Amy Holmes interviews some folks at the Washington Atlas Shrugged premiere. I hadn’t realized that the actor who plays Rearden is British. We may go see it in Rolling Hills this weekend.
[Update a while later]
What if audiences shrug? An interview with the producer.
[Update late afternoon]
More interviews from Amy Holmes:
(Hot conservative women alert)
[Update Saturday morning]
Francis Porretto has some ruminations on the book, faith, charity and epistomology.
Will be seeing it in about 15 minutes. My fingers are crossed I’ll be happy with the result even if it is rough around the edges.
I hate the way libs dominate Hollywood and the media but I must say I’m getting a little tired of the way movie box-office proceeds have become some kind of referendum on the politics of the moviemakers. So now I have this patriotic duty to go see a movie even if it doesn’t interest me, just because it’s made by conservatives?
It’s the liberals who inject politics into every single damned part of their lives. As a conservative I want to de-politicize my life. This isn’t helping.
Actually, it’s made by libertarians. I’m simply pointing out that if people want to see more movies like this, they have to make them financially successful. It’s the same reason I recommend that they join Declaration Entertainment. If you have no interest in seeing it, then by all means don’t go see it.
“I hadn’t realized that the actor who plays Rearden is British.”
He’s not. He was born in New Zealand, and then moved to Australia.
“I hadn’t realized that the actor who plays Rearden is British.”
Grant Bowler is a New Zealand born Australian.
Andrea covered a couple of reviews a week ago, it sounded like one for die hard Ayn Rand fans.
http://spleenville.com/2011/04/08/the-problem-with-the-new-atlas-shrugged-movie-in-one-statement/#comments
I can’t find a theater within 300 miles showing it…Big fail on that front
I think if this had been done by a mainstream studio, it would have been watered down.
Nooo, Ya think??
OK, non-American Anglospherian. I wasn’t listening that closely to the accent.
I prefer “Otherplaceians” from either Otherplaceia or Otherplaceistan.
On topic, feature films are last-century’s entertainment media. Most of the creativity is now found on subscription TeeVee shows. Movies are all about lowest-common denominator to recoup expenses on opening weekend. To wit, I’ve always thought that feature film was simply the wrong media for AS. HBO mini-series treatment would be more appropriate. Nonetheless, I will go see it to satisfy my curiosity. I don’t really care if the movie is good, bad, accurate, inaccurate, faithful or unfaithful. I want to see if they’ve made it work as a movie. I’m probably unique in this regard.
Titus, I think you are right. after seeing “Generation Kill”, a mini series would have been the way to go.
Just getting ready to leave for the theater now.
Movies are all about lowest-common denominator to recoup expenses on opening weekend
Almost always true, the exception is when there is a “tentpole” effect. This is a trilogy in place. If Part 1 does well, and disk sales go well, there is more money available for part 2, etc. And I agree, a Joss Whedon doing a mini-series would be ideal. We’ss take what we can get.
Interested to see what people think. The reviews on rotten tomatoes were not kind.
that’s the point of rotten tomatoes 🙂
Just saw the movie. Overall, I liked it, but then I’m a fan of the book and the ideas behind it. I believe someone less familiar with the source material will be much less forgiving.
For me, the major problem was the screenplay. The production, acting and casting seemed passable, but the the screenplay in much of the first half was mediocre at best and only improved a bit in the second half. Seemed they tried too hard to fit the storyline around dialog from the book the fans would be familiar with resulting in a very stilted story.
A more minor complaint is the atmosphere in the movie seemed wrong for a country down on its knees and on the brink of collapse. Having a few strategically placed beggars, some litter, abandoned cars and a few news headlines wasn’t enough. With tongue firmly planted in cheek they could have had rolling blackouts/brownouts, flickering CFLs (incadescent bulbs outlawed), menu’s in the diners with one item because of food shortages, etc…
Anyway, I’ll be curious to see what others think.
I just got back. I loved it, to my great relief. I was pretty skeptical when I first heard about it. The audience applauded at the end, so I know I wasn’t the only one who liked it.
My major disappointment was the size of the audience. The theater was only 1/3 full. I had bought my ticket a couple of days ago because I thought there was a possibility it might sell out.
I’m going to see it again tomorrow night. That’s been my plan for a couple of weeks if I liked it. This movie needs to be a success. Our country needs for it to be a success. I’m doing what I can to give it a big opening weekend. The timing of this movie’s release could not have been better.
mpthompson:
With tongue firmly planted in cheek they could have had rolling blackouts/brownouts, flickering CFLs (incadescent bulbs outlawed), menu’s in the diners with one item because of food shortages, etc…
I read the book about 15 years ago, so my memory is a bit hazy. It seemed to me that the decay and collapse of society was gradual, not even apparent at first. I expect we’ll see more of that sort of thing in Part 2.
wodun:
Ayn Rand had a few things to say about critics in The Fountainhead.
