web
counter
 

Atlas Shrugged: Part I Review: And Sisyphus Farted

By Brian Prisco | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (136)



atlasshruggedreview.jpg

What I’m about to tell you doesn’t matter. You’ve already made up your minds on what your thoughts are on the film and of Ayn Rand. Conservatives and Christians are so fucking paranoid as to their own personal worldviews that anyone disparaging a product in line with their own ideologies are trashing it solely because they harbor a bias. It can’t possibly be because the final product is actually inferior. You’re not interested in my dimestore second-hand interpretation of the Puritanical Gordon Gekko crackpot movement Ayn Rand hatched called Objectivism, but by virtue of her infusing her novel Atlas Shrugged with it I need to delve somewhat. I know going in, it’s a fruitless endeavor — like Emily Dickinson wrote, “Haters gonna hate.” But regardless of whether you feel that America is a welfare state bleeding the rich to slake the slavering laggard poor, or that no matter if it’s a jackass or an elephant it’s still kicking the faces of the little man in order to support big business, I think we can all agree on one simple beautiful thing: Atlas Shrugged: Part I is a terrible fucking movie.

I’d call it vanilla, but vanilla actually has a flavor. It tastes of beige. For a movie that has been almost forty fucking years in the making, that at one point allegedly had a cast of luminaries attached that would make any studio salivate, that’s based on a novel that seen a renaissance thanks to the backassward ramblings of the Teabaggers and the Fox News ilk, it’s remarkable how bad it actually is. It’s like the dramatization of an SAT math problem, or a first year economics final essay. Only that might actually imply there was drama. No, this film could have been performed by artist’s mannequins, with projections of actor headshots on them and still given the same wooden and emotionless performances. Which is not to disparage the actors — character actors like Michael Lerner, Jon Polito, and Graham Beckel — we’ve seen most of them in quality pictures and know they are capable of being passionate and hilarious. It’s an impressive feat for first time director Paul Johansson, himself an actor (he played Bolt in Soapdish), to force his cast to stifle anything resembling feelings like a new boyfriend with a Sunday morning pew fart. But most of the credit goes to Ayn Rand, who didn’t write characters so much as one-note ciphers there to represent the A’s and B’s of her political ramblings. Still, in the year where Inside Job snagged the Oscar, it takes massive planet-sized balls to release a film where the heroes are corporate giants who just want the nasty government to leave them alone so they can make money. Because as we’ve seen, deregulation has worked so beautifully. Unless you actually wanted to live in that home.

Oddly, Atlas Shrugged is science-fiction. It’s set in an alternative future — 2016 — where exorbitant gas prices and governments turning virtually communist have caused the economy to plummet into chaos. The only viable means of intercontinental transportation is now the railroad. One of the major lines is Taggart Transcontinental, run by James Taggart (Matthew Marsden), a preening fool who lets his Washington cronies manipulate things in order to make profit. Meanwhile, it’s his sister, Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling), who has the true vision. She wants to work hard, create a good product, and not let the cronies or the government scheme and plot. Her plan is to rework their major line and keep their biggest client by using a new alloy technology, Reardon Metal, designed by Henry Reardon (Grant Bowler). Reardon is a hardworking and supersuccessful businessman who stands by his product. He works hard, so hard he alienates his rich wife, and her socialite mother and her moocher hangers on who demand handouts. Hard working Henry works hard to make a good product, and Dagny respects that, so she’s excited to be in business and work hard working hard with hard working Henry. Did I mention he works hard? Because that’s kind of key to why we should respect him.

