Regular ARCHNblog commenter Laj Ogunshola delivers his verdict on the new Atlas Shrugged movie.
Atlas Shrugged Pt. 1 is, first and foremost, a movie made for fans of the novel. I tried to imagine how I would put together a coherent narrative of the events I saw on the movie-screen without some familiarity with the source material and I could not for the life of me. Apart from dates and times, which often appeared after this or that major event, usually the disappearance of some executive, there is little help putting together the movie’s events from the screen itself. Character development is a foregone luxury in this movie, which is problematic in part because much of the core of Rand’s novel is introspective and deals with philosophical ideas.
Given the popularity of source novel for the movie’s script, I think this tactic was probably best for commercial reasons given the limited budget – after all, there are enough fans out there to enjoy the movie and at the screening I attended, there was a wide age range of people with a significant number of older folk (there is a significant libertarian population where I live). Most people, including many movie reviewers, have filled in the gaps themselves.
The movie is probably the most rushed movie that I have seen in recent memory and the corner cutting to fit the budget shows. It was overly scored in many places and lines like “This is the consequence of your policies”, “I’m cultivating a society that honors individual achievement” and others containing the word “premise” are all over the place in the movie’s dialogue. One of the opening scenes had two sets of dialogue running over each other and I wondered which I was supposed to be following. While there are some nice panoramic screenshots, some are superfluous (I’m thinking especially of a shot of the forest without the train while the train is running during its most critical test). There might be more to this than meets the eye and I would figure out if I was willing to part with more money to see the movie again, but I’ll pass.
Into the group I call “fans” for which this move was made, I would place two people: hardcore Objectivists and people who find a fountain of inspiration in Randian individualism and economics as exemplified by the novel (I’m thinking primarily of some libertarians). The movie makes no serious compromises with Ayn Rand’s philosophical vision and the world which Dagny Taggert, Hank Rearden, and John Galt inhabit, while ridiculous to most human beings who deal with everyday failure and personal limitations, is presented in its purest form to date. This will please many Objectivists and may turn off many people who are looking for entertainment. Libertarians will generally find much to laud in the anti-government stance of the movie.
There is a lot of Objectivist/libertarian Superman porn (no, I’m not referring to the PG-13 sex) on display here, and I think people who haven’t dealt extensively with Objectivists will miss this. Not often do Objectivist values get portrayed without dilution on screen and despite the limited budget and consequently compromised production values, this is the purest portrayal of Objectivism on the movie screen to date, even worse than the Fountainhead movie. Here is a short list of things that would excite anyone who expected a compromised version of the novel: businessmen telling off government officials without compromise, Rearden declaring he loves making money out loud, seeing the Objectivist heroes win rhetorical debates with incompetent villains on the basis of simple logic, and watching incompetent businessmen utilize the government as if that was their exclusive means of making money. In other words, there is no serious attempt to dumb down or revise Ayn Rand for the masses, though I can’t remember the word “Reason” being used in the movie (that might have been the compromise). The movie takes ideas as seriously as Rand does, which is more than most people do, but not seriously enough to realize that ideas need to be tested and criticized seriously to appreciate their limitations.
Heroes in this movie deal with conflicts, both external and internal, but not with struggle or growth. Because Dagny and Hank are so certain that their plans will succeed, there is really no drama surrounding the climactic event in the movie.
Lots of the action in Rand’s novels takes place in introspection and is not adequately conveyed , the most prominent example being Rearden’s conflict between supporting his family and being true to his selfish values. Yes, you know there is something wrong, but you don’t feel that Hank is burdened by it, something that comes across more clearly as Rand voices his thoughts in the novel. For a philosophy grounded so strongly in free will, the movie presents no one with difficult choices – people aren’t choosing so much as they are being puppets on the grand Objectivist philosophical stage.
