Atlas Shrugged movie opens today!

[DonDaBoomVape]

I really should not be the one posting this. Although I have a deep, life-long passion and commitment to the novel, Atlas Shrugged, and much of the philosophy of its author, Ayn Rand ... I don't talk about it much nor am I a reviewer of the arts. However, I have found no other posts about the movie (and very little about the book).

I'll simply say that Atlas Shrugged is the best, most exciting novel I have ever read ... its theme of individual innovation at odds with collectivist controls should appeal to vapers ... and (from what I can tell from clips and commentary) the movie version seems to be a competent, TV-movie quality adaptation, loyal to the book. [It covers the first third of the book and is Part I of a trilogy ... although it stands well on its own.] Visit the official movie site for more info.

Go see it!

 

[classwife]

Trailer looks fantastic !!

I am a reader....wanna get the book !

Thanks Don, I hadn't heard of it !

 

[bassnut]

Something tells me this thread belongs on the Outside.

 

[DonDaBoomVape]

Just got back from the movie theater. [It's been years since I went out to the movies. Popcorn and soda prices are absurd!]

On balance, it was what I expected: pretty loyal to the book, some great cinematography, TV-caliber acting, disappointing music, a few wonderful scenes*, a few stilted, ham-handed ones. I hated the telegraphing of the meaning of "John Galt" (beyond the despair contained in the "Who is John Galt?" expression), especially at the end.

* I loved the celebration scene in Wyatt's dining room and the Dagny pleading with Francisco scene. Two of the few with any emotional impact.
​

Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler are visually perfect as Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon and portray the essence of their respective characters well, but on one note (Bowler especially: relaxed and confident, even with his ..... wife or experiencing repressed passion toward Dagny).

Some of the casting was spot on: Lillian Reardon is perfect; James Taggart is younger than in the book but very good; Paul Larkin transcends a minor role; I liked Francisco (although I'm not sure Rand would). Some was puzzling: Stadler and Akston are not old enough (look barely older than Francisco, their student); Owen Kellogg comes off as a nerd. I have strongly mixed feelings about Eddie Willers: although Edi Gathegi (who I know from several House episodes) is effective in the role, he is the only African American in the cast and plays an administrative assistant. [Racist cliché much?]

Trailer looks fantastic !!

I am a reader....wanna get the book !

Thanks Don, I hadn't heard of it !

If my post has triggered your interest in reading the book, I am very pleased. [I also am saddened that an intelligent person I like and respect hasn't heard of it. <-- That's a comment about our culture, not about you.]

Something tells me this thread belongs on the Outside.

Movie recommendations and discussion certainly belong here. However I suspect that you are predicting the type of controversy, which often surrounds Ayn Rand. So let's all agree to keep things civil. OK?

 

[Elwin]

Thanks for the review Don.
I'm also a fan of the novel. But since I live in the boonies and the film is in limited release, I'd have to drive over a hundred miles to see it. So hopefully it'll show up closer to me soon.

My fear with almost any film based on a novel is that they rarely meet the expectations of reader.
I think it was Stephen King that said, "Nothing beats 'skull cinema'."
He had a good point. The imagination creates a world that even modern cinema techniques fail to realize.
Case in point: The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Peter Jackson did a marvelous job - but the world that I created in my own imagination was was even bigger, and I knew the characters even more intimately than the film could ever convey...

 

[loden813]

Truely one of the all time great author...have read the book twice and am sure if I read it again, I will learn something new. Can't say enough about this book! Have to class it along with A. S.'s "Cancer Ward"

 

[Eddie.Willers]

Just got back from the movie theater... I have strongly mixed feelings about Eddie Willers: although Edi Gathegi (who I know from several House episodes) is effective in the role, he is the only African American in the cast and plays an administrative assistant. [Racist cliché much?]

I was a little surprised to see a black Eddie Willers but I think that such casting serves the story well. Dagny Taggart would employ the most skillful assistant she could find, and the book's representation of Eddie as a Taggart childhood friend always rang hollow to me.

 

[progg]

Thanks for the link Don.

For those with interest -- if reading "Atlas Shrugged" seems a daunting task, start with "We the Living" and "The Fountainhead".

 

[progg]

I see the movie is Part 1. Where does it leave off?

 

[DonDaBoomVape]

I was a little surprised to see a black Eddie Willers but I think that such casting serves the story well. Dagny Taggart would employ the most skillful assistant she could find, and the book's representation of Eddie as a Taggart childhood friend always rang hollow to me.

I bow to the opinion of one who based his screen name on the character.

Thanks for the link Don.

For those with interest -- if reading "Atlas Shrugged" seems a daunting task, start with "We the Living" and "The Fountainhead".

Of the two, I recommend The Fountainhead. My only concern about starting with it is that I didn't really like the protagonist, Howard Roark. [You might.] Too cold for me. Dagny Taggart, Hank Reardon, and especially Francisco D'Anconia are not cold.

I see the movie is Part 1. Where does it leave off?

