Escape to the Movies: Atlas Shrugged

[mr_rubino]

This is the same Ayn Rand who said "Intellectual honesty is the only tool required", right?
And yet you're just another anarchist treating the world like a comic book fantasy, reveling in your ...what did she call it again? ..."fashionable non-conformity". ("It's logical because other people don't like it, and that makes me feel special, tee-hee!")
If the real world really is as dynamic and exciting as 50s pulp fiction, you're the comic book civilian, not the masked vigilante.

 

[jonnosferatu]

*boycotts MovieBob out of general dislike*

*sees Atlas Shrugged being reviewed by someone who isn't on the Ayn Rand failwagon*

LET'S GO!

 

[cbert]

Nice review - fair commentary on the film. My thoughts on the queen bee:

I read "Anthem" in high school. I want that hour of my life back, but at least I know what she's all about.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

And in-a-way, isn't objectivism just another form of philosophical metaphysics that could be implied in anyone's life? Dianetics proved
that.

Dianetics proved that.

Dianetics

Oh, please tell me you're not a Scientologist too.

 

[old account]

And in-a-way, isn't objectivism just another form of philosophical metaphysics that could be implied in anyone's life? Dianetics proved
that.

Dianetics proved that.

Dianetics

Oh, please tell me you're not a Scientologist too.

hahahahahahahaha
If you take out the Aliens and the time travel and the seriousness of the estranged occultist, Dianetics was an entertaining book contain SOME philosophical bases, but then you come back to the notion that he is relating everything to his science-fiction books. You see, now you missed the entirety of the argument. If we want to discuss authors of new-philosophy, Rand incorporated her beliefs in fiction where as Hubbard created beliefs from his.

Note: I own Dianetics because it was 'the new thing' according to my professor. I'm not a Scientologist nor do I believe anything her wrote, fiction and/or philosophy. Second, Objectivism is not metaphysics. That is like saying that Tolkien was a historian, where the truth was that we wrote of history using a fictional setting; Rand wrote her philosophy using a a futuristic (not sci-fi) fictional setting. Instead of saying "This is what is going to happen in fifty years" like Plato and others from greek antiquity, she just wrote it in a story.

I would never compare Dianetics or Hubbard to any of Rand's works. They're just two far different subjects (by subjects I mean types authors)

 

[theklng]

i gotta say that this review was pretty damn good at separating the bad from the good. i also think they should have made the fountainhead instead, as narratively they could have gotten much more into a movie from that book than there'd ever be room for in any film version of atlas shrugged.

 

[Amarsir]

i also think they should have made the fountainhead instead, as narratively they could have gotten much more into a movie from that book than there'd ever be room for in any film version of atlas shrugged.

I agree, The Fountainhead is more visual and active and a bit shorter. I think it's easier to get into also. (The first third of Atlas Shrugged has so little action I could never imagine audiences going for it, which is apparently what has happened.) However, it pushes the "we are all our own Gods" philosophy much harder, so not only will the you-owe-society crowd spike it sight unseen (as they did here), many who made it past there would be offended by the atheism.

Of course it's sad that so many people will only expose themselves to ideas that already agree with them, but what are you going to do?

In other news, it looks like AMC's dumping the movie for this upcoming weekend from even the reduced percentage of theaters that were carrying it. It'd be a shame if 2 & 3 never get made because, if nothing else, the action certainly picks up there.

 

[Flying Dagger]

the problem is that ayn rand was a talented fiction writer, so the endless trawl through a lot of nothing happening is acceptable when you can choose what dosage you take it in, yet for a film, it's just too damn long.

There's a speech that's about an hour long towards then end fgs. (and that's generous, the speech in the book estimates that it goes on for three hours, though i'd say that was an overestimation)


Guess this is just one you're going to have to read.


on objectivism?
under any form of democracy it falls apart, under any form of scrutiny it falls apart - without tax, or with uniform tax you do not have enough money to fund defence, courts and police (the only areas ayn rand believes should be funded, and i'm not 100% sure if she backed police, which would be a whole seperate issue)
she bases a lot of her idea of rights on the idea that treating workers nicely is more profitable than exploiting them, another misconception

And more than impractical, it becomes outright immoral to condemn someone to death by starving should they be unable to attain a job.

 

[Jobbie]

Excellent review.

 

[Piecewise]

Moviebob,

I'd like to point out that Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism was not a political philosophy, but a moral philosophy with a political wing that manifested itself as radical capitalism. Also, I think she turns in her grave anytime someone says that her philosophy encourages that people ignore morality as your intoduction did. Objectivism a deeply principled beleif system, and objectvists abide by their moral beliefs above anything, including their own success. A more accurate statement would be that objectivists ignore, conventional morality.

And then someone says
"My greatest moral belief is that any ends justify any means. Ie, my success is my morality."
And shit gets all recursive.

That might be true under SUBJECTIVE morals, but not OBJECTIVE morals.

Uh, no, no no no no no. There is no such thing as an objective moral, because morality is something inherently molded by the subjective opinions of the individual. There are no grand flaming laws in space which dictate that speeding is wrong or that I shouldn't stab, rape, pillage and otherwise act like an asshole. The universe is big and does not give a shit what one self sustaining clump of of carbon does to another.

 

[MicManGuy]

Saw the movie. While I found it politically relevant - as in I said to myself, "I can totally see this happening in the next 20 years" - I agree with Bob. It's a movie. It needs to stand up on those merits that would make it a good movie. If an audience gets to the end and has to ask, "Why did I watch this movie and why should I watch the sequel?" and - even worse - subsequently cannot come up with an answer, then something's wrong.

I've been told that the movie is very true to the plot of the book. I, myself, have not read it. Personally, I think movie 1 should have just been the prologue. First 10 minutes. 20 tops. The movie has a lot of political and economic commentary to say, but that's not going to grab the attention of the audience. Contrast this movie with the first Lord of the Rings movie. The audience needs to know the main plot before the climax of the first movie. Otherwise, they don't have a reason to come back. In Atlas Shrugged we basically JUST know the setting and cast by the time the credits roll. That's not going to bring an audience back for more.

 

[MicManGuy]

That might be true under SUBJECTIVE morals, but not OBJECTIVE morals.

... There is no such thing as an objective moral, because morality is something inherently molded by the subjective opinions of the individual...

Under that logic, there is no such thing as anything being objective. EVERYTHING we know is subject to the realm of human experience (and the interpretations thereof).

 

[sievr]

I'm not surprised that The Fountainhead (1949) was a better movie. That's mostly because Rand wrote the screenplay herself.

Maybe this move will inspire someone to make a reboot with a better screenplay and a more well known cast.

This movie wasn't made earlier not because of a lack of interest, but because the guy who held the rights has held them for years and years and wouldn't let anyone else have them. He finally decided to produce it, even though he didn't really have the money, because he would have lost the rights to the movie after this year. So basically, he was just trying to at least break even on the investment of buying those rights.

So anyway, yes, you're right. Now he's cashed in his version and someone else gets a chance. I still hold that this could be a great movie if it was done properly. It's something that really does need good special effects to pull off, as it makes the most sense within the world it was written: early mid-century New York City, when planes were crazy futuristic, the shadow of Communist supremacy still gave people chills, and trains ruled mass transit.

 

[Wesley Brannock]

I found this review funny as hell.