I went to see Atlas Shrugged with a shrug and little enthusiasm.
I remembered The Fountainhead vaguely. Mostly I remembered the dense prose, and a sense of what...turgidity, if that is a word? I was prepared to walk out on the slightest pretext; there were a number of other movies to duck into to salvage my nine bucks.
I went early, curious to see what sort of coming attractions had been selected to precede it: Sean of the Hannity? The O'Reilly Syndrome? Ann of a Thousand Coulters?
But, no, just standard previews, albeit promoting movies that would not be released in July or Christmas, as if we would remember.
Then Atlas Shrugged began, I must say, with verve.
A riveting fast-paced montage of all the current crises four years on: oil at $37 a gallon, widespread unemployment, food lines, the Mideast aflame, our country adrift. I was firmly fixed in place by such an opening, interested, not thinking of an escape, intrigued. As minutes went by, a compelling story emerged. Atlas Shrugged feels like an old fashioned movie. A bit clunky. No film-school camera moves or odd angles. Displaying old-fashioned acting chops: more Broderick Crawford than Leonardo de Caprio. Effectively told, it builds slowly into an increasingly interesting story line. Indeed, the movie's reality parallels current events so closely that politics may impact your enjoyment level.
It is a world like our world but just missing reality. As in the central theme of strong men and women whose initiative and industry are thwarted by big government run amok. One would think, with such a plot, the plot would be about altruism and wind power being done in by dastardly captains of industry and overbearing apparatchiks, but one would be wrong. Atlas is a movie about railroads and steel, the ribs and heart of an America past. Its images are rarely reflected positively in popular culture: heavy industry and strong-willed people building big things despite all odds. Threatened with financial and personal ruin but persevering to spite the little minds around them. The bad guys of the movie are powerful competitors who don't want their cozy boats rocked and use political corruption to keep the waters smooth. Bureaucrats whose favorite colors are shades of gray, embracing mediocrity as a way of life.
The major themes of Atlas Shrugged seem familiar from recent press coverage about Ayn Rand's rediscovered books. I'm sure I'll get this all wrong, hers are rather deep waters, but she supports the individual against the herd, rejects the state deciding what people should do or produce or invest in or how they decide to find happiness. Her ideas reject the corruption of the political process, are disgusted by the power of the collective, and admire strength. Her books and this movie celebrate a point of view that seems quaint and politically incorrect in 2011, litigated and regulated into a distant memory.
Against all odds, it might still be there though, indicated by the rise of a new populist political movement, verified by November's elections, demonstrated by the improbable events in Madison. There is a Foxian vibe somewhere too, as you watch the movie. I looked for a Roger Ailes cameo, like Hitchcock getting off a bus in the background, but didn't see one, although I thought I saw Andrew Breitbart at the anniversary party.
If Atlas Shrugged, with its Randian ideas, is successful at the box office with a low budget, no stars, and little promotion, I wonder if it could lead to similar movies? Will we be offered the subtle, subversive, small cries against the system movies like the ones from countries in Eastern Europe during the sixties? Movies that proved that a generation of thought control and overwhelming state power could not completely destroy the human spirit?
The most compelling character in the movie is a strong female lead: the improbably named Dagny Taggart. Always impeccably attired, a little black dress, high heels, and a Reardon steel bracelet even on a construction site. She is highly intelligent, decisive, tough, clear-thinking, strong, strong-willed, beautiful and driven. I sat in the dark and wondered what the thirty something women of my acquaintance would think of her if they saw the movie? Played by Taylor Schilling with style and a steady gaze, she is the Atlas of Atlas Shrugged; carrying the world she wants to build on her shoulders. The rest of the actors seem to be from the Stoic School of Acting with emotions (to use a favorite Parkerism) running the gamut from A to B.
By the end I was thoroughly entertained. My thoughts provoked, the allusions to present day America taken to heart and well alluded to, the political battle lines played out on talk shows all day and every night clearly delineated, and I looked forward to what happens next in Ayn's world.
It could be a surprise hit, as inexplicable to some as Sarah Palin or the persistence of a belief in American exceptionalism. It's a movie that makes you realize that this country was built on more than snips and snails and puppy dog's tails, much less on sugar and spice and everything nice. The movie's celebration of unfashionable ideas of personal responsibility, grit, and hard work may strike a chord. Dagny Taggart might become as popular among young women as Lady Gaga.
You don't feel like cheering at the end of Atlas Shrugged, but you're intrigued by what you have just seen. Maybe there is more to our future than deficits, demoralization, and depression. Could we begin another vibrant American century? Can we help those living in fear under tyrannical regimes? Are we committed to increasing the standard of living for all by encouraging people to be responsible for their own lives? Can we unleash the technical and scientific know-how that has always been our birthright to solve what seem to be the intractable problems of our day? Could we? Can we? Will we?
Ask John Galt.
