"Atlas Part 1" Commentaries and Reviews

[CNA]

But, unfortunately, the movie speech was heavily butchered and an essential part left out to help the viewer understand.

I mentioned here that the money speech may be being saved for part two. Jerry reported that it wasn’t in the film at all. Perhaps there’s just supposed to be a foreshadowing in this scene you’re talking about. Now, again, I haven’t seen it yet, but is it possible that you’re unhappy because they don’t give away the whole store? They’re saving stuff for the future installments, and so they’re leaving you with questions? I get just a sense that you’re disappointed like one may feel after going on a first date where everything went really well, but in the end there’s no sex.

Funny analogy. I'm basing it in the context of what I saw. Of course, future installments and I know what's to come and hopefully more substance. But again, this isn't being factored into the specific context of what I saw in Part 1.

[CNA]

But, unfortunately, the movie speech was heavily butchered and an essential part left out to help the viewer understand.

I mentioned here that the money speech may be being saved for part two. Jerry reported that it wasn’t in the film at all. Perhaps there’s just supposed to be a foreshadowing in this scene you’re talking about. Now, again, I haven’t seen it yet, but is it possible that you’re unhappy because they don’t give away the whole store? They’re saving stuff for the future installments, and so they’re leaving you with questions? I get just a sense that you’re disappointed like one may feel after going on a first date where everything went really well, but in the end there’s no sex.

Ninth,

Any responses of mine are going to be rather abrupt because I'm working now and pressure of a deadline coming up very very soon that needs to be met as well as other deadlines and the near future looks to be rather swamped. Quickly, in what I saw in the movie, the target audience you are looking for and helping them to understand a little bit better to help draw them in that much more. If it gives some pieces of the puzzle and more substance and an understanding, that understanding will pull them in much more rather than their thinking, uh, what the hell did I just see and their interest may become fleeting versus an Oh, Ah, some questions were answered and I'm anticipating what's to come and looking forward to Part 2. But for me and given the lack of substance, I did not get that reaction based on what I was seeing in the movie. Understanding and knowledge goes a long way as we all know.

[9thdoctor]

If it gives some pieces of the puzzle and more substance and an understanding, that understanding will pull them in much more rather than their thinking, uh, what the hell did I just see and their interest may become fleeting versus an Oh, Ah, some questions were answered and I'm anticipating what's to come and looking forward to Part 2.

I’m not yet in a position to judge. The writer had to do a balancing act, not giving away too much or too little. Your vote is in, others who have seen it seem to disagree, that about covers it. I might end up agreeing with you, I’ll say so when the time comes. Nevertheless, at the end of part one of the book you should be wondering what the hell’s going on. By introducing John Galt as a real person, however shadowy, they seem to have accelerated well beyond the book’s pace when it comes to disclosures.

[Greybird]

A.H. [...] Ingrid Bergman got angry with me one evening because of those long shots [on Under Capricorn]. And, since I never lose my temper and I hate arguments, I walked out of the room while her back was turned to me. I went home, and later on someone called to inform me that she hadn't noticed my departure and was still complaining twenty minutes after I'd gone.

F.T. I remember talking to her in Paris later on, and she had harrowing memories of the way large pieces of the decor would vanish into thin air during those long shots.

A.H. That's right. She didn't like that method of work, and since I can't stand arguments, I would say to her, "Ingrid, it's only a movie!" You see, she only wanted to appear in masterpieces. How on earth can anyone know whether a picture is going to turn out to be a masterpiece or not? When she was pleased with a picture she'd just finished, she would think, "What can I do after this one?" Except for Joan of Arc, she could never conceive of anything that was grand enough; that's very foolish! [...]

~ From an interview with Alfred Hitchcock in François Truffaut's Hitchcock (boldface emphasis added)

[...] the Law of Causality has been taken out and the movie is for the most part Law of Identity only and there is absolutely no integration and causal connections between two extremely fundamentally important aspects of the philosophy and what's displayed in the book but unfortunately fell dismally short in the movie.

[...] Once they go in and only for the most part seeing the Law of Identity and identification but there is no substance, no Law of Causality, NO WHY there for them to piece it together and to integrate these two, they potentially will leave confused and baffled because they weren't given the opportunity to integrate the two.

