"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[George H. Smith]

I have never been much of a fiction reader, to say the least, so when I finally decided to read Atlas Shrugged (I was in college at the time), I began by skipping to Galt's Speech, after which I read the other speeches. I liked those a lot, so I finally buckled down and read the incidental stuff. [...]

Well, that's a confirmation of one of my points from the not-so-common side of the equation. George was the one-in-ten (or fewer, by my own rough count) who wanted to take in Rand's philosophic positions first. He saw the plot surrounding those expositions as more or less "incidental" for his own preferences.

I have been reluctant to explain my major problem with Atlas because I feared it would be misinterpreted by some readers, and the last thing I want is to get bogged down in another lengthy and potentially polemical exchange. So let me be crystal clear about what I am about to say: I am making no judgment about Rand's aesthetic or technical skills as a fiction writer -- none, zero, nada. I merely wish to explain why a problem I have had for many years with novels in general intensified when I read Atlas.

I have always found it difficult to identify with fictional characters in a novel. "Identify" may not be the right word here, because I am not talking about a type of empathy. My problem is more fundamental and therefore more serious. I sometimes call it the problem of individuation. This problem, in a nutshell, is as follows:

When I read a novel I am almost always aware, on some level, that this novel was written by one person. This means that I can rarely escape into the world of a novel, as if the people and events are real, because I always feel that I am outsider looking in. And I am usually observing not the thoughts and actions of the characters but rather the thoughts of one person, i.e., the author, who is merely expressing himself in different forms.

This may be difficult to understand, so an illustration might help. Suppose a fictional character does something unusual or unexpected in a novel. Many readers might think "Why did this character take that action?" But foremost in my mind would typically be questions like "Why did the author introduce this plot twist? What was going through his mind when he wrote this?"

This example would be unimportant if it were the exception rather than the rule, but for me it is the rule. It is the way my mind customarily works -- there are exceptions, of course -- when I read a novel, regardless of the scene. In other words, I am primarily aware of only one "character" in a novel, namely, the author who wrote the novel. There is no individuation, in a fundamental sense, of the fictional characters.

My problem was compounded when I read Atlas. On virtually every page I was aware of reading about mental constructions by Ayn Rand -- emanations from a single mind, so to speak -- rather than about individuals with independent minds, personal histories, and unique emotional and psychological histories.

Please don't confuse my remarks with the hackneyed complaint that Rand's characters are wooden. This isn't my point. I don't think I should make this post much longer than it already is, but here is the skinny.

I would make a miserable novelist, but I have always thought that I could have been a decent playwright. This is because I am keenly aware of dialogue but virtually blind when it comes to descriptive narration. I can read a long passage describing how a person or location looks, and, if I force myself, I might be able to form a vague picture of that person or location in my mind. But this picture will quickly dissolve, so when I pick up the novel again, I must start from scratch.

I mention this because without the ability to visualize from descriptive narration, I have no recourse but to distinguish between characters almost entirely on the basis of what they think and say. This explains in large measure the accentuated problem I have with Atlas. When I read the book for the second and last time five years ago, I made a special effort to focus less on the dialogue and more on the narration. This caused me to appreciate a side of Rand's writing more than I had in the past, and it made the book more interesting to me overall, Even so, within a day after finishing Atlas , I couldn't have given a passable physical description of a single character. And it never seriously occurred to me to wonder why so-and-so did this or that. All that occurred to me was why Rand -- the only character that seemed "real" -- wrote such and such.

I hope this post makes sense to someone.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I can understand the plays, because the actors take the author's words and turn them into real and vivid people.

I take it you don't find movies so hard to watch.

I would suggest, George, that when you first read AS you had a very strong sense of self that prevented you from being sucked into Rand's world and its characters? I personally am most taken by the descriptive narration.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I can understand the plays, because the actors take the author's words and turn them into real and vivid people.

I take it you don't find movies so hard to watch.

I would suggest, George, that when you first read AS you had a very strong sense of self that prevented you from being sucked into Rand's world and its characters? I personally am most taken by the descriptive narration.