What I think might make the movie work for some people who are not serious fans of Ayn Rand is that you know that the actors are trying to make something compelling, and that helps you overlook some of the technical flaws. Taylor Schilling (as Dagny Taggart) and Grant Bowler (as Hank Rearden) do decent work infusing life into the cardboard characters they have been given. In many other movies with problems like those found in Atlas Shrugged Pt. 1, the actors mail it in, but it is definitely not the case here and I believe that is what saves the movie from being as bad as it could be.
Finally, the movie holds out some hope that some of the details missing in part one will be satisfactorily resolved in a sequel. As a critic of Objectivism and its bombastic adherents bereft of significant achievements, I would bet the under on satisfactory resolution, but I think the hope for such resolution is part of the reason why people show more sympathy towards the movie than it might deserve on pure merit alone. There is a semblance of a decent story here and I think Rand’s plot comes through even when the production fails. Rand was good at plots, even if the characters she created were philosophical puppets. Moreover, there are some mysteries - affairs, sex, disappearances – which you might just want to see solved.
So what’s my overall verdict? I did watch the movie from beginning to end, and I did laugh at some of the jokes (and some of the camp too). So my personal view is mildly favorable. The positive Objectivist response to the movie will be driven primarily by its lack of compromise, but as a technical achievement, the less said of the movie, the better. I believe that this movie will also encourage efforts at developing a theatre version of the novel. The producers of this movie have cleared the way, and now others will be measured by this achievement.
As an entertainment experience, I didn’t feel moved by anything, to be frank. I watched Hanna two days before and ran through the gamut of emotions for a movie that was to some degree as cartoonish as Atlas, though far better done. Atlas Shrugged, I experienced a little intellectually, enjoyed some of its humor, but felt next to nothing for anyone on the screen, even after Dagny’s final scream. I might get my girlfriend to watch it at some point to get the viewpoint of someone who hasn’t read the book, but don’t hold your breath on this one. There is some contemporary relevance which might help the movie’s cause but my guess is if you can’t read/like the book, don’t expect to get much out of the movie. Anyone who wants to wait for this movie to come out on Netflix or TV will likely get a superior experience watching this in the comfort of their living room.
By the way, the movie’s producers want you to know this:
“This movie was created with the permission but not the promotion of the Estate of Ayn Rand.”
Enjoy!
Also, regular commenter Michael Prescott gives the movie a thumbs-up in comments.
17 comments:
Excellent review, Laj. I liked the movie more than you did, and unlike you, I felt emotions at certain moments - though to be honest I probably felt more emotions watching the old James Bond flick "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" the other night ...
Still, I did feel for Rearden when his companies were being stripped away. I liked his line (taken from the book, but colloquialized), "Whatever happens, it's us who move the world, and it's us who'll see it through." I liked the entire run of the John Galt Line. I thought the last half hour of the movie was generally exciting, and the climax was quite good. But I admit there were emotional dead spots, especially during the first half.
"This movie was created with the permission but not the promotion of the Estate of Ayn Rand."
I may be wrong, but I think it read, "... with the permission but not the participation of ..."
I suspect it's not so much that the producers want us to know it, as that the estate wanted us to know it. To me, it looks like a statement included in the credits at the insistence of the estate's lawyers.
I hope other commenters will chime in with their reviews.
Michael,
Thanks. To respond to some of the points you raised:
1) You're likely right about "participation" vs. "promotion" - I tend to read with my mind more than my eyes because of my astigmatism. Yes, my guess is that it really was the Estate of Ayn Rand that required them to add that to the credits, but I felt most people familiar with this site would figure that out so there was no need to explain in depth.
2) I can't really feel for someone whose struggles I can't empathize with and I never understood what losing the businesses really cost Hank. Maybe if the movie that shown how the businesses crashed or failed to serve people following the transfer of ownership (though that could be a bit altruistic), then maybe I could have felt something, but it wasn't clear what the consequence of signing the businesses over was, other than Hank Rearden having less to manage. It didn't even jeopardize his time line for building the Rio Norte line. The absence of growth to overcome hurdles just makes the move an exercise in going through the motions. Maybe I felt this way because I knew success was inevitable from the novel, but the movie doesn't build any feelings of suspense as far as I can see, so this is where it might help to get fresh eyes who are not familiar with the novel.
