Atlas Shrugged Movie... I think I'll pass

[Mike Hansen]

Hi everybody,

Despite all the good words here about the Atlas Shrugged movie, I really don't want to see it.

Anybody else feel as if they don't want their images of the characters tarnished? That happened to me with the Andromeda Strain and the book hasn't been quite the same since.

Mike

[Selene]

Hi everybody,

Despite all the good words here about the Atlas Shrugged movie, I really don't want to see it.

Anybody else feel as if they don't want their images of the characters tarnished? That happened to me with the Andromeda Strain and the book hasn't been quite the same since.

Mike

It is a defensible position.

[Brant Gaede]

Frankly, I don't either. All the good things praised I get just from the reading.

--Brant

not even the DVD

[Bryce]

I wondered that, too, but I liked the book so much that it didn't happen. I selectively took from the movie to better my view of the book. I can't imagine physical attributes of characters from reading, so the movie helped fill a lot of gaps. Atlas Shrugged was also the only book I've completed before seeing it's movie. So to me they're separate, Atlas Shrugged and Atlas Shrugged the Movie.

[Xray]

Hi everybody,

Despite all the good words here about the Atlas Shrugged movie, I really don't want to see it.

Anybody else feel as if they don't want their images of the characters tarnished? That happened to me with the Andromeda Strain and the book hasn't been quite the same since.

Mike

Some film versions of one's favorite books can indeed be shockers. I vividly recall sitting there paralyzed in front of the TV when watching the almost completely miscast 1958 film version of The Brothers Karamazov by R. Brooks.

But then great novels can resist even the most inadequate film versions.

As for Atlas Shrugged - jmpo, but I don't think this novel can be transformed into a convincing film version at all.

But still, I'm very curious to see the film. I'll have to wait until the DVD comes out though.

Imo filming Part I of the book was fairly easy compared to what is yet to master - how on earth can a character like John Galt be brought on screen without the figure becoming too odd? Galt is quite unreal already in the novel, and the camera as visual medium will exaggerate these traits.

An OL poster called Galt in the novel coming across as almost 'battery-operated' - and should he also come across as that unreal in the movie, it could push the film too much into the direction of pure fantasy.

And how are they going to present something like Galt's Gulch convincingly in a film without sliding into the too rose-colored?

Even a genius like Frank Capra encountered problems in presenting a 'happy valley':

In his book 100 Filme ('100 Films') Hellmuth Karasek says that the preview of Frank Capra's 1937 Lost Horizon (a movie in which a 'eu'topian valley (Shangri-La) also plays a central role) was a disaster. Soon people started giggling when viewing scenes which were not supposed to elicit any giggling at all.

Capra, who was present at the preview, broke out in a cold sweat. He slid out into the foyer to get himself a glass of water. There he came across a spectator who told him (not recognizing Capra): "Have you ever seen in your life such idiotic Fu-Man-Chu stuff? Those who are guilty of producing such rubbish ought to be shot!" Poor Capra fled out into the rain. He did not see the catastrophic ending of the performance: almost all spectators had left.

Now with Atlas Shrugged, those who have read the novel will know beforehand about Galt's Gulch, but what about those who haven't read the book?

Of course it all depends on the way it is presented, but imo the Gulch full of people happily living there is just too idyllic to be convincing, even in the book.

From the excerpts I have seen, I found that Taylor Schilling is an excellent choice for the role of Dagny.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Hi everybody,

Despite all the good words here about the Atlas Shrugged movie, I really don't want to see it.

Anybody else feel as if they don't want their images of the characters tarnished? That happened to me with the Andromeda Strain and the book hasn't been quite the same since.

Mike

Some film versions of one's favorite books can indeed be shockers. I vividly recall sitting there paralyzed in front of the TV when watching the almost completely miscast 1958 film version of The Brothers Karamazov by R. Brooks.

But then great novels can resist even the most inadequate film versions.

As for Atlas Shrugged - jmpo, but I don't think this novel can be transformed into a convincing film version at all.

But still, I'm very curious to see the film. I'll have to wait until the DVD comes out though.

Imo filming part I of the book was fairly easy compared to what is yet to master - how on earth can a character like John Galt be brought on screen without the figure becoming too odd? Galt is quite unreal already in the novel, and the camera as visual medium will exaggerate these traits.

An OL poster called Galt in the novel coming across as almost 'battery-operated' - and should he also come across as that unreal in the movie, it could push the film too much toward into the direction of pure fantasy.