[...] Ayn Rand is WORTH fighting for. The ideas and the philosophy are WORTH fighting for. Set aside any differences amongst organizations and individuals and unify and FIGHT for what is RIGHT. If anyone sees the issues as I am seeing them as well, praise the movie for the areas that are successful but DO NOT SIT IDLY BY and IGNORE the problems hoping that they will go away. Evasion will do NOTHING and will only promote the destruction. PLEASE SPEAK UP!!!!

This, really, is not analysis — it's quasi-religious fervor. It can't be argued with, because it's not an argument. It's rage and disappointment, taken out of the context of what we're talking about: a filmed dramatization, and then, only a third of its planned extent.

Angie, and others thus inclined, please — take up the wisdom in a master filmmaker's perspective, before you burn yourself up over this.

It's only ...

[Greybird]

[Quoting Greybird:] "And I thought that Walker's book title [The Ayn Rand Cult] was overblown. It appears I was mistaken."

Based on one instance? And that one second-hand?

No, this whole milieu has been riding a fine edge toward culthood since Rand's death. It's just that this film project (even a third of it) is pushing the issues toward clarity, or at least fervent pronouncements.

I felt that anything even approaching a genuine cult, formed around the (philosophical) charisma of Rand and Nathaniel Branden, died when NBI died. Yet the flames were stoked. They leapt up highest with Schwartz's dismissal of the facts of Rand's personal life (in the wake of Passion), while nonetheless engaging in Randolatry. And with Peikoff's "Fact and Value" granting his unlimited license to moralizing.

We've had cloisters: the whole monastery in Irvine, the HPO newsgroup, OCON, and others. Yet those don't genuinely proselytize. It wasn't going to cross the line into outright culthood until Rand's own philosophic project, the closest thing to her own heart, was put into new hands to be portrayed — or, as some have raged about, traduced.

Now we have the one element of Rand's life that's more vivid than she was herself being put into the open, the spirit made real and dwelling among us (culturally), and this is what's going to bring out the cultish substance at long last. By both critics and defenders of Aglialoro's project. And it ain't gonna be a pretty sight.

[CNA]

A.H. [...] Ingrid Bergman got angry with me one evening because of those long shots [on Under Capricorn]. And, since I never lose my temper and I hate arguments, I walked out of the room while her back was turned to me. I went home, and later on someone called to inform me that she hadn't noticed my departure and was still complaining twenty minutes after I'd gone.

F.T. I remember talking to her in Paris later on, and she had harrowing memories of the way large pieces of the decor would vanish into thin air during those long shots.

A.H. That's right. She didn't like that method of work, and since I can't stand arguments, I would say to her, "Ingrid, it's only a movie!" You see, she only wanted to appear in masterpieces. How on earth can anyone know whether a picture is going to turn out to be a masterpiece or not? When she was pleased with a picture she'd just finished, she would think, "What can I do after this one?" Except for Joan of Arc, she could never conceive of anything that was grand enough; that's very foolish! [...]

~ From an interview with Alfred Hitchcock in François Truffaut's Hitchcock (boldface emphasis added)

[...] the Law of Causality has been taken out and the movie is for the most part Law of Identity only and there is absolutely no integration and causal connections between two extremely fundamentally important aspects of the philosophy and what's displayed in the book but unfortunately fell dismally short in the movie.

[...] Once they go in and only for the most part seeing the Law of Identity and identification but there is no substance, no Law of Causality, NO WHY there for them to piece it together and to integrate these two, they potentially will leave confused and baffled because they weren't given the opportunity to integrate the two.

[...] Ayn Rand is WORTH fighting for. The ideas and the philosophy are WORTH fighting for. Set aside any differences amongst organizations and individuals and unify and FIGHT for what is RIGHT. If anyone sees the issues as I am seeing them as well, praise the movie for the areas that are successful but DO NOT SIT IDLY BY and IGNORE the problems hoping that they will go away. Evasion will do NOTHING and will only promote the destruction. PLEASE SPEAK UP!!!!

This, really, is not analysis — it's quasi-religious fervor. It can't be argued with, because it's not an argument. It's rage and disappointment, taken out of the context of what we're talking about: a filmed dramatization, and then, only a third of its planned extent.