--Brant

You are correct. I don't have a similar problem with movies and plays, provided they are reasonably well written and directed. Actors accomplish the individuation of characters that my mind finds difficult to accomplish on its own. This is why I frequently like a film adaptation of a book more than the book iself.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

Essentially, from what I am understanding, with a novel, you do not operate with the willing suspension of disbelief?

Possibly because the written word is the logical sequential medium, the Gutenberg medium, whereas film is interactive visually and therefore permits the separation from the logical sequential written word.

Just a guess, but it is a unique phenomena that you have with the novel, character and author perception you described.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I get you easily.

You, more than most, know about the trance a good story puts you in--and then how the person can be misdirected and deceived in that state.

You're a trained magician.

And I've seen you tell some good tales.

I believe you deny yourself a wonderful pleasure by not letting yourself go.

I admit, you have nonfiction reading chops that I strive hard to attain, but, even so, a lot of that stuff bores the living daylights out of me. So I don't know if I'll ever get to a top nonfiction reading level.

As for fiction, you have to get out of nonfiction mode and release your magician's suspicion (and stop trying to control the author's message) to get into a good novel and let the images and emotions flow.

It's like what I used to tell people on acid trips who were freaking out in my college days--just lie back, let go and enjoy it. Eventually it will end and you can get back to normal. (Believe it or not, I saved several lives that way. Some of those people wanted to jump out of a window, say, 12 stories up or so in the dorm building and other crazy stuff.)

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

You remind me of when my friend called me on the phone and told me that he was dead because his heart was in his hands and it was not beating.

Well, needless to say, I ran full speed the ten (10) blocks to his house. He was tripping. So I very calmly, almost hypnotically said:

You know Mike I think that your heart just moved. So he looked down at his empty hands and I continued with the suggestions.

Yep see ... now just press it some more and it will start beating.

Good, now put it back in your chest and close up the skin ...

It worked, but I was more terrified than he was.

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

Okay, I've now seen the movie. Atlas Shrugged was given a screening in downtown D.C., and with assistance from Ed Hudgins and Laurie Rice at TAS, I got in. So here are my initial impressions (plus a mistake in the credits that I have not heard anyone else mention).

1) For those who have read the novel, "Not to worry." I think that it gets the spirit and the message of the novel across, which is a considerable feat because this is just the first part of a trilogy.

2) The production values were quite good. The actors, with a few exceptions, I thought accurately portrayed the characters of the novel. I had some reservations about how James Taggart was portrayed, and also Philip Rearden, but that did not detract from the overall presentation. On the other hand, Eddie Willers (Edi Gathegi)came across better and more forceful than how I had imagined him from my reading of the novel.

3) I guess I should warn you, I'm a sentimentalist at heart, and some of the scenes and the dialogue brought tears to my eyes.(No, I didn't fall down on the floor, bawling, or anything!). But given the declining state of our culture, and the amount of total bullshit that we have to wade through everyday, to see and hear characters on the screen uttering some classic lines that only Rand has put to paper, was, well, emotional.

4) Some things were not included that I wish were. D'Anconia's speech at Lillian Rearden's party on the meaning of money, was not there. Maybe it will be included in the remaining two parts.

5)The soundtrack score sounded even better than the excerpts that have been posted. It nicely accentuated the scenes on the screen.

6) Those who have read the novel and are expecting a near word-for-word transliteralization, will be disappointed. But I don't consider that a realistic expectation (These people will have to wait for my virtual reality presentation of the novel. In 2057. On Mars).

7) How about those who have never read the novel, what will they think about the movie? Personally, I don't have a clue. I have been familiar with the novel for almost 50 years. When I was watching it, I was filling-in in my mind the "missing" scenes. In other words, I knew what they were talking about. I don't know how it will come across to the "uninitiated." However, as I was walking out of the theater, someone approached Ed Hudgins and said, "You know I've never read that book. But this movie got me interested and now I am going to read it!" Hopefully, many people will feel that way.

