Dennis Hardin
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Dennis Hardin
-
-
I have now seen the film five times, and each time I have found it to be a thrilling attempt to bring Ayn Rand's ideas to the screen. There is so much about the film that is good that I hesitate to offer any criticism. I like the script, I like the fact that the shadowy, phantom-like figure of John Galt appears several times throughout the film, and, most of all, I love the fact that the producers decided to make a profoundly philosophical movie. It would have been so easy to focus on the superficial aspects of the plot and ignore the philosophical undertones of independent thinking and rational self-interest. The producers deserve enormous credit for that.
The question has been asked: "Would Ayn Rand have liked this movie?"
Sadly, I think the answer is no, and for one simple reason: the protagonists in the film do not come even close to the heroic dimensions of the characters portrayed in the novel. Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart is the lone exception. Schilling is the primary reason this film is as good as it is. She is, quite simply, fantastic in the role of Dagny Taggart. She is so good, in fact, that she makes her male counterparts look ordinary by comparison. This is true for all of the primary male characters including Rearden, Francisco and John Galt. It is also true of minor characters such as Hugh Akston and Owen Kellog, both of whom were miserably miscast.
It is no easy task to bring genuine, dazzling heroism to the silver screen. Considering how fast Atlas Part One was thrown together, it is certainly no surprise that it failed in this specific regard. Despite that fact, it is undeniable that this was a crucial aspect of Ayn Rand's novel. And it is equally undeniable that the film is truly disappointing in this area. Ever notice the way Clint Eastwood or Sean Connery walk through a scene? The sense of animal magnetism, charisma, power and self-confidence they exude through their physical mannerisms – especially the way they walk – is incomparable.
To make Ayn Rand's heroes real on the screen would have required actors with a bearing and confidence similar to that of an Eastwood or Connery, and they are a rare find. Grant Bowler makes a convincing effort, but he is simply not tall or austere enough to make you believe that he is Hank Rearden. (The funky hairstyle didn’t help.) Similarly, Galt does not carry himself like a man in total control of his world. He neither moves, walks, nor speaks like John Galt. And Francisco comes across as much more like Don Diego de la Vega then Zorro. It is hard to imagine him standing with a cape flowing behind him in the wind.
It is difficult to say whether this oversight is due to bad direction or the failure on the part of the producers to understand its importance. It is, nonetheless, a glaring oversight. And, for that reason, an objective observer has to acknowledge that the film has that one fundamental flaw.
-
Does anyone know if they in fact marketed the film at all? If so, how? Was it more a "make it and they will come" approach?
The film makers did a horrible job of promoting their film.
Many people make spur-of-the-moment decisions about what movie to see. They have some free time, they decide to see a flick and they pick up a newspaper to see what's on. That's why studios spend so much money on week-end newspaper ads designed to grab your attention. So what was Aglialoro's strategy for getting folks to choose his film over the so-called 'major releases'? Here's what he did in Los Angeles: Forego any newspaper ad whatsoever in the LA Times last week-end. And then he complains that attendance fell off from the first week-end. What a shock.
There was a small ad for the film in the LA Times on opening week-end. Nothing on the second week-end. Zero. Not a peep.
How were people supposed to know the film was out there? As far as I can tell, there was almost zero promotion after week one. Online movie info sites like Yahoo didn't even mention Atlas Part One on their 'Also in theatres' list. All the responsibility for getting the word out fell to the people who made the film. The producers needed to do whatever they could to keep the movie in the public eye--and they did a miserable, pathetic job.
-
Is the movie having an impact? This morning, number one on the “trending now” list (reflecting the most popular searches) on Yahoo’s homepage is currently Ayn Rand.
-
Let's see:
1.) Wants to reinvade Iraq for the self-confessed aggressive purpose of taking its oil.
2.) Wants to slap China with a 25% tariff.
3.) Buys into the tin-foil hat nonsense about Obama being born in Kenya.
These right here are reason enough to be scared shitless of someone like this ever obtaining high office. It's difficult to see how someone this irrational, reactionary, and completely undiplomatic could have become such a successful businessman. Supposedly, he's threatening to run as an independent if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. If he does, you can pretty much be assured that Obama gets another term.