And how are they going to present something like Galt's Gulch convincingly in a film without sliding into the too rose-colored?

Even a genius like Frank Capra encountered problems in presenting a 'happy valley':

In his book 100 Filme ('100 Films') Hellmuth Karasek says that the preview of Frank Capra's 1937 Lost Horizon, (a movie in which a 'eu'topian valley (Shangri-La) also plays a central role) was a disaster. Soon people started giggling when viewing scenes which were not supposed to elicit any giggling at all.

Capra, who was present at the preview, broke out in a cold sweat. He slid out into the foyer to get himself a glass of water. There he came across a spectator who told him (not recognizing Capra): "Have you ever seen in your life such idiotic Fu-Man-Chu stuff? Those who are guilty of producing such rubbish ought to be shot!" Poor Capra fled out into the rain. He did not see the catastrophic ending of the performance: almost all spectators had left.

Now with Atlas Shrugged, those who have read the novel will know beforehand about Galt's Gulch, but what about those who haven't read the book?

Of course it all depends on the way it is presented, but imo the Gulch full of people happily living there is just too idyllic to be convincing, even in the book.

From the excerpts I have seen, I found that Taylor Schilling is an excellent choice for the role of Dagny.

Capra solved this problem by chopping off the first few minutes of the film.

Barbara Branden has suggested combining the Galt and d'Anconia characters, which might solve what you think is a problem.

For me the big thing is the first third of the novel is the best of it. At least through the first run of The John Galt Line.

--Brant

[Mike Hansen]

Xray makes a good point. How can John Galt be played by an actor?! Galt's Gulch too.

And do we know if they're going to do Galt's Speech? That alone would take hours, and they can't just shorten it.

[9thdoctor]

Anybody else feel as if they don't want their images of the characters tarnished? That happened to me with the Andromeda Strain and the book hasn't been quite the same since.

In my opinion (or experience) this isn’t a problem with the Atlas Shrugged movie. I don’t see the actors from The Fountainhead movie in my head when I read that book either. The Godfather and A Clockwork Orange did have that effect, in both cases it was a positive thing (The Godfather movie is much better than the book, A Clockwork Orange is really a perfect match). I’m trying to think of a case of a great book ruined (for me) by its movie, and I’m drawing a blank. The Name of the Rose is only so-so, but it doesn’t ruin the book for me, I visualize the original illustrations of Sherlock Holmes for the hero, instead of Sean Connery (whose performance wasn’t bad at all). In that case I saw the movie (more than once) well before reading the book. I haven’t read The Andromeda Strain, but recall liking the movie well enough.

Frank Capra's 1937 Lost Horizon, (a movie in which a 'eu'topian valley (Shangri-La) also plays a central role) was a disaster.

I thought Lost Horizon was really good, but maybe I make allowances for cheesy sets knowing the movie is so old. People on opening night wouldn’t have. Atlas Shrugged has that problem too, it almost certainly looks better than it would, had it been made in the 70’s. But, by today’s standards it looked low budget.

[caroljane]

Anybody else feel as if they don't want their images of the characters tarnished? That happened to me with the Andromeda Strain and the book hasn't been quite the same since.

In my opinion (or experience) this isn’t a problem with the Atlas Shrugged movie. I don’t see the actors from The Fountainhead movie in my head when I read that book either. The Godfather and A Clockwork Orange did have that effect, in both cases it was a positive thing (The Godfather movie is much better than the book, A Clockwork Orange is really a perfect match). I’m trying to think of a case of a great book ruined (for me) by its movie, and I’m drawing a blank. The Name of the Rose is only so-so, but it doesn’t ruin the book for me, I visualize the original illustrations of Sherlock Holmes for the hero, instead of Sean Connery (whose performance wasn’t bad at all). In that case I saw the movie (more than once) well before reading the book. I haven’t read The Andromeda Strain, but recall liking the movie well enough.

Frank Capra's 1937 Lost Horizon, (a movie in which a 'eu'topian valley (Shangri-La) also plays a central role) was a disaster.

I thought Lost Horizon was really good, but maybe I make allowances for cheesy sets knowing the movie is so old. People on opening night wouldn’t have. Atlas Shrugged has that problem too, it almost certainly looks better than it would, had it been made in the 70’s. But, by today’s standards it looked low budget.

Ninth,

My experience accords strikingly with yours. aybe it's because, even when authors describe their characters very exactly, I don't really visualise them when reading - even Scarlett O'Hara, who melds perfectly as Vivien Leigh. The Godfather was a terrific potboiler novel, and the movie showed me a work of art... and so on. Only Pacino and deNiro could have been the Corleones.