8) Now for the very minor error that I caught. As in most movies, the credits at the end run for a good ten to fifteen minutes. As it was scrolling through, I saw Nathaniel Branden's name - but they had misspelled it! With an "o" where there should have been an "e." As I left, I mentioned this error to Ed Hudgins and David Kelley, both of whom seemed startled and said something along the lines of "Oh! I've got to find John Aglialoro - maybe that can be fixed before the general release!" Later, I remmembered a scene earlier in the movie, where Dagny and Hank are driving through a town in Colorado. They pass a sign that reads, "Brandon, Colorado." When I saw that, I thought, "Aha! An in-joke!," but after seeing Branden's name also misspelled in the credits, I'm inclined to think that both spellings were simply errors.

9) Also scrolling through the credits, near the end, was this statement: "This movie was produce with the permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand, but not with their participation."

10) All in all, I liked the movie, thought it was very well done (especially given the constraints of time and money), and I hope it will be successful at the Box Office.

EDIT: Please see my additional comments - and concerns - in post # 141)

Edited March 3, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Backlighting]

Given the prevailing & constant assault on the rich, I will be very disappointed if D'Anconia's money speech is not included in part 2 or 3. I believe its too important to be left out.

[Dennis Hardin]

Watch out, Dennis! You may end up eating crow for eating crow. If it's crow you should eat it might be the crow of reviewing a film you've yet to see.

--Brant

Just so I understand: When people look at a trailer or preview and say they really like everything about a forthcoming film, that's just hunky-dory. But when I look at the same previews and offer criticism, that's "reviewing a film before I see it."

What bullshit.

Except about 70% of what you've written on this thread was engaging Angie who had seen the film in its entirety.

--Brant

Oh good grief. Give me an example of a statement I made while "engaging Angie" that constituted "reviewing a film before I see it" or quit wasting my %#@&%$ time.

Grow up and quit wasting mine. If you weren't so hot under the collar I'd have gone into detail, but it's obvious you'll keep blowing up.

--Brant

Oh. Poor thing. I'm sorry. Go ahead and make all the stupid, unwarranted accusations you want. I'm being so childish to ask you to back them up. I'll try to be more gracious from now on.

[Dennis Hardin]

Okay, I've now seen the movie. Atlas Shrugged was given a screening in downtown D.C., and with assistance from Ed Hudgins and Laurie Rice at TAS, I got in. So here are my initial impressions (plus a mistake in the credits that I have not heard anyone else mention).

1) For those who have read the novel, "Not to worry." I think that it gets the spirit and the message of the novel across, which is a considerable feat because this is just the first part of a trilogy.

2) The production values were quite good. The actors, with a few exceptions, I thought accurately portrayed the characters of the novel. I had some reservations about how James Taggart was portrayed, and also Philip Rearden, but that did not detract from the overall presentation. On the other hand, Eddie Willers (Edi Gathegi)came across better and more forceful than how I had imagined him from my reading of the novel.

3) I guess I should warn you, I'm a sentimentalist at heart, and some of the scenes and the dialogue brought tears to my eyes.(No, I didn't fall down on the floor, bawling, or anything!). But given the declining state of our culture, and the amount of total bullshit that we have to wade through everyday, to see and hear characters on the screen uttering some classic lines that only Rand has put to paper, was, well, emotional.

4) Some things were not included that I wish were. D'Anconia's speech at Lillian Rearden's party on the meaning of money, was not there. Maybe it will be included in the remaining two parts.

5)The soundtrack score sounded even better than the excerpts that have been posted. It nicely accentuated the scenes on the screen.

6) Those who have read the novel and are expecting a near word-for-word transliteralization, will be disappointed. But I don't consider that a realistic expectation (These people will have to wait for my virtual reality presentation of the novel. In 2057. On Mars).

7) How about those who have never read the novel, what will they think about the movie? Personally, I don't have a clue. I have been familiar with the novel for almost 50 years. When I was watching it, I was filling-in in my mind the "missing" scenes. In other words, I knew what they were talking about. I don't know how it will come across to the "uninitiated." However, as I was walking out of the theater, someone approached Ed Hudgins and said, "You know I've never read that book. But this movie got me interested and now I am going to read it!" Hopefully, many people will feel that way.

