My Review of "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1"

Note: Since Atlas Shrugged is a mystery you may want to reserve reading this until you read the book--if you plan on reading the book.

Just to make things easy, my grading scale:

A = 100%

B = 90%

C = 80%

I want to give it an A. I can't.

I want to give it a C. I can't.

Here's my problem. Atlas Shrugged changed my life. It completely changed the way I view the world, what I feel is necessary to save America, and how I view myself and my relationship to other human beings. We all know what road America is headed down--and it's not good. If it keeps going this way, I'm absolutely convinced we will go down the same road as other Republics throughout history--complete destruction.

We need something to save freedom and this nation; Ayn Rand believed it was philosophy. I do as well. Were many of the Founders Christian and of the faithful? Yes. Are we a theocracy? No. People must be left to make mistakes on their own sometimes--no matter how morally reprehensible we may find them. People's mistakes are on their consciences as individuals and they must live with them as individuals and be judged as individuals. I, frankly, love Ayn's view that the proper moral code really should be to "judge, lest ye be judged" rather than "judge not, lest ye be judged." The former is hinged to Reason, the latter is not. Part of freedom though is changing people's minds and educating through persuasion to be better people and guardians of freedom--self-regulators. Beating each other over the head with legislation, in part, has gotten us where we are. We have always had harmony among religions in this country because of separation of Church and State. Many people think the solution to our problems is getting the country back to our "religious roots." The next question that must follow that is...whose religious roots? There are all kinds of religions, all kinds of faiths, and people of no faith. Different denominations. Faith is personal and it's different for everyone. Everyone thinks they're particular view is the most special and is the one to be pushed to the forefront. That's subjective. "Subjective" separates people. Only objectivity can unite. What does that leave us? We need something which is the same for everyone based on solid, proven, consistent principles down through the ages that have been with us since Plato and Aristotle first began discussing these things if not earlier? Philosophy.

On to the movie. This is extremely difficult for me to review.

I could review this movie as a person that has read Ayn Rand's novels, I have absorbed Objectivism fully and I understand it conceptually (though there is always learning to be done--in no way am I claiming expertise). I understand the characters and I went into seeing this movie with all of that background rattling around in my head. Because of all that background, the characters in this film spoke to me. They really did. But, I also knew why they were acting, or not acting, the way they were. Due to that, it was an emotional experience for me. I was revolted at Hank's family's dismissal of his achievements and their looting attitude towards the sacred well from which his creative efforts sprung. I sympathized with Dagny and her struggle against her brother who is destroying her family's company with his backstabbing, hand-holding with Washington, D.C. cronies who are trying to make things better--by making things worse. Tears rolled down my face when Dagny and Hank ran the John Galt Line. I shuddered to my core when, upon discovering that yet another one of her life-lines has disappeared, Dagny screams in horror and frustration at what she witnesses. It really, really was an excellent effort and if it gets more people to start studying philosophy and / or Ayn Rand's developments--then this movie will have succeeded. That is the part of me that wants to give this movie an A.

Now, the part of me that wants to give this movie a C. The entire time I was watching I was thinking, "Do the people in this theatre who have never read the novel--even remotely understand what it is they're watching? Do they get it?" To be honest, the movie felt rushed to me. It felt like they were trying to cram 20 lbs. of potatoes into a 5 lb. bag. One hour and 40 minutes--give or take? Why the short time? This movie should have reached at least 2 to 2 1/2 hours. I can forgive the lack of exposition in regards to the characters and their backgrounds. I'm not sure if the time constraint was financial or deliberate. I don't know if we'll ever know. However, in a day and age where we have seen movies hit the 2-2 1/2 if not close to 3 hour marks--why was this cut short?

I wanted to see the railway workers from the union come to support Dagny in her effort to run the John Galt Line--despite the possible danger involved. I realize that some of the lengthy speeches by the characters in the novel would not translate well to the screen. But, if you have good writers, and I certainly believe they did, they could have edited some of those words down in order to pass some more explicit philosophy on to the audience.

Aside from the philosophy, Atlas Shrugged is also a mystery. The insertion of the shadowy figure of John Galt into the picture, I believe, gives too much away entirely too soon. He does appear early in the novel, but you don't know it's him due to the way Rand treated his conversations with other characters.