Interestingly a most-filmed classic novelist, Jane Austen, never described her characters except minimally. Elizabeth Bennet had "fine dark eyes". Of her sister Jane, the family beauty, we know absolutely nothing of her looks, but we do have her mother's deathless tribute, "I knew you could not be so beautiful for nothing!" Mr. Darcy is "tall."

My fave heroine, Anne Elliot, is "small and elegant" with "mild dark eyes". Yet when I saw her wonderfully acted in the Persuasion movie with Ciaran Hinds I recognized her.

[9thdoctor]

My experience accords strikingly with yours. aybe it's because, even when authors describe their characters very exactly, I don't really visualise them when reading - even Scarlett O'Hara, who melds perfectly as Vivien Leigh.

I have to disagree with you here, I see a less attractive woman for Scarlett (it's the opening line of the novel), and definitely someone else for Melanie, someone skinny and naturally unhealthy looking. Needless to say the film is fantastic, but when I read the book I don't see those two, and it's not a problem for me. Actually though, I do pretty much see Clark Gable and definitely the guy who played Ashley, and can't help seeing Superman as one of the Tarleton twins. And then there's Mammie, Prissy, and Pork, unforgettable all.

[PDS]

Just saw GWW with the wife and daughter. Loved Prissy and Mammie. Scarelett, not so much. I agree with Ninth Doctor on that. I always thought Name of Rose was better on film than book. The casting couldn't have been better.

[9thdoctor]

Just saw GWW with the wife and daughter. Loved Prissy and Mammie. Scarelett, not so much. I agree with Ninth Doctor on that. I always thought Name of Rose was better on film than book. The casting couldn't have been better.

Hmm, in case I wasn't clear earlier, I love everything about the GWTW movie, including Vivien Leigh. It's just a matter of whether I see her when I read the book, and I don't. She's too good looking, it's right there, the opening line of the book, and it should get you noticing how this girl gets all the men to fawn all over her in spite of not being a beauty.

I agree about the casting, particularly of the lesser roles, in The Name of the Rose. Great faces, such a palette of the grotesque. But F. Murray Abraham is way too young and hammy for Bernardo Gui, while Sean Connery plays well, but looks wrong for William, uh, and that's about it. I think the book is much much better than the movie, but it's not really because of the casting.

[sbeaulieu]

I wondered that, too, but I liked the book so much that it didn't happen. I selectively took from the movie to better my view of the book. I can't imagine physical attributes of characters from reading, so the movie helped fill a lot of gaps. Atlas Shrugged was also the only book I've completed before seeing it's movie. So to me they're separate, Atlas Shrugged and Atlas Shrugged the Movie.

That's a good point. I have done the same after reading Goodkind's SoT series, and then seeing the two seasons of Legend of the Seeker.

~ Shane

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike,

There's nothing wrong with making personal choices about what to see or not. Just be aware of the fact that if you decide to bash the movie, you will be relying on second-hand information--not your own observation--to inform your value judgment.

There are only three ways you can know something about somebody (or a project): (1) What you observe, (2) What they say about themselves, and (3) What others say about them.

In my life, I have--more often than not--found the first to be the most reliable. You can't directly observe everything, of course, but I have found it wise to do this as much as possible for the really important things.

But it's your choice, your mind and your life. You know your values better than anyone else.

Michael

[Starbuckle]

"There's nothing wrong with making personal choices about what to see or not."

Was Mike implying that he doubted whether he is morally entitled to decide what movies to see and not to see?

[anthony]

Hi everybody,

Despite all the good words here about the Atlas Shrugged movie, I really don't want to see it.

Anybody else feel as if they don't want their images of the characters tarnished? That happened to me with the Andromeda Strain and the book hasn't been quite the same since.

Mike

Mike,

Initially I had sympathy with your position, but I have had a rethink of my premises.

Frankly, I realise that nothing was going to be good enough for me about a movie version of Atlas Shrugged; but, my impossible expectations aside, I've learned that few things are as bad as I imagine them - and nothing is as damaging for me as refusing to face the reality of something.

I'm not much concerned with any tarnishing of the characters' image. What's deeply concerned me is that the most critical ideas of AS would be lost in transliteration. Well, so what if they have? Wishing won't make it so.

When I do see the DVD, it will be to take enjoyment from gaining a different view of the novel.

