Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The promise of a movie made from Ayn Rand’s magnum opus has been teasing audiences for years. For a while, it seemed to have the same status as Watchmen, being dubbed a book that could never be made into a movie. But two years, Zack Snyder finally cracked the stigma and produced Alan Moore‘s masterpiece graphic novel (and earning Moore’s disdain in the process.)

Now it’s Paul Johansson’s turn with Atlas Shrugged: Part 1.

Because of how divisive the book tends to be among the politically polarized however, it’s pretty impossible to get an unbiased review. This morning before I saw the movie, I checked out some of the responses. At the time, 15 critics on Rotten Tomatoes had given reviews, and only 1 had liked it. The political discord was clear as a bell:

“The first in a proposed trilogy, “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1″ is nearly as stilted, didactic and simplistic as Rand’s free-market fable.” -Mark Jenkins, The Washington Post

” About to lose his long-held rights to Ayn Rand’s novel, and perhaps to cash in on apparent Tea Party interest and support, producer John Aglialoro … rushed this film into a low-budget production and it shows in every frame.” -Loren King, Boston Globe

” The acting is so poor and the story so badly told that the viewer’s feelings about Rand’s novel — an epic ode to free-market fundamentalism — are almost immaterial (though if you’re a devoted fan, you’ll perhaps be more forgiving).” -Billy Goodykoontz, Arizona Republic

What bugged me about it all was that even if the critics are using elements of truth in their reviews, could they really be trusted? In the book, Ayn Rand mentioned how at least one journalist was smearing the main character Hank Rearden. And journalists in general do tend to lean to the left of the political spectrum. Part of it is just the nature of the business, which thrives on finding and reporting on any crisis it finds. Then again, my own preferred news source, The Washington Examiner could only see fit to give it 2.5 out of 5 stars, admitting that there were at least a few good things.

The reason I bring this up is because I too suffer from bias, but from the other side. I love Ayn Rand’s work, both the fiction and the non-fiction. And I do lean to the right politically. So for readers, bare with me that I try to stay unbiased when I write this piece.

So let’s get on with it. The movie created an immediate disconnect between the book. The book was published in 1957, the movie moved the setting to 2016. Although the book took place in America, what I remember made it seem more timeless. But around 1970 (in real life), Amtrak was created by the government after Nixon passed the Rail Passenger Service Act.

This made Johansson’s transition from the book to movie contradictory because they decided to keep the Taggart family story intact with its 100 year history. Although they cited higher gas prices as reason for people to begin using passenger rail more frequently, some thought in explaining the economic and legal conundrums would have improved the story. You can blame Thomas Sowell and his amazing books for causing me to understand free markets and being picky about this. But it was Atlas Shrugged turned me onto studying economics in the first place. A lot of the free market thoughts get muddled and confused in the dialogue.

Of course movies aren’t really about thinking, so let’s move along. The pace was kind of like a chain. There were sections of chain about three or four links long that were strong, then one, possible two links that were weak. It was a dance of two steps forward and one step back until the ending, which was rushed through.

The movie’s strengths came from Grant Bowler, who played Henry Rearden. Grant did a fairly strong job, either adequate or well, particularly when it came to illustrating the strain of his marriage or his attraction to Dagny. Other actors had strengths or weaknesses, some more or less than others. The two actors who did poorly had to be Jsu Garcia, who played Francisco D’Anconia, and Michael O’Keefe as Hugh Akston. In his defense, Hugh Akston’s role in the story was drastically cut. What was supposed to be a powerful, eye opening moment for Dagny Taggart (and a mild philosophical wake up call for the audience) was reduced to a two minute piece of dialogue that was slapped on to wrap up the film as quickly as possible.

Francisco D’Anconia however, was weak. Instead of an attractive playboy, Jsu Garcia came across as an over-the-hill frat boy who desperately needed to shave. What made him worse was that whenever the other actors were in his presence, he seemed to drag their performances down with him, making scenes with him worse than mediocre. Dagny’s dinner ‘date’ and Francisco’s meeting with Henry Rearden both indicated this weakness. I kind of hoped for a suave character like Johnny Depp from Don Juan DeMarco, complete with an accent. It was not meant to be.

Of course, I’ve saved the central protagonist for last. Dagny Taggart, played by Taylor Schilling, was hard to rate. In the book, Dagny was never one for many emotions, even when she was a teenager. In the movie, Dagny’s childhood friendship and later relationship with Francisco was never covered except for a hint. The issue with Dagny goes back to the old question of whether a woman breaking the barriers of management had to be a bitch. But for all the deviations they took from the book to begin with, something about Dagny was lost without a chance to smile and show off some charm, at least in front of Henry. I want more out of Dagny Taggart than Taylor Schilling or Paul Johansson seem capable of delivering.

A lot of the supporting cast characters like the lobbyist turned bureaucrat Wesley Mouch (Michael Lerner), crony capitalist Orren Boyle (Jon Polito) and Rearden’s skittish half friend Paul Larkin (Patrick Fischler). Sure, they looked the part, but that’s it. The sudden speech made by Dr. Stadler (Navid Negahban) to Dagny about his three brilliant students was misplaced and out of the blue. In fact, nothing made less sense than the part where Rearden argued with Dr. Potter (Armin Shimerman) who explained that “during a national iron shortage, we couldn’t allow one business to over produce.” A better, more modern way of explaining their reasoning would have been, “We cannot allow any excessive profiteering from a national shortage of needed resources. Your latest product, Rearden Metal, threatens to destroy the market at a critical time.”

Now that would sound like something a politician would say.

Other terms could have been changed. The Equal Opportunity Act definitely sounds like something the modern government would pass. The ‘Anti Dog Eat Dog’ rule sounded ridiculous, even in the book. The term would be better used as an informal explanation of the legislation by the news . But a better term would have been something to the tune of say… ‘Economic Competition Protection Act.’ It would have sounded more formal. In the movie Iron Man, the main villain was never actually called the ‘Iron Monger’ but the name got a nod from a statement made by actor Jeff Bridges. That kind of winking to the fans would have worked wonders in this situation.

If there’s one thing that stung, it was the near total loss of the Starnes heirs from the story. Ivy Starnes was seen for a moment during the movie’s rush to the ending, but that was it. They skipped over the horrible nature of the Starnes siblings and that may hurt if they get to the story of the 20th Century Motor company. It was the story of the Starnes and that company that stung. It was a simpler tale of this spirit of altruism that Ayn Rand argued against, a story so simple and beautifully told that even the partisans of the other side would nod theirs heads in agreement to the story’s inherent meaning. In fact, the 20th Century Motors company is a story worthy of a movie itself, a simpler tale about easier to explain characters, and even room to create a few new ones.

The cinematography during most scenes and special effects were decent for such a low budget film, $15 million according to IMDB’s estimation. I wanted more. I wanted so much more out of this movie. I wanted more time for the characters to explain their views, their theories, to grow on the screen, to make more sense, to legitimately explore the world that Ayn Rand created in her book. If that took more money or replacing actors with stronger, more capable ones then so be it. On the bright side, at a budget of only $15 million, we’ll probably get a part 2 created if the movie makes enough to justify it (which considering its low, low budget, it just may.) But only the presence of enough die hard fans of Ayn Rand’s work would guarantee a part 3.

In conclusion, despite all its weaknesses (and there are many) I liked the film only out of personal taste. Like most movies from books, Ayn Rand’s written work is vastly superior.