Regarding point one above, here is what Trump said:
On Iraq, Trump said he would not leave if he were President now. Instead he said he would keep a U.S. presence there to prevent Iran from taking over the oil fields – which he said they will do “two minutes” after we pull our troops out of Iraq. He also said he would protect those oil fields and take some of the Iraqi Oil to pay the United States, Great Britain and other countries back that helped the Iraqis obtain their freedom from Saddam Hussein.
Apparently this is the viewpoint you consider "irrational, reactionary and undiplomatic." Whether it happens to be reactionary or undiplomatic could not matter less to me. But how is it "irrational?" What is irrational about insisting that a country we helped to rid itself of a brutal, dictatorial regime pay us back with oil?
-
“I found myself questioning everything I ever assumed that I knew.”
That’s actor Grant Bowler (Hank Rearden) being interviewed at the premiere of Atlas Shrugged Part One, on how he was personally affected by his role in the film.
And that’s how this movie is going to impact a huge portion of its audience, many of whom will then proceed to read the novel. That’s the potential power of a grand scale cinematic production. The door has been opened to a whole new audience who otherwise would never have read Ayn Rand. We are going to reap the benefits of this for years to come.
I would love to hear someone explain how this is going to “damage” Objectivism.
-
I totally agree about Dagny. But I also think Rearden was portrayed fantastically.
The whole movie is totally worth it just to see them shine. Personally I like every part of the movie, but I believe even critics can anjoy their performances.
Most especially her acting the final scene of the movie. I got chills.
I think Grant Bowler did an excellent job of acting, but I'm not sure he was well cast. It's no fault of his, but his face just did not quite capture the look of an industrial genius. He did a great job with his lines, and the scenes where his image was reflected in the glass as he watched his metal being poured were very effective. There was good chemistry between Bowler and Schilling throughout the film. You could read the growing passion in Dagny's eyes. But I always envisioned Rearden as being tall, and Bowler appeared to be either the same height or shorter than Schilling.
Some have criticized Ayn Rand's choice of Clint Eastwood for the part of Rearden. Not me. I think he would have been perfect even as recently as ten years ago.
potereassoluto_5.jpg)
This is not a big deal for me. I'm just trying to explain why I thought Schilling was perfect and Bowler maybe a little less so.
-
During an appearance on John Stossel's FOX show last week to promote the release of Atlas Shrugged, Aglialoro stated that the suggestion of making part three a musical was basically just "marketing spin," so I think we can all breathe a huge sigh of relief.
-
**Mod Note: Merged Topic. Originally "Box Office Success for Atlas Shrugged Part One: Taylor Schilling is Dagny Taggart" -Dante**
Box Office: Tea Party-Fueled “Atlas Shrugged” Makes Respectable Debut
Atlas Shrugged Part One averaged $5608 per theatre, surpassing the per theatre gross of Robert Redford’s The Conspirator ($5500), although Redford’s film was on twice as many screens (707 vs 299). Atlas producer Harmon Kaslow is hoping to open the film on as many as a 1000 screens within the next few weeks.
The film performed well despite being panned by the critics—not to mention some Objectivists.
Through her brilliant, dazzling performance as Dagny Taggart, Taylor Schilling may be doing more for the spread of Objectivism than anyone since Ayn Rand herself. And Objectivists who sincerely want to spread their philosophy should be doing everything they can to encourage as many people as possible to go and see her.
Hank Rearden demanded an answer of Dr. Potter of the State Science Institute: "Is Rearden metal good or not?" I would ask the Objectivist critics of this movie: "Is Taylor Schilling good or not?" Whatever flaws some may have seen in the movie pale in comparison with her riveting portrayal of Ayn Rand's heroine. Objectivists need to seize this opportunity.
-
From Yahoo Movies:
The Critics Shrugged, the Searches Soared
And from Yahoo News:
Quoting Ayn Rand on Capital Hill
The second link isn't directly related to the movie, but I found it fascinating.
-
Then go see the movie! I attended the premier last night in Times Square and left the theater exhilarated.
John Link
I attended the movie for the second time last night in Torrance, Ca. The theatre was filled and there was enthusiastic applause afterward. Can it be true that some people do not want the film to be successful? That is mind-boggling! If it was a terrible film, I could understand discouraging people. But most of those who see it think it is a pretty good film, and a lot of them--including me--think it is magnificent!
