Mark Mason

**Mod Note: Merged Topic. Originally "My review of 'Atlas Shrugged: Part 1'" -Dante** Like most people that watched Atlas Shrugged at 11:30am on the Friday that it premiered, I am an obvious fan of Miss Rand's work. Virtually all reviews of the film have been not only incredibly negative (fine, that's a critic's job) but also presumed to analyze and judge Objectivism and associate it with all of its modern bastardizations (Libertarianism & the New Right to name two). One LA Times critic even went as far as name-checking Rush Limbaugh & Glenn Beck, two Christian Conservatives whom have never been (nor claimed to be) Objectivists. My goal is to review the film itself, drawing careful distinctions between what to expect as a neutral movie-goer and what to expect as an Ayn Rand enthusiast. First of all, let me be the first to point out: the aesthetics of the film are magnificent. Keep in mind, I am not a film- nor art- major. But I can tell you that I found just about every scene to be very pleasing to the eye. It was beauty at every turn, which I did not expect from a movie with such a low budget. Speaking of low budget, here’s what’s probably really bothering the critics: the acting is pretty difficult to swallow. Adapting the dialogue from Atlas Shrugged into film sounded like an impossible task. Essentially, it was. Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo & Juliet aside, it’s very challenging to engage an ordinary audience with dialogue that demands intense concentration. An Ayn Rand fan can forgive the stiff acting, though, knowing that the characters spawned from Rand’s mind could not adjust their behavior to a modern pop-culture-influenced sarcastic vulnerable disposition without betraying the essence of their characters. Alternately, someone with no opinion on Ayn Rand (and infinitely moreso someone who disagrees with Ayn Rand) might not be willing to suspend their disbelief at the acting. The story takes place five years from now in the United States, when Mideast turmoil paired with constant domestic oil spills raise the price of gasoline to $37/gallon. As a result, air flight becomes mostly obsolete. The new popular method of travel? Railroad trains. From a script standpoint, this is a clever way to make railroad travel relevant in modern settings while illustrating Ayn Rand’s belief that collectivism ultimately leads to regression in technology. The U.S. government has grown unrecognizably monstrous in size and in action, working to prevent any monopoly by any means necessary. The economy is collapsing, bringing about massive poverty. Beggars on the street aren’t necessarily alcoholics nor shell-shocked war veterans, but rather former Fortune 500 executives perplexed by the newfound lack of opportunity. The public is largely outraged by the poverty, blaming capitalism and demanding socialism. Where are the pro-capitalist protestors? I asked myself. The first answer that came to mind was that people tend to turn to government in times of great despair. Fair enough. And then I remembered an even more damning detail: this is a universe in which Ayn Rand’s work has never hit the shelves. Capitalism has not been clearly defined nor effectively advocated. Collectivism wins by default. Dagny Taggart, the film’s heroine, is not easy to defend to non-fans of the novel. I’ve never seen such a fierce businesswoman with the appearance and mannerisms of a suburban trophy wife. Also, she seems to give “bedroom eyes” to just about every man whom she respects. I thought to myself, boy is this character easy to dismiss and laugh at. But to a Rand fan, Dagny is the embodiment of romance: she is intelligent and strong, yet feminine and an avid worshipper of heroes. To paraphrase Ayn Rand, Dagny’s character is not meant to represent the way that things are, but rather the way they ought to be. The other characters in the film are similar to Dagny, in the sense that they appear ridiculous to the “untrained eye,” meaning, to the non-fans of Ayn Rand. But if one understands my analysis of Dagny’s philosophical make-up, then one can apply the same analysis to the other characters. Each character represents a philosophical standpoint, from the fearless Ellis Wyatt to the scheming Orren Boyle to the mindless government bureaucrat offering Hank Rearden a blank check in exchange for his invention. Everyone serves a purpose, once you stop expecting them to behave as real-life everyday folks. In conclusion, the film is incredibly bold. It drives to bring to life Ayn Rand’s novel at all costs, including ridicule. To people that reject Ayn Rand’s philosophy: do not watch this film just so you can laugh and point. You will quickly grow impatient and cynical. Besides, you’ll be financing the remainder of the Atlas Shrugged trilogy. Do you really want to spend $15 sarcastically? If you’re unfamiliar with, or neutral to Ayn Rand’s philosophy, watch this film with an open mind. It’s based on a novel that many people have held dear to their hearts (and minds). The producers of the film did not work with any major studios, and so no Weinsteins were involved with this project. It’s an independent and powerful film. Do not, under any circumstances, affiliate this pure unadulterated ode to capitalism with the likes of Sean Hannity, Michael Savage or any other alleged advocates of capitalism. Let this film stand on its own and speak for itself. To my fellow Ayn Rand enthusiasts: remember how long it took to read through the first third of Atlas Shrugged? It’s obviously not going to translate to an action-packed Vin Diesel flick. But it’s exciting nonetheless. Roger Ebert predicted that Ayn Rand’s fans would be very disappointed. Well, the crowd at the cinema where I viewed Atlas Shrugged burst into applause at the very end. But hey, that was the 11:30am crowd on the day of the movie’s release. For all I know, the 2pm crowd walked out of the film‘s screening to catch the second half of Scream 4.