The brunt of the first part of Atlas Shrugged deals with the construction of the rail-line so that Dagny and Hank, working together (and hard), can succeed with their hardwork and superior products in getting fuel transported successfully. The rest of the characters spend their time scheming up moustache twisting ways in which to hinder the two hardworkers. Most of this comes at the hands of the government, who institutes vile McGuffin-like policies which are so atrociously metaphoric, it’s almost laughable. The general thrust is that all the government and unions want to do is force everyone to be on an equal playing field no matter what their abilities and prevent the hard workers from being able to work hard and therefore make more money than the lazy slackers who wouldn’t work as hard. Worse, they want to institute social programs for the destitute and give them the money the hard working wealthy earned. Even more sinister, they use the media and public opinion and falsehoods to damage the reputations of the hardworking.

It’s the basic argument “Why should I give up tax money so some lazy shiftless S.O.B. or B. can not work and suckle on the government’s teat, consarnit?!” Rand also believes in a “laissez-faire” approach to government and business regulation. Her theory is that the government shouldn’t stop people from making money. That social equalization and policy reform discourages the best and the brightest from being bright and earning as much as they could. This is done mostly in the form of John Galt (Paul Johansson), who lurks about like one part Lamont Cranston and one part Rorschach, popping up in the shadows in fedora and trenchcoat and causing the most brilliant minds to suddenly disappear. We know this mostly because we get Jack Bauer subtitles telling us the name of the brainiac and the date of their disappearance. Also, because everyone keeps asking “Who Is John Galt?” At pretty much every opportunity.

Are there people who mooch off welfare and take advantage of the systems put in place to help the less fortunate? Of course there are. But Objectivism is just the other half of the problem. Unchecked corporations would get to decide what merits fair pay or fair hires, or even what amounts to a decent employee. Are some going to do it right? You’re damn right. But there are many many more who won’t. I know this, because even with regulations in place, most corporate entities do everything in their power to stifle middle management while building golden parachutes for the upper echelons. I know many conservatives made to embrace Ayn Rand with the fervor of an Oprah Book Club. Which may have prompted them to assist in the housing market crash. Funny, there’s a whole plot point in there where somewhat sinister rich Mexican playboy Francisco D’Anconia (Jsu Garcia) essentially dupes his investors into investing a product that doesn’t exist and makes money off their finances on something that is essentially worthless. Guess they skimmed that part.

But honestly, I’m not an economist. I’m not a political scientist. There are plenty of people who can tell you why Ayn Rand is out of her fucking mind way more eloquently and expertly than I. And I know there are plenty of you Sith-like conservative ghouls lurking the taint of Pajiba, because I smelled you when I wrote the Soul Surfer review. I’m not equipped to debate the finer points of fucked-up social policy with you fine people.

What I am is a professional film critic. And this is a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad fucking movie. Even taking the fucking ridiculous Objectivism out of the plot, it’s just a bad story. It’s structured like a 1970’s training video for joining AVON. The characters are solely there to demonstrate tenets of Rand’s philosophy. Dagny Taggart is not a strong female character, she’s barely a character at all. Sure, she works hard, and against men who would try to supplicate her, but she’s also slept with or plans to sleep with every major male character who’s powerful and hardworking. I’d imagine she comes off as stronger in the novel, but in this film, she’s like the vagina-ed equivalent of Don Draper. But the film manages to fuck up everyone else too in smack you in the face obvious ways.

When Reardon comes home from another late night at the office, he finds his wife entertaining guests. He gives her a bracelet made from the first pressing of Reardon Metal. She scowls at it like he laid a fresh turd on the table. The guests then scold him for not giving her diamonds and for being tacky. One guest in particular chases him into his study to tell him how garish the gift is. Then in the next breath, he demands money for a social organization so that he can more or less give money to people who don’t want to work. When Reardon agrees, he insists on the donation being wired, so they don’t have to be associated with his name. It’s appropriate that this film was released near Easter, because if you’re going to cram that much hamfist down an audiences throat, you want to at least be culinarily seasonal. Give it to L. Ron Hubbard, at least when he was cramming his wacky pseudo-religion down people’s throats in literary form, he had the common decency to include gunfights. The climactic moment in Atlas Shrugged: Part I comes with a CGI train shooting down sparkling steel tracks cut in the glorious American landscape vistas. Overcome with victory, the two leads hug. Nobody puts Dagny in the corner.