The remarkable thing about the philosophical element is that the film is anything but preachy. It weaves the philosophical ideas artfully into the story line, and makes the viewer think about what the explanation might be for the events that are unfolding.
Take the scene between Francisco d'Anconia and Rearden at the party, as one brilliant example.
Francisco: "You’re working for your own sake, not theirs."
Rearden: "They know it."
F: "Oh yes, they know it. But they don't think you do. And the aim of all their efforts is to keep you from knowing it."
R: "Why should I care what they think?"
F: "Because it's a battle in which one must make one's stand clear."
R: "A battle? What battle? I hold the whip hand. I don't fight the disarmed."
F: "Are they? They have a weapon against you. It's their only weapon, but it's a terrible one. Ask yourself what it is, sometime."
And then Rearden asks Francisco why he is telling him this.
Francisco: "Let us say – to give you the words you need, for the time when you'll need them."
This is, in essence, the dialogue from page 148 in the novel, but it perfectly sums up much of what has occurred to that point—the destructiveness wrought by alleged altruism--and leads the viewer to wonder about what Francisco might mean.
Of course, to really discover what's going on, the viewer will either need to wait for parts two and three or read the book. I'm betting a lot of them are going to go buy the book.
And what better outcome could we hope for?
-
The best revenge on Ebert, et. al., is to do everything to ensure the movie is a success. Word of mouth, the internet, your own ticket purchases... Let's roll!
I thoroughly agree with this. We need to do everything we can to promote the film. It is the least we can do.
I suspect that many people in the movie industry are surprised by how well the film is doing. On Yahoo, they list movies that are "also in theatres" on their movie page. Atlas Shrugged did not even show up on the list yeaterday. Today, it is listed number three.
So far, Yahoo Users give the film an A-. You can go to Yahoo and add your own rating. And your own review. Here is mine:
-
My review as posted on Yahoo:
Dagny Taggart Will Rock Your World
It is safe to say you have never seen a movie like this, because there has never been a movie like this. A mystery thriller which casts industry tycoons as romantic heroes, which celebrates human genius, which dares to challenge the "altruistic" motives of government bureaucrats, and which features a stunningly beautiful woman who is, at the same time, strong, intelligent and ruthlessly independent. Atlas Shrugged will not only challenge your preconceptions about great entertainment, it will challenge you to rethink your deepest assumptions about what is wrong with the world.
Taylor Schilling is perfectly cast as the beautiful heroine, Dagny Taggart. She is at once a woman of supreme self-confidence, determination and brilliance – and a woman of captivating femininity. Her remarkable performance carries the film. But she has an impressive supporting cast and a script that does an amazing job of condensing the story line of Ayn Rand's mammoth novel into a fascinating motion picture. Many of Ayn Rand's admirers questioned whether the philosophical themes of Atlas Shrugged would translate to the silver screen without a lot of long, yawning speeches. As you watch the film, however, you will realize that Ayn Rand's philosophy is being made manifest for you in the events and expository dialogue unfolding before your eyes. You will have to see it to believe it.
And that's what I recommend doing. Run, do not walk, to the theater and see Atlas Shrugged Part One. It is a once-in-a-lifetime movie experience you do not want to miss.
-
http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=21425&pid=273937&st=20&#entry273937 <-- review by Dennis Harding, member of this board.
I don't know whether Dennis tried to take into account what a person who hasn't read the book would think (which is what Ebert is speaking to), but I am seeing a growing consensus among those who HAVE read the book that runs anywhere from 'well it isn't a hack job' (paraphrasing) to "spectacular". The few who've commented on it qua movie have been much more mixed.
I did try to look at it from that angle, and I honestly believe the movie will inspire many, many people to read the book. They are not going to want to wait for parts two and three to see what happens.
It is that well done.
-
From Ebert's review:
There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.
This is just factually incorrect. Ebert needs to have his eyes checked (among other things).
-
I'm not being a smartass with this question, but it's one I want to ask based on the other reviews I've read:
What about the movie did you think was so good? Is it that you agreed with the dialogue/philosophy, or did you also think it was a well-made movie?