Ellis Wyatt's exit, i.e., Part I of the movie covers Part I (Non-Contradiction) of the book. [So, kinda like the ending of Star Wars Episode V.] Visually, the ending was excellent; I just hated the spoiler (and a ham-handed one at that) of the voice-over.

Part I of the book is filled with puzzling paradoxes, which are gradually resolved in Parts II and III. Most of those are cut off at the knees in the movie.

 

[progg]

SNIP.......

Of the two, I recommend The Fountainhead. My only concern about starting with it is that I didn't really like the protagonist, Howard Roark. [You might.] Too cold for me. Dagny Taggart, Hank Reardon, and especially Francisco D'Anconia are not cold.


Ellis Wyatt's exit, i.e., Part I of the movie covers Part I (Non-Contradiction) of the book.

Unfortunately the movie isn't in my state yet. I'll definitely see it.

I don't find Roark cold, nor Prometheus or Bjorn Faulkner.
A matter of taste.

Thanks again Don.

 

[progg]

Truely one of the all time great author...have read the book twice and am sure if I read it again, I will learn something new. Can't say enough about this book! Have to class it along with A. S.'s "Cancer Ward"

I just read some reviews of "Cancer Ward". Sounds intriguing, thanks for the post.

 

[Kent C]

This is cut and pasted from a PM to Don regarding the movie - my most immediate response after seeing it:

First time (except at Disney - we go to movie on 'rain days') that I've been to a movie since Batman (first one with Jack N). I saw the 12:30pm matinee today. I was rather impressed. I can't see anyone who knows the storyline that would be 'disappointed' - when considering the amount of editing that is needed even in a three parter. Many will be wowed. I know the storyline so well that I knew what was missing and while I didn't want to 'waste time' thinking about that at the time, some omissions made a lot of sense to me - IF I were put in the position to edit.

I was pretty sure that the philosophy would be good since David Kelley (Atlas Society) was the philosophical consultant and I'm more than pleased with that. Even though I knew that.... - I thought, with Hollywood, much could go wrong. Look how they did '1984' and 'Bonfire of the Vanities' just to name a few.

I thought the casting was great - WOW on Dagny! I pictured James T. not as good looking - older, I was fine with Eddie - I knew the actor from "House". I would have chosen a different look for Reardon - perhaps a young Don Draper (Madmen), but the guy delivered well.

While it may have been good box office for an Angelina - Dagny and a Brad Pitt - Galt, I think the fact that the cast was not that well known, may be a plus - a 'non-distraction', if you will, to where the actual character shows up well - a huge plus for the story, imo. And the secondary characters were also well cast, imo. I think you'll like Wyatt

I also looked at the fact that I know the story so well - not so much that my view would be biased, but more concerned with - how would it look to someone who doesn't know the story or doesn't know it that well - or read it 25 years ago and has never revisited it? And that is a hard question to answer. I'm more interested in those 'reviews' than people who know the story front to back. Although that analysis should be fun at least. I'm sure there are certain 'favorite' scenes that people have for one particular reason or another and they would be dismayed if they didn't include it. I would have liked to see some of the 'growing up' stuff with Dagny, Jim, Eddie, Francisco... but that and some others that they'll miss in the future would have made it a 6 or 7 part series
====

That said, I'll comment on some of Don't comments. The telegraphing of Galt wasn't as big a problem for me. I figure that with the limited showings that 90% of the movie goers already know the story and that the stealthy way the book presented the 'who is John Galt?' thing is simply harder to do on film - although, in each of those scenes depicted in the movie there is a man the approaches each of the 'candidates' as in the book, and in the book you begin to assume that it is the same man whereas in the movie that is quite apparent from the start.

I think 'TV caliber acting' is a bit harsh (except for perhaps Paul Larkin) - in fact many of the secondary characters were familiar movie actors with some good performances throughout their career. And the "[racial cliche much?]" sounds more like another poster I know rather than Don. I can't think of one character where someone who was concerned with this issue - to where there couldn't be, if one wanted to promote that, some similar 'critique'. I don't think it would work for Dagney or Jim Taggert or Reardon or any of his family - most likely that would be a blaxploitation movie to some. If it were the villians, (like many movies from the Hollywood Left) then something similarly racist could be said about that.

I just think it is out of line to even invoke the comment - suggesting that someone either in the production, writing or direction had racist views. Edi did a good job and I would think that if he (or other African Americans) were inclined to be offended - that the comments made about him in the House episodes would surely have topped any consideration on his role as a rather effective administrative assistant who in fact does more to run the company than most administrative assistants would.

So other than that, .. I agree with Don's assessment. I recommend the movie to anyone - and would be interested in people's views who never read the book or know about it.

 

[progg]

I was curious if you had seen it Kent. Thanks for the supplemental review. I haven't been to the movies since ???

Either reviewer -- If you have seen the movie " The Fountainhead" , do you have any thoughts comparatively to their respective treatments?