8) Now for the very minor error that I caught. As in most movies, the credits at the end run for a good ten to fifteen minutes. As it was scrolling through, I saw Nathaniel Branden's name - but they had misspelled it! With an "o" where there should have been an "e." As I left, I mentioned this error to Ed Hudgins and David Kelley, both of whom seemed startled and said something along the lines of "Oh! I've got to find John Aglialoro - maybe that can be fixed before the general release!" Later, I remmembered a scene earlier in the movie, where Dagny and Hank are driving through a town in Colorado. They pass a sign that reads, "Brandon, Colorado." When I saw that, I thought, "Aha! An in-joke!," but after seeing Branden's name also misspelled in the credits, I'm inclined to think that both spellings were simply errors.

9) Also scrolling through the credits, near the end, was this statement: "This movie was produce with the permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand, but not with their participation."

10) All in all, I liked the movie, thought it was very well done (especially given the constraints of time and money), and I hope it will be successful at the Box Office.

Excellent review, Jerry. I am getting more optimistic every day. Thanks.

[Dennis Hardin]

> George, I feel I have to warn you. The Pretentious Ignoramus is reading this thread. (He's extremely pompous, too, but that's another story.) [Jeff R]

Is that me?

Actually, Peikoff annointed John McCaskey as the "pretentious ignoramus," but I seriously doubt he is following this thread.

At the time, ND said: "I love the projection: obnoxious braggart, pretentious ignoramus, now there’s Peikoff’s self definition essentialized!"

Good bit of insight, there.

[Greybird]

Moved to PM

Edited March 3, 2011 by Greybird

[George H. Smith]

George,

I get you easily.

You, more than most, know about the trance a good story puts you in--and then how the person can be misdirected and deceived in that state.

You're a trained magician.

And I've seen you tell some good tales.

I believe you deny yourself a wonderful pleasure by not letting yourself go.

I admit, you have nonfiction reading chops that I strive hard to attain, but, even so, a lot of that stuff bores the living daylights out of me. So I don't know if I'll ever get to a top nonfiction reading level.

As for fiction, you have to get out of nonfiction mode and release your magician's suspicion (and stop trying to control the author's message) to get into a good novel and let the images and emotions flow.

It's like what I used to tell people on acid trips who were freaking out in my college days--just lie back, let go and enjoy it. Eventually it will end and you can get back to normal. (Believe it or not, I saved several lives that way. Some of those people wanted to jump out of a window, say, 12 stories up or so in the dorm building and other crazy stuff.)

Michael

This is not really a matter of letting myself go. There are a number of novelists that I don't have much problem with. (Larry McMurtry comes to mind. So does Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, my favorite novel.) But when the dialogue, which is what really registers with me, comes across as written by one person, I do have a problem with "individuation."

This is why I had a problem with Atlas. The dialogue struck me as the ideas of one person expressed from various points of view, both positive and negative. I found the dialogue interesting, of course, but I always had the sense that I was reading an animated and very long essay written by one person, so to speak, not a work of fiction with many different characters.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> Actually, Peikoff annointed John McCaskey as the "pretentious ignoramus,"

You can't really answer my question, Dennis, because it was said by JR. Only he can say who he was referring to as the p.i. reading the thread.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is why I had a problem with Atlas. The dialogue struck me as the ideas of one person expressed from various points of view, both positive and negative. I found the dialogue interesting, of course, but I always had the sense that I was reading an animated and very long essay written by one person, so to speak, not a work of fiction with many different characters.

George,

I have to admit I always had difficulty with Rand's dialogue, too. All that stuff about "looters" was one of the first things that jumped out at me about AS, even in the white-hot heat I was in when I read it the first time. Especially when different characters expressed themselves at different times with something like, "I'm not a looter!"

To be honest, it came across as comical. I mostly ignored the urge to laugh, but it was there.

I suppose that's to be expected when you invent your own jargon--which is exactly what Rand did.

Rand really grabbed me on the emotional level and on suspense-agony. I couldn't wait to see what happened next. I actually read AS the first time in a little over a day non-stop (without sleeping). Of course I missed a lot, but what images and emotions!

In a funny way, the words were incidental and not very important.

Michael

[Jerry Biggers]

I have a few more thoughts after seeing the movie, not quite as glowing, and in addition to what I had wrote yesterday (post #132).

