Impressions on First Seeing the Atlas Shrugged Movie

[Selene]

I must admit I had no idea that Eddie Willers had been in love with Dagny before I arrived at the part in the novel where he inspects her clothes cupboard and finds men's clothes in it.

Does the film bring out Eddie's love for Dagny?

Angela:

No.

There is one scene where his emotional protectionism is apparent, but not necessarily as "love" in the sense you are referring to, but this is just the first third of the book Angela and that clothes scene occurs in the last third of the book if I remember correctly.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> Ever since I saw the 1998 impending-comet-collision movie "Deep Impact," in which Morgan Freeman plays the US president, I've wanted to see him as Hugh Akston. He's too old now, but as he was back then, I think he could have perfectly portrayed the depth and dignity. [Ellen, post 24]

I emphatically agree. I think he would have been perfect and for exactly those two reasons.

I do, however, think far too much is made about whether or not the actors are the right age. It's character, attitudes, approach to life which the actor has to embody. For example, there's nothing wrong with Hugh Akston being an old man. It fits with his wisdom, his fame in the field of philosophy, and with being from a previous generation at Patrick Henry University . . . "not the last of the philosophers of reason but the first of their return".

Edited April 17, 2011 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

A friend here in Houston called last night with his report on seeing the film. He's my age (he turned 64 in December; I followed suit in January), and he said everyone at the showing he attended was in our age group, like the sea of grey, white, and blue heads you see at symphony concerts these days. Also, he said they all seemed to have read the novel. It makes me wonder if, at least around here, it's mostly the already converted who are going to see the film.

JR

[Philip Coates]

http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/2011/04/audience-reactions-outside-a-theater-in-westminster-colorado/

Very nice set of "man on the street, just coming out of the theater" video interviews from one Colorado theater.

The enthusiasm from everyday people is inspiring. Especially after reading the Mainstream Critics dumping loads of patronizing contempt on the film.

It's quite interesting that those who have never read the book seem the most enthusiastic (as well as tremendously eager to go read the book now). Those who have read the book in a number of cases seem to have very high expectations and standards for what would be a 'faithful rendition'.

(In reply to Jeff, it's a much younger demographic coming out of that Colorado theater. Not old greybeards.)

[anthony]

(In reply to Jeff, it's a much younger demographic coming out of that Colorado theater. Not old greybeards.)

Pointed. Very pointed.

[algernonsidney]

There was too much booze flowing throughout the film. I know, I'm suspect--I'm supposed to feel that way because of my former alcoholism. Believe me, I've thought about it. But I'm pretty sure this is not the basis of my inner dislike. I'm thinking as an artist.

Well, there was too much smoking in the novel.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'll be seeing Atlas-1 tonight, at a multiplex theater about 40 miles from our house. Larry already saw it on the small screen at the NYC reception Thursday, and he liked it, but I'm scared I won't much. I'm especially rather dreading, from descriptions, the portrayal of Francisco.

I liked it better than I thought I would. The trains got to me from the first scene, which brought memories of the Glory Days of how trains used to be -- the Super Chief, the Silver Chief, and their ilk, those mighty engines. The scene which I suppose was the Chicago trainyards, the miles of track in all directions. The scene of track being laid. I thought the run of the Galt Line was done well -- the tracks straight ahead of the viewer at beginning and end; the design and cinematography of the bridge; the train itself and its motion seeming like a huge sinuous shiny serpent weaving round the curves.

The bracelet scene I thought worked in the context. That's one I was expecting not to like from descriptions.

Francisco, however...... No. As far from the elegance -- like a cape waving behind him in the wind -- of the book's Francisco as I feared. And I think that Ayn would have been very angry about the facial hair.

The actor who played Akston was a very odd choice, he looked like a washed-up surfer/stoner in his mid-40’s.

To me, he looked and acted like a type-cast modern philosophy professor -- which is to say, NOT like Hugh Akston!

Eddie Willers, on the other hand, I liked better than the character in the book. I always found Eddie a sore point. He gave me the squirms in the book, with his "Whatever is right" unimaginativeness, his feudal devotion to the railroad and hopeless love for Dagny, his stark, cheerless apartment. The character in the movie seemed to have the stuff to fill the role of Dagny's chief assistant.

Along with others, I thought that Dagny, Rearden and Wyatt and Boyle and Mouch were well done. Also Stadler.