3) I did feel our reviews were similar enough and I think I might have understated how much I enjoyed looking at the movie. However, this could just as well have been a good TV movie. I did realize that I was not part of the core audience for this movie after I failed to respond strongly to the many of the anti-government scenes. There was an ovation when the movie was over in the theater after the screening I saw, so the movie does hit the sweet spot for some people. The only thing I did during this movie was laugh a few times, so as pure entertainment, I knocked it down a few notches and that is what factored into my review. I think a movie should make someone feel much more than just a little laughter. However, I think that what I couldn't find in the movie will be found by the Objectivists and libertarians who will enjoy an undiluted display of their philosophy of screen. The bad guys are just as bad and incompetent as can be.
Laj, the bad guys were caricatured to be sure. OTOH, just today I read a Facebook posting by someone who thinks we can solve the national debt problem by "confiscating the bank accounts" of the rich. He justifies this move on the ground of "metaphysics" (no further explanation offered). So maybe it's not quite as much of a caricature as we think.
The only time I laughed (or chuckled, maybe) was when Jim Taggart said, "Who are you?" to Phillip Rearden at the party.
Hank Rearden's lifelong struggle to build up his businesses is portrayed in the novel, so we do have a real sense of what he's losing. In the film we at least the get the idea that he's losing his autonomy, since he will have to depend on unreliable suppliers like Paul Larkin. But the deeper meaning is unexplored.
Michael,
No doubt, there are people who have what Walter Williams insightfully calls "The Pile of Money Theory of Wealth" where wealth is found in some hidden location somewhere and the only reason why some people are richer is that they got there first and took more than their fair share. But that this is how businessmen who deal with the US government think is the kind of thing that only a novelist can come up with.
Rand liked that caricaturing people and always had the excuse that she was dramatizing things and embodying things as purely as she could. Of course, since what is experimentally and experientially interesting in the real world is the complexity and instability of impure situations, she solves real world problems by claiming they aren't real world problems (i.e. she ignores them). No business man lobbies government all the time - real businessmen (and human beings in general) are a mix between Rearden and Boyle or Dagny and James - they mix strategies based on a variety of factors, knowing that shaping the competitive landscape through regulation can be at least as important as shaping it through innovation. In any case, I'm not criticizing the movie from being unrealistic or for criticizing government - I'm just saying that I didn't respond to that criticism with the joy that others might. I was trying to see why someone else might experience the movie more passionately than I did (speaking to my brother did help on that score).
"But that this is how businessmen who deal with the US government think is the kind of thing that only a novelist can come up with."
It's an exaggeration, but maybe not entirely removed from the truth. Look at the effort to create a carbon-credit commodities market. The supposed purpose is to combat global warming. The real purpose is to create a mechanism whereby sophisticated speculators can further enrich themselves, trading inherently worthless "credits" for huge gains. The net effect would be a huge transfer of wealth from producers (the companies that actually manufacture things) to speculators (who manufacture nothing). Some "capitalists" really are not interested in producing anything of value, or even in making it possible for others to do so.
And in a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship, which is the setting of Atlas Shrugged, there would be more of these people, and they would be even more brazen. Look at the Potemkin-village construction projects in China. In one case, an entire city complete with skyscrapers was built in the middle of a wasteland; it remains totally unpopulated, a ghost town. But you can bet someone got rich off it.
It's an exaggeration, but maybe not entirely removed from the truth. Look at the effort to create a carbon-credit commodities market. The supposed purpose is to combat global warming. The real purpose is to create a mechanism whereby sophisticated speculators can further enrich themselves, trading inherently worthless "credits" for huge gains. The net effect would be a huge transfer of wealth from producers (the companies that actually manufacture things) to speculators (who manufacture nothing). Some "capitalists" really are not interested in producing anything of value, or even in making it possible for others to do so.