To make way for the proposed trilogy, Atlas Shrugged: Part I comes crashing to an abrupt halt at just shy of two hours. Being made so cheaply, for almost $15 million with absolutely zero advertising — unless Glenn Beck was planning on doing a tie-in — I don’t know if they’ll still bother with the follow-ups. But the pacing was glacial, humping from dry tenet demonstration to fiercely bland scenes where every is cast in a Kansas-bleak pall and the characters spend most of their time staring off into the lens of the camera and speaking over their shoulder. It’s almost like Paul Johansson did a literal translation to the screen, because it felt like I was staring at black and white prose scrolling by for two hours rather than an actually entertaining and interesting imagery. But as I said, I know very little of Rand, and from what I gathered from the production, I’m not missing much.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Pajiba Power Rankings: The Toothy Girl from Mystic Pizza Edition | Ceremony Review: There Are Better Wes Anderson Knock-Offs on Manhattan Street Corners









Comments

Sisyphus farted again? Damnit! That dude can knock a buzzard off a shitwagon.

Posted by: Kballs at April 18, 2011 2:54 PM

And, to add to the irony of my previous comment, which may or may not get censored, this site always "questions my comments". I assume b/c I have an opposing viewpoint I've been put on a list. Yet I don't call names or use curse words. But again, it is the right who can't handle opposing viewpoints.

Posted by: kerminy at April 18, 2011 3:01 PM

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-y­ear old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievab­le heroes, leading to an emotionall­y stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

... Because this needs to be quoted every time Rand's idiocy is even mentioned.

Posted by: Byrd at April 18, 2011 3:04 PM

So, was this a movie review or a poltical rant. did you go in with pre-conceived notions that were offended by the movie? And yet you don't beleive that affects your opinion of the movie?

You probably think Bill Mahar is funny b/c he says thinks like "bush is dumb" and other clever jokes. Or you still believe that John Stewart is hillarious or that Keith Olberman is "honest" and "objective".

It all depends on whose ox you gore. You seem pretty upset with the content of the movie - failed to see much of a movie review in your poltiical rant up there.

Posted by: kerminy at April 18, 2011 3:05 PM

I'm confused.

Work hard = good?
Yes?
Yes!
Phew!

Catastrophe averted.

Posted by: Scully at April 18, 2011 3:07 PM

the heroes are corporate giants who just want the nasty government to leave them alone so they can make money.

Ah, so basically they're like the industrial tycoons and robber-barons from the Industrial Age/turn of the 20th Century.

Posted by: Fredo at April 18, 2011 3:13 PM

Well, first of all, conservative =/= objectivist. There's your first error. But you're right. I saw it this weekend, I liked it, and you won't change my mind. I expected it to get trashed here, and I wasn't disappointed. But that's the virtue of capitalism: you vote with your wallet, and if you don't want to see something, don't see it.

But as you said, you're not going to change the mind of people who want to see it or who did like it. But by all means, please feel free to trash their taste.

I've yet to see anyone explain exactly WHY they hate Ayn Rand so much; the meme itself seems to be sufficient.

Posted by: Noelegy at April 18, 2011 3:14 PM

And yeah, if you go in to the movie hating Ayn Rand, you're going to hate the movie. Seriously, don't know why anyone who was already prejudiced against her writing would even see the movie.

Posted by: Noelegy at April 18, 2011 3:16 PM

Actually, kerminy I think Jon Stewart is hill AND dale-arious.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 3:17 PM

I hate Ayn Rand because she couldn't write. She produced lengthy books with no plot and no character development in the most leaden language possible. Embrace her "philosophy" if you must but don't try to defend her as an author.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 18, 2011 3:23 PM

I remembered when I tried to read Atlas Shrugged, prompted by its reputation among the indie/lit set. You know, like it's one of those books I should be able to discuss. Promptly spurned it when I realized it's about a bunch of businessmen & their struggle to hoard money.