 

[Kent C]

I was curious if you had seen it Kent. Thanks for the supplemental review. I haven't been to the movies since ???

Either reviewer -- If you have seen the movie " The Fountainhead" , do you have any thoughts comparatively to their respective treatments?

For the time frame "The Fountainhead" took the philosophy and plugged it into the '50's movie' genre - with all of the things that made that up - b&w film and characters - tough guys, 50's women, a press that tears down anything good (well, that hasn't changed and sniveling 'second handers' - if you're familiar with that phrase - who are more despicable in some ways than the villians themselves.

Rand was the philosophical consultant on that film and everything you see on film was approved by her. Rand, in her novels was a romantic - in the literature sense so all her heroes and villians were 'ideal' - not the 'well rounded gray/flawed characters of a non romantic genre of today. It's a style - some like it, some don't. And whether or not one agrees with the philosophy I think both movies portray it well. It's not sugar coated. (well with AS - not yet anyway, and I don't really expect to see that given who's behind the project.)

The Atlas movie is in a modernized (near future?) setting where the economy is so trashed that trains are the only good form of long term travel and I liked they way they were able to 'look back' at the story for that aspect - rather than making it about air travel or space travel - the first idea being bandied about in earlier projects. And I simply don't think that the 50's style of writing translated to a screenplay for the present wouldn't have worked - so I thought they did a good job of 'updating' it and frankly, there is no time in history since the book was written where it is more 'on point' - some of the same legislation is being passed that was passed in the book and even the titles of the current bills have similar wording - well... we don't have a anti-dog eat dog bill currently (by name anyway , but there have been 'equalization' bills out there that do the very same thing as the legislation in the book.

So basically, I think both movies fit their time and both are philosophically consistent with Rand's philosophy - something many good writers have not seen once their material reaches Hollywood.

 

[Kent C]

One side note, for the Atlas movie, as I was making my way to my car I saw people taking picture and it was of my licence plate. Sometimes I forget that it's there:

Got a few 'cool'/thumbs up as I was getting in my car

 

[progg]

I'm glad I landed here today -- I had forgotten about the opening date. I called my son, he's headed to the movies this afternoon.

Thanks for your take on the films Kent. I'm familiar with the psycho-epistemology of the 'second hander'.

My "license plate" on my work tool box -- A IS A

 

[Kent C]

I'm glad I landed here today -- I had forgotten about the opening date. I called my son, he's headed to the movies this afternoon.

Thanks for your take on the films Kent. I'm familiar with the psycho-epistemology of the 'second hander'.

My "license plate" on my work tool box -- A IS A

Lol. Appropriate for a tool box! Hope you get a chance to see the movie.

 

[DonDaBoomVape]

Interestingly, the most intense disagreement thus far occurs between the two 'Randites'. [That is Heinlein's term. I'm sure that Kent thinks of himself as an "Objectivist" (and from my conversations with him, he deserves to do so). It is inappropriate for me to call myself that: too many mixed premises.]

Attribute my Eddie Willers' comments to the years I spent conducting Diversity training. Perhaps I am hypersensitive to such matters. [I would be very interested to hear the points of view of black men and women.] NOTE: I always thought Samuel L. Jackson would make a great Ellis Wyatt: fiery and intense. Although I was very pleased with Graham Beckel's performance in that role.

BTW, here is my cut-and-paste from my reply to Kent's cut-and-paste:

As a dramatic arts major in college, I guess I'm more dramaturgically demanding than [Kent]. I have no problem with the cutting or abbreviation of scenes, although how they were cut and what was substituted puzzled or troubled me. For example, it wasn't necessary to state in advance that the person Dagny was meeting at the diner was Hugh Akston. Too many of the little (and big) surprises were ruined. And who cares what flavors were included in the cake at the Reardons' anniversary party?!

Of the negatives, I most hated the overt presence of John Galt in Part I.​

The book, Atlas Shrugged, is so many things on so many different levels – deliberately so and explicitly declared by the author, not just by a college literature professor. One of those things is: a murder mystery ("not of a man's body, but of his spirit" or words to that effect). In the first third of a murder mystery, you don't reveal to the reader/viewer: Colonel Mustard killed Miss Scarlett in the Library with the candlestick ... and Rand didn't in the book.

And, progg, you really spoiled it for others: "A is A" is Part III!

 

[Katya]

Thank you, Don and Kent, for the reviews. I enjoyed reading them, just like I enjoyed the book.

Although I'm neither a Randite nor an Objectivist, I believe Ayn Rand's books are important and deserve to be read and debated.

One side note, for the Atlas movie, as I was making my way to my car I saw people taking picture and it was of my licence plate. Sometimes I forget that it's there:

Got a few 'cool'/thumbs up as I was getting in my car

I could swear I saw this license plate before somewhere here, on ECF, long time ago. It made me grin, but I didn't associate it with you at the time. You must have posted it before you joined us in the "Burning" thread... Or there is somebody else here with a similar plate...

It's going to bug me now.