Atlas Shrugged, Part II : a review

So I borrowed this movie, and never have been I been more grateful to the public library system for saving me money.

I'm not an Objectivist, but I do like some aspects of Atlas Shrugged. That being said, even without seeing the trailers, I was apprehensive about that cinderblock of a novel being made into a film. IMO, to do this successfully, the screenplay would have to be very different from the novel. There's simply no way to compress everything from that into a few hours, and trying to make it a montage of Ayn's Greatest Hits Lines doesn't work either.

Plus, as the film shows, the heavy emphasis on the Fair Share Law and Directive 10-289 just doesn't work. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me start with the positives:

1. When the train breaks down and Kip Chalmers demands that it be fixed, the engineer tells him the engine just weighs 500,000 pounds, so if Kip lifts one end up, the engineer will crawl underneath and have it repaired in a jiffy. At least that made me smile.

2. I like the way the control room becomes aware of the problems that follow and lead up to the rail disaster. This is probably the only benefit of setting the film in 2020 rather than 1950; a huge computer screen lights up with a map and red flashing "Collision Alert" signs.

So, what didn't work?

The entire cast. With one exception, they all looked old, as though they'd been preternaturally aged just by appearing in this film. Rather than being polished or vital, Dagny is exhausted, with hollows around her eyes and lines on her face. She's more like John Galt's aunt than his love interest. Hank Rearden has the hoarsest voice I've ever heard; he sounds as though he personally smoked every cigarette Rand ever wrote about.

Francisco is the worst, though. Far from being cool and cultured, he oozes around Dagny when they meet at the wedding reception. He doesn't even come off like an actor trying to play a brilliant, intense aristocrat. He's more like a bum in a leather jacket trying to play an actor.

James Taggart is about fifteen years older than his sister, making him near-ancient, yet for some reason Cherryl Brooks looks like a college freshman. It's great that she escaped the aging curse, but the way she bounces on the balls of her feet when exchanging inanities with James ("You're my hero!") would make their romance disturbing if it wasn't so rushed.

And then there's Eddie. Yes, I'm saving the worst for last. Why, why, WHY is Eddie always played by a black actor? In the book, when I read that Eddie's grandfather and father had worked for the Taggarts just as he worked for James and Dagny, it seemed like a family tradition of loyalty. In the films, since Eddie is the only non-white person, it comes off more like indentured servitude. I would much rather have Rand's totally whitebread world than cringe each time I see Eddie.

Especially since the poor guy has literally nothing to do. He's just there so Dagny has someone to talk to about the plot.

Ah yes, the plot. Just like in the first film, they tried to cram everything in: the politics, the romance, the adultery, the philosophizing, etc. And guess what? It worked about as well. In fact, even though I'd read the book, where I found Rearden a sympathetic character despite his cheating on his wife, I couldn't stand the way he behaved here.

Plus, there was no indication of why he cared about Dagny, and the part where he's blackmailed with her reputation at stake is handled particularly badly. In the book, he's shown copies of hotel bills and receipts for the gifts he gave her. I enjoyed the gifts, so naturally they're not in the film. Instead, he's blackmailed with photos of the two of them kissing passionately in public, which made them both look like idiots.

Not that there was any time to develop their characters much further. The film races from the magical motor to the Fair Share Law to the tunnel disaster and Dagny's plane chase into Galt's Gulch. And yet, at two hours, it seemed interminable. I skipped through a couple of Francisco's speeches, because I couldn't stand him (and I liked those speeches in the book) and I just wanted the film to be over.

I'll borrow the third film from the library too, eventually, but the only reason I'll be watching is out of a morbid curiosity as to how much worse it could get.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard said:

Does anyone know the story behind the magical ever-changing cast? I'd be interested to know why none of the majors carried over (as far as I know) from one film to the next.

Click to expand...

From what I read, Taylor Schilling (who played Dagny in the first film) is enough of a star now that she didn't need to settle for movies like this. I'm not sure about the rest of the cast, but there'll be an all-new lineup for the third film too.

Zoombie said:

So...

Play Bioshock again instead of watching it?

Click to expand...

Hell, play Tic Tac Toe.

J.S.F. said:

Number two in the series isn't much better. Again, the acting ranges from somnabulistic/zombielike to inept. The logic of the film is way out there in some cases, and quite frankly, much as I liked the speeches in the novel--which is basically one immensely long tract on why Objectivism is good and all other philosophies ain't--in the movie, they just came off as boring.

Click to expand...

In the book, I liked some of the characters, especially Francisco. So even when the action ground to a halt as everyone stood around and listened in silence to his discourse about money, I was prepared to go along with it.