My guess is that your bias vs. global warming is in the picture here. Let's move the argument into another arena. One could just as well argue that the purpose of the stock market is to encourage speculation, not to facilitate an improved allocation of capital. Finance people/investors who do not create anything are profiting off the backs of actual managers, who do. Sounds awfully like Marxism, don't you think?
OK, so there are thieves in the world who sometimes claim one motive but might really have another. For example, people who want to privatize social security might really want a new source of investment funds. What's new? I think my question is whether we live in a corporate world with the saintly businessmen on one side and the sinful businessmen on the other or whether the corporate world is largely dominated by pragmatists who find government lobbying to be one strategy amongst others for achieving strategic objectives. There is nothing wrong with simplifying reality as long as you admit that you are simplifying things and speak about the limitations of doing so.
And in a dictatorship or semi-dictatorship, which is the setting of Atlas Shrugged, there would be more of these people, and they would be even more brazen. Look at the Potemkin-village construction projects in China. In one case, an entire city complete with skyscrapers was built in the middle of a wasteland; it remains totally unpopulated, a ghost town. But you can bet someone got rich off it.
But the buildings were built. Why? Why not just pocket the money and not build at all? Again, the strategies open to corrupt businessmen run the gamut - they are not as inept as Rand makes out.
I agree that the real world is more complicated than fiction, but fiction necessarily stylizes and dramatizes reality. Real evangelists are more complex than Elmer Gantry, real Long Island sophisticates have more depth than Jay Gatsby, real detectives are more multidimensional than Sherlock Holmes, etc. The most memorable characters are often the most stylized.
Shifty speculators relying on government manipulation of the markets do exist. The fact that these folks may also have good qualities is irrelevant if it doesn't serve the author's purpose. Rand's aim wasn't to provide a fully rounded portrait of a freeloader, but to paint the freeloaders in contrast to the heroes in order to make a thematic point.
Rand was capable of some psychological insight and complexity in her characters; Peter Keating is fairly realistically drawn, and so are Kira and Dagny. But for the most part she preferred bold, simplified outlines, not detailed character study. This put her at odds with contemporary literary fashion, but it's not inherently wrong. The authors she loved best, like Hugo and Dumas, did the same thing.
BTW, I'm not against speculation (I trade stocks and options), but I am against speculators who use political pull to manipulate the markets and gain an unfair advantage. It's the difference between capitalism and "crony capitalism." Yes, the same individual may practice both. But an author enjoys the prerogative of separating out the good and bad qualities to externalize and dramatize the conflict.
Michael,
Don't think I disagreed on the need to stylize fictional characters. Just commenting on the limited real world applicability of such analysis if it omits important or inconvenient facts.
The problem with the "shifty speculator" view of government lobbying is that it obscures the practical and strategic purpose of government lobbying and replaces it with something that looks similar, but which is far more treacherous. The practical and strategic purpose of government lobbying is to reduce the risks involved in making a type of investment or business decision, which may include raising the barriers to entry for competition etc. For example, Some investments may require capital outlays that no investor would be willing to make without the guarantee that he can reap exclusive profits for a while.
Moreover, while you consider yourself an honest speculator investing in stocks and options, I could just as well consider you a gambler who is not producing any value with his money. That we can ascribe negative or selfish motives to others doesn't mean that those are their motives or that what they are doing is without merit. Rand is stylizing something businessmen do, but by not showing it in a realistic context, she misleads people into thinking it is all robbery, when a significant part of it is a business necessity in any governed society with a complex economy.
"I could just as well consider you a gambler who is not producing any value with his money."
Oh, I definitely am a gambler who is not producing any value with his money, except for contributing some slight liquidity to the market.
But I'm not a crony capitalist using government pull to screw other people. Therein lies the difference.
Every time I think Rand was hopelessly exaggerating when she wrote her villains, I take a look at the Obama Administration and reconsider.
Every time I think Rand was hopelessly exaggerating when she wrote her villains, I take a look at the Obama Administration and reconsider.
As opposed to which other Administration? As in, which Administration is the saintly one that you want to contrast the Obama Administration with?
"which Administration is the saintly one that you want to contrast the Obama Administration with?"
