Posted on 04/12/2011 12:07:14 PM PDT by GSWarrior
Atlas shrugged. And so did I.
The movie version of Ayn Rand’s novel treats its source material with such formal, reverent ceremoniousness that the uninitiated will feel they’ve wandered without a guide into the midst of the elaborate and interminable rituals of some obscure exotic tribe.
“Atlas Shrugged” presents other problems for a moviemaker. The book was published in 1957 and set in an America of the future. But time seems to have taken a U-turn, so that we’re back in a worse Great Depression with a more megalomaniacal business competition-loathing FDR-type administration. All sorts of things have been uninvented, such as oil pipelines so that oil has to be shipped by rail, railroads being the dominant form of transportation. Airplanes exist, but knowing where to fly them apparently doesn’t, because a secret hidden unknown valley in the Rocky Mountains figures in the plot, which also hinges on a substance that’s lighter and stronger than steel. This turns out to be a revolutionary new steel alloy! Because Rand forgot about plastics.
The “Atlas Shrugged” movie simply accepts these unimaginative imaginings. No attempt is made to create a “future of the past” atmosphere as in the movies about Batman (a very unRandian figure, trapped in his altruism costume drama). Nor is any attempt made to update Rand’s tale of Titans of Industry versus Gargantuas of government.
An update is needed, and not just because train buffs, New Deal economics and the miracle of the Bessemer converter are inexplicable to people under 50, not to mention boring. The anti-individu
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Exactly. They can only solve budget problems by raising taxes. THey can’t raise them high enough. That’s their ONLY solution to everything. They can’t stand it that some people wind up with more than others. They like it when they are liberal and have a lot, because they give money to their political causes though. Never badmouth rich liberals. Usually like themselves.
I presume they were given money for showing up. I can stay home and watch "The Quiet Man" again for free.
PJ O’Rourke has made a trademark of damning with faint praise. If this review was a simple paean, he wouldn’t get nearly as much chance to show us how witty he is.
PJ ping.
pj sure can turn a phrase.
The left proclaims to be champions of the middle class while they pull up the ladder of opportunity behind them.
The glittering shiny new toys have stolen his imagination.
The absolutely worse part of the book besides Ayn’s turgid at best writing style is that she refused to use an editor. That’s how we end up with a 100 page screed by Galt. That book could have been shortened by over 200 pages without missing anything.
The Fountainhead is better although Roark gets an over 10 page screed plus the writing has improved but I’ll never accept Roark raping Dominique because Roark knew they both wanted it.
If you want to read one of her books that isn’t pages of screeds and black and white characters, try, “We the Living”. It shows post revolutionary Russia for what it really was and although the story is bleak, it is well written.
I probably shouldn’t admit this, but I haven’t read Rand. I have known some cultists, er, admirers, but wouldn’t dare criticize the book if I felt inclined to do so.
And why criticize something so many people love. It would be mean and serve no purpose. But I probably won’t see the movie and husband won’t see it if they don’t have cell phones.
Totally agree. We The Living is her best work.
I’m not a Randist-Objectivist or someone who has even read Atlas Shrugged. I do have the book though, and plan to wade through it some time. I did read The Fountainhead, and thoroughly enjoyed it. Ditto for the movie. O’Rourke makes a huge error (i.e. the crack about Adam Smith not writing a book that could be made into a move) in forgetting that many people do not read books. They do go to movies...if they’re interesting enough. If the movie is good enough, the message will get through. And a further tuttutting to P.J., the Marxists are still after the rich. To be sure, they’ll take money from anyone, but they would still like to stick it to the wealthy.
The blurb on the back cover of my copy says "A book you will want to read over and over." Uh, no it's not.
I have read it and found it to be a significant piece of literature, profound even, but like any human endeavor, not without it's flaws.
"And why criticize something so many people love. It would be mean and serve no purpose."
Others might say the same thing about the works of Karl Marx or Anton Lavey, and I would disagree with them as well. I'm certainly not comparing Rand to either of them, but when somebody weighs into the arena of ideas, and tenders to the world a philosophical proposition, criticism is healthy. Rand arrives at many positive conclusions, but also has, IMHO, a number of flawed premises, particularly in the area of God and religion. I'm probably going to see the movie, but like her literature (and pretty much anything else I encounter in life) I'm going to form my opinions and judgments on it, and discuss and debate them as I see them.
Having not seen the movie, I can't comment on O'Rourke's remarks, but I have to say I largely agree on his assessment of Rand, and especially many of her followers.
>They can only solve budget problems by raising taxes.<
It’s long past the point of fixing budgets. IMO, they’re trying to just suck up all the wealth and grab everything for the increasingly oppressive state. It really makes me mad.
(I don’t really have anything for them to take, but I don’t begrudge those who do)
I’ve read it three times...
It’s all about wealth redistribution to the people they want to get other folks’ money.
That’s why you can’t ever cut entitlements without it beign the end of the world. that’s why you can’t cut foreign aid. It’s all flowing to the people they want it to flow to.
It probably is time for CWII. Before the whole shebang is beyond salvage.
We might get CWII whether we want it or not. I’ve felt like the powers that be are trying to provoke just such an event for their own nefarious ends. Probably to get even more of our stuff in the process. It makes me sick.
Riiiggghht. Plastic rails.
We will see a lot of this - the moochers will be in full battle mode for two reasons: though they cannot understand what Rand is saying - in quite plain English - they know they're on the losing side and it frightens them, rather like little kids who fear the boogie man in the closet.
They are also afraid of mirrors - and Atlas Shrugged is a giant mirror. The moochers really don't want to look themselves in the face.
Not with the naysayers that will scream to the rooftops against this finally having made it to the screen.
One does not have 'decent discussions' with people who have little to no decency.
Their loud condemnations will be great publicity. More people will become aware of it and see it.
One also doesn't waste time and breath in answering them for it would be wasted energy and allow them-to think they mattered.
Remember what Howard Rourke (Fountainhead) said to - oh, what was his name, the little weasel who had done everything he could to destroy Rourke? He came upon Rourke on the bridge and said, gloating over his actions: "We're alone here. You can tell me what your think of me."
Rourke said, simply: "But I don't think of you."
Totally deflated the idiot. That is Rand's message as to handling the cretins.
Let them stew...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.