The movie and the book are two separate entities, and as the saying goes, it's all grist to my mill.

Perhaps we all 'over-identify' with 'Atlas', want other people to appreciate Ayn Rand the way we do, and are over-protective as a result. B)

Tony

Edited June 10, 2011 by whYNOT

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Was Mike implying that he doubted whether he is morally entitled to decide what movies to see and not to see?

Starbuckle,

I don't know. You have to ask him.

Is anybody making a moral judgment about entitlement other than you?

Michael

[Xray]

Just saw GWW with the wife and daughter. Loved Prissy and Mammie. Scarelett, not so much. I agree with Ninth Doctor on that.

What was it that you disliked about Scarlett? Was it the film character Scarlett, or was it the way Vivien Leigh played the role? The latter would be hard to imagine - for isn't Leigh's performance just absolutely brilliant?

I see a less attractive woman for Scarlett (it's the opening line of the novel), and definitely someone else for Melanie, someone skinny and naturally unhealthy looking.

I don't remember much about the novel GWTW (which I read in German after having watched the movie several times), but I do remember that Scarlett was labeled as not beautiful in the book which bothered me because I always had the picture of the strikingly beautiful Vivien Leigh playing Scarlett in mind.

definitely someone else for Melanie, someone skinny and naturally unhealthy looking.

ITA with you about Melanie. Imo Olivia de Havilland is one of the few miscasts in the film.

As a classic beauty, she was too good-looking for the role of Melanie (and also, as you mentioned, too healthy-looking).

As for De Havilland's acting performance as the gentle and trusting Melanie - it was totally inauthentic imo.

I don't know if her English voice is as full of 'artificial sweetener' as that of the German dubbing, but each time she pronounced "Scaaarlett" with that unctuous voice it made me cringe.

Edited June 10, 2011 by Xray

[caroljane]

As for De Havilland's acting performance as the gentle and trusting Melanie - it was totally inauthentic imo.

I don't know if her English voice is as full of 'artificial sweetener' as that of the German dubbing, but each time she prounounced "Scaaarlett" with that unctuous voice it made me cringe.

Half agree with you on this. She did look too healthy, though beside Leigh she certainly looked plain enough to be convincing. I'm trying to think of an actress of that era, when actresses were allowed to have a square meal once in a while, who would have had the right frail-but-indomitable look - cant think of any offhand. Maybe deHavilland's sister and rival Joan Fontaine?

But as to her acting I thought she was great. In English she had a low, gentle voice, with that relentless calmness and sweetness that drove poor Scarlett crazy.

Melanie was the first and greatest Steel Magnolia.

[Xray]

Barbara Branden has suggested combining the Galt and d'Anconia characters, which might solve what you think is a problem.

What exactly is meant by "combining the Galt and d'Anconia characters"?

For me the big thing is the first third of the novel is the best of it.

At least through the first run of The John Galt Line.

Imo the real climax of Atlas Shrugged is neither Dagny's encounter with Galt and his Gulch, nor it is Galt's speech. It is neither Galt's dramatic rescue nor is it the prime movers' returning to the world.

The real climax of the novel is the first run of the John Galt Line.

But a climax so early in a novel poses a problem. For nothing which follows is going to top it.

Has anyone ever read anything by Ayn Rand which surpasses this scene in creative power?

Very impressive how Rand manages to convey in that scene the strong erotic tension between Dagny and Rearden, using elements like the pounding rhythm and drive of the engine to mirror that tension.

The passion for the new railroad line running on Rearden Metal matches the passion Dagny and Rearden feel for each other. And the more the train progresses, the more it all becomes one great passion, with the reader sharing it. One cannot not share it here. The reader rides on that train too and takes part in it all - at least this has been my experience when reading this utterly compelling part of AS.

It would interest me how the scene comes across in the film. Are there enough close-up shots of Dagny and Rearden during the run of the train, alternating with total views of the train running?

Is the sexual tension between them sufficiently conveyed via the camera?

Does the viewer get the feeling of the train running more from an "outside" perspective, or does the director also manage to draw the spectator into the "inside" perspective that Dagny and Rearden have who are in the engine?

Edited June 10, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

As for De Havilland's acting performance as the gentle and trusting Melanie - it was totally inauthentic imo.

I don't know if her English voice is as full of 'artificial sweetener' as that of the German dubbing, but each time she prounounced "Scaaarlett" with that unctuous voice it made me cringe.

