clanciai
After almost 50 years, this great 20th century novel has at last been turned into a film - in three parts of altogether 4½ hours. The film is naturally not as impressive and complex as the book, but it's still an eye-opener, and its messages get through. Having completed the enterprise of seeing all three films, and having read the book as well, I will try to give the whole thing as objective an evaluation as possible. First of all, it was a great joy to see this great novel filmed at last, especially after almost 50 years and since it's a very difficult and complex story to squeeze into a film at all. The effort on the whole is successful, and I think Ayn Rand (really Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum from Petersburg, Russia,) would have been pleased with it, even in spite of the bathos in the end - but for that I would have given it a 9. The actors are all splendid, the story is made comprehensible, the arguments get through, and the filming leaves nothing to complain of, with a special applause for the train and flight sequences - the accidents (together with the great trial and TV speeches) provide the highlights of the films, and there are quite a number of them in the novel, one more sensational than the other. Also the music is perfectly suited for the story, which is kept in style all the way, with a sigh of relief for at last a great film without any brutality - until the last degrading torture scenes, which fall out. The only irritating detail was for me that the actors are not the same all the way but are switched for every new part. It's not very pleasing to find different persons under the same names for every new part However, no one falls short, and all the three girls playing Dagny, the heroine and center of the story, do her well enough justice. The novel is worth reading and re-reading, while the films don't call for the same desired repetition, at least not for a year or two, but they give a very good introduction and overview of one of the greatest novels of the 20th century - all utopia and speculation, but philosophically very pertinent and relevant, and more so than ever today. It was written (published) in 1957 long before the great hippie movements of the 60s and thus, like everything Ayn Rand wrote, far ahead of its time. It's an additional asset that the films have succeeded in updating the story to the 21st century.
Mark Pringle (mark-32-207607)
ALERT: THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS Over sixty years ago, Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was made into a movie, starring Gary Cooper. It would have been considerably easier a task to adopt that book to film than to adopt Atlas Shrugged. Nevertheless, this rendition of the book to film does considerable justice while maintaining a great deal of faithfulness to the themes presented by the original novel.The setting, as in the original novel, requires some suspension of belief, as it consists in an alternate reality and includes some elements from the science fiction genre. Other than some adaptations to bring the story into the present day, it remains a faithful reproduction, and in remaining faithful to the story, I believe that it is only pertinent to review that story to some extent.I read my first Rand novel, Anthem, when I was in high school. I later rediscovered it, and some part of myself that had apparently gone missing when I was in early college in the Fall of 1992. While Atlas Shrugged is a much more dense expression of Rand's ideation, much of that essential spirit is captured in her earlier novel, Anthem. Rand champions rational behavior with the spirit of free enterprise, and for this reason she is still widely embraced today.Although, assuredly, much work went into both the novel and the film, the story is quite straightforward, and, in my opinion, not difficult to comprehend at all. When I read another review, posted on Netflix, that purported that the movie would require a course of study in political science, I was quite surprised. I think, perhaps that the reviewer might have been confused, and neither understood some of the basic themes in the novel, nor the course of study in politics that they so earnestly had recommended. As for those who have never studied political science, both the film and the book are easy enough to understand from an economic perspective, the premise of which is so well depicted by the title of the original novel. Ultimately, to this readership and demographic of movie-goers, the story makes a statement that is designed to make its audience think about the nature of obligation, and to whom and for what one should be obliged. To the latter demographic, the students and professors, both, of political science, Rand's "philosophies" may tender some questions, that perhaps only she would be capable of supplying herself. Nevertheless, from a theoretical standpoint, her ideas are quite intriguing, if for no other reason than that they have had such ample influence even beyond her own lifetime.Some of the criticism of Rand's beliefs could potentially be traced to the abandonment of "civilization" by several of the characters in this very novel. However, Rand was erudite with respect to political philosophy, and one can well recognize her plot device of "Atlantis" as a sort of "state of nature," parallel in function to that of Locke's, Hobbes', etc. Such states of nature are, of course, presented as a type foundation from which to construct social contracts, such as are manifested by the constitutions and legislatures of the governments of modernity. Rand appears to be using this device, borrowed from these social contract theorists, to challenge the modern audience not to take for granted the freedom inherent to the modern liberal state, rather than to be proposing some altogether new form of contract for society. Instead, she addresses the level of freedom that one has within a free state in a kind of sub-context of economic focus.It is within this context that she presents her theoretical state of nature, which is quite obviously set to answer the question of the paradox of the constraint of freedom proportional to individual ability as given in The Republic by the penalty of being ruled by one less capable. While in Plato's writing this concept seems to be confined to the concept of government, it finds pluralistic application within any field of endeavor, and especially with respect to those fields that compete economically, and as such are inherently, to some extent (although they may be hobbies for some), vocational in nature. It would seem, then, that Rand's "philosophy," from "Shrugged," can be encompassed in a nutshell simply by saying that one maintains the freedom to do business with whomever one chooses to do their business. In essence, this is the spirit of free enterprise, a spirit that goes hand in hand with such liberties that are there to protect it.The film, itself, I found to be good, if perhaps recalling to mind a bit closely some of our recent economic foibles; yet it balances this with a call to integrity, both in the context of business and one's personal conduct. What may be a little difficult, initially, for the viewer to grasp is how Rand's concept of integrity devolves to a certain honesty of self-interest, as opposed to any external imposition of in what this conduct should consist.All in all, I enjoyed watching this film, and I believe it presents a reasonably faithful introduction to Rand and her writing.
