RSS Feed MenuWhen the film Atlas Shrugged Part 1 came to Washington, DC for a preview on March 2nd, an array of libertarian and conservative groups were invited to the screening. CEI, FreedomWorks, Reason, Cato, the Daily Caller, and the US Chamber of Commerce all had reps in attendance. (FrumForum was not formally invited; I learned about the event through Facebook and made sure to get as near the front of the line for “overflow fans” as I could). The credits for the film included a very important disclaimer: “This movie was made with the permission but not the participation of the estate of Ayn Rand.” An additional disclaimer could have been: “This is a piece of fiction, please don’t forget that.”
Of all the staff in the FrumForum office, I was the most excited to see this film. I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in 12th grade and was very familiar with the plots of both. From a technical perspective the film actually does well considering its budget of under $20 million. Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler give strong performances as Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, bringing natural chemistry to the scenes they are in. They carry the highly implausible plot with dignity. If you understand that this film was made with a budget smaller than some HBO TV specials, you can excuse some of the mid-ranged CGI.
In terms of the quality of the adaption, the film trades depth for speed. Several characters get reduced roles. Eddie Willers and Francisco D’Anconia suffer the most in this regard, with Willers having far less to do and D’Anconia being given no backstory to explain why we should care about him. If Parts 2 and 3 of Atlas Shrugged get made, I bet we won’t get a chance to meet Cherryl Brooks or the Wet Nurse.
People who are unfamiliar with the novel might be confused by some of the developments: how does Wesley Mouch go from being a lobbyist to a super-bureaucrat? Why does Rearden stay with his awful wife? And why does everyone either love or hate D’Anconia? It may have been impossible to do real justice to all these plot points in under two hours.
The flip side to that is that the actual story that drives Part 1, the construction of the John Galt line, is told clearly and with energy. Though I would have preferred more time spent on the climax of the train’s actual run (it’s one of the best chapters in the book) I understand that the filmmakers had limited resources and so chose to focus on our leads, Dagny and Rearden. A lot of love went into this film. Schilling and Bowler in particular should be commended for not just giving passable performances, but strong and memorable ones.
But there is still a problem with the film. It didn’t just try to adapt the novel to the cinema medium, it tried to adapt it for the current political climate. The result is that it’s simultaneously relevant and anachronistic. The film is set in “2016”, in a world where the stock market is volatile and oil spills occur in the gulf. The government responds with price controls and trucks from the “Ministry of Welfare” which distributes food to the poor. The politicians and lobbyists in the film warn about industrial monopolies and reigning in the selfishness of CEOs like Rearden. The film tries to speak to anxieties about the current economic crisis but its real target is FDR’s National Recovery Administration.
The organizations and groups which will promote this film, of course, won’t let such technicalities get in the way. While at CPAC, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe said that his organization will do its part to promote the film, and it will likely get a boost from other outlets from the conservative and libertarian media. The filmmakers and fans hope that the film is seen by a wide audience, but it’s more likely to be distributed and enjoyed by the self-selected Tea Party crowd.
Those who hope the film will evangelize Rand’s message are trapped by the fact that not everyone sees the world as Rand saw it. There is very little Rand-moralizing in the film but when there is, it’s blunt. Dagny claims that a motor company in Wisconsin failed because of the “stupid altruistic urges” of its unionized employees. We learn that Rearden thinks the looters and moochers who survive off his brilliance are “a bunch of miserable children trying to stay alive”. Is anyone who does not already think Obama is a secret communist going to buy these statements?
By seeking to set the movie in the current political climate, the movie reinforces the worst tendencies of the libertarian and conservative movements. They continue to have selective memories regarding the Bush tax cuts (they were in place before Obama was elected; Obama continued them, and they didn’t prevent the financial crisis), the financial crisis (the Community Reinvestment Act was not the only reason the crisis happened) and the role of Wall Street (the “best and the brightest” got off the hook).
Instead of that reality, watch this film and you can come out believing that the real problem is that our society doesn’t value “individual achievement”.
When I came back from the film, David Frum suggested one way that the film could have been more effectively modernized to really speak to the problems of the current political climate. You could have had society become dependent on John Galt’s static-electricity powered motor only to have it fail and him survive by receiving a government bailout.
This game of making these larger than life characters face the problems of the real world can get very fun. Imagine Hank Rearden facing recalls of Rearden Steel since it turns out that not having the government inspect the new wonder-metal meant that nobody noticed it was actually radioactive and caused cancer. You could also have Galt’s Gulch deal with an increase in automobile deaths and accidents since the libertarian utopia doesn’t have seatbelt and helmet laws.
The best example of how the movie has been modernized is that Dagny no longer lights a cigarette every five minutes to be a metaphor for “the fire of man’s mind”. (Even FDA warnings can be based on objective truth.)
If I sound harsh, its only because I appreciate the story as a fun and entertaining side show. The movie does effectively capture some of the crazy two-dimensional depictions of its characters. The film really is set in an alternate universe where the goodness of someone’s character is determined by how perpendicular their jawline is, and that can be fun. I know I will see the movie again and will drag along many much less eager friends to sit through it, and that they will ask questions like “why on Earth are trains so important in this world?”