She did look too healthy, though beside Leigh she certainly looked plain enough to be convincing.

That's right.

With her hair, 'Madonnna-like' parted in the middle and wearing mostly drab clothes which were the opposite of Scarlett's dazzling Southern Belle dresses, de Havilland came across as quite plain indeed.

And when I think about it, Leigh even managed looked alluring in her black widow's outfit. ;)

Edited June 11, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara Branden has suggested combining the Galt and d'Anconia characters, which might solve what you think is a problem.

What exactly is meant by "combining the Galt and d'Anconia characters"?

For me the big thing is the first third of the novel is the best of it.

At least through the first run of The John Galt Line.

Imo the real climax of Atlas Shrugged is neither Dagny's encounter with Galt and his Gulch, nor it is Galt's speech. It is neither Galt's dramatic rescue nor is it the prime movers' returning to the world.

The real climax of the novel is the first run of The John Galt Line.

Making these two one character.

What you think is the climax of the novel really isn't, of course. It didn't destroy the rule of the looters. It's best described as a sub-climax.

If Atlas Shrugged had been even more of an American novel than Russian there would have been a bloody civil war, not a strike. That would have made it much less interesting. A country full of people giving up is not America.

[edit:] But in a palpable sense what happens after that first run has the nature of the anti-climatic.

--Brant

Edited June 10, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

What you think is the climax of the novel really isn't, of course. It didn't destroy the rule of the looters. It's best described as a sub-climax.

It is true that the first run of the John Galt Line is not the climax of the novel seen from the author's perspective and the final message she wanted to convey; my point was that the first run scene seems to impress readers so immensely that it qualifies as climactic. But the term sub-climax you suggested fits it better.

Unlike Galt's Gulch, Galt's speech, Galt himself, his fantasy-like rescue (which has Danneskjöld, Superman-like, dashing through the window) the first run of the JGL has a dose of realism to it and imo it is this realism which makes the scene so convincing. For taking part or witnessing a venture which is the result of human technical ingenuity is something humans have experienced in history. Just think of the exhilarating feeling the first moon landing produced in so many people.

If Atlas Shrugged had been even more of an American novel than Russian there would have been a bloody civil war, not a strike. That would have made it much less interesting. A country full of people giving up is not America.

Interesting point. I agree that a "hands-on, getting things done" attitude would be much more American than the withdrawal of the prime movers in AS.

With Americans, I connote things like generosity and being socially cooperative; the large number of Americans doing volunteer work has always impressed me.

Whereas Galt's Gulch reminds me more of a closed community which does not allow dissenting views for people once they have decided to live there.

Imo Galt's Gulch has more in common with other 'closed moral communities' than with an open and individualistic society.

[edit:] But in a palpable sense what happens after that first run has the nature of the anti-climatic[sic].

What happens after the first run goes so much toward unrealism that I lost interest.

Especially John Galt gave me the creeps. In today's times, with stalker awareness being that high, how will it come across in the movie when Galt tells Dagny that he has been 'watching' her every move for so many years, intruding on her privacy without her being aware of it?

Edited June 11, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand had two great, interconnected ideas for her novel: the strike and that the hero would be physically and unsuccessfully tortured to be dictator. The idea of a strike by productive members of society has so many facets of varrying depth and complexity across all human being-action disciplines no one person could ever get on top of it all no matter how great a liberal arts education. She solved this problem by twisting reality--human reality--into a workable matrix that we can describe as unreal, abstract, surreal, phony, etc. while missing the point of the necessity of the reader re-abstracting her material into something valid and usable especially concerning one's own area(s) of competence and one's own life. This is why the culture generally seems slow to deal with and absorb her, especially in politics and economics. Even Alan Greenspan came a cropper, disastrously embracing the socialism of central banking. (Hey! Wait a minute! What am I here for?) It's too bad that she got so deep into the novel that it twisted her up personally.

--Brant

did she ever ask herself this question?:

http://youtu.be/svl1t4b1RD4

Edited June 11, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Starbuckle]

K seems not to remember his own post. Why would anybody "explain" that "There's nothing wrong with making personal choices about what to see or not" unless he were assuming that the person he were "explaining" it to might not understand it? Such pronunciamentalizing is condescending.

>>Was Mike implying that he doubted whether he is morally entitled to decide what movies to see and not to see?

>>There's nothing wrong with making personal choices about what to see or not.Starbuckle,

>>I don't know. You have to ask him.

>>Is anybody making a moral judgment about entitlement other than you?

Michael<<