The issue about the "typo" in the credits (Brandon, instead of Branden) actually is rather trivial. The credits roll through so fast, and for so long, that probably most people didn't even notice this error. Of course, it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie.

After praising the movie, I do have some concerns about what I think are very important passages which are left out, and which blunt some of the impact. I've already mentioned D'Anconia's speech on the meaning of money being left out. But there is another area where, unfortunately, they dropped the ball.

In a brochure on the movie which was given out (probably aimed at the media people who had been invited), there was a brief summary of the importance of and meaning of the book. In a section labelled, "RELEVANCE TODAY - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, & Objectivism," it states,in part, "Rand's unique literary genius - which we hope to make accessible to a broader audience via film - is to show the price to be paid by the individual and society and society when the tragic words, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' are carried out." (italics added). In remarks made prior to the showing of the film, Ed Hudgins also specifically made that point again.

Okay, here is the problem: where in Atlas Shrugged is that point brought home so eloquently? It was in Part One, and Rand prefaces that selection from the novel in her book, For The New Intellectual, with that slogan from Karl Marx, and adds, "This is the story of what happened at the Twentieth Century Motor Company, which put the above slogan into practice - as told by one of the survivors." In that section, she quite clearly indicates what that leads to in practice.[EDIT: I am wrong on this! That specific selection was in Part Two of the novel. See the post following this one! However, the other discussions on the company's destruction with members of the Starnes family, and some others, are in Part One, Chapter 10, but they are not in this movie.]

But in the movie, there is a sequence showing Dagny and Hank in the ruined factory. Rearden gives a brief summary to Dagny of what happened, they view Galt's ruined prototype of his new motor, and then they go off looking around Starnesville for the company's heirs (and this is where they could have put that story, or at least its briefest essence - but it's not there). Now I know what this was all about because I read the book, but I'm not sure that those not familiar with the novel, got it. That is, what actually happened there, or why. The explanation that is excerpted in FNI is not included in the movie. The very brief summary that Rearden gives to Dagny, which is a few sentences, just doesn't capture it sufficiently, in my opinion. Obviously, they could not include the whole sequence, but they could have given at least some detail to show why that Marxist slogan was not only impractical, but evil, and that its implementation destroyed the company.

Now, in response, the producers might say, "But the whole movie is really about that issue, and the message is reiterated by other narratives." Maybe. I got it. But will those who have not read the book, get it?

What can be done about this? It is probably too late to include it in the movie (unless that sequence is "laying on the cutting room floor" - and if it is, please put it back in!). However, a discussion of "the Starnesville Incident" could still be put into the next movie, perhaps using a "flashback" technique.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[9thdoctor]

I've already mentioned D'Anconia's speech on the meaning of money being left out. But there is another area where, unfortunately, they dropped the ball.

In a brochure on the movie which was given out (probably aimed at the media people who had been invited), there was a brief summary of the importance of and meaning of the book. In a section labelled, "RELEVANCE TODAY - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, & Objectivism," it states,in part, "Rand's unique literary genius - which we hope to make accessible to a broader audience via film - is to show the price to be paid by the individual and society and society when the tragic words, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' are carried out." (italics added).

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but just want to point out that the money speech occurs early in part 2 of the novel, at Cheryl’s wedding. So maybe they’re saving it for part two, I actually predicted that somewhere on another thread. Does Cheryl get introduced at all in the film? Second, the “from each according…” theme is best presented in the scene with the tramp on the train, towards the end of part 2, so again, maybe they’re saving it for the next installment. I don't remember what was included in FNI, so maybe you're talking about something else.

[George H. Smith]

This is why I had a problem with Atlas. The dialogue struck me as the ideas of one person expressed from various points of view, both positive and negative. I found the dialogue interesting, of course, but I always had the sense that I was reading an animated and very long essay written by one person, so to speak, not a work of fiction with many different characters.

George,

I have to admit I always had difficulty with Rand's dialogue, too. All that stuff about "looters" was one of the first things that jumped out at me about AS, even in the white-hot heat I was in when I read it the first time. Especially when different characters expressed themselves at different times with something like, "I'm not a looter!"

To be honest, it came across as comical. I mostly ignored the urge to laugh, but it was there.