The problem with the movie, is that it seems too eager to take itself too seriously and to insert itself into the political climate. Libertarians will enter into the film excited and leave with their political opinions reaffirmed. Reviews of the movie from more mainstream sites will start appearing and they won’t be kind. It has already been described as “incomprehensible gibberish” and “a laughable failure”. I just offer one piece of advice for libertarians who think that people who don’t enjoy this film are either socialists or moochers: check your premises.
Tempest in a Frumpot // Mar 6, 2011 at 2:11 pm
great thread once I got past the troll. I guess the next 2 segments will be made since Randians will likely buy 10 DVD’s and give them away. It would have made far more sense for these people to have made a one or two season TV series and they could have got Fox to put it on one of their lower rated cable channels. There is no way in hell I would have watched it, but if they jazzed up the writing and characters they could have had enough of an audience to recoup the money.
As far as classic books that were made into great movies, Heart of Darkness by Conrad has to stand up there as one of the greatest in Apocalypse now. Just rewatched it last week and it is still great. As far as great movie or book heroes go, they don’t know that they are and never see themselves as such.
ottovbvs // Mar 6, 2011 at 3:04 pm
I’m a great fan of Conrad although his style takes a little getting into. Nostromo is a novel that bears comparison with War and Peace, and some of his other novels like Under Western Eyes, The Secret Agent and Lord Jim are very fine. Heart of Darkness the novel has some great and ironic scenes. One occurs when Marlow the narrator is travelling out to his new job in Africa and a French warship is lying off the coast of Africa and lobbing shells into the jungle (ie. nothingness). It’s a perfect metaphor for what we tried to do in Vietnam and are still trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thanos316 // Mar 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm
If I wanted to see a great movie about the true ‘awesomeness’ of modern American capitalism I’d watch Pacino’s ‘Scarface’ instead. Anything to do with some half-baked mentally-ill Randian tripe is permanently at the bottom of my personal list.
talkradiosucks.com // Mar 6, 2011 at 5:22 pm
“This movie should be made mandatory. Maybe congress should pass a law, making it a required viewing in schools, etc.”
I really, really hope that was said tongue in cheek.
Thanos316 // Mar 6, 2011 at 5:42 pm
Well, you can bet your last dollar that it’ll be on the required viewing list for wannabe graduates at Glenn Beck University.
Tempest in a Frumpot // Mar 6, 2011 at 5:54 pm
TRS, that absolutely had to be tongue in cheek as a contradiction in terms; you must, under pain of penalty, see this movie about having the most amount of freedom possible.
One thing the Randians never acknowledge, outside of the US Ayn Rand is a complete unknown, none of her crap is taken seriously because it is such garbage. Her writing is turgid, her world view simplistic to the point of idiocy. There are brilliant Conservative writers, or even brilliant Conservative books writen by Liberals (like 1984). She is bubble gum philosophy. Even if they spent 100 million to produce it, made it into a TV series it comes down to garbage in garbage out, unless you basically rewrite it all.
AMurphy // Mar 6, 2011 at 6:57 pm
What ever happened to the days when conservatives had nothing to do with Ms. Rand and her dime store philosophy?
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback
Redrabbit // Mar 6, 2011 at 7:06 pm
Not being a conservative, I can’t say for sure. But some of it is probably just the old sentiment; the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Rand and her philosophy disgusts liberals, and there are more than a few on the right who simply embrace nearly anything that liberals dislike.
Plus, the popularity of Ron Paul has thrust ‘libertarian’ ideas of all sorts in to the mainstream for the past few years. Sure, these might not be household concepts, but it has given them a visibility they don’t usually enjoy.
Redrabbit // Mar 6, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Will audiences shrug? They might, if they ever get in to the theater to see it, but most probably won’t.
Someone made the comparison to Mel Gibson’s “Passion” flick. Keep in mind, though, that probably a good third or more of the people who saw that did so out of curiosity over the whole controversy around it. I certainly don’t see that happening here.
The problem this film has is that the vast majority of Americans have never actually heard of Ayn Rand, read any of her novels, or have any idea why she is supposedly important.
Plus, the trailer doesn’t do much to sell it. It clearly has some high production values, but the plot? A railroad accident, some controversy over a certain type of metal, and a woman who starts a new business to save her old business? I suspect most American audiences will find this a tad…underwhelming. Trains don’t do a lot to excite fans of the average action flick, nor do plots about political and economic intrigue.
As for the whole issue of “Who is John Galt”, will anyone who has never even heard of the novel even realize this question is important to the plot? The trailer certainly doesn’t do a whole lot to build up any appreciable mystery.
As others have said, this trailer gives a very particular vibe; everything you see, you get the feel that you’re ’supposed’ to know what all this stuff is (Galt, Rearden Steel, etc.)