Angie, and others thus inclined, please — take up the wisdom in a master filmmaker's perspective, before you burn yourself up over this.

It's only ...

I understand that, Steve. And Interesting to classify that of my so-called rage. Such a strong word to use as if my anger is boiling over when that is far from the truth. I am disappointed but in the way of being more saddened as I was highly anticipating this film and then let down because I expected it to follow her philosophy more closely and giving it more substance in the movie. I put in the bold to make it stand out to people not as an indication of my anger. Far from it. Everybody who views the movie will have to analyze and figure out why they liked it or why they didn't like it. I now know my reasons and it is done and over with, conclusion has been drawn through meticulous thinking as to why I personally did not like what I saw, so as you say burning myself up over this and figuring out why is non-existent now. It's with any problem an individual may be confronted with and their trying to figure out the what and why as to their feelings, their actions, their thoughts and integrating these and their connection to each other based on what they see in the movie. It's part of life for those who think. Those who I know who are O'ists and did not like the movie are going through the same journey I have gone through and their figuring out why they didn't like it for themselves or why they did like it and they will figure it out on their own and perhaps through the help of their friends who are going through it as well.

You are right. My expectations for the movie and following Rand's philosophy was too high. I understand the adaptation, what has to be taken out and left in according to that one person's perspective and judgment and any other person who may also be a consultant on it and how they think it might be successful. But ultimately, it's the audience and how they view it that will determine how successful the movie will be in the long run and how many people it reaches, especially through word of mouth since there is not a big budget for marketing unfortunately. To my understanding and what I know, Rand did not want the book to be made into a movie. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have read this in quite a number of places. There's a reason why, especially coming from the creator of the philosophy itself. Did she ever express her reasons why? I do not know. Perhaps some here can answer. Perhaps she knew that the book is way too complex to be successfully made into a screen adaptation. Fountainhead was a lot less complex philosophically and did not do well to my understanding and Rand stated her reasons why she believed it didn't do well as far as I know.

For many involved in the philosophy and those who admire Rand, there is tremendous excitement, emotion involved, to view this movie truly objectively so subjectively and these emotions may cloud objectivity and reason upon viewing it, including that of yourself, myself, and pretty much all of the movement, especially those who were intimately involved with Ayn Rand to whatever degree when she was alive. Everyone who sees the movie will judge it on their own and I encourage this tremendously to go see it. Typically books made into a screen adaptation are no where near as good as the book themselves and this is a given. But with my concerns, I will and have let those know who I have come across and will come across and they express an interest to please read the book first to get a better understanding of the philosophy and to potentially avoid confusion.

Angie

[9thdoctor]

To my understanding and what I know, Rand did not want the book to be made into a movie. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have read this in quite a number of places. There's a reason why, especially coming from the creator of the philosophy itself. Did she ever express her reasons why?

She was working on the screenplay (teleplay?) for a mini-series when she died. You’ll find it in the Essays on Atlas Shrugged book, at least this reviewer says it’s in there:

http://www.amazon.com/Essays-Ayn-Rands-Atlas-Shrugged/product-reviews/0739127802/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1OV76HDWQSML7

I think I read somewhere the producer of The Godfather had a deal with her, and she started making impossible demands, and his conclusion was that she just didn't want it made. So, there's evidence both ways.

[Dennis Hardin]

Andy Bernstein has chimed in with praise for the movie.

Objectivism online

EDIT: Can't resist, Bernstein says "Good job by John Aglioloro and all associated with the project." So, he just said David Kelley did a good job! Start the countdown to the sackcloth and ashes!

Bernstein's (alleged) post:

Just saw the Atlas Shrugged movie as a special preview in NYC. Despite many minor criticisms, overall I liked it a lot. On a scale of 1-10, rate it as a 7. Good job by John Aglioloro and all associated with the project. Not easy to do a good artistic rendition of Part One in 100 minutes. Absorbed my attention thoroughly--and will definitely see it again, when it opens in NY in April.

23 hours ago · Unlike

·

Was this from facebook?

Hard to believe he didn’t clear this with Peikoff first. Or that he didn‘t know of Kelley’s involvement. He may well live to regret such candor.