I feel unsure as to the extent to which someone who hadn't read the book could follow the story. There is a fair amount which could be directly related to in terms of political scenes familiar today -- for instance, the scene with Mouch announcing the "Equalization of Opportunity" bill, with the Washington folks standing smiling and applauding, and the expressions of the persons to whom Rearden was signing away his various subsidiaries. And maybe the dialogue in various scenes would connect. But there was so little time to develop the meanings which are filled in in the book.

About that line of Rearden's, "All I want to do is kiss you." If the word "kiss" had been altered to "ravish," it would have had enough of the feeling of the real scene without crossing into troubles with s-m overtones.

And, re the motor -- they left in too much by way of specifics. Better if they'd trimmed more and had the description of the workings of it maximally vague, thus providing less to fault on physics grounds.

Ellen

[Barbara Branden]

I saw the movie for the second time on Friday. It probably is against the law -- and certainly a sin -- to have as good a time as I had. It was playing in Westwood Village, a college town, and the audience was predominantly young people -- with a mix that was fascinating to me of onetime NBI students. What a strange feeling it was to see so many familiar faces from so very long ago! The house was completely sold out for the 7PM performance that I attended and for the 9:40 performance that followed. It was a joy to see a long line of people waiting to get in for both performances. Clearly, the audience I saw it with loved the movie -- and at the end, the manager came out grinning from ear to ear to announce that it would run for two weeks.

After the performance, I stood outside the theater with some friends and with some of the NBI students, and we simply gloated happily and talked about our favorite scenes. None of us wanted to leave. I don't intend to argue with anyone about the movie or to defend it or to think about what may be its deficiencies. What I care about is that I watched the first run of the John Galt Line, and it was not 2011, it was 1950 and I was sitting in Ayn's living room reading the incredible scene in manuscript with tears running down my face -- and the world was a place of limitless possibilities. And that's what it was again on Friday night. And it remains so.

Barbara

[Greybird]

[...] What I care about is that I watched the first run of the John Galt Line, and it was not 2011, it was 1950 and I was sitting in Ayn's living room reading the incredible scene in manuscript with tears running down my face — and the world was a place of limitless possibilities. And that's what it was again on Friday night. And it remains so.

Barbara, your saying this touched me, and reminded me of what had consciously gone through my mind late last week. And which I haven't seen anyone say, and which — even with the intimation of mortality — has to be said:

I am delighted that this finally came to the big screen while you — and Nathaniel — were here to see it and to be swept up in it. It should have been possible for the author herself to have been sitting beside the two of you.

And now, tomorrow, after my submitting for the time being to the firepower of the State (filing tax returns), I go off to a matinee showing of a movie that exemplifies the opposite. (With the company of Neil Schulman, as it happens.) I'll next post, after my own wait of a mere third of a century, my own reaction.

[Barbara Branden]

[...] What I care about is that I watched the first run of the John Galt Line, and it was not 2011, it was 1950 and I was sitting in Ayn's living room reading the incredible scene in manuscript with tears running down my face — and the world was a place of limitless possibilities. And that's what it was again on Friday night. And it remains so.

Barbara, your saying this touched me, and reminded me of what had consciously gone through my mind late last week. And which I haven't seen anyone say, and which — even with the intimation of mortality — has to be said:

I am delighted that this finally came to the big screen while you — and Nathaniel — were here to see it and to be swept up in it. It should have been possible for the author herself to have been sitting beside the two of you.

And now, tomorrow, after my submitting for the time being to the firepower of the State (filing tax returns), I go off to a matinee showing of a movie that exemplifies the opposite. (With the company of Neil Schulman, as it happens.) I'll next post, after my own wait of a mere third of a century, my own reaction.

Thank you, Steve. You'll be glad to know that Nathaniel -- who was with me Friday night -- reacted to the movie just as I did. It means a great deal to both of us. And almost the first thing I said to my friends when the movie ended was, :"How I wish Ayn could have seen it!"

Barbara

[Philip Coates]

> ...a mix that was fascinating to me of onetime NBI students...so many familiar faces from so very long ago! The house was completely sold out ...Clearly, the audience I saw it with loved the movie...I stood outside the theater with some friends and with some of the NBI students, and we simply gloated happily and talked about our favorite scenes. None of us wanted to leave....What I care about is that I watched the first run of the John Galt Line, and it was not 2011, it was 1950 and I was sitting in Ayn's living roomr reading the incredible scene in manuscript with tears runnng down my face -- and the world was a place of limitless possibilities. And that's what it was again on Friday night. And it rermains so. [barbara, post 33]

"To hold an unchanging youth is to reach at the end, the vision with which one started."