/I have to remember to write her full name at this site. If I just say “Rand” it could be confusing. 🙂
Trimegistus:
So now I have this patriotic duty to go see a movie even if it doesn’t interest me, just because it’s made by conservatives?
Not at all. Ayn Rand stood for nothing if not individual choice. You are under no obligation whatsoever.
mpthompson:
A more minor complaint is the atmosphere in the movie seemed wrong for a country down on its knees and on the brink of collapse.
The book was published in 1957 and set in the near future. America was certainly nowhere near the brink of collapse in 1957, and at the beginning of the book, things seemed to be pretty “normal”. (Like I said, my memory may not be accurate, but that’s how I remember it.)
I commented here a while ago that I wondered how they were going to handle the time frame in the movie. Would it be set in 1957 or today? Railroads were certainly much more important then than now. I was very puzzled over how they were going to work that out.
It turns out that the movie is also set in the “near future”. They tacked on a beginning that explained that due to the Middle East imploding, fuel prices had skyrocketed and trains were once again the most cost-effective means of transportation. I thought that was a stroke of genius.
You’re right though; they could have fleshed it out more.
“…trains were once again the most cost-effective means of transportation.”
So in other words, the President and Ray Lahood will like this movie, right?
They are “high speed trains,” aren’t they?
Um, well, yeah, I suppose you could take it as an endorsement of High Speed Rail!
I thought that was a stroke of genius.
I would agree that a shift back to trains was handled well and very sensibly. Revival of a domestic steel industry could also have been explained by civil and economic unrest in China, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to explain it like they did the trains.
BTW, if gas were indeed to rise in five years to about $40 a gallon I would expect a LOT more civil disruption than what was depicted. The impact on our country would be anything, but subtle.
Um, well, yeah, I suppose you could take it as an endorsement of High Speed Rail!
Yeah, I thought it was funny when the government, citing safety concerns, passed a law under union pressure that set a ridiculously low speed limit on the high-speed railway lines so that they didn’t become too efficient. Sounds just like what Obama and his cronies would do.
I saw it at the Studio Movie Grill and it was probably 3/4 full. I even overheard a manager on a walkee saying, “need to pull some people over to this side to help out in here”. So, I think the turnout outstripped their perceived demand.
I liked it. Not to damn with faint praise, but there are a lot of other novel movie ideas that just never pan out on the screen yet here I think they pulled it off into an entertaining product. The scene with the train….and tha’ bridge…and stuff; well, someone in the back of the theatre stood up and whistled like a grand slam was just hit and everyone in the audience starting clapping. Before the movie started I could over hear several politically oriented discussions taking place, people relaying when they read the book, and such. So, I think the crowd overall was their to be intellectually stimulated as debate and discussion was free flowing. I think one thing that can be taken away from it is an emphasis on the importance of competent leadership. Also, it highlighted how the politicians use political favors and self fulfilling vote buying to gradually swirl ever deeper down the drain. After all, when all an ostrich tries to do is stick its head in the sand all it ends up mostly doing is talking to its butt.
The scene with the train….and tha’ bridge…and stuff; well, someone in the back of the theatre stood up and whistled like a grand slam was just hit and everyone in the audience starting clapping.
That didn’t happen where I saw it. But it’s a good idea. Tonight I’ll let out a “WHOO!” and see what happens.
“Tonight I’ll let out a “WHOO!” and see what happens.
Yea, that scene had a good build up to it and something like that just might pop the cork. With my luck, if I tried to do something like that everyone would just sit there and stare at me like, “What’s your deal!?!”.
I found it an enjoyable film. I don’t think it was one of the great films of all time, but they did a passable job adapting a difficult to film novel to the screen. I’ve certainly paid more for Hollywood cookie-cutter plotting that I enjoyed less.
But, obama lover megan mcardle didn’t like it. Whatever am I to do?
I just got back from seeing it again, as I said I would. I liked it just as much if not more the second time.
Unfortunately, tonight’s audience was even smaller than last night’s. There was hardly anyone there, which was depressing. On the other hand, there was a raging downpour going on (still is), so that might have reduced the turnout.
Because of the small crowd, I chickened out on the WHOO!, but I did start the applause at the end.
/This movie will be a hit if I have to drive the damn thing myself.
OK all of you Ayn Rand fans and experts on Reardon Metal.