I didn't want to go into specifics last night because I had to get to sleep. I also have only a few minutes to add this brief note today. But I will say that I thought it was very well done. Taylor Schilling was outstanding and really carries the film. For the most part, even the computer graphic imaging was superb (with one minor exception). But what really floored me was the underlying philosophical message, repeated in numerous scenes--the evils of altruism, of living for the sake of others. Those who say that the film lacked that implicit philosophical element must have slept through half the scenes.
I will write a longer review over the week-end.
-
I was initially very skeptical that the film would be good, based on the hasty shooting schedule and the fact that so many elements seemed to have been thrown together at the last minute.
Well, I just returned from the midnight showing of the film--the first showing in Los Angeles--and I am pleased to report that I was as wrong as I could be. The film is spectacular. Unbelievably good. Much more philosophical than superficial or purely political. And very respectful of the source material.
Kudos and humble apologies to everyone involved with this project. It may not be a perfect film adaptation, but it is a lot closer to perfection than I would have thought possible.
-
I had heard the tickets were going for $150 per person, but now I see that they were $250!
http://nycpremieratlasshruggedmovie.eventbrite.com/
I would love to be there. I hope someone took a videocamera to the reception and red carpet premiere. It's so rare to have a public Objectivist event of this importance. I imagine it would be like a dramatic party scene from the novel made real. Imagine going to a party and meeting the celluloid personages of Dagny, Francisco and Rearden.
It truly would be a once-in-a-lifetime event.
-
Roger Ebert's review:
Cliff's notes version: he pans it, criticizing more or less the same flaws that I thought this film would have, when I first heard it was being made. To his credit, though quite the liberal, he sticks to the artistic value of the movie and doesn't stray into criticizing its philosophy.
The good news is that the long wait is finally over and we can see it first hand for ourselves. This reviewer says this, that reviewer says that. Blah-blah-blah ad nauseum. I understand there is a fancy premiere in New York tonight. I will be attending tonight's midnight screening in Torrance, Ca. To heck with sleep. I have waited long enough.
-
I was initially impressed by some of Donald Trump’s views on war and foreign policy. He takes a pre-WW II perspective: to the victor go the spoils. He recently expressed these “radical” views on The O’Reilly Factor:
On Iraq, Trump said he would not leave if he were President now. Instead he said he would keep a U.S. presence there to prevent Iran from taking over the oil fields – which he said they will do “two minutes” after we pull our troops out of Iraq. He also said he would protect those oil fields and take some of the Iraqi Oil to pay the United States, Great Britain and other countries back that helped the Iraqis obtain their freedom from Saddam Hussein. That is what O’Reilly had said would make our heads snap back in his teaser of tonight’s interview segment.
On Libya, Donald Trump said the most amazing thing is that we have let France take the lead and not insisted on the Arab League paying for much of the operation. Trump said “it could happen” that the Rebels we are supporting turn out to be worse than Gadhafi.
On Iran, Trump said he would not allow Iran to obtain Nuclear Weapons. When asked how he would stop them, Trump said he would “do what I have to do” to stop them.
But is that enough to justify supporting him? Objectivist Jonathan Hoenig apparently doesn’t think so:
Trump professes to support free trade, yet proposes a 25% tax on imported goods from China to level what he sees as trade imbalances in the global economy. It's a contemptuous proposal which would immediately punish Americans by raising the price on virtually everything we buy.
He has also called for regulators to stop European stock operator Deutsche Börse's planned $9.5 billion buyout of the NYSE Euronext, telling Fox Business Network, "I don't want foreign countries owning the New York Stock Exchange." If he was the president, he added, he "wouldn't even have allowed the discussions to take place." In a capitalist country, shareholders make that kind of decision, not regulators . Trump sees a clear role for government picking winners and losers in the economy, just the same as the previous presidents he claims to critique.
On top of that, he has pushed for a one-time 14.25% tax on the rich as a means of supplementing funding for Social Security and Medicaid, along with universal health care . Philosophically, those positions are indistinguishable from the anti-capitalist political establishment now in power.
-
I cannot help but question whether someone who describes Atlas Shrugged--surely one of the most inspirational novels ever written--as "nightmarish" ever actually read the book.
-
Benevolence is a virtue only in a given context. It is not fundamentally positive or fundamentally negative.