[Peter]

Barbara Branden wrote:

What I care about is that I watched the first run of the John Galt Line, and it was not 2011, it was 1950 and I was sitting in Ayn's living room reading the incredible scene in manuscript with tears running down my face -- and the world was a place of limitless possibilities. And that's what it was again on Friday night. And it remains so.

End quote

What an extraordinary moment you just gave all of us. Thank you, Barbara.

Peter Taylor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Barbara,

I am pleased beyond measure that you and Nathaniel had such a good time.

You both richly deserve it.

I not only wish Ayn could have seen it, I wish she had been there with you.

Michael

[Xray]

I must admit I had no idea that Eddie Willers had been in love with Dagny before I arrived at the part in the novel where he inspects her clothes cupboard and finds men's clothes in it.

Does the film bring out Eddie's love for Dagny?

Angela:

No.

There is one scene where his emotional protectionism is apparent, but not necessarily as "love" in the sense you are referring to, but this is just the first third of the book Angela and that clothes scene occurs in the last third of the book if I remember correctly.

Adam

Yes, the scene where Eddie discoveres the men's clothes occurs fairly late in the story.

Sorry, I completely forgot that the film is just about the first third of the novel.

What is the final scene of the film?

Eddie Willers, on the other hand, I liked better than the character in the book. I always found Eddie a sore point. He gave me the squirms in the book, with his "Whatever is right" unimaginativeness, his feudal devotion to the railroad and hopeless love for Dagny, his stark, cheerless apartment. The character in the movie seemed to have the stuff to fill the role of Dagny's chief assistant.

Most readers liked Eddie a lot. He's on of my favorite characters in the novel; I found him to be both decent and smart.

As for the "Whatever is right", I don't think it has to do with Eddie being unimaginative, but with respect and loyalty to his employer of whose competence he was 100 % convinced.

As for him being hopelessly in love, there was not much he could do against this feeling. He could have tried to overcome the social barrier between him and Dagny by directly telling her how he felt, but probably knew she did not return his feelings.

In the story, Eddie came across to me as very competent in his job.

And as for the stark, cheerless apartment, I realize didn't pay attention in the story to how his apartment looked, can't even remember it was stark and cheerless. I would not necessarily associate cheerlessness with an apartment which is not decorated but that's just a matter of personal preference.

Edited April 18, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

I must admit I had no idea that Eddie Willers had been in love with Dagny before I arrived at the part in the novel where he inspects her clothes cupboard and finds men's clothes in it.

Does the film bring out Eddie's love for Dagny?

Angela:

No.

There is one scene where his emotional protectionism is apparent, but not necessarily as "love" in the sense you are referring to, but this is just the first third of the book Angela and that clothes scene occurs in the last third of the book if I remember correctly.

Adam

Sorry, I completely forgot that the film is just about the first third of the story.

What is the final scene of the film?

Dagny sinking to her knees as the Wyatt Oil fields blaze the rest of the scene.

In the foreground, on a hand written sign, is the statement:

I left it the way I found it. Take it. Its yours,

Or words to that effect.

[Peter]

"Master and Commander" was a wonderful film with Russel Crowe, but I don't think any sequels will be made, unfortunately, although the author may have written over a dozen books about Captain Aubrey and Doctor Muritaen.

Atlas Shrugged earned 1.67 million dollars according to Box Office Mojo and ranked 14th. How much did it cost to make?

We need to spread the word. "No zombies, no slashers, just a wonderful story."

The teens need to be activated but I would not know how to advertise to them. "The book that changes lives comes to the big screen." "A film about something." Perhaps some articulate teens who loved it, being interviewed would be a good advertisement. Rating, drinking and smoking might keep pre-teens from seeing it.

14th down. Crap. Or considering the fewer number of openings (300) and the competition, is that good? Is it too soon to judge?

Peter Taylor

Edited April 18, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Ellen Stuttle]

Eddie Willers, on the other hand, I liked better than the character in the book. I always found Eddie a sore point. He gave me the squirms in the book, with his "Whatever is right" unimaginativeness, his feudal devotion to the railroad and hopeless love for Dagny, his stark, cheerless apartment. The character in the movie seemed to have the stuff to fill the role of Dagny's chief assistant.

Most readers liked Eddie a lot. He's on of my favorite characters in the novel; I found him to be both decent and smart.

Really? (re the "most readers" liking Eddie a lot). Most I've known were bothered by Eddie, including, with some, their fearing that they were only of Eddie stature compared to the other good-person characters.

As for the "Whatever is right", I don't think it has to do with Eddie being unimaginative, but with respect and loyalty to his employer of whose competence he was 100 % convinced.

