CinemActivism: Atlas Shrugged Part 1
62
Atlas Shrugged is an adaption of the first part of Ayn Rand’s novel, set in a utopia in the near future (though it’s time period seems to be deliberately confusing) where business is the hero and government intervention the villain. The film mainly consists of middle-aged people in nice suits discussing potential legislation that would destroy their business, which apparently made an intriguing novel. One has to marvel at how boring this film is whether one agrees or disagrees with the values system being presented. I am honestly unsure as to whether the lack of empathy for the characters comes directly from the lack of creativity with the drama (that is a given anyway) or whether it is actually possible to portray this kind of story on film. It might be that you are meant to feel worried that these hard working people’s businesses will fall if the antagonists get their way, rather than actual human beings. Did anyone cry when Northern Rock was nationalised?
In any case, this film is quite spectacularly uninviting. Taylor Schilling is fine as Dagny Taggart, a CEO of a powerful railroad company - as fine as one can be with such a dull script. Key figures in industry are disappearing, whilst the government appears to be colluding to bring the country to a grinding halt. Taggart teams up with Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), who has developed an extremely strong metal to construct the rail for her trains, and together aims to get to the bottom of this conundrum. This conundrum is boiled down to one question: “who is John Galt?”, which is being heard everywhere.
The film is bland. Conversations are completely without wit or intrigue. There is no visual style to speak of. The sets are generic. The acting is by-the-numbers. These would all be minor problems if the film had a premise or conceit that was dramatically compelling. Who is John Galt? I don’t know and I defy anyone who hasn’t read the novel to care.
I’m not ruling anything out here: I’m sure an inventive adaptation of Rand’s book could breathe some life into the story, but it really needs to be done by a filmmaker who understands cinema. Come on, are we really meant to care about these people? What difference does it make to us whether these businesses go under or not?
The film doesn't give Rand's ideas their due through lack of understanding of how films work. I'm not certain it was even constructed by human beings.
CommentsLoading...
I am planning on reading the book. I would argue though that it is possible to portray blandness in a more cinematic way than this director did. However, I'm sure it's quite a task to adapt a text about such a deep issue.
I agree. I always thought this was one of the untouchable pieces of fiction; very surprised to see the adaptation. Most of my surprise was at who took it on (I had to IMDB him).
Agreed about it being a complex topic to approach in film. I haven't seen this yet either but it is on my short list. Thanks for checking my hubs.
I shall have to update you all once I read the novel, haha.
@against the odds - No problem, you too.
You should definitely, definitely read the book. It's anything but bland, although it does suffer a bit from purple prose in places. I don't agree with all the underlying philosophy behind the book but it does have some incredibly accurate parallels with our over-regulated, PC-ridden life in Britain today.
I speak as someone who had to endure studying Dickens for my English literature O Level. If I had known about Atlas Shrugged back then and had had the chance to swap Atlas for Great Expectations, I would have jumped at the chance.
I watched it, and I have to say that although it caught the feel and the tone of the book, I prefer the book. This was the first book in a long time that I had become lost in. It is the first book in an even longer time that I have considered reading again.
Fountainhead is way better--book and movie....and that movie was not so great. Gary Cooper as Howard Roark and Patricia Neak as Dominique Francon (sp)
Fountainhead is on my reading list too - I didn't even know they made a movie!
hawkdad73 Level 3 Commenter 6 months ago
Good Hub. Even though, I haven't seen the film yet,I think to round it out, you should read the book. I really think your opinion on the film would change.
The book at had to do with liberalism and conservatism; idealism and reality (cred to Hubber peeling). The books themselves are bland, focusing on how raw life is; breaking it down into what is the simplest aspect of life: the self, Objectivism. Even the length of the book could be seen as analogy to how tedious life is, made simple by focusing on the person.
Hate to say it, but it was probably the filmmaker's point (to make it bland). Plus, take into consideration that this is the first of at least a few parts of the film.
Good hub.