Posted by: the new transported man at April 18, 2011 3:24 PM

Okay, I'm a conservative, and I don't like Ayn Rand. At all. And I think you're a bit off-base calling Ayn Rand "Puritanical." One of the most fundamental tenets of objectivism was Ayn Rand's anti-religious sentiment. To borrow from a videogame (which did a good job on objectivism, in my mind), her philosophy is basically, "No Gods, No Kings, Only Men." Which is all well and good until you realize that some measure of social safety net must exist, and that people must act charitably towards each other. I'm a conservative, so I'm on board with the idea of ridding ourselves of coerced charity, but that's only because I believe charitable people will fill the gaps (to quote a song I despise, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one).

Anyway, I have no interest in seeing this movie, because you're right. Atlas Shrugged was not so much a novel as a fictionalized universe in which Rand was free to put her words into the characters mouths. And I don't think that's likely to a good movie make.

I think the people who love Rand tend to generally fall into two camps, people who haven't read enough of Rand to understand what she's truly saying, and young, idealistic conservatives who want to believe in her faux-Nietzschean utopia where the strong hard-working people prosper, and the parasites go away (or something). But yeah, this sounds like a terrible movie, and I'm not going to watch it.

Posted by: jmag at April 18, 2011 3:25 PM

I opened this article and my eyes immediately located the word Teabagger.

I'm not even going to read this review. The malice liberals have towards anyone who doesn't think like them is unreal.

Posted by: Allen at April 18, 2011 3:25 PM

I'd just like to say a heartfelt thank you, Prisco, for watching this film so that we don't have to.

I think John Scalzi said it best: Objectivism is the spongy white bread at the buffet of human ideas.

In fact, I think I'll link his review of the book. It's surprisingly even-handed while still being somewhat scathing.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/10/01/what-i-think-about-atlas-shrugged/

Posted by: Wintermute at April 18, 2011 3:25 PM

"...And Sisyphus Farted"

Aaaaand I'm done for the day. I nearly ruined my laptop with a huge spray of mango smoothie, and Pajiba was about to get the bill.

Now I shall read the review.

Posted by: Rest In Peace at April 18, 2011 3:26 PM

I've yet to see anyone explain exactly WHY they hate Ayn Rand so much

I think it's because it's very simplistic and narrow-minded. It paints a worldview where the people are divided between those who generate and those who take away from the generators, with no room for the complexities that real life has revealed.

Posted by: Fredo at April 18, 2011 3:29 PM

failed to see much of a movie review in your poltiical rant up there.

Posted by: kerminy at April 18, 2011 3:05 PM

I fail to see where you actually read the review. He clearly states, multiple times, that regardless of his political views, it's simply a bad movie.

Posted by: Paultera at April 18, 2011 3:30 PM

I am neither Christian nor Conservative, but I may be an Objectivist sympathizer. I haven't read the book, nor do I wish to watch the movie.

Perhaps - just perhaps - there is something folks can learn from the ideas, however, if they have a truly open mind.

I've worked my entire career at nonprofits focused on social justice. It still pisses me the fuck off when my lazy ass cubemate gets the same raise I do for doing half the work I do. And it makes me even angrier when, at the end of the year, she gets a tax refund and I've got to pay MORE taxes.

But what makes me ever more mad is when people stand on a soapbox and think their verbal support of government programs is their good duty to their communities while they ignore their actual responsibility to their neighbors. If my neighbor is in need, it is MY duty to make sure they are warm and safe and well fed. My personal duty, and not by paying taxes.

Government programs are very important to people in need. No doubt. But (and I'm speaking from experience here) they are really shit at actually taking care of people. They care more about paperwork and bureaucracies than actual people.

