Invader Zim
16th July 2013, 02:52
Atlas Shrugged: Part One (2011), Paul Johansson
In 1943 Ayn Rand, a Russian émigré who had left the Soviet Union in 1925, wrote her popular novel The Fountainhead. The success of this novel brought her writings to international attention. In particular, the novel found a keen audience among individuals who shared Rand’s rightwing economic and political leanings, and she soon attracted the attentions of economists and philosophers within the Austrian school of economics.
Rand also attracted a group of close followers and confidants who shared her world-view. This group, which was highly close nit and bound in near unwavering loyalty to its figurehead and leader in Rand (the group was soon known as The Collective), soon became highly bizarre. Rand became increasingly authoritarian in dealing with her followers; argument within the Collective invariably ended with concession to whichever position Rand took, books containing dissenting views were off-limits, and individuals who would not conform to Rand’s view were relegated to the status of persona non grata.
In 1955 Rand, who was 49, and her chief follower Nathanial Branden, aged 25, formed a sexual relationship. Such was the power of Rand’s cult of personality within the group, she was able to persuade both her own husband and Branden’s wife to accept the affair. It was in this strange environment that Rand produced what she believed to be her magnum opus, the 1,168 page romance-mystery, set in a dystopian future, Atlas Shrugged.
Building on Rand’s previous success with The Fountainhead, the novel proved a hit with the public. Since its initial publication in 1957 Atlas Shrugged has sold many tens of millions of copies making it one of the most successful works of fiction to be published. The novel told the story of the struggle of business and industrial magnates to manage their affairs under an increasingly restrictive and socialistic state. Over the course of the story various figures within the business world mysteriously vanish, leaving in their wake only the collapse of their businesses and the enigmatic question: ‘Who is John Galt?’
The book primarily serves as a vehicle and platform for Rand’s libertarian philosophical views. These range from outlining the respective roles of business leaders and government within society, to the social function of the family unit and sexual intercourse. Given the sheer length of the book, its philosophical subject matter, (very) lengthy monologues, and boardroom setting, it comes as little surprise that adapting the novel to the silver-screen was a project 40 years in the making. Directed by Paul Johansson, and starring Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler, Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 saw theatrical release in April 2011 to no small controversy. The film was championed, prior to release, by none other than Fox News’ Sean Hannity and John Stossel, who bemoaned that liberals in Hollywood had delayed the film’s production for decades and attempted to stop it being made. Sadly, these Hollywood liberals did not succeed and now we, as a species, will ever be guilty of creating this rubbish.
Leaving aside the politics of the film, which essentially boil down to the glorification of greed and the immense power of the individual industrialist and need no critique here, the problem with this movie is that it’s rubbish. Even though the novel has been broken into three parts, part two being released in 2012 and Part Three scheduled for release next year, the character exposition is rushed. Key figures lack proper introduction, many of them receiving only a few lines of dialogue. Yet we, the audience, are expected to follow who these figures are, what they are doing, and grasp how their actions influence Rand’s corporate world. It appears that even after diluting the novel over three films, the screenwriters were incapable of producing a coherent narrative, presumably because the source material is just so excruciatingly long and interminable. This has serious ramifications not only for character development but also general plot exposition. Events in the movie occur with little coherent explanation, leaving the viewer with little idea what has occurred, why it has occurred, and what it means. But more importantly, it is impossible to care because the movie fails to make the viewer care about any of the characters or their various problems.
Of course, the other problem with the characters, aside from the failure of the filmmakers to build a cogent narrative, is that they are farcically two dimensional. Villains are stupid, lazy, duplicitous and irredeemably ‘evil’ caricatures of the left, while the heroes are industrious, forward-thinking, ingenious, and incorruptible paragons of productivity and success, hindered only by that bastion of evil – the dreaded State. The result of these problems, that character development is largely non-existent and the characters are like something out of a children’s fairy-tale being either entirely ‘good’ or unquestionably ‘evil’, is that that they are entirely dull. Indeed, rather than wanting success for Dagny Taggart (Schilling) and her business I spent the entire film hoping she would fail…. badly. Anything to make the film end sooner.
Meanwhile, the movie was also hindered by its setting and theme. Nearly every scene involves dialogue regarding the price and structural integrity of steel, which I didn’t care about before the film and care less about having seen it. These discussions occur in a variety of board-rooms, expensive restaurants and luxurious mansions while the plight of rest of the society, also under the statist yoke, is left without mention. Again, I found myself wondering, why do the filmmakers expect me to care about these people?
Finally, I would like to finish on two points. Firstly, that the film is poorly directed and produced. The movie is shot in an amateurish fashion, ironic given the subject matter, and has the distinct feel that its real home should not have been the big screen but a 1am slot on Movie Channel Z +1. Many of the scenes are unnecessarily dark and dingy, the camera is overly static, and the whole thing feels like it was made on a shoe-sting budget. Normally, that doesn’t bother me, but given that the film cost $20 million, the question in my mind was ‘where did all the money go?’ Secondly, the performances by the cast were universally wooden. However, given the poor direction by Johansson, the dreadful script and the stolid source material, it is perhaps unfair to blame the actors… after all, look what they had to work with.
So, all in all, regardless of its politics which I have avoided discussing, there are all too many reasons to brand this film as pure, unadulterated trash – and not the good kind.
PS. It is worth noting, that during its cinematic release, the film took only $4 million. The usual movie money mathematics states that the actual cost of a film is its budget ($20 million) and then the same figure again for marketing, etc. So, the film was also a massive commercial failure, in regards to its cinematic release, at least. Sadly, that did not stop the development of the sequel, which is reportedly even worse. But I'll save judgement until I see the film.
