Atlas Shrugged Part II: Election Edition Ayn Rand's timeless classic is filmed as a Tea Party fable. Brian Doherty | October 11, 2012
SHARE PRINT inShare Email At the Los Angeles pre-release screening for Atlas Shrugged Part II: The Strike, one of its producers and lead financiers, John Aglialoro, lectured for more than 10 minutes before the film rolled. He was informing the invitation-only crowd—most of whom, by virtue of being there, were probably familiar with these ideas—of the philosophical and political themes driving the novel on which the film was based, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Atlas came out in 1957 and has been selling strongly ever since, with over 7 million units moved in America. RELATED ARTICLES The Cast of Atlas Shrugged Part II Talks Film's Impact Kennedy| 10.08.12 Atlas Shrugged Part II: What We Saw at the World Premiere in D.C.! Joshua Swain| 10.02.12 Atlas Shrugged Part II: Theatrical Trailer Nick Gillespie| 9.05.12 MORE ARTICLES BY Brian Doherty Libertarian Gary Johnson Should Win the Election 10.03.12 4:30 pm Comics Culture 10.02.12 9:00 am Ron Paul's Followers and the GOP: Where To From Here, and How? 8.29.12 3:00 pm AYN RAND MOVIES TEA PARTY LIBERTARIAN LITERATURE LIBERTARIAN HISTORY/PHILOSOPHY CONSERVATISM STAFF REVIEWS The film’s tale of an overweening and desperate government stealing from and hobbling productive industrialists, and its release date in the heart of election season, mark it as political. But Aglialoro stressed that Rand’s philosophy was not just about political liberty. Thus, it is not easily or uncomplicatedly embraced by either side of the standard American left-right divide. Both the conventional left and right, Aglialoro said, embrace altruism (which Rand saw as a great moral evil) for different reasons. The right does so, he thinks, for religious reasons. The Objectivist filmmaker (and the successful businessman behind the Cybex exercise machine empire) clearly understands his movie’s potential for ginning up anti-government (in the modern context, likely anti-Obama) emotions. Thus he reminds the right they ought not to drive atheists such as followers of Rand’s Objectivism out of their political coalition. (Showing perhaps a lack of appreciation of the bold, bravura quality of Rand’s personal style, Aglialoro admitted to Slate’s David Weigel that he wishes Rand hadn’t used the term “selfishness” to describe what she defended.) The standard bastions of right-wing intellectual or political power have never loved Rand—and Mitt Romney’s vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan has run away from his reputation as a professed fan of hers. Her stance on the limits of government’s rightful powers are too stringent, her hatred of the irrationality of religion too blazing. Still, Atlas II is tonally aimed at an obvious right-wing audience, the sort who thought Romney was right-on with his comment about the 47 percent of Americans who live off government and see themselves as victims. Romney didn’t use the Randian terms “looters and moochers” for those who live off taxes but he might as well have. The film features Fox News’ Sean Hannity in an as-himself cameo arguing Atlas’s theme, as government tries to confiscate metal magnate Henry Rearden’s amazing amalgam, “Rearden metal.” The film, though its theme and events are taken directly from Rand’s 1957 novel, unspools in October 2012 as if designed to appeal to one side in a modern American political debate. Aglialoro announced at the screening, with what sounded like lingering bitterness from the nearly universal professional critical drubbing that Atlas Shrugged Part I received, that they would be doing no pre-release screenings for professional film reviewers. “Why give them the sword they would use to decapitate the movie?” he asked. (Article continues below video.) He’s probably right to fear the critics, though compared to Atlas I, this film has double the budget, will be premiering in more than double the theaters, and has a new cast and additions to the screenwriting team. It looks better and has a more interesting story to tell than Part I, and it tells it well. Part of that advantage is because of the events in Part II of the novel which the film tracks almost precisely; the story is in motion and there’s more interesting action to dramatize. Given the care with which Rand unraveled her tale, it’s surprising the movie is understandable with zero explicit recapping of Part I; some smooth bits of dialog early set up the world in which railroad chieftain Dagny Taggart (Samantha Mathis) and metal master Hank Rearden (Jason Beghe) are about the last competent industrialists in a world choked by a government-caused sclerosis, with economic decisions made based on connections and excused by the fruitless pursuit of equality and fairness. People of ability—musicians, scientists, other industrialists—are mysteriously disappearing, to the immense frustration of Taggart and Rearden, who feel bound to keep doing the best they can no matter how much their government or culture disrespects them even while demanding more and more of them. To expect a traditional naturalistic film from Rand’s heady, nightmarish fantasy of what the world run according to the principles of state-enforced equality would become is to disappoint yourself before the movie starts. Rand’s characters are archetypes of ideas, and the more the actors try to make them seem like “real people” the less powerful the themes and actions feel. Un-Randian moments such as Rearden muttering an ironic “catchy” after he’s told his metal will be renamed “miracle metal” after the government steals his formula, or Francisco D’Anconia (Esai Morales, in the movie’s most consistently delightful performance) tossing out a too of-the-moment “how’s that working out for you?” as he asks Rearden why he permits himself to be a milk cow for looters and moochers may get a slight chuckle from modern audiences, but will play phony to fans of the novel. Beghe gives Rearden a gravelly imperturbability, like an industrial crime boss, that works pretty well when he defies a government kangaroo court with a brave declaration of his rights as a creator and his refusal to honor their attempts to rob him by pretending he’s giving his sanction, but fails to get across that this man is tortured by his misunderstanding of what true morality means in a world where creators are abused and disrespected. Mathis, alas, despite the filmmakers’ talking up of Taggart as one of the great strong iconic heroines of 20th century literature, is given little in the script to show the grit and heroism of the character. She mostly is required to sell not super competence or steely heroism but being peeved, annoyed, or surprised by the turns of events around her. Her big moments of action are grabbing a map and re-routing a train line in an emergency, and then crashing a plane. The problem with filming Atlas, even with a final result that might be as long as six hours when it’s all done, is that the power of the novel arises from the bludgeoning repetition of theme and character points that make some think it fails as a well-constructed work of fiction. Still, that thick accretion of detail, whether of the heroes' beliefs, the villains' evasions and fear, or the physical and intellectual decay of an entire culture, is key to the book’s eerie, nightmarish hold. (Article continues below video.) The film cannot do everything the novel can, and it must aggravate the filmmakers that Ayn Rand fans like me can’t help but judge the movie’s aesthetic impact against the novel’s. The movie largely reduces Rand’s message to the Tea Party friendly one of being against government economic management and stealing from the productive to be “fair” to others. Fortunately, there is one hat tip to Rand's deeper defense of reason and rationality (more important to her than being against altruism or statism) when Rearden snaps back to a smarty-pants young liberal that rigid principles are necessary to pour steel. It’s a fun moment. 1 2 Next Page Brian Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine and author of Ron Paul’s Revolution: The Man and the Movement He Inspired (Broadside Democrats Are the Real Ta… David Harsanyi | 10.11.2012 Russ Roberts: Why Keynesi… Nick Gillespie &am… | 10.11.2012 VIEW REASON PRINT ARCHIVES On Saturday, October 13, 2012, > > > Went to the opening last night, and here are a few points: > > > > 1. Commercial theater was well attended, although seats were available. > > 2. I can not believe that anyone who has not read the book [or at least remembers what happened in part I] will have ANY IDEA what movie is showing, and will certainly be disappointed that end is not REAL end > > 3. I definitely like the FIRST set of actors more than the current ones, especially Dagney. The person playing Hank Reardon has an interesting gravelly voice, but no way does he ‘fit’ with Dagney like in Part I. I cannot remember in Francisco was shown as a character in Part I, but the actor for this part is very good. > > 4. VERY effective use of REAL THINGS in today’s world, including snippets from Fox News with cameos of some of their tv personalities > > 5. Although there was some effort to be more like a ‘Hollywood movie’ especially with advertising of movie being shown, there were amateur parts of the movie, like ‘crowd scenes’ with just 15 people or so, fake scenes such as a steel plant that would fit in your living room, explosions that may have been ‘drawn in a 4th grade class, an airplane crash that has a juvenile layout, jumps in location etc. > > 6. There WERE some solid points right out of the book, as in some of Reardon’s speeches, but the actor was NOT good at delivering them or they sounded like scripted not FELT. In a court room like scene, the people in the court were very positive on Reardon comments, but this was out of keeping with the ‘crowds’ and the politicians, so I had no idea who the people were and why they supported the Reardon logic. > > > > Overall, I enjoyed the movie, BUT I like the story itself enough, I would have enjoyed a ‘puppet show’ of the story. > > It is a great shame that with 50+ years to get the movie made, the team from Part I and Part II were not united to make a GOOD adaptation. > > Can’t imagine what will be done with Part III or how someone getting a ‘Boxed Set’ will follow the radical changes between the first 2 parts! > > > > Steve > > __._,_.___ > Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) > Recent Activity: > > Visit Your Group > Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to [email protected] > > <http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/yg/logo/us.gif> > Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback > . > < http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=2420737/grpspId=1705303292/msgId=285104/stime=1350135487/nc1=3848621/nc2=4507179/nc3=5191952 > > __,_._,___ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
