Am I Gonna Be Able To Sit Through "Atlas Shrugged", The Film?

[LonesomePolecat]

@Bridget_Burke

The film has a 6% rating at Rotten Tomatoes! (Kyle Smith of The New York Post liked it!)

Linky doesn’t work. 'Nother linky, please?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@lindsaybluth

Respondents to the Survey of Lifetime Reading Habits, conducted [fall 1991] for the Book-of-the-Month Club and the Library of Congress’ Center for the book.

1. The Bible
2. Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
3. The Road Less Traveled, by M. Scott Peck
4. To Kill a Mockingbird, by Harper Lee
5. The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien
6. Gone With the Wind, by Margaret Mitchell
7. How to Win Friends and Influence People, by Dale Carnegie
8. The Book of Mormon
   (there were many ties for 9th)

To the best of my knowledge* there hasn’t been an equally comprehensive/large study since then.

Obviously there’s a huge dropoff after the Bible. Atlas Shrugged is not my favorite book. But the people who dismiss it as lacking influence are just wrong. Color me surprised that the Road Less Traveled is so high up.

*My knowledge being quoted from a former librarian boss. It’s considered accurate, just 20 years old.

I don’t see a description of the methodology used for this survey, and I would argue that it’s not much of a measure of real influence. Would you say that Atlas Shrugged has actually had more real influence on history and culture (not just people saying they liked it) than the Book of Mormon or some of the other books I named?

[Sam_A.Robrin]

@LonesomePolecat

Not to mention that Objectivism is explicitly atheist, which would really be difficult to reconcile with Islam.

I’ve met Christian Randians. I could never figure out how they reconciled the two belief systems either. (Of course, Exhibit A in the Why We Need the Serial Comma debate is always the book dedication that read, "To my parents, Ayn Rand and God. I’ve been trying to track down that book for decades now!)

[GIGObuster]

@LonesomePolecat

Linky doesn’t work. 'Nother linky, please?

Linky did work for me, wow, even The Wall Street Journal did pan it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703385404576259082257666152.html?mod=WSJ_ArtsEnt_LifestyleArtEnt_6

If ever there was an effective way to bring this sprawling, didactic material to the screen—King Vidor’s 1949 version of “The Fountainhead” was enjoyable for its extravagant style—the director, Paul Johansson, and the writers, John Aglialoro and Brian Patrick O’Toole, haven’t found it. Don’t hold your breath for parts 2 and 3.

Ebert’s take:

And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault.

[Starving_Artist]

@Cat_Whisperer

Well, you’d have to agree that we’re still arguing over her books decades later, and that’s something.

According to Wiki, Atlas Shrugged sold 500,000 copies in 2009. Additionally, The Economist reported that as of January 13, 2009 Atlas Shrugged was the #33 ranked book on Amazon’s list of best-sellers. Cite

[gaffa]

@Infovore

Now see, there’s an example of a common misconception about objectivism. Rand was never against charity. In fact, to an objectivist, charity is great–as long as it’s voluntary. Objectivism is all about what you value. If it’s important to you to help the less fortunate, then by all means donate to the charities of your choice. The only way it clashes with objectivism is if you’re forced or coerced (or guilted) into doing it.

Oh, ETA: Yeah, it would probably be tough to be an observant Muslim and an objectivist, but it wouldn’t be because of charity.

Read the link provided. It is a religious obligation to give either 2.5% or 5% (depending on Sunni or Shia) of one’s wealth to charity.

[panache45]

@LonesomePolecat

Oh, yeah, that Rearden Metal chain for which Dagny traded a diamond necklace to Lillian Rearden? You can buy a replica for the paltry sum of $159.00.

Too bad they made it the wrong color. It should be blue-green.

[Infovore]

@gaffa

Read the link provided. It is a religious obligation to give either 2.5% or 5% (depending on Sunni or Shia) of one’s wealth to charity.

Yes, I admit you’d have to weasel-word it just a bit, but since Objectivism is all about using your energy and money to support the things you personally value, if being a Muslim is an important value to you then you wouldn’t object to following its strictures, including charity.