What is the deal with all of that 18-0 (18 percent chromium, zero nickle) flatware they are pushing at Bath Bed and Beyond?
“What is the deal with all of that 18-0 (18 percent chromium, zero nickle) flatware they are pushing at Bath Bed and Beyond?
20% off coupons?
Over time, the zero nickel flatware won’t maintain its luster as well as 18/8 or 18/10. The chrome (18) provides rust-resistance.
@mpthompson: BTW, if gas were indeed to rise in five years to about $40 a gallon I would expect a LOT more civil disruption than what was depicted.
Heh. You’re assuming negligible inflation. If everyone’s wages went up fivefold in the meantime, would $40 / gallon gas really cause riots? (i.e. that would be like $8 / gallon today — uncomfortable, hurting some people badly, but only one piece of a larger cycle of hyperinflation).
But that does call to mind a couple of scenes in the movie which I didn’t quite understand. There are, I think, two scenes where characters pay for coffee with a $5 bill. The camera focuses on the bill long enough to let you know that the director thinks it’s significant, but just short enough to be almost subliminal.
But what does that mean? For one thing, we already have $5 coffee at Starbucks. Granted, most diners still only charge about a buck for coffee service even now. Was this supposed to be a symbol of inflation? What was odd was that the characters themselves were plutocrats, so… what does $5 mean to Dagny Taggart? If you have some insight into this minor detail I’d be interested.
I liked the movie a lot. To me it wasn’t nearly as stiff as some of the excerpts of the book that I’ve read (I never read the whole book, just thumbed through it a bit).
One of the best aspects of it, though, was the character of Hank Reardon. One of my most frequent complaints about movies now is the lack of grown-up male role models. All the male movie stars these days seem to be manboys — men who have never grown up and who never exhibit any adult masculinity — or just downright effeminate. Brad Pitt, George Clooney, Tom Hanks, Russell Crowe — all manboys. Adrien Brody, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Sean Penn — well, you get the picture.
But the Hank Reardon character was a nearly anachronistic throwback to the days of Gary Cooper and Humphrey Bogart. Smart, mature, calm, decisive, self-assured, and a gentleman. We need more of these.
Those hotties are too young. This old fart needs more mature woman. How am I supposed to objectify such young ladies?
Rearden. Not Reardon, Rearden. Rearden metal. Sorry for the earlier mistake.
OK, OK, the putative John Galt energy-from-thin-air motor and Henry Rearden’s miracle metal are plot devices, the MacGuffins of the novel. Suppose there were these brilliant engineers and inventors who created things that would make every one of us wealthy beyond belief (nanotech? Singularity? Carbon nano-tube water desalination? In-situ extraction of hydrocarbon fuels such as “fracking”?). Suppose not only the government but the Ayn Randian villians with the collectivist impulses stood to suppress those inventions through a combination of short-sighted confiscation of the profits and regulation of the imagined environmental hazards?
Who is to say that these technologies would not enable a true Socialist Paradise, say, along the Star Trek model, where the true Ayn Randian objectivists are the Ferengi, a socially primitive culture that got its hands on the Star Trek tech (FTL travel, replicators).
I see Ayn Rand’s vision, however, as being too simplistic. A real-life Rearden metal may not be an unalloyed (pun intended) good. Consider the Toyota Prius, where the miracle motor alloys depend of metals that are being hoarded by China, and the NiMH battery depends on nickle, a substance absent from the forks they sell at Bed Bath and Beyond, the mining of which turns the lands around Sudbury, Ontario into a sulfurous wasteland.
Life is a continuum of shades of gray. Yes, Ayn Rand’s novel is a fable, an allegory to make a point, and perhaps the distopia she had in mind was the Soviet Union and the thought that America was headed in the same direction. But the heroes in real life are never that unblemished, the villians never that solidly on the side of evil.
But that does call to mind a couple of scenes in the movie which I didn’t quite understand. There are, I think, two scenes where characters pay for coffee with a $5 bill. The camera focuses on the bill long enough to let you know that the director thinks it’s significant, but just short enough to be almost subliminal.
I didn’t really pay much attention to it at the time, but now that you mention it, it is kind of intriguing.
I’m not normally attracted to skinny blondes, but Dagny was teh hawt. So was Hank Rearden’s secretary. She’s more my style.
Here’s a longer version of my movie review, which I posted last night at Ace of Spades. It contains some bits and pieces which I’ve posted previously here, so I apologize for the repetition.
I was called insane afterwards, which may or may not be a compliment over there.
—
I missed last night’s thread where Atlas Shrugged was discussed, and was distressed by Ben’s negative reaction, so I’ll offer my rebuttal here.