I also felt the run-up to Hank and Dagny's affair felt rushed. The affairs between Ayn Rand's characters have always been a source of particular irritation to people of faith--those who believe morality is something handed down from somewhere outside of yourself--to be obeyed without the attachment of thought or Reason. Most people, on the surface, would classify this affair as a "sin." Is it? Why do these two find themselves at this point? What kinds of "blanked out" areas of Hank's mind lead him to discover someone with whom he shares many values in common? Hank's relationship with his wife is obviously cold from her end. Lillian treats Hank as though it is his duty to make her happy. Love is not a duty. If you're in a relationship in which you feel like maintaining it is your duty--you have issues which need to be worked out. So, with that in mind--is he sinning? Or is his mind beginning to realize how he is allowing himself to be sacrificed to Lillian's cold expectations. Does the sin really lie in the fact that he's allowing himself to be sucked dry emotionally and spiritually by Lillian? Self-esteem. That's what his real sin is; allowing his self-esteem to be sacrificed. Anytime Ayn puts her characters in these positions, she is exploring the mind-body connection. Most people believe love is impervious to Reason. That is a fallacy. And it is a fallacy that is extremely dangerous in regards to human freedom, health and happiness. It is also why the Liberal notion of "loving everybody" is so inherently and hopelessly misguided. To say you love everyone--reduces love to a duty. How do you love the man who just murdered your family? How do you love irrational men who's goal is to enslave others to a tyrannical way of life through something like Shariah Law? Answer: You can't. Not if you have an ounce of self-esteem. And forgiveness is not the same as love. More generally, I do think the movie would have benefitted from developing some of the relationships more deeply.

One of my biggest disappointments was the practical elimination of the story-within-a-story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company.  The Twentieth Century Motor Company's demise was directly attributable to the promotion of Karl Marx's "from each man according to his ability to each man according to his needs" dictum put in place by the children of the father who ran the company prior to turning it over to them.  In the novel, Ayn relay's this story through a former employee of the company.  It is done with such skill.  Reading that story was the among the first things that really solidified for me why collectivism cannot work.  Hank and Dagny run across Ivy Starnes in her home in the novel sitting among Buddhist statues and smelling of incense all the while bemoaning the fact that humanity is not good enough to practice Marx's so-called "code of morality."  In the movie we see Ivy for a brief moment when she simply exclaims, "My father was an evil man."  Her father was the one who ran the company with competence.  His children, upon taking over the company, tried to "equalize" everyone--the fruits of which ended up turning people against each other.  At the very least, this deserved a flash-back sequence.

On to the performances. I must say--this is the one area I had the least problems with. I thought Taylor Schilling did an excellent job of passing on the feeling that this is a woman who is determined to keep things running despite all those around her who are attempting to bring her down. She seemed purposeful, intent and relayed that quite well. Grant Bowler's Rearden was excellent. The scene where he gives Lillian the bracelet and his mother talks about how another man would have "given his wife a diamond bracelet; for her pleasure, not his"--the look of disbelief on his face at his mother's words are just subtle enough so that you know on the one hand he's irritated, yet on the other hand he's completely mystified by their reactions. Another stellar moment Bowler gives is when he exclaims, "...it's mine. Do you understand that concept? Mine." His subtlety at this point in Part 1 is appropriate. As a character, Hank is still trying to figure out himself and the world of destruction around him. He has just the right amount of incredulousness mixed with the right amount of determination. Rebecca Wisotsky makes a perfect Lillian. Her cold expectations of her husband bring to light the vile, spiritual vampire which makes Lillian the wife you love to hate. Matthew Marsden is an entirely different kind of looter--he's miserable, without purpose, and really excels at pouring on the nihilistic, psychological universe in which James Taggart lives. Nothing matters. I chuckled to myself when he says to Phillip Reardon, Hank's brother, "Who the hell are you?" It's no secrect that among collectivists--many times they despise each other. Francisco? So far, Jsu Garcia is making an excellent playboy...or is he? The mystery to what he is about is still well-preserved, as it should be at this point.

All in all, if you're one who has read the book--you probably enjoyed it immensely, much as I described in my "give it an A paragraph." If you haven't--you may have left somewhat confused, but with your curiosity peaked.

I have high hopes for Parts 2 and 3 and look forward to seeing them made. But, for now--I give Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 a B minus.