When Rearden is accused of being in business just to make money, he has a delightful, barely perceptible puzzlement upon saying, "Of course I am in business to make money" -- what other thing is the purpose of business?
Also, the movie makes it clear that seemingly benevolent government policies are actually intended to destroy successful competitors; "public opinion" is manipulated and Rearden describes his indifference to public opinion.
That is, to me, the problem of socialism. The *ideas* of socialism are usually worthy ideas, but when they turn into government policy, you will usually find some wealthy beneficiary such as Al Gore benefiting from "carbon trading". He didn't even need to create the carbon!
I am a libertarian philosophically, but not doctrinaire, and I agree. Ayn Rand wasn't a great novelist and a terrible philosopher. But boy oh boy, could she tell a fairy story/parable!
Glad that liberals and libertarians alike can still find something enjoyable in the "old gal" and her band of courageous strikers.
the qualitative or quantitative position a group or person occupies within right-wing politics. The terms are often used to imply that someone is an extremist. The terms have been used by different scholars in somewhat conflicting ways.
Far right politics usually involve supremacist — a belief that superiority and inferiority is an innate reality between individuals and groups — and a complete rejection of the concept of social equality as a norm
Far right politics often support segregation; the separation of groups deemed to be superior from groups deemed to be inferior.Far right politics also commonly include authoritarianism, nativism, racism and xenophobia.
The ideologies usually associated with the far right include fascism, Nazism and other ultra-nationalist, religiously extreme or reactionary ideologies
The term radical right refers to sections of the far right that promote views which are very conservative in traditional left-right terms, but which aim to break with prevailing institutions and practices. The radical right does not have a clear straightforward structure, but rather consists of overlapping subcultures with diverse styles of rhetoric, dress and symbolism whose cohesion comes from the use of alternative system of communications
At the far right, the limitations of the conventional left-right political spectrum become apparent. Whereas small government and laissez-faire capitalism are sometimes considered right-wing ideals,
More precisely, I think, her views are Libertarian. I don't know exactly what is "right wing" but much that is claimed to be right wing is NOT Libertarian and vice versa.
This may come as a bit of a shock, but more than two ways exist of thinking about the world.
In the political continuum 'Libertarianism' can be said to be right wing
as in my final paragraph
At the far right, the limitationÂs of the conventionÂal left-right political spectrum become apparent. Whereas small government and laissez-faÂire capitalism are sometimes considered right-wing ideals,â€
Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and co-operative ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system.
In the USA, the type of Libertarianism would not be a socialist economic system-obviously. However, since the 1950s, many American libertarian organizations have adopted a free market, capitalist stance; these include the Center for Libertarian Studies, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education. Less successful similar projects include the Free West Alliance and Free State Wyoming. Both libertarians and conservatives are prominent in the Tea Party movement.
Maybe. I have no interest in left or right. In my opinion, the left contains the concept of "elite" -- ivy league universities and things like that. Expressions of superiority are rampant on Huffpo and almost always come from the left.
Libertarians don't care about social norms. Maybe you are equal, maybe you aren't -- in a libertarian world no judge of such things would even exist, so you might have social equality and nobody would know or care.
Ayn Rand's world apparently consists of two groups: a small minority of good, hard-working geniuses who are responsible for everything that goes right in the world, and a majority of wicked and lazy leeches, who want to destroy the good people out of sheer evilmindedness. Yes, I know it's (science) fiction, because the real world is very different from the way Rand portrays it.
That said, I would like to see the movie. It has received mixed reviews, and I believe a multi-episode miniseries (15-20 episodes over one season) would have been better than a three-part movie deal - at least for the development of the charcters.
Of course. Eventually.
Every person that drinks water will die.
Eventually ;-)
What you fail to claim is that watching this movie will *cause* thinking persons to shrug. That is fortunate, for if you so claimed, you would be a liar. Does that disturb you?
As to "Dismantling", what has American business done, but "gone Galt", in the face of of the highest levels of corporate taxation in the world, and increasing regulatory and adminstrative costs? You make a nation an unattractive place to do business, and business leaves. Witness Boeing's latest proposal to shift states for its manufacturing as an example.
The whole point of the movie is summed up very nicely as Taggart and Rearden explore the abandoned factory. This is where the words of warning are given to modern society.
As it happens, the film DID glorify a heroic arsonist by the name of Wyatt.
I am beginning to think you did not see the movie; and maybe not even read the book.
The New Deal, and the modest amount of American style socialism as practiced since Roosevelt has been instrumental in making this nation the most powerful in the world… and it has fed Atlas well. Titans have proliferated and prospered. Going back five or six centuries and adopting Rand/Koch/Teabagger dark-ages economic principles will eventually kill the very creatures they believe they champion, once it kills too many of us mortals who serve the beast.