[Dennis Hardin]

To my understanding and what I know, Rand did not want the book to be made into a movie. Correct me if I'm wrong but I have read this in quite a number of places. There's a reason why, especially coming from the creator of the philosophy itself. Did she ever express her reasons why?

She was working on the screenplay (teleplay?) for a mini-series when she died. You’ll find it in the Essays on Atlas Shrugged book, at least this reviewer says it’s in there:

I think I read somewhere the producer of The Godfather had a deal with her, and she started making impossible demands, and his conclusion was that she just didn't want it made. So, there's evidence both ways.

Atlas Shrugged: Film and Television Adaptations

A film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged has been in "development hell" for nearly 40 years. In 1972, Albert S. Ruddy approached Rand to produce a cinematic adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. Rand insisted on having final script approval, which Ruddy refused to give her, thus preventing a deal. In 1978, Henry and Michael Jaffe negotiated a deal for an eight-hour Atlas Shrugged television miniseries on NBC. Michael Jaffe hired screenwriter Sterling Silliphant to adapt the novel and he obtained approval from Rand on the final script. However, in 1979, with Fred Silverman's rise as president of NBC, the project was scrapped.

Rand, a former Hollywood screenwriter herself, began writing her own screenplay, but died in 1982 with only one-third of it finished.

[Dennis Hardin]

I've been reliably informed that at least one attendee at these early screenings, in return for having posted a negative appraisal, has already been subject to repeated and strenuous verbal abuse for it, through e-mail and other routes, from outraged "Rand fans." To the point of having to change a social-network user name.

I thought the cult, with its self-contradictions, was broken up over forty years ago. With only delusions of Peikoff and some associates about preserving a ghostly impression of it. And I thought that Walker's book title was overblown. It appears I was mistaken.

I have not seen the film, but I have "dared" to make certain criticisms of the trailer and previews. (I thought I was just voicing my opinion, as I would with any forthcoming film.) Based on my own experience, I find Steve's post entirely credible.

[Dennis Hardin]

Again, I'm putting this out for consideration. I know there may be opposing views and this is a given. But if anyone else is also seeing the same issues I am, I ask and request to please speak up in hopes that it gets back to those who are closely involved with the movie and for them to please FIX it before the release nationally. Given the timing of the release and the potential significance of this movie, I think it is extremely important to tweak the movie. If not entirely, at least go back and INCLUDE Francisco's speech to Hank regarding money and that it is NOT the root of all evil -- just something to help the viewer integrate the earlier scenes. They have the WHAT but they DON'T have the WHY.

Ayn Rand is WORTH fighting for. The ideas and the philosophy are WORTH fighting for. Set aside any differences amongst organizations and individuals and unify and FIGHT for what is RIGHT. If anyone sees the issues as I am seeing them as well, praise the movie for the areas that are successful but DO NOT SIT IDLY BY and IGNORE the problems hoping that they will go away. Evasion will do NOTHING and will only promote the destruction. PLEASE SPEAK UP!!!!

Angie

Angie,

I am entirely sympathetic to your viewpoint. I have not seen the finished film, but it seems fairly obvious from the comments of those who have that the producers would do well to make some changes along the lines you suggest before the film hits the theatres. On the other hand, I was very impressed by David Kelley's comments regarding his influence on the final script:

My role was to advise on whether the scripts were true to the philosophical themes, plot, and characters of the novel; I read and wrote detailed comments on at least six different scripts, all of which had major defects. In this case, thanks to John's involvement, the script nicely captured the central story in Part I of the novel, and the themes came through loud and clear.

Based on the fact that a truly brilliant Objectivist intellectual like David was this closely involved in final script approval (which I did not know before), I feel the need to reserve further comments until after I have seen the film.

Even so, I want you to know that I genuinely admire your courage in speaking out.

[CNA]

Again, I'm putting this out for consideration. I know there may be opposing views and this is a given. But if anyone else is also seeing the same issues I am, I ask and request to please speak up in hopes that it gets back to those who are closely involved with the movie and for them to please FIX it before the release nationally. Given the timing of the release and the potential significance of this movie, I think it is extremely important to tweak the movie. If not entirely, at least go back and INCLUDE Francisco's speech to Hank regarding money and that it is NOT the root of all evil -- just something to help the viewer integrate the earlier scenes. They have the WHAT but they DON'T have the WHY.