Maybe, if we take a moment to envision a world where things are a little different, we can find some solutions. You say you know very little of Rand, but you are very willing to call her "out of her fucking mind." Is there any chance you are trashing her ideas solely because you harbor a bias?

Posted by: SBrown at April 18, 2011 3:31 PM

The malice liberals have towards anyone who doesn't think like them is unreal.

And so unlike the conservatives, who embrace all walks of life.

Posted by: Todd at April 18, 2011 3:32 PM

::Looks up from writing must talk the whole time, preferably in verse beside #4 to notice the flame war has begun on different thread than originally anticipated::

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 3:32 PM

I dunno, it seems like you are living your own criticism, as he clearly stated exactly why the movie sucked. And no not because Ayn's story sucked, which it does, but because "I’d call it vanilla, but vanilla actually has a flavor", "It’s structured like a 1970’s training video for joining AVON", "The characters are solely there to demonstrate tenets of Rand’s philosophy", "pacing was glacial", "fiercely bland scenes", etc., etc..

You're own bias' apparently caused you to overlook the actual review part of the review because they didn't fit in with YOUR political views.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 18, 2011 3:34 PM

I can see we're all in for a fabulous evening's apocalypse.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 3:34 PM

Actually, kerminy, this seemed very much like a review of a not very good movie. Politics will enter into it, of course, but it's the fact that it appears to be delivered with the subtley of a horny Rhino that is at issue. Personally I feel the same way about Bill Maher's delivery.
It's not the what as much as the how.

Posted by: Odnon. at April 18, 2011 3:37 PM

Seriously, don't know why anyone who was already prejudiced against her writing would even see the movie.

I think I found it.
"What I am is a professional film critic." -Brian Prisco

Seriously, he says right off the top you shouldn't really care what he thinks about politics, but the movie is so steeped in Objectivist philosophy that it's impossible to review without including your opinions on that philosophy. It'd be like reviewing a romantic movie, but not commenting on what you thought of the central relationship. It's the heart of the GD story.

The real question is why someone would come on this site and expect to see anything different? kerminy and Noelegy, I assume you must have found this site via a Google search, because this place is pretty much a giant amoral liberal orgy.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at April 18, 2011 3:37 PM

/ hands popcorn to Mrs. Julien

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at April 18, 2011 3:37 PM

"Embrace her "philosophy" if you must but don't try to defend her as an author."

Precisely.

I don't agree with objectivism. From what I read of Ayn Rand, I'm convinced that she was a deeply troubled and sad person who was in desperate need of a good therapist. But I can judge her book (I read The Fountainhead and couldn't bring myself to read any more) on literary standards alone. And the bottom line is that her writing is just awful. Barely any plot. Unbelievable characters. The chunkiest exposition I've ever read. Her books should be placed in the philosophy section of the bookstore, they do not belong in the fiction department.

No wonder the movie is terrible.

Posted by: Scully at April 18, 2011 3:38 PM

Sbrown, I'd postulate that the social welfare system works very similar to the upper echelons of our capitalistic system: they both engender a mistrust of doing the right things and a sense that corruption is the only way to succeed and therefore is to be emulated.

In any case, didn't the economic collapse of the last 3 years kind of punch a gigantic hole in Rand's theories? The hard workers and manufacturers and people who busted their asses to succeed got the short end of the stick while the corporations were the ones who got to suckle at the teat of government aid.

Posted by: Fredo at April 18, 2011 3:41 PM

What I’m about to tell you doesn’t matter. You’ve already made up your minds on what your thoughts are on the film and of Ayn Rand. Conservatives and Christians are so fucking paranoid as to their own personal worldviews that anyone disparaging a product in line with their own ideologies are trashing it solely because they harbor a bias. It can’t possibly be because the final product is actually inferior.

Did I miss something? Is anyone giving this film a good review? It seems to me that it was a cheap hack job after years of development hell rushed out the door before film rights expired and needed to be re-negotiated. The source material is weak and borderline unfilmable and the finished product seems to fail to meet even the most generous lowered expectations of the most sympathetic viewers or critics. It is objectively terrible, if you will.