So, will Americans be asking who “John Galt” is once this hits theaters? Will they care? Probably not.
jakester // Mar 6, 2011 at 7:11 pm
What is the difference? Most of these so called libertarians. Beck for one, are just soc and theo cons who are playing possum till they can grab some power. Then, all of a sudden, they will find all sorts of good things the state should do.
Redrabbit // Mar 6, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Soc and Theo cons are still associated with the GOP, rather than ‘libertarians’, and the GOP brand is still a bit tarnished. They’re just hiding out under the libertarian banner until the elephant is a little less toxic in the public mind.
Houndentenor // Mar 6, 2011 at 7:44 pm
I think there are a lot more people who have heard of the novel than you think. Routinely in NYC I saw several people reading AS in one day on the Subway. Actually I would see several people reading it on the same day and then not notice anyone reading it for a month or two. I don’t know if I just happened to notice it all in one day or if there were people reading it all the time and I was just too busy with my own book or score to pay attention to what other people were reading. Okay so maybe in cities without mass transit systems people don’t have that free 30-60 minutes of reading time every day but it’s not as if the book isn’t in pretty wide circulation.
About Beck and company, I have found it odd for a long time to hear Christian Fundamentalists spout ideas that are at odds with the teachings of Christ and obviously watered down (and second or third hand) versions of Objectivism. That’s all the more odd since Rand was an atheist. Objectivism doesn’t coexist very well with religion unless you are unwilling to think very hard about what you are saying (which is the case with most fundamentalists).
hisgirlfriday // Mar 6, 2011 at 9:27 pm
Well that’s not entirely true. Sure, Objectivism doesn’t coexist well with Christianity or any Abrahamic religions for that matter, but it actually goes great with “do what thou wilt” satanism. So there’s that.
AMurphy // Mar 6, 2011 at 11:38 pm
HISGIRLFRIDAY,
Very astute of you to bring up satanism. Are you making a reference to the fact that the former head of the Church of Satan, the late Anton Levay once said in an interview,
“My philosophy is just Ayn Rand’s with added ritual”.
One of many reasons I just laugh when Christian conservatives regurgitate Randian quotes
hisgirlfriday // Mar 7, 2011 at 9:47 am
Ha! Actually I had never heard that quote from Levay.
Derek F // Mar 6, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Atlas Shrugged worked so poorly as a novel in the first place. The only people who enjoy it are, I think, those who read it as a discourse, and not as a work of art. As many critics have pointed out over the years, the characters are silly and one-dimensional, the plot is hyperbolic and unrealistic, and the unabashed didacticism is rarely watered down with artful technique. Adapting it into a movie can only emphasize the negative while further trivializing its actual points.
I think this was a giant misstep on the part of the Ayn Rand Institute. People thought they were a joke as it was.
Noah Kristula-Green // Mar 7, 2011 at 12:40 am
The Ayn Rand Institute had nothing to do with this adaptation.
Hence the “This was made with the permission but not the participation of the Ayn Rand Estate” disclaimer at the end of the film.
CitizenWhig // Mar 7, 2011 at 8:14 am
As many have noted above, “Atlas Shrugged” is, at best, a poor novel. I tend to agree with those who would classify it as one of the worst novels ever written, certainly the most self-indulgent. In almost any comic book published in the last 40 years, you will find more characterization, greater complexity of antagonists and storylines that, despite their fantastic elements, are much more believable than the ridiculous plot of AS.
Kenneth Silber // Mar 7, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I’m sorry to report that a 2001 survey of Satanists did not substantiate the Objectivist connection:
” I also attempted to gage awareness of a handful of specific thinkers associated with modern Satanism for one reason or the other—Aleister Crowley, Ayn Rand, Frederick Nietzsche, Charles Baudelaire, and Ragnar Redbeard. More respondents were familiar with the writings of Crowley and Nietzsche than the others, and many had read Crowley. Despite the fact that LaVey described his religion as “just Ayn Rand’s philosophy with ceremony and ritual added” (cited in Ellis, p. 180), only a handful of respondents were more than passingly familiar with Rand. ”
– “Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile” by
James R. Lewis, Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies, University of Wisconsin
Marburg Journal of Religion, Volume 6, No. 2 (June 2001)
http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/mjr/lewis2.html
AMurphy // Mar 7, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Silber,
Didn’t say that all Satantists were Objectvists, simply pointed out Anton Levay as your quote shows, beleived there was a connection.
TJ Parker // Mar 8, 2011 at 7:49 am
Fear not, Noah: your love of Rand, like zits, is something you’ll outgrow.
Kenneth Silber // Mar 8, 2011 at 10:46 am
AMurphy, I understand but the connection seems pretty weak if Levay’s followers have barely heard of Rand. I’m holding off on plans to pitch a regular “Satanism Watch” column for FF.
Atlas Shrugged movie reviewed - Anders Monsen // Apr 7, 2011 at 11:10 pm
[...] Shrugged movie reviewed Apr 7 Uncategorized Long review of part 1 of the recently released Atlas Shrugged movie. Not sure if or when it will make it to theaters near me, but it has been many years since I last [...]