The quote comes from the childhood description. Eddie was asked -- if I recall correctly, by a minister -- what he wanted to do when he grew up, and he answered, "Whatever is right." I would expect and like to hear a more adventuresome response from a boy his age at the time.

As for him being hopelessly in love, there was not much he could do against this feeling. He could have tried to overcome the social barrier between him and Dagny by directly telling her how he felt, but probably knew she did not return his feelings.

How about, finding someone else besides Dagny with whom to have a relationship?

In the story, Eddie came across to me as very competent in his job.

Competent, yes. But I thought the guy who played Eddie in the movie came across as more than competent, as having some spark and initiative.

And as for the stark, cheerless apartment, I realize didn't pay attention in the story to how his apartment looked, can't even remember it was stark and cheerless. I would not necessarily associate cheerlessness with an apartment which is not decorated but that's just a matter of personal preference.

I think that was the wording used but I'd have to re-check to be sure.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

> ...a mix that was fascinating to me of onetime NBI students...so many familiar faces from so very long ago! The house was completely sold out ...Clearly, the audience I saw it with loved the movie...I stood outside the theater with some friends and with some of the NBI students, and we simply gloated happily and talked about our favorite scenes. None of us wanted to leave....What I care about is that I watched the first run of the John Galt Line, and it was not 2011, it was 1950 and I was sitting in Ayn's living roomr reading the incredible scene in manuscript with tears runnng down my face -- and the world was a place of limitless possibilities. And that's what it was again on Friday night. And it rermains so. [barbara, post 33]

"To hold an unchanging youth is to reach at the end, the vision with which one started."

See? Not bad, Phil. You can do it.

--Brant

[Johnny12]

I liked the movie quite a bit, I guess I mostly like it just because it exists. It's finally been made and it didn't suck. My wife loved it, she loved it so much she wants to read the book. She really connected with the character of Dagny.

I liked Dagny and Hank, I think they were really strong characters and very well acted. I didn't like Eddie Willers at all. I thought his character was too minor and he was always just running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. I didn't like that the viewers who may not be familiar with the book aren't going to truly understand Dagny and Fransisco's history and the importance of Fransisco to the scope of the story.

I ditto the poster who said he didn't like John Galt's cameos through out the movie. I also didn't like Galt's corny lines especially when he told Midas Mulligan (don't quote me on that) that he was "cultivating a society based on individual rights,) or something like that. I mean if someone just walked up on me in the middle of the night in a trench coat and hat, using a Batman voice to tell me about this society he's building I'd just look at him like he's crazy, not join him.

Overall though I liked the movie. The acting was a lot better than I had expected and for a 10 million dollar budget it was well done.

[basimpson22]

The acting made me wrench. They may as well have casted robots and mannequins. It was God-awful, but, what else can you expect from a director accustomed to soap operas. I believe that many on OL are a bit delusional from having invested so much into anything Randian. Nonetheless, this is one of the lowest quality movies I have EVER seen in theatres. It has no business playing on the big screen.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Aristocrates

[Selene]

The acting made me wrench. They may as well have casted robots and mannequins. It was God-awful, but, what else can you expect from a director accustomed to soap operas. I believe that many on OL are a bit delusional from having invested so much into anything Randian, however, this is one of the lowest quality movies I have EVER seen in theatres. It has no business playing on the big screen.

Maybe you should try a different tool like a pair of pliers or screw driver to fine tune your perceptions.

[Backlighting]

The acting made me wrench. They may as well have casted robots and mannequins. It was God-awful, but, what else can you expect from a director accustomed to soap operas. I believe that many on OL are a bit delusional from having invested so much into anything Randian. Nonetheless, this is one of the lowest quality movies I have EVER seen in theatres. It has no business playing on the big screen.

Oh no. Are you the Obama appointed movie Czar?

Edited April 26, 2011 by Las Vegas

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

xxx

(There was a post here, but I'm checking on something to make sure I'm fair...)

xxx

I'm back. Glad I checked. I was being unfair. I had this dude Ari confused in my mind with another.

I still think he's playing to bait people as part of it. But he's entitled to his opinion.

Michael

[basimpson22]

Of course, MSK, there is a dash of provocation intentionally thrown in. I admit it. Who hasn't spiced their posts up on OL or any other forum for that matter? Sue me!

One thing I'd like to say is I don't believe that 90% of movie critics have anti-Objectivism agendas.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ari,

LOL... You're a trip, dude.

I'm glad you have opinions.

Michael