I'm a little disappointed, Prisco, after I was actually looking forward to you being given the opportunity to tear this pitifully feeble film a new one you spend more than half your time hung up on Rand and other externalities. A critique of Objectivism is fine by me, I just think it is a topic for a different column (like this one, for example http://www.bnet.com/blog/salesmachine/top-10-reasons-ayn-rand-was-dead-wrong/11984).

And didn't we just devote significant column space to taking down the Slate and NYT advance reviews of Game of Thrones for confusing these kinds of ad hominem attacks of source material/ subject matter for the actual work of criticism which should be focused on the text or film itself.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 18, 2011 3:41 PM

Is Atlas Shrugged the one about awesome people being awesome?

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 3:45 PM

@Noelegy-

You're certainly as freely welcome to your opinion as Prisco is to his. But is it really worth it to get mad that somebody disagrees with you on the internet?

And one more thing: this is really just an opinion (as is everything else on this site), but it seems to me that there is a difference between being "prejudiced against her writing" and arriving at the conclusion that you disagree with her philosophy after a careful examination.

For my last word on this subject, I leave you with Andrew Sullivan, Ayn Rand, and Jesus Christ: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/04/ayn-rand-vs-jesus-christ.html

Posted by: StoatCat at April 18, 2011 3:46 PM

Hey Tracer, Yossarian just used latin. It is ON!

Vanitas, vanitatum, omnia vanitas.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 3:47 PM

"...Giant Amoral Liberal Orgy"

-Dibs on Band Name!

"...And Sisyphus Farted"

-Dibs on the first album's name!

"...Fabulous Evening's Apocalypse"

-And dibs on the first track's title!

Posted by: bleujayone at April 18, 2011 3:48 PM

*unbuttons pants*

I brought margaritas!

Posted by: Kballs at April 18, 2011 3:51 PM

IamtoodignifiedtolaughatKballsjoke.IamtoodignifiedtolaughatKballsjoke.IamtoodignifiedtolaughatKballsjoke.IamtoodignifiedtolaughatKballsjoke.IamtoodignifiedtolaughatKballsjoke.IamtoodignifiedtolaughatKballsjoke.IamtoodignifiedtolaughatKballsjoke.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 3:54 PM

If the world were left to conservatives & objectivists, it'd be parceled, pillaged, & polluted into apocalypse. No thanks. Government, even big government is necessary. Deal with it dawg.

Posted by: the new transported man at April 18, 2011 3:56 PM

"My personal duty, and not by paying taxes."

I'm sorry, but I believe that's the complete opposite of what being a US citizen means. Yes, we should help each other, as you state, but the whole reason for having government is so that no one is alone. I love how FOX fans and tea-baggers scream about how we stick together when other countries attack us verbally or physically, how "you can't keep us down", that whole, mess with us and we pull together because we're so awesome while at the same time crapping on the social network that is there to keep us alive and helping each other. We shout proudly to the world that we take care of our own yet work feverishly against helping those who need help by delineating who we feel deserves help and who doesn't.

I had a co-worker who argued the trite, and frankly cowardly and oh yes, bullshit welfare mom argument. "I don't work hard so some fat, black woman can have 50 kids and suck me dry". It's as common a lie as "dey dookare jawbs!!1!"

That safety net is there for you, I said. He replied that he had a job and insurance and didn't need any help. My reply to that is this: we are all of us one instance away from disaster. One catastrophic illness away from homelessness, destitution or death and that safety net is for all of us, regardless of how many welfare moms abuse the system.

I have insurance. I have a job. I have also been diagnosed with cancer. Two weeks ago today. My insurance for out-patient care is already gone, my allowance for in-patient care will be used up in the first five minutes of surgery. The hospital turned me away when I couldn't whip out $980.00 for my biopsy. And yes, before you start saying they wouldn't and blah blah, yes, my doctor, with the hospital staff present, told me that unless I had the cash right then, I'd have to reschedule until I did.