Rand had good reason to despise socialists, in her very early years her family did suffer injustice from collectivization under Lenin’s Bolsheviks. But a truly ‘objective’ person looking at capitalism realizes that without some overawing control it leads to a tyranny not all that different from that wrought by Lenin and Stalin’s totalitarian state. An objective person would also look at history and see that the US was a second-rate-power before Roosevelt, and THE world power after. Rand, it seems, based her life’s views on her experience, in one location, at one point in history, and chose to never see or or imagine anything different. That’s not ‘objective’, that’s pathological.
F/F
Corporations today run the Government- you have it confused buster. You beloved capitalism economy is teetering- and it will not be the left then sends it over a cliff.
It seems that your argument turns on whether tyranny is defined solely by the killing of citizens. That is a conveniently narrow view or are you willing to forgive the killing of citizens in other countries to feed the MIC and global corporate desires that influence this country?
I will help you. Germany is a monoculture. Socialism works great in a monoculture because you already have a natural form of socialism called the "clan"; it is very easy to simply codify that which already exists.
The Soviet Union, on the other hand, started with a highly stratified unblended society containing hundreds of extremely different cultures with their corresponding different values. Socialism failed.
Which does the United States more closely resemble -- a German monoculture or the diverse nationalities of the Soviet Union? I hope I don't have to help with that answer but for the clueless -- the United States cannot hope to follow the German model because we are not Germans. Germany, Sweden and Holland simply do not have huge populations of non-working citizens. They do not operate the world's premier armed forces. They do not even offer to send 100 billion dollars a year to Africa.
You truly know nothing of the extremely evil Ayn Rand, or you would not have walked in expecting a movie about "altruism," which is anathema to Rand, who believed in Selfisness as a "virtue". That's how sick and twisted that woman was. She felt is was BAD to help other people.
This is a very badly made movie from one of the worst books of the 20th Century.
There are some interesting things in it. There are some excellent visuals, as you'd expect from King Vidor, who directed some of the great films of the late silent era. And the sultry-voiced Neal can almost make anything sound good. But, oh, that script!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tallulah-morehead/the-insanity-of-ayn-rand_b_211209.html
And the marketplace DID decide how ghastly the movie is. It bombed HUGE! They had 1000 theaters lined up to take it the second week, if only it had made money the first week. Instead of expanding the second week, it contracted. Hell, it dropped six percent just from day one to day two. Word of mouth is killing it. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 9%. That means 9% of its reviews were positive, 91% of its reviews were pans. So far, it's made $3.1 million. Pathetic.
They will never get the money to make parts 2 and 3, fortunately.
Yes, but it's corporations who need to learn about those things, because they currently don't believe in them.
Objectivism/libertarianism only operates in fiction, poorly written fiction at that.
All one needs to do is review the history of CSX and you will find a company that has prospered because the have pulled very string and undermined every regulation to the betterment of their bottom line with total disregard to the safety of their employees and the communities through which their trains pass.
Say what? Are you serious? Of course you are. You actually think that a "corporation" can have beliefs. You probably think a corporation is a person!
The movie is about many corporations; the leaders of most of them dishonest and uncompetitive, manipulating public opinion and the government against the leaders of two corporations that wish to be excellent.
The movie is the battle between excellence and cheating, taking the easy way out.
There are 5 unemployed people right now fighting for every one available job.
Why don't you consider the chord as struck?
Ever ask your self why these ideas, to use your word, are considered unfashionable?
That is a strange thing to write. The author suggests that a chord is struck, then you ask why the author thinks the chord is not struck.
How can anyone answer a thing like that?
The original remark speaks to YOU, the reader, and for some a chord will be struck, and for others, it won't; and even among those for whom the chord is struck, it won't be the same chord most likely.
here's something for the reviewer....read the book, then pay attention to the movie...if after that, you still feel any empathy or sympathy for the monsters this dreck glorifies then one might ask you to turn in your humanity card and enjoy am radio and Faux
woe is U.S.
pitiful attempt at personal attack and emotional projection, sir
and here i thought you would at least know the meaning of the word "objective" as opposed to the Rovian politics of personal destruction, one of the very things Rand so vehemently railed against...
i bet someone has a word for when irony meets hypocrisy...
"And. added bonus points for using 'empathy' 'sympathy' and 'humanity' is a single sentence without displaying any of them. "
That is brilliantly observant.
I never had a humanity card and hope not to be required by the government to possess one.
As to AM radio, I have no particular preference. Sometimes AM, sometimes FM, sometimes XM, sometimes SSB (Single Sideband), even CW if I am really feeling brave.
Sadly the end of Part 1 to me didn't set a good enough hook for the sequel Part 2 to be much of an event. I suppose time will tell .....April 15th 2012
I recall the Reverand Moon bankrolling a great turkey of a films starring Gregory Peck as Douglas MacArthur during the Korean war. If the likes of the Koch brothers see these films as having 'propaganda value' they'll keep bankrolling the production.