Yes, context is important. I agree that we should not extend benevolence to those we know to be evil, malevolent or destructive. However, to presume that others are unworthy of benevolence would be equally unjust. We should give others the benefit of the doubt until we have reason to think otherwise.
Quoting David Kelley: ""It is the virtue of seeking opportunities for trade by treating others with the basic respect they deserve as potential sources of value.""
-
The first is an article by Nathaniel Branden in The Objectivist Newsletter from 1962 entitled "Benevolence Versus Altruism." The brief description of the article given here is the following: "Branden distinguishes between altruism and benevolence: 'Contrary to the pretensions of altruism's advocates, it is human brotherhood and good will among men that altruism makes impossible.'" I have not read the article myself; I wish it had been reprinted in something or posted online somewhere.
Bound volumes of The Objectivist Newsletter are available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore. Used copies are also available at a discount from Amazon.
-
Reason.com has written up a piece for the upcoming Atlas Shrugged movie. I believe a month or so ago one of their writers saw an early screening and gave it a lukewarm review much like Yaron Brook et al.
At any rate, the main reason I bring up this article is because it has a section on page 3 titled "All the Objectivists Are Going to Fucking Hate Me"
http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/08/atlas-shrugged-the-movie/2
The Reason essay on the Atlas Shrugged movie is written by Brian Doherty, Senior Editor and libertarian author of Radicals for Capitalism. He says he's been a fan of Ayn Rand since his late teens. Now that's interesting. Here's how he introduces the discussion of Ayn Rand in his book:
"The Russian-born novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was the most popular libertarian of all and simultaneously the most hated. As I libertarian, if you don't love her, you are apt to feel embarrassed by her, burdened by her omnipresence and the occasional fanaticism of her followers."(p. 11)
That was written by a fan of Ayn Rand? I never would have guessed. Here is how this “fan” describes Atlas Shrugged in his book:
"Rand and her fans think Atlas presents an inspirational vision. Rand's aesthetic philosophy says that art is meant to provide emotional fuel for man by showing him values made real, by providing him with the joy of living temporarily in a world where everything is as it should be. However, the novel is for most of its length literally nightmarish. It focuses more intensely on the terror of destruction and decay than it does on the glory of achievement and growth. While Rand clearly spoke in the name of peace, liberty, and achievement (though her ideological enemies have rarely granted her the respect of noticing that's what she explicitly stood for), the novel supplies plenty of ammunition to those who accuse it of being written in a spirit of hate." (p. 227)
With fans like this, Rand did not really need detractors. The article seems to drive home the point that the movie is a poor vehicle for the philosophy. That may well be true, but how the heck would Doherty know?
-
If I am not mistaken, he worked side by side with Ayn Rand on the We the Living revision (I read a very lengthy, I think 4-5 page article once by the director about specific parts within the movie and Ayn Rand's remarks throughout the entire creation process, which was very interesting). I cannot recall if this is this man or not but I am leaning towards that being the case. He has, apparently, made some other excellent documentaries/works before and he did state that the money would in part be for in-depth research purposes.
In addition to working directly with Ayn Rand on We, The Living, Duncan Scott is the prime mover behind The Objectivist History Project. Although I don't know that he has ever expounded on his own views, he is obviously very familiar with the philosophy of Objectivism, and his actions clearly indicate that one of his goals is to use his skill as a filmmaker to spread her ideas.
Producer's 2nd Thoughts on AS Part2
in Movies, Shows, and Theatre
Posted
Whatever their initial strategy was, it appears the producers have seen the light--but not soon enough to keep the film in theatres.
I got this e-mail message from the film's promoters yeterday:
The TV ad, which has appeared several times on FOX News, simply displays the title of the film with people talking about how much they like it in the background.
They also announced a promotional event featuring the appearance of the actor who played Dr. Stadler at a local showing of the movie:
And there was a decent ad in the movie section of the Los Angeles Times yesterday.
The bad news is that the film is no longer playing at the theatre where I saw it five times. And the ad for the other major Los Angeles theatre showing the film makes clear that this is the final week-end.
You can't help but wonder why the producers waited so long to promote their product. It is probably wasted money at this point. The time to do this was two weeks ago.