Ayn Rand is WORTH fighting for. The ideas and the philosophy are WORTH fighting for. Set aside any differences amongst organizations and individuals and unify and FIGHT for what is RIGHT. If anyone sees the issues as I am seeing them as well, praise the movie for the areas that are successful but DO NOT SIT IDLY BY and IGNORE the problems hoping that they will go away. Evasion will do NOTHING and will only promote the destruction. PLEASE SPEAK UP!!!!

Angie

Angie,

I am entirely sympathetic to your viewpoint. I have not seen the finished film, but it seems fairly obvious from the comments of those who have that the producers would do well to make some changes along the lines you suggest before the film hits the theatres. On the other hand, I was very impressed by David Kelley's comments regarding his influence on the final script:

My role was to advise on whether the scripts were true to the philosophical themes, plot, and characters of the novel; I read and wrote detailed comments on at least six different scripts, all of which had major defects. In this case, thanks to John's involvement, the script nicely captured the central story in Part I of the novel, and the themes came through loud and clear.

Based on the fact that a truly brilliant Objectivist intellectual like David was this closely involved in final script approval (which I did not know before), I feel the need to reserve further comments until after I have seen the film.

Even so, I want you to know that I genuinely admire your courage in speaking out.

Thank you, Dennis, for your comments and input. Given the nature of the movie and the philosophy itself, I doubt very seriously that anyone involved in the movement as a consultant would let it fly be the seat of someone else's pants without having input from someone who is involved in the philosophy and knows the book, so I have no doubts that David was involved.

Unfortunately, time is of the essence right now. Such as the nature of my business and job and deadlines, the real world is calling and there is money to be made. Need to hit the grindstone because these deadlines need to be met very soon so my postings will more than likely drop off. I will do my best to respond when I am able. As I said, I put it out there for consideration and there are those that will have opposing views to whatever degree and expect this. But for those that think as we all know, they will be set on their own journey because of it and will have to figure out on their own why they liked it and why they didn't like it. If I am able to respond, my responses may be very short. Of course how I am, have a lot to say and expanding and elaborating more thoroughly in areas. But given time is of the essence right now, this will hinder my ability to give those types of responses.

Hope everyone has a wonderful weekend!!

Angie

(Edit: Thinking more about what I posted and the way it was worded, I wanted to come back and make sure it was more clear and no misunderstandings.)

Edited March 5, 2011 by CNA

[Reidy]

In addition to the fact that Rand was working on a script toward the end of her life, if she hadn't wanted a screen version she would never have dealt with Ruddy or the network in the first place, nor would she have written so enthusiastically about the Ruddy project before it fell apart. She would simply have told her agent to say no and not to pass any inquiries along to her. She was open to an adaptation on her terms.

[kiaer.ts]

I agree with Angie that how they handle the Money Speech is crucial. I could have sworn that Francisco's money speech was in part one. But it is on p 410 of the paperback, near the beginning of part two.

[Selene]

Interesting approach by the Atlasphere folks:

This week the Atlasphere will publish a series of reviews exploring the new Atlas Shrugged movie. In this, our first review, physicist Hans Schantz looks closely at what changed from the novel and what remains intact.

Atlas Shrugged movie: Faithful, outstanding by Physicist Hans Schantz

"The new film adaptation of the first part of Atlas Shrugged stays remarkably close to the source material and, by virtue of this fact, yields an outstanding movie. Despite a modest budget and a rushed production timeline, the movie works, racing with breathtaking speed through the first third of Ayn Rand’s classic novel."

[kiaer.ts]

An interesting review.

[Selene]

An interesting review.

Yes. I thought he was quite straightforward about the meshing of the novel with the film medium with it's pluses and minuses.

Additionally, the creation of a 2016 crisis of 37,00 per gallon oil creating trains as the "economic" method of travel could actually be predictive based on what is going on in the middle east.

[kiaer.ts]

An interesting review.

Yes. I thought he was quite straightforward about the meshing of the novel with the film medium with it's pluses and minuses.

