penn, but I found this almost incoherent. I think Penn has achieved the level of fame where he thinks he can say anything, no matter how poorly thought out, and his fans will eat it up. That attitude can be a big mistake.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

The Picasso painting is a “Blue Period” monochrome that initially is repulsive, and on inspection is depressing. Aside from the annoying blue, the figures in it are anatomically impossible, none of figures or the four groups is thematically connected to any of the others, and the malevolence of the picture telegraphs itself from across the gallery. The whole work seems to be an arbitrary jumble of random figures that just happen to be on the same canvas. The composition is erratic and happenstance. Its theme is the futility of existence. The figures could just as well be inanimate objects or a menagerie of zoo animals. It doesn’t matter.

You state that La Vie is not merely bad, incompetently done art; it was perhaps deliberately intended to be such....And how would we know that Picasso was an incompetent artist with nothing of value to say? Besides, he says, if this painting were by chance seen by someone uneducated in art, he might move on to appreciate the Bouguereau.

What a fuckheaded Randian ignoramus.

The interesting thing is that Picasso, who was intentionally not going for accurate realism in the image posted, was nevertheless a better painter with more consistent and accurate anatomy than Capuletti. Picasso's intentional deviations from reality in that image are less distorted than Capuletti's errors. What does that say about Rand's judgments of Capuletti? What must Special Ed think of Rand's glowing adoration of such an incompetent artist?

J

[Brant Gaede]

The interesting thing is that Picasso, who was intentionally not going for accurate realism in the image posted, was nevertheless a better painter with more consistent and accurate anatomy than Capuletti. Picasso's intentional deviations from reality in that image are less distorted than Capuletti's errors. What does that say about Rand's judgments of Capuletti? What must Special Ed think of Rand's glowing adoration of such an incompetent artist?

Capuletti did leave blatant errors in some of his paintings. I'm thinking of one where the female figure's feet don't seem to be standing on the floor but sort of floating above it. My biggest criticism of him is his depiction of people. They simply don't seem to be people and are frequently small in his landscapes. "That was the end of art schools for me" probably didn't help his techniques. I have a color brochure of his March 1970 NYC exhibition. I wished I owned some of his work. I wonder what it is worth today. It was probably over-priced then. I don't recall anything under 10,000 in 1970 dollars.

--Brant

Edited May 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Reidy]

If you're curious enough about his prices, Google "Jose Manuel Capuletti prices" and you'll find some subscriber-only services that give this information. Let us know what you learn.

[Jonathan]

If you're curious enough about his prices, Google "Jose Manuel Capuletti prices" and you'll find some subscriber-only services that give this information. Let us know what you learn.

The "recently sold" category in the market section at capuletti.com has some info:

http://www.capuletti.com/market.htm

J

Edited May 17, 2011 by Jonathan

[Brant Gaede]

If you're curious enough about his prices, Google "Jose Manuel Capuletti prices" and you'll find some subscriber-only services that give this information. Let us know what you learn.

The "recently sold" category in the market section at capuletti.com has some info:

http://www.capuletti.com/market.htm

J

Generally not very impressive.

(I have an unsigned Frank O'Connor print I've been waiting to put on eBay for a year or two now, but haven't gotten around to it. It's the artist dummy throwing Xmas tree ornaments. I got it on an eBay fluke in that it was listed under his name not mentioning her name so most who would have bid on it didn't. I was told by a dealer that a signed print went for about $1700 in his shop years ago and it was the only one he had ever seen. Only a hundred were sold. I used to own a signed print but I traded it a while back.)

--Brant

Edited May 17, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

I just reread Cline's ridiculous rant in an effort to try understand where in the hell he's coming from.

"...the figures in it are anatomically impossible, none of figures or the four groups is thematically connected to any of the others...The whole work seems to be an arbitrary jumble of random figures that just happen to be on the same canvas. The composition is erratic and happenstance."

Does the clown not understand that two of the groups, which he doesn't think are "thematically connected," are artist's drawings behind the figures? Do you think that's it? Could he be that visually incompetent?

J

Edited May 17, 2011 by Jonathan

[PDS]

I just reread Cline's ridiculous rant in an effort to try understand where in the hell he's coming from.

"...the figures in it are anatomically impossible, none of figures or the four groups is thematically connected to any of the others...The whole work seems to be an arbitrary jumble of random figures that just happen to be on the same canvas. The composition is erratic and happenstance."

Does the clown not understand that two of the groups, which he doesn't think are "thematically connected," are artist's drawings behind the figures? Do you think that's it? Could he be that visually incompetent?

J

In response to your last question, the answer seems to be yes.

I think this can safely be called Boilerplate Syndrome.

Edited May 17, 2011 by PDS

[9thdoctor]

I just reread Cline's ridiculous rant in an effort to try understand where in the hell he's coming from.

Any idea why Cline chose to pick on this particular painting? I really don’t get the connection. Why not pick on Van Gogh, or Munch?

[Jonathan]

I just reread Cline's ridiculous rant in an effort to try understand where in the hell he's coming from.

Any idea why Cline chose to pick on this particular painting? I really don’t get the connection. Why not pick on Van Gogh, or Munch?

Well, Picasso was later guilty of showing things from more than one perspective at once, which Rand said was a vicious attack on cognition and on everything else in the entire universe, or something, so I think that probably makes him the third most evil man in mankind's history (behind Kant and Nathaniel Branden), so, therefore, when Cline needs an example of evil in the arts, I don't think it really matters to him which of Picasso's paintings he goes with. They're all pure evil.

J

[Xray]

New York post article: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/box_office_atlas_shrugged_collapses_1oWcoz9xOxcmfdaik24uFN

Collection of comments on the movie: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2710821/posts

Edited May 19, 2011 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

The movie shows up on Netflix, you can save it so it will go into your queue automatically once it’s available on DVD. I don’t know if it makes a difference, in the sense of casting a vote for the movie, to add it to your queue this way. There’s quite a few user comments, typical stuff, running the gamut from loving it to hating it.