[levdrakon]

I plan on voting with my wallet and never paying money to see the film. If the makers of this film want to all disappear and teach me a lesson about how awful my life would be without them, they are welcome to. Plenty of other film makers to go around.

[digs]

@Oakminster

I felt the same way about Waiting for Godot when I read it. Hated it with all the heat of a thousand suns. Then I saw it performed, and actually enjoyed the experience. The actors were able to bring out some of the humor that just didn’t work for me in written form…

Well, then you’ll want to watch for the Off-Broadway opening of the version I wrote the other day (in twenty minutes during a boring church meeting).

In my homage/re-imagining/rewrite/improvement of Sartre’s classic, Didi and Gogo give up after ten minutes, leave a note on the tree, and end up having one too many beers at the local pub.

I think “Hey, It’s Godot!” is much more descriptive of the human condition.

(By the by, what d’ya think? Is it stretching things to have the local sheep wranglers join in on Gogo’s song near the end of the first act? I’m wondering if I should save the a capella stuff for “L’Étranger: The Musical”…)

[Infovore]

Okay, I’ve taken one for the team, and I’m back from Atlas Shrugged.

All in all, I’d have to say that the critics (not the ones who just hate Rand and AS, but the ones who critiqued it on its filmmaking merit or lack thereof) were largely right. The film had a few good moments, but overall it was disappointing, boring, and fell far short of what I’d have hoped for in a film version of one of my favorite books. Just a few impressions:

1. The actors playing Dagny, Hank, and Francisco were decent. Dagny’s actress was a little flat and unexpressive, but she did all right for the most part. I quite liked Hank. Didn’t get to see enough of Francisco to make a big impression, but he seemed fine to me in his couple of scenes. Likewise, Lillian Rearden’s actress did a great job of making me hate her, which was what she was supposed to do. Eddie Willers was okay. Dr. Stadler was an interesting casting choice (they cast an Indian actor) but it worked well.

2. The actor playing Jim Taggart was way too young and ‘pretty boy’. Ellis Wyatt was all wrong (he was supposed to be very young and very intense, not a guy who looked like the stereotypical drunken Texan). Dr. Akston, in his one small scene, was much more ‘stoner’ than ‘patrician.’

3. The movie overall seemed very sterile. Not quite sure how to describe it better than that. Things just happened, one after another, and a lot of the time there weren’t enough people around. This was especially apparent during the running of the John Galt Line, which was supposed to be the climax. The cab looked like the Enterprise (all silvery and minimalist) and there was no one lining the tracks to cheer them on.

4. The CGI was fine, as far as I was concerned. It was unobtrusive and not overused. I think they made a good decision there.

5. Seriously, who reads newspapers in 2016?

6. Waaaaayyyyy too many scenes of people talking around tables, and TV broadcasts. The writers of this film didn’t get the “show don’t tell” memo, for sure.

7. I’m very glad they took out the “Rearden berates Dagny for having sex with him the morning after” scene from the book. This always seemed more Rand’s fetish than an actual requirement. Guilt, maybe, but I didn’t miss the verbal abuse.

That’s about it. I think I can definitively answer Quasi’s question now: If you didn’t like the book, you won’t like this movie. If you were indifferent about the book, you won’t like the movie. If you loved the book…you probably won’t like the movie, though it might be worth seeing once just to see what they did with it.

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

Thanks for the review. I’ll have to see it, as a fan of the book and a student of unfilmable films.

I think the actor playing Eddie Willers was “Big Love” from House. That was an interesting choice! And I saw Quark from Deep Space 9 in one of the previews. Not sure who he portrays in the film.

[Infovore]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

I think the actor playing Eddie Willers was “Big Love” from House. That was an interesting choice! And I saw Quark from Deep Space 9 in one of the previews. Not sure who he portrays in the film.

He played a State Science Institute doctor (didn’t catch a name) who came to talk to Rearden about his Metal. He only had one scene.