I finally got to see Atlas Shrugged today, so you finally get the benefit of my review. A few caveats before I begin. First some movies are not reviewable by the same standards used to evaluate most films. Examples of this are The Passion of the Christ and Harry Potter (all films).
The Passion of the Christ is impossible to review because if you are a devote Christian the movie passionately recreates the central story and theme of the entire religion, any production deficiencies are not of consequence for those who embrace the story religiously (literally). Conversely a person not a Christian or not sympathetic to Christianity might see the same film as a virtual snuff film with little redeeming qualities.
The Harry Potter movies are based on the most popular contemporary novels. The books are beloved by millions around the world. The books are long and filled with numerous sub-plots, red herrings, and subtleties that can not easily be translated to film. Watching the films without the context of having read the books or at least without some understanding of the plots and themes is at best confusing and at worst frustrating. Once again those who have read the books love the movies as a supplemental visualization of the stories they love. This makes Harry Potter a tough review because to review the movie is in effect to review the books either together or as juxtaposition. The two can not really be separated.
Atlas Shrugged suffers from both the issue of being based on a huge novel with sub-plots and subtleties as well as being based on an ideology; an ideology that is antithetical to that which is put forth in our “pop” culture.
What Atlas Shrugged is must be addressed with reviewing the novel or film. Rather than being dystopian prophecy it is a parable of the battle between individualism and collectivism. Collectivist will scoff at the idea that a greedy businessman could be acting morally in his pursuit of wealth. However, Ayn Rand believed that this is not a contradiction. Complicated personalities, like Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds’, do not fit into this type of philosophical novel. Therefore she wrote her characters as almost cartoonish caricatures devoid of some of the complexity one might otherwise hope for in a different kind of story.
With these caveats in mind I will put forth my review from the following perspectives. Does the movie effectively express the themes of the novel for those who do not possess the context of reading the novel? Will devotees of the novel appreciate its cinematic treatment in this film?
I will not try to interpret the film from the perspective of someone who possesses both the context of having read the novel and who hold hostilities to its ideology. These people cannot be expected to give it a fair review, not because they are dishonest but because no film based on this novel, no matter how well made, could be expected to satisfy them and still stay true to the source material.
I took me about 30 minutes to get into the movie, after that it picks up and I started to get absorbed in it. The movie necessary moves faster than the book, jumping from what might be called “money” scene to “money” scene. There is little time for the extended dialog that exist in the 1100+ page novel. However, much of the key moments in part one of the novel are captured in these emotive moments. Dagny’s laying a verbal slap down to the union thug. Henry Rearden’s brother asking him for the money then asking him to donate it anonymously because he and his friends don’t want him listed on their donor list. And, Ellis Wyatt’s burning of his oil wells all provide devotees nuggets of satisfaction taken directly from the novel’s seminal moments.
The use of the expression “Who is John Galt” seems more redundant and even a little tedious than it was in the novel, but subtleties are not really the point. A side note, I heard a man behind me in the theater whisper to his friend “Ok now I really have to find out who the hell this John Galt is.” We “see” a lot of John Galt in the movie, however, he is always cloaked in darkness and only at the end do we learn that he is John Galt; if you have read the novel this is of course immediately clear. For those wanting to hate Henry Rearden’s family, you will not be disappointed; they are just as vile in the film as in the novel. However, I found myself wanting to despise Jim Taggart more, the actor playing him is too good looking and acted more immature than skuzzy and manipulative.
Most of the other key players were well cast except for Francisco who did not have the bearing or looks that I imagined when reading the novel. I could not believe that the beautiful and confident Dagny ever loved him, not because he is reckless playboy, but rather because he was not in her “league.” The character in the book was a man that any woman would find attractive and desirable. That is not the vibe I got from the movie. One key moment that was missing was Francisco’s money speech, which is my favorite moment in the novel; this was disappointing. Ragnar Danneskjold was mentioned two or three times during the movie but for someone who had never read the book this would not make any sense at all.
Overall, those who have read the book and understand the themes will find a lot to enjoy about this film. People who have not context might find it a little confusing. I would recommend they see the film with someone who has read the novel so the can whisper questions to them.
The production could have been more polished, but with the relatively small budget it is very well done. My presumption is that had a major studio made this movie with a big budget, much of the core theme would have been lost in the name of production value.
Finally, as with the Passion of the Christ and the Harry Potter movies, this movie is best enjoyed by those who appreciate the source material, they will find much to like and will not find the lack in production value much of an issue. Those without pre-bias or context should read the novel first (an audio book version is available). Those who dislike Ayn Rand will hate this movie. It is not going to persuade those predisposed to disliking it.
Please Comment!
No comments:
Post a Comment