So no, it is not my neighbor's responsibility to help me. I don't pay my neighbor shit for taxes. It is our government "of the people, for the people" that is supposed to help me. Or are we really going further down the road where the only people permitted to survive are the ones who can afford to?

So yes, I get mad when people use bullshit excuses to explain why they're heartless mean bastards.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 18, 2011 3:57 PM

Ok, and to briefly address the big inevitable political brouhaha that is breaking out...

I have no interest in getting involved or playing devils advocate, but no matter how much time you waste earnestly pleading your cases and attacking your strawmen, this is all you need to know and we can assume that most reasonable people know it:

Ayn Rand is not a very good writer. Her books are not very good books. In my opinion, they grow subsequently worse chronologically as she crawls further and further up her own ass, but that's more a personal opinion.

There are some interesting ideas in the "philosophy" of Objectivism, or laissez-faire capitalism if you would rather call it that (as I would). If you completely dismiss everything associated with Rand's ideology you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As someone above was trying to say, these ideas are at least worth considering (that poor soul is inevitably going to be ground into meat, I'm afraid).

However, the problem with Rand and the hard-core supporters of the ideology that she has become a figurehead for (and honestly, many better thinkers explain it much better than she does) is that if you take it to the extreme like Rand does, it falls apart. You can no more expect a society to function under Pure Objectivism than you can under pure Marxism, anarchy, or anything else. It's a utopian ideal and a deeply flawed one.

So as you consider tossing your petard into this meaningless discussion, arguing past each other, discussing hypothetical and simplistic worldviews, consider the pointlessness of it and appreciate how infinitely complex we are as a people, and know that nothing you can say in the Pajiba comments will come close to encompassing that complexity.

And it's not even a worthwhile review to have a serious discussion under.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 18, 2011 4:04 PM

Actual flames : Bucket of Water :: Internet flaming : Protoguy's post.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at April 18, 2011 4:10 PM

So, here's an honest question... Rand's work / philosophy is described as Objectivism, whereas the Tea Party seems to largely be a Libertarian movement (as long as you stick to the Tea Party members who actually talk economics and such, and not the Obama-is-a-Kenyan-born-Islamosocialist ones.)

So, are Objectivism and Libertarianism the same thing, are they similar, did one give rise to the other...? I'm just trying to figure out if there's a real connection there, or just an unfirtunate exaggeration of extreme that seems to be the prerequisite for being considered a viable political movement in this country these days.

Posted by: Markus at April 18, 2011 4:10 PM

Well fucking said Protoguy and I'm very sorry to hear of that news. I hope everything turns out ok.

Posted by: Paultera at April 18, 2011 4:11 PM

Not sure what part of my post you consider flaming, but whatever.

Thank you Paultera.

I am fortunate that I do have great friends and a supportive family. My parents flew out to help and the only reason I had the surgical biopsy is because my mother whipped out her credit card. One of my friends have started a fundraiser for me and another is beginning one. No amount of fundraising will cover a tenth of the costs. I'm lucky I suppose. Some people do not have family they can rely on. That being said, my parents are retired. Is it right that they're retired will be destroyed because some people want to remove the safety nets because some abuse it?

Posted by: Protoguy at April 18, 2011 4:18 PM

*retirement* that is

Posted by: Protoguy at April 18, 2011 4:20 PM

Sorry Socrates, I didn't get what you meant at first. Thanks :)

Posted by: Protoguy at April 18, 2011 4:21 PM

all I see/hear when the the words "Ayn Rand" and "Atlas Shrugged" come up is the teacher from the Peanuts.

Same goes for all the political vitriol in these comments. But I have to know:
Do those of you making these long speeches really care what other people here think about your political views or do you just desperately need to shout at someone about something?

Kballs were you making margaritas? I could sure use one