Plus, the book had far more space to show the effects of the looters' philosophy, and especially how it affected the common people. So there was a sense that yes, the speeches were important and relevant. In the film, there's just no chance. Yes, there are a few shots of protesters and trash piled up and so on, but there's never the complete collapse that the book shows, with people starving to death and struggling to survive and all that.

I did watch The Fountainhead. Despite some of the details they changed, like Wynand shooting himself (wtf?), it was much more interesting, partly because the idea of one man fighting to preserve an artistic vision is much easier to cheer for than several people talking to each other about the Fair Share Law and repeating a single catchphrase every chance they get.

J.S.F. said:

They should have had more shots in a montage with a voiceover to illustrate things better...all they had were some shots of desperate people. Big deal. American Madness, in spite of its different message, did desperate a thousand times better.

Click to expand...

I would also have stripped the number of characters down. Way down. Because I read the book, I knew who Kip Chalmers and Dr. Ferris and so on were, but if I'd just watched this, I'd have been hopelessly adrift. I'm just surprised they didn't throw Rearden's family and Hugh Akston and "Ragnar the Pirate" into the overflowing pot as well.

I think I'd have cut it down to Dagny (protagonist), James Taggart (antagonist) and a few others. Probably Francisco, because I loved the tension between him and Dagny in the book, and because he's easier to make sympathetic in limited time than an adulterer. I'd have simplified the story as well. The result wouldn't have been true to the book, but my priority would be making money - though maybe I'm contradicting myself here.

Oh, boy. I just watched the deleted scenes, and as you can imagine, they were worse. This is one trainwreck of a film, no pun intended.

• All the yapping about Directive 10-289. Realistic dialogue was never Rand's strong point, but come on.
• They include a scene where Eddie sits on a bench outside talking to John Galt. Except there was no backstory to explain that Eddie had known this guy for years and that he was some low-level worker on the railroad. So it looked as though Eddie was selling Dagny out by informing someone of her whereabouts. Plus, in keeping with the whole "can't show Galt's face", they just have his hand with the ubiquitous dollar-sign cigarette in the frame - and then that disappears too and he's gone. Like he teleported out. Eddie looks at the empty bench and drinks his Diet Coke, so obviously he's used to his friends being beamed up when he finishes speaking to them.
• Rearden does give Dagny a gift - except he does so in public and then kisses her so passionately I thought he was going to rip her clothes off right there. It wasn't even remotely romantic - more like unpleasant and embarrassing to watch.
• Leonard is the Wet Nurse character, but whereas in the book, that character slowly came to see the truth, here he jumps from being assigned to the mill to being willing to risk his neck for Rearden.
• Eddie : "I'll quit." James : "You can't. Directive 10-289 forbids it." Eddie : "Then fire me." James : "I can't. Directive 10-289 forbids it." Seriously, did no one realize how ridiculous this sounded? (Well, OK, they did, since the scene didn't make the final cut, but it should never have been filmed in the first place)

Another problem that occurred to me. Rearden is blackmailed into selling the formula for the Metal by the threat of his affair with Dagny being exposed. Dr. Ferris states (in both the book and the film) that Rearden won't be affected by the affair being made public, but Dagny's "spotless reputation" is another matter.

In 1950, yes, I'm sure a female executive running a railroad would have been new and unusual, and that woman's reputation in business would be affected by what she did in her private life. But the film is set in the near future - 2020 maybe. Are they trying to say that even then, women will have to be careful only to sleep with the men they're married to, or else face public censure?

This is another reason I wish they'd just set the film in the era for which Rand wrote the book. They were so faithful to the book otherwise that I don't understand why this detail was changed.

J.S.F. said:

As for the affair, again the filmmakers miscalculated. These days, while having an affair isn't something I condone, it's also something that carries less stigma than it did fifty-something years ago, especially for a woman. I'm a little surprised the filmmakers decided to go so conservative.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Rearden is the one breaking a vow, not Dagny. It's not even like she's a homewrecker trying to take him away from his children.

Even if, in the future, there's an unpleasant double standard that pats men on the back for their sexual exploits but condemns women for sexual freedom, wouldn't it be better for Rearden and Dagny to challenge that rather than give in to it? Rearden has no guarantee, after all, that Ferris won't keep holding the affair over his head, to wring more concessions out of him.

And in the book, when Dagny finds out, she makes the affair public herself, with the result that everyone who matters cheers her on. I'm guessing they'll include this in the third film to wrap up Rearden's and Dagny's relationship before she moves on to Galt. So movie!Rearden basically gave in to a threat that could have been made toothless right away if he'd called Dagny up on her iPhone and asked her what her position was on Ferris's blackmail.