The others weren't saints, but Obama is horrendous. It's a question of degree.
OBjectivists seem torn on the movie - there is a group of Objectivists who applaud the movie's integrity and appreciate the attempt to put Atlas Shrugged on screen, while there is another group of Objectivists who can't get past the fact that the Randian Holy Bible didn't get the big budget, complete-attention-to-detail, high technical values treatment that they believe their Book deserves.
It's fun to read comments talking about how the book upon which the future of civilization depends deserved better treatment vs. a heartfelt appreciation that Objectivist values being given their purest, undiluted display on the Big Screen to date.
My guess is that the big dreamers (aka the critics) will win out because Atlas Shrugged will not get the box office performance Objectivists desire. It's funny to hear them speak about how the movie was rushed and that more time should have been taken, as if financing a business operation doesn't require capital commitments and by necessity a return on them. After all, it's not like Ayn Rand's Estate has made any serious attempts to fund a movie version. Sometimes, you wonder if Objectivists truly grasp economics, despite all their study of the Austrian school (which has its limitations, but that is another story).
Somewhat surprisingly (at least to me), the AS movie has done well enough that it's expanding from 299 theaters to 425, with plans to go into 1000 theaters by the end of the month.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-atlas-shrugged-shocked-hollywoods-179930
The linked article also says that AS merchandise has been moving briskly, including a $159 replica of the Rearden Metal bracelet!
@Mike,
It doesn't really surprise me that some theatres are keen to pick it up quickly. Recall that they get zero from most major movie releases until the run is almost over. Here you have a movie with a guaranteed base of X, which the producers have given theatres a hefty 50% of (and might even increase to get the expansion they need given the massively negative non-base word of mouth, and counter any self-fulfilling impressions of failure). This fan base will come early and often, like a Trekkie audience. Then once this initial spike is over, the audience will probably slump sharply never to return - as I say, I'm not seeing any indications (eg some positive mainstream reviews) of a crossover going on here. So it makes sense for theatre owners, who are not stupid, to get in early for a slice while it's still good. The downside for the producers is, obviously, that this expansion is costing them at least half their gross.
The mistake is extrapolating from this early spike, which will be hyped, to mainstream legs. It reminds me of, say, the launch of the revamped VW Beetle a few years back. Initially it wildly outsold expectations. Then, as they doubled and tripled production and advertising to take advantage of what they thought was a hit, sales fell off a cliff, never to return. That's because anyone who wanted a Beetle bought one. Then once that base was exhausted, that was it. The sustained boom never happened.
In this case, given the strikingly bad press, I think we're seeing an almost frenzied base mobilisation to try to keep this turkey in the air - people buying extra tickets for "the cause", Randian bosses getting their employees to go, etc. This should hardly be mistaken for commercial "legs".
While Atlas could still become a fluke mainstream hit - stranger things have happened, and no-one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public - I've seen nothing so far that suggests this is likely, and plenty that suggests it isn't.
I wrote:
>This fan base will come early and often, like a Trekkie audience.
In fact I now see they have been nicknamed "Shruggies"...
Shouldn't that be Shruggers?
(Trekkies prefer to be called Trekkers.)
I don't know if the film will take off or not. But I wouldn't put too much stock in the negative reviews. There is a huge disconnect between American conservatives and the liberal media. In fact, the negative reviews may actually encourage more conservatives to see the film.
The filmmakers avoided addressing the deeper issues in AS. There is no mention of atheism and only a passing, mumbled reference to altruism. No mention of mind-body dualism or the alleged evils of mysticism. It's entirely possible for a Christian conservative, or any mainstream conservative, to go to the movie and enjoy its pro-free-enterprise message. The film has been marketed to this audience. Its distribution company specializes in Christian films. And there are a lot of Christian conservatives (and mainstream conservatives) in the USA.
I'm not making any predictions. Time will tell.
For those who just can't get enough of the AS movie, here's a 40-minute interview with some of the filmmakers:
http://tinyurl.com/3kugeup
Post a Comment