Additionally, the creation of a 2016 crisis of 37,00 per gallon oil creating trains as the "economic" method of travel could actually be predictive based on what is going on in the middle east.

Unless they expect the movie to be a flash in the pan, the 2016 date was a huge mistake. They could easily have said "the day after tomorrow."

[Selene]

An interesting review.

Yes. I thought he was quite straightforward about the meshing of the novel with the film medium with it's pluses and minuses.

Additionally, the creation of a 2016 crisis of 37,00 per gallon oil creating trains as the "economic" method of travel could actually be predictive based on what is going on in the middle east.

Unless they expect the movie to be a flash in the pan, the 2016 date was a huge mistake. They could easily have said "the day after tomorrow."

Ted:

Part II could contain a slow timeline with an enlargement of the character development. Francisco and Cheryl can be developed fully. Plus they can create the flashbacks to Slug and Frisco and their idyllic projection of the way the world should be and why it did not emerge as they believed it would. This would allow the movie to stay in the 2016 to 2018 time frame.

Additionally, my personal hero Ragnar can also be developed. I would not be concerned about that date.

However, I am certainly all ears as to why you think it was a poor selection..

Adam

Edited March 8, 2011 by Selene

[Guyau]

.

It is plain from what Ted said. 2016 will come and go soon. It is like the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, only the deviation of the situation in the actual world from the previously projected world will become apparent much more quickly. Leaving the year unspecified, leaving it at simply an indefinite near future avoids the cheap-shot criticism "Well, well. Here we are in 2020, with a mixed economy, and guess what: the economy has not regressed (greatly: towards horses, barter, vanishing of capital, etc.)." Also, for the film audience today, setting the date at 2016 self-cheapens by suggesting an immediate political message: vote Republican in 2012 or this is where we will be and this is what your government will be doing by 2016.

Perhaps someone who has seen the film can tell us how the specific year registered with them.

Related, concerning the novel: A, B

.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[Philip Coates]

> Unless they expect the movie to be a flash in the pan, the 2016 date was a huge mistake. They could easily have said "the day after tomorrow." [Ted]

> Part II could contain a slow timeline with an enlargement of the character development. Francisco and Cheryl can be developed fully. Plus they can create the flashbacks to Slug and Frisco and their idyllic projection of the way the world should be and why it did not emerge as they believed it would. This would allow the movie to stay in the 2016 to 2018 time frame. [Adam]

> for the film audience today, setting the date at 2016 self-cheapens by suggesting an immediate political message: vote Republican in 2012 or this is where we will be and this is what your government will be doing by 2016. [stephen]

Good points.

Did I miss something regarding whether or not the year is actually mentioned prominently in the movie itself? Someone who has seen the movie might know. If it's not mentioned or not prominent, it's probably a non-issue at least with viewing audiences. Or will be forgotten by the time parts two and three role around.

[anthony]

Shrikant Rangnekari, in the latest Atlasphere article about Atlas Shrugged Part1, provides the words to my thoughts.

"Making a great movie based on a great book is not the mere translation, but the creation of, an entirely new artistic integration."

He makes a telling analogy:

"Romans revered Greek sculpture and made a massive number of copies of it, but they never could capture the deeper meaning - the dynamic, living soul of the Greek sculpture."

He compliments the sincerity and quality of the production, but admits that it left him feeling empty.

[Rich Engle]

[kiaer.ts]

Yet another look at Engle's unwiped ass.

[kiaer.ts]

.

It is plain from what Ted said. 2016 will come and go soon. It is like the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, only the deviation of the situation in the actual world from the previously projected world will become apparent much more quickly. Leaving the year unspecified, leaving it at simply an indefinite near future avoids the cheap-shot criticism "Well, well. Here we are in 2020, with a mixed economy, and guess what: the economy has not regressed (greatly: towards horses, barter, vanishing of capital, etc.)." Also, for the film audience today, setting the date at 2016 self-cheapens by suggesting an immediate political message: vote Republican in 2012 or this is where we will be and this is what your government will be doing by 2016.

Perhaps someone who has seen the film can tell us how the specific year registered with them.

Related, concerning the novel: A, B

Exactly. Rand discusses the issue of an artwork becoming dated in The Art of Fiction.