I suppose that's to be expected when you invent your own jargon--which is exactly what Rand did.

Rand really grabbed me on the emotional level and on suspense-agony. I couldn't wait to see what happened next. I actually read AS the first time in a little over a day non-stop (without sleeping). Of course I missed a lot, but what images and emotions!

In a funny way, the words were incidental and not very important.

Michael

In a sense, I was unable to give Atlas a fair hearing, because by the time I first read it I had already read nearly all of Rand's nonfiction over a period of three years. My response to Atlas might have been much different if I had learned about Rand's ideas as I read the novel.

Moreover, I had already acquired a good deal of second-hand knowledge about the plot of Atlas, so, with all these spoilers, nothing came as a surprise.

Many of our personal preferences ("tastes") in art seem to be formed early in life. This is true of my love of jazz. I played the alto saxophone for many years, starting in the 5th grade. It was around this time that jazz entered the mainstream of American culture with Henry Mancini's remarkable jazz theme for the hit television series Peter Gunn, a show that sometimes featured jazz musicians, such as Shorty Rogers, in the stories. My family watched this program every week, and I found myself far more taken with the music than I was with the program itself. I became a huge Mancini fan. I recall sitting through three showings of "Charade" not because I liked the movie that much but because I wanted to listen to the music again.

This was in 1963 -- my first year of high school when I began taking music seriously enough to ask my mother to foot the bill for private sax lessons twice a week. And this was the year that my interest in jazz, inspired by the bossa nova hits of Stan Getz and Jobim, really took off. I would spend virtually every cent I could get on jazz albums, shut myself in my bedroom, and listen to them over and over and over again.

A similar thing happened in literature, if to a lesser extent, around the same time. Because of my interest in freethought, I read Elmer Gantry while I was a sophomore. I was taken with the novel, so I read some other novels by Sinclair Lewis. I recall being especially struck by the moral dilemma posed in Arrowsmith, and Main Street hit a nerve with its depressing portrayal of the small town mentality. I still read or reread a Lewis novel from time to time, and I enjoy them immensely.

Sinclair Lewis has been described as a "vicious realist," and I vaguely recall that Rand denounced him in similar terms. So why do I like Lewis qua novelist more than I like Rand? I don't have a explanation other than the fact that I acquired a taste for Lewis in my early years. I identified with what he said, I liked the way he said it, and I still do.

Ghs

[rhartford]

. . . but just want to point out that the money speech occurs early in part 2 of the novel, at Cheryl’s wedding. So maybe they’re saving it for part two . . . Second, the “from each according…” theme is best presented in the scene with the tramp on the train, towards the end of part 2 . . .

WOW! Thanks for the reminder! Those scenes would make outstanding theater!

It has me looking forward to the movie Part 2, even though I thought Part 1 and Part 3 of the novel were the more exciting parts. I hope Part 2 can be out within a year!

[Jerry Biggers]

Oh. And another thing!

I take exception to Angie's description (in post #30) about the very brief sequence near the end of the movie, where Galt appears (actually, only his silhouette, he only appears in shadows, his face is never shown in the movie) at Ellis Wyatt's door, in the middle of the night. Only a few words are spoken before the scene ends, but it is obvious that this is where Galt makes his case for going on strike to Wyatt.

I don't recall this actual encounter in the book. Maybe it is there, and I have forgotten it.

Anyway, I think it is a construct developed in the screenplay, because similar scenes are shown earlir in the movie, where Galt makes his pitch at recruitment, but in all these cases, only a hint is given of what was said (which is okay).

But Angie in her post describes this scene as "weird" or "creepy." How so? Only the briefest excerpt is heard, and I don't see where Galt's comments are "out of character," or in anyway inappropriate. Since this conversation is not in the novel (and please correct me if I am wrong), I just don't see your objection.

If Galt had said something like, "Ellis, I'm really a great admirer of your work, and I'd like to discuss with you some implications that you may not have considered, and which I think are crucially important to your future. In fact, after you hear my proposal, I think that you will find it be one that you will not want to refuse.

So, let's go down to the bar and discuss this over a few beers." That's probably not what you had in mind (although, come to think of it, that probably would have worked with me!).

Seriously, Angie, what would you have him say? And in the two minutes given?

Edited March 3, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[George H. Smith]

I admit, you have nonfiction reading chops that I strive hard to attain, but, even so, a lot of that stuff bores the living daylights out of me. So I don't know if I'll ever get to a top nonfiction reading level.

The philosopher Brand Blanshard once said that he preferred reading biographies instead of novels, because not even the most brilliant novelist could think up the remarkable real-life characters and events than we find throughout history.

There may be some rhetorical exaggeration here, but I share Blandshard's perspective.

Ghs

[Jerry Biggers]

I've already mentioned D'Anconia's speech on the meaning of money being left out. But there is another area where, unfortunately, they dropped the ball.

In a brochure on the movie which was given out (probably aimed at the media people who had been invited), there was a brief summary of the importance of and meaning of the book. In a section labelled, "RELEVANCE TODAY - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, & Objectivism," it states,in part, "Rand's unique literary genius - which we hope to make accessible to a broader audience via film - is to show the price to be paid by the individual and society and society when the tragic words, 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need' are carried out." (italics added).

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but just want to point out that the money speech occurs early in part 2 of the novel, at Cheryl’s wedding. So maybe they’re saving it for part two, I actually predicted that somewhere on another thread. Does Cheryl get introduced at all in the film? Second, the “from each according…” theme is best presented in the scene with the tramp on the train, towards the end of part 2, so again, maybe they’re saving it for the next installment. I don't remember what was included in FNI, so maybe you're talking about something else.

You're right. D'Anconia's speech was not in Part One. Starts on p.410 of the clothbound or duplicate Plume paperback edition. So maybe they will pick it up.

You are correct also, that the sequence excerpted in FNI is from Part Two, pp.660-672.

(I feel better, already!) So, maybe they will include that, also, in the next movie!

However, the discussion with Ivy Starnes and others, discussing what happened at the Twentieth Century Motor Company, is in Part One, Chapter 10, "Wyatt's Torch." The relevant discussions about that were left out.

Rand's discussion of what that Marxist slogan means in practice, is an eye-opener for many people. After all, we have all been told that this Marxist slogan is actually the moral ideal. This is one of the most revolutionary statements by Rand, because it strikes at the base of collectivism. (End of sermon.) Sorry, I'm trying to make a point here about how central the "starnesville incident" is to the novel and should be to the movie. However, since there is an extended discussion of this in Part Two, the producers can still portray it in the next movie.

No, Cheryl is not in the movie, to the best of my recollection.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[Selene]

Jerry:

Thank you very much for your insights into the film.

Adam

[Selene]

Well well...the potential cheap shots begin for real with this "review" of a reviewer...

9th Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski

also known as The Cow Porn Judge

Adan

[Brant Gaede]

Watch out, Dennis! You may end up eating crow for eating crow. If it's crow you should eat it might be the crow of reviewing a film you've yet to see.

--Brant

Just so I understand: When people look at a trailer or preview and say they really like everything about a forthcoming film, that's just hunky-dory. But when I look at the same previews and offer criticism, that's "reviewing a film before I see it."

What bullshit.

Except about 70% of what you've written on this thread was engaging Angie who had seen the film in its entirety.

--Brant

Oh good grief. Give me an example of a statement I made while "engaging Angie" that constituted "reviewing a film before I see it" or quit wasting my %#@&%$ time.

Grow up and quit wasting mine. If you weren't so hot under the collar I'd have gone into detail, but it's obvious you'll keep blowing up.

--Brant

Oh. Poor thing. I'm sorry. Go ahead and make all the stupid, unwarranted accusations you want. I'm being so childish to ask you to back them up. I'll try to be more gracious from now on.

The only substantial comment I've found you made on the trailer was in your post #59. Almost all else are reviews of reviews of previews where you keep bouncing off apprehensive walls of a film you'd yet to see. It's not that you've actually reviewed the film in so much as speculatively and tentatively trying to without any real traction. That's my evaluation of most of your postings on this thread: they try to deal with the film in a second-hand way, not the trailer.

--Brant

see your posts 23, 28, 29, 35, 48, 59, 62, 63, 65, 92, 93, 94, 96, 103, 104