I’ve seen it twice and I loved it. (I decided to do that a while ago if I liked it, in order to give it a big opening weekend.) If anything, I liked it more the second time. On Friday night the theater was 1/3 full, which was disappointing. Tonight there were even fewer people, but there was a raging downpour going on which might have depressed turnout. Both nights, the audience applauded at the end.
I read Atlas Shrugged in 1997 and I’ve read almost everything Rand published, including her philosophical essays. I first discovered her when I was almost 40, so her ideas were not an adolescent infatuation in my case. In fact, I didn’t get around to reading AS until after I’d already read most of her other stuff.
For a long time I couldn’t imagine how a movie could be made from that book, it was so densely packed with characters, plot, and ideas. In addition, the book was published in 1957 when railroads were still a major form of transportation. They were soon surpassed by trucks and airlines, and most of the old railroads went out of business. So I was puzzled about how they were going to handle the time frame. If it was set in 1957, many younger people would regard it as a period piece with little relevance for today. If it was set in the present day, then how could a railroad be depicted as a vitally important industry?
The filmmakers solved that problem by tacking on a beginning that explained that the Middle East had melted down, causing oil prices to skyrocket and making trains once again the most cost-effective means of transportation. Then they dove straight into the book. I thought that was a stroke of genius which was elegant in its simplicity.
The filmmakers ruthlessly pared the book down to its essentials. It’s only an hour and 40 minutes long, which I thought was shockingly brief. Yes, I would have preferred it to be about 3 hours, but who else other than Rand fans would have gone to see it? A 9-part TV miniseries would have been even better, but there was only so much money available.
The point is to get as many eyeballs in the theater as possible. You’re not going to do that with long, intricate philosophical discussions. That’s what books are for. Movies are for telling entertaining stories. I was initially skeptical when I first heard about this project, but I am very pleased with the result. I think they did about as good a job as could be done.
This movie must succeed. Our country needs for it to succeed. The timing of its release could not be better. It’s–dare I say–Providential. These kinds of ideas must be spread to as many people as possible. Lots of people have heard of Atlas Shrugged but have never read it. If this movie sparks interest in some of those people to investigate Ayn Rand further, it will have done its job.
This movie will be a hit if I have to drive the damn thing myself.
“Life is a continuum of shades of gray.”
Yes, yes. But, sometimes, a simple black and white narrative is needed to provide sharp relief. Engineering is seldom rigorous application of textbook equations and rules, either. But, they provide a valuable starting point and it is best not to stray too far from them and end up with a complicated mess which cannot be troubleshooted (troubleshot?).
Anyway, I saw the movie tonight and it was fantastic. I was really afraid they would garble the message or get lost in some of Ayn Rand’s turgid lecturing prose. They did a great job. My wife never read the book, but loved it. We’re both looking forward to the next installment, so get out there and see it.
“There are, I think, two scenes where characters pay for coffee with a $5 bill.”
I thought it was the tip, and it showed: here is a person of means who can still afford to leave a generous tip. The one scene I remember was Midas Mulligan as he leaves the cafe to be approached by John Galt.
It’s kind of annoying, some of the commentary I have read which tries to analyze things too much. It’s like those masters of the obvious who have to tell you at a Star Trek movie, “huh, dude, there is no sound in space.” Remember “suspension of disbelief” from Basic Instinct? Just sit back and take in the larger story.
@Bart: It’s kind of annoying, some of the commentary I have read which tries to analyze things too much.
True. There is a thread over at the Volokh Conspiracy where the film is being discussed. Many people are focusing on tangential issues, like “Wait, how would this economy work? Why are these companies being led by solitary geniuses who name their companies after themselves? What’s with the railroads?”
But things like the $5 coffee are deliberate. The screenwriter or director injects them deliberately into the scene to represent certain things or to communicate certain ideas in an economical way.
Once upon a time I watched The Professional, a Luc Besson film starring Jean Reno and Natalie Portman, with my son. We had great fun discussing the onscreen symbols. For instance, the Jean Reno character (a modestly feeble-minded hitman) drinks only milk. “What does the milk represent?” “Purity!” “What different message would have been conveyed if he drank whiskey?” Reno tends to a potted plant. “What does the plant represent?” “Life!” and sure enough, at the end, Portman takes possession of the plant even after Reno has died. And so on. It’s like a game to figure out these symbols. It’s part of critical thinking, I suppose, to understand how you are being informed and manipulated in an unobvious way.
Ok. I’ve given the hottie issue some more thought. Two twenties makes a forty, right?