By Brad Reed, via AlterNet
Take Lisa Simpson and combine her with Gordon Gekko and the obnoxious child-android from “Small Wonder,” and you get the perfect Rand hero.
Indeed, the film’s major problem is that it adheres too tightly to its source material, making it impossible to create compelling characters. This is because all of Rand’s heroes and heroines are soulless greedbots whose only goals in life are to make great innovations and then profit like crazy off them. In and of itself this isn’t a bad thing since a lot of people like creating things and being rewarded for them. But in the case of Rand’s characters, their desire for money and achievement supersedes all empathy, family relationships and basic human decency. Take Lisa Simpson and combine her with Gordon Gekko and the obnoxious child-android from “Small Wonder,” and you get the perfect Rand hero.
The New Yorker:
Atlas Shrugged: Part I
by Richard Brody.
"This comically tasteless and flavorless adaptation of Ayn Rand’s bombastic magnum opus delivers her simplistic nostrums with smug self-satisfaction. The story is set in 2016 in a dystopian America beset by economic depression and a new oil crisis, which is the pretext for rendering rail travel—the core of the novel’s plot—newly central. The railway heiress Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) seeks to revitalize the family’s business—and the nation’s economy—by laying rails made of an untested new alloy developed by the metallurgical baron Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler), while both titans are tied down and pecked at by parasites from the government, organized labor, the media, and even the scientific establishment. Meanwhile, a prophetic masked avenger packs many of the country’s great industrialists off to his compound in the hope of fuelling a “second Renaissance.” The preening resentment of the smart social misfit finds its fantasy fulfillment, as Rand’s flamboyant potboiler intensity (and her fascination with the authority of the great loner) gives rise to a tittering knowingness: the words “union” and “guild” are the pretexts for sneers and smears, and an unintentional howler of a business plan may give rise to a new, Tarzan-style pickup line: 'My metal, your railway.' ” Directed by Paul Johansson.
No, Seriously... Atlas Shrugged: Part One Is Hardly Worth Defending
When a film is this bad, any message becomes meaningless.
By William Bibbiani
Apr 19th, 2011
"Yesterday I published Crave Online’s review of Atlas Shrugged: Part One. I was disappointed to discover that it was a very bad movie: poorly acted, under-dramatized and often unintentionally silly. The film has its fans, and some of them have responded negatively to my review as well as the reviews of the many other critics who despised it (Atlas Shrugged currently ‘boasts’ a mere 8% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes; by way of comparison, Ishtar has a fairly celebratory 19%). Like the films of Michael Moore or Sergei Eisenstein, Atlas Shrugged has a direct social agenda, and those who subscribe to this agenda have responded favorably to the film. Unlike the films of Michael Moore or Sergei Eisenstein, Atlas Shrugged: Part One (that is to say, the movie as opposed to the book) does not boast the quality of narrative necessary to convince the uninitiated that its arguments have a modicum of significance.
In what I then considered a somewhat reasonable attempt to avoid delving into political controversy I chose to focus my review on the film’s overall cinematic ineptitude, touching upon Ayn Rand’s philosophies primarily when they contributed to the uninvolving plot or protagonists’ lack of charisma. (The Bioshock comment was, admittedly, largely snark.) Like the protagonists of the film I am unfazed by most of the criticisms lobbied in my direction, such as those indicating that the review lacks validity because I have not read the book. Any adaptation of any kind of source material needs to stand on its own merits, and Atlas Shrugged: Part One simply does not. I remained unconvinced of its arguments due to the lack of compelling storytelling or characterization in the film. One could argue, I suppose, that the movie is essentially an overlong advertisement for the Ayn Rand’s novel. If this is the case, consider my review not an assessment of an artwork’s craftsmanship and value but rather an unimpressed observation of an inept marketing campaign. I have less interest in reading Atlas Shrugged now than I ever have before, and to be perfectly honest reading the novel used to be on my ‘To Do’ list."
From Libertarian-leaning PJ Rourke:
Are there libertarian-agnostic non-Rand-fans who've liked the movie? I haven't found any yet, though Preview Week is still young. There were some notable savagings by Varietyand the Hollywood Reporter, though. Plus this newspapereditorial from the apparently existing Harrisonburg (Va.)Daily News Record, headlined "Objectively Evil: The Truth About 'Atlas Shrugged.'" Sample from that:
"A staple of modern libertarian thinking in some ways codified into the law, Objectivism is radically anti-Christian, denies the natural and moral law and assumes that man exists solely as an individual whose highest goal is satisfying his cupidity and concupiscence. It suggests that mankind is a collection of aimless atoms that bounce off of each other occasionally, but otherwise bear no selfless reciprocal duties or imperatives. Indeed, Rand thought selfishness was a virtue."
Years ago I plowed through half of "Atlas Shrugged" and stopped torturing myself. It was awful to read--turgid prose at its worst--and I imagined the movie version would be awful as well. And, according to these reviews, so it is.
Go see the new "Jane Eyre" film.
13 comments:
I read somewhere that people aren't exactly flocking to the theaters to see it either. But I'm sure Lisa won't let us down. ; )
How could it not be? Any movie with such a blatant, sledgehammer-pounded "message" starts off at a disadvantage; it needs to be especially good in other ways for people to tolerate being preached at. Instead, Atlas Shrugged (yes, I've read it) gives us an overflowing junkyard of cardboard characters, simplistic situations, and interminable sermons. Not promising source material. The only redeeming feature of Rand's philosophy is its rejection of religion and sexual taboos, and given the tight links between libertarianism and the Christian Right these days, I expect the film down-played that.
The novel's central premise -- that everything would fall apart without the big shots at the top -- is flawed, anyway. I've seen several cases where a company left a top executive position unfilled for months or a year while looking for a perfect candidate, with no noticeable effect on operations. When the accounts payable guy needs to take a couple of weeks off, they get a temp in right away, because they have to.
"The novel's central premise -- that everything would fall apart without the big shots at the top -- is flawed, anyway."
All we have to do is look at recent history--say all the way back to the summer of '08 to discover that everything falls apart WITH the big shots at the top.
Who precipitated our financial disaster? HINT: It wasn't school teachers, nurses, cops, or firemen.
It is safe to assume that none of you are members of a new dating service for Atlas Shrugged lovers?
http://www.theatlasphere.com/
I am sure I will be slammed as a sexist but I cannot help but imagine that this site is full of ugly women who are into bondage....
Wasn't it originally intended to be a comedy titled "Who is John Guilt?"
I saw the trailer before it came out, and wondered if it was faked. But it did have high production values.
The dialogue was truly awful, like something that is acceptable in a credit card commercial, but not an actual film.
Based on the trailer, I speculated that the Objectivists have their own version of the scientologists' "Battlefield Earth" on their hands.
A truly awful movie that will play to the hardcore faithful only.
I read Roger Ebert's review. He's a hardcore liberal, and he addressed his expected ideiological differences... and then really tore into it as a piece of filmmaking.
----------------------
Tao said: "It is safe to assume that none of you are members of a new dating service for Atlas Shrugged lovers?"
Couldn't they have been more creative, and called the dating service "Atlas Shagged" ?
Come to think of it, imagine how much better it would have been with Mike Myers playing some of the title roles.
By the way, I'm not sure if many of you are familiar with "Legend of the Seeker", a TV show based on novels by a Randist fantasy author.
About Ayn Rand’s life and character (rather the lack thereof), these bits should be included in any portrait of the über-narcissist:
In her diary circa 1928, she spoke glowingly of one William Edward Hickman, whom she described as: “A wonderful, free, light consciousness" freed of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people." In other words, a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes (source: Michael Prescott). Who is William Edward Hickman?
By all accounts, he was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer who kidnapped a 12-year old girl from school and demanded a ransom for her safe return. Here is what happened when the girl’s father tried to pay the ransom:
“When Mr. Parker paid the ransom, he could see his daughter, Marion, sitting in the passenger seat next to the suspect. As soon as the money was exchanged, the suspect drove off with the victim still in the car. At the end of the street, Marion's corpse was dumped onto the pavement. She was dead. Her legs had been chopped off and her eyes had been wired open to appear as if she was still alive. Her internal organs had been cut out and pieces of her body were later found strewn all over the Los Angeles area."
Ayn Rand’s admiration of this sick and twisted personality does not speak well of her judgment, her mental health, or her literary works. Her admirers and apologists, no doubt, would rationalize that the mature Rand should not be judged by the indiscretions of her youth. Bullshit!
If anything, the mature Rand continued to revere the sociopathic personality in her novels, and, yes, her comic heroes are SOCIOPATHS who harbor a pathological disregard for fellow human beings.
Ayn Rand was not far from sociopathy herself. She slept from one end of Hollywood to another to advance her overarching ambitions, betrayed lovers (openly humiliating them in public), abused drugs, and betrayed friends and colleagues in the McCarthy witch hunt era … ruining lives and reputations.
This is the same Ayn Rand idolized by such Republicans as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas, Glenn Beck, and Alan Greenspan, as examples … who want to reshape government into an Randian utopia that will usher in an era of serfdom and savagery for everyone.
This is why I keep out the Ayn Rand cultists (like Rational Nation, for instance) who hijack these comments threads in an effort to turn them into a medium for their own stinking self-promotion. They have no moral compass whatsoever, and I regard them as little more than parasites.
About this paragraph ...
"This is the same Ayn Rand idolized by such GOP stalwarts as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas, Glenn Beck, Alan Greenspan, and the Teahoo movement, as examples … all of whom seek to reshape government into an objectivist utopia, whose goal is to usher in an era of serfdom and savagery for all."
Let us not forgot that this entire edifice is built on some really sick shit, and it may serve a purpose to remind people that it all started with a narcissist's admiration for a sociopath.
dmarks: Based on the trailer, I speculated that the Objectivists have their own version of the scientologists' "Battlefield Earth" on their hands.
I suppose, if asked, you'll say that was BEFORE I speculated the same thing?
In your comment on my blog you quote the last line of my post... so either you read the whole thing (in which case you saw that I brought up Atlas Shrugged and Battlefield Earth) or you just skipped ahead to the end.
It was, actually, W-Dervish. I speculated this after reading RN's stuff, and before coming to your blog again. But you drew the connections much more strongly than I did.
The Fandango critic reviews gave it 28 out of 100, but the 1100+ fan reviews give it top marks. Perhaps one needs to be a fan of the book in order to enjoy the movie. Considering that the book has never been out of print, this would bode well for the investors.
It's now on 465 screens, and would have been on over 1000 this weekend, but the producers can't get the prints made and shipped quickly enough. Last Wednesday it was on four screens here, and now (Sunday) it's on seven.
And, just back from seeing it, and the reviewers are wrong. It's not awful. The dialogue is a bit stiff, as it was in the book, but the movie is beautifully staged, the pace is rapid, and everyone in the room was genuinely disappointed when the end came.
We're looking forward to Part II.
Post a Comment