In 1943 Ayn Rand, a Russian émigré who had left the Soviet Union in 1925, wrote her popular novel The Fountainhead. The success of this novel brought her writings to international attention. In particular, the novel found a keen audience among individuals who shared Rand’s rightwing economic and political leanings, and she soon attracted the attentions of economists and philosophers within the Austrian school of economics.
Rand also attracted a group of close followers and confidants who shared her world-view. This group, which was highly close nit and bound in near unwavering loyalty to its figurehead and leader in Rand (the group was soon known as The Collective), soon became highly bizarre. Rand became increasingly authoritarian in dealing with her followers; argument within the Collective invariably ended with concession to whichever position Rand took, books containing dissenting views were off-limits, and individuals who would not conform to Rand’s view were relegated to the status of persona non grata.
In 1955 Rand, who was 49, and her chief follower Nathanial Branden, aged 25, formed a sexual relationship. Such was the power of Rand’s cult of personality within the group, she was able to persuade both her own husband and Branden’s wife to accept the affair. It was in this strange environment that Rand produced what she believed to be her magnum opus, the 1,168 page romance-mystery, set in a dystopian future, Atlas Shrugged.
Building on Rand’s previous success with The Fountainhead, the novel proved a hit with the public. Since its initial publication in 1957 Atlas Shrugged has sold many tens of millions of copies making it one of the most successful works of fiction to be published. The novel told the story of the struggle of business and industrial magnates to manage their affairs under an increasingly restrictive and socialistic state. Over the course of the story various figures within the business world mysteriously vanish, leaving in their wake only the collapse of their businesses and the enigmatic question: ‘Who is John Galt?’
The book primarily serves as a vehicle and platform for Rand’s libertarian philosophical views. These range from outlining the respective roles of business leaders and government within society, to the social function of the family unit and sexual intercourse. Given the sheer length of the book, its philosophical subject matter, (very) lengthy monologues, and boardroom setting, it comes as little surprise that adapting the novel to the silver-screen was a project 40 years in the making. Directed by Paul Johansson, and starring Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler, Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 saw theatrical release in April 2011 to no small controversy. The film was championed, prior to release, by none other than Fox News’ Sean Hannity and John Stossel, who bemoaned that liberals in Hollywood had delayed the film’s production for decades and attempted to stop it being made. Sadly, these Hollywood liberals did not succeed and now we, as a species, will ever be guilty of creating this rubbish.
Leaving aside the politics of the film, which essentially boil down to the glorification of greed and the immense power of the individual industrialist and need no critique here, the problem with this movie is that it’s rubbish. Even though the novel has been broken into three parts, part two being released in 2012 and Part Three scheduled for release next year, the character exposition is rushed. Key figures lack proper introduction, many of them receiving only a few lines of dialogue. Yet we, the audience, are expected to follow who these figures are, what they are doing, and grasp how their actions influence Rand’s corporate world. It appears that even after diluting the novel over three films, the screenwriters were incapable of producing a coherent narrative, presumably because the source material is just so excruciatingly long and interminable. This has serious ramifications not only for character development but also general plot exposition. Events in the movie occur with little coherent explanation, leaving the viewer with little idea what has occurred, why it has occurred, and what it means. But more importantly, it is impossible to care because the movie fails to make the viewer care about any of the characters or their various problems.
Of course, the other problem with the characters, aside from the failure of the filmmakers to build a cogent narrative, is that they are farcically two dimensional. Villains are stupid, lazy, duplicitous and irredeemably ‘evil’ caricatures of the left, while the heroes are industrious, forward-thinking, ingenious, and incorruptible paragons of productivity and success, hindered only by that bastion of evil – the dreaded State. The result of these problems, that character development is largely non-existent and the characters are like something out of a children’s fairy-tale being either entirely ‘good’ or unquestionably ‘evil’, is that that they are entirely dull. Indeed, rather than wanting success for Dagny Taggart (Schilling) and her business I spent the entire film hoping she would fail…. badly. Anything to make the film end sooner.
Meanwhile, the movie was also hindered by its setting and theme. Nearly every scene involves dialogue regarding the price and structural integrity of steel, which I didn’t care about before the film and care less about having seen it. These discussions occur in a variety of board-rooms, expensive restaurants and luxurious mansions while the plight of rest of the society, also under the statist yoke, is left without mention. Again, I found myself wondering, why do the filmmakers expect me to care about these people?
Finally, I would like to finish on two points. Firstly, that the film is poorly directed and produced. The movie is shot in an amateurish fashion, ironic given the subject matter, and has the distinct feel that its real home should not have been the big screen but a 1am slot on Movie Channel Z +1. Many of the scenes are unnecessarily dark and dingy, the camera is overly static, and the whole thing feels like it was made on a shoe-sting budget. Normally, that doesn’t bother me, but given that the film cost $20 million, the question in my mind was ‘where did all the money go?’ Secondly, the performances by the cast were universally wooden. However, given the poor direction by Johansson, the dreadful script and the stolid source material, it is perhaps unfair to blame the actors… after all, look what they had to work with.
So, all in all, regardless of its politics which I have avoided discussing, there are all too many reasons to brand this film as pure, unadulterated trash – and not the good kind.
PS. It is worth noting, that during its cinematic release, the film took only $4 million. The usual movie money mathematics states that the actual cost of a film is its budget ($20 million) and then the same figure again for marketing, etc. So, the film was also a massive commercial failure, in regards to its cinematic release, at least. Sadly, that did not stop the development of the sequel, which is reportedly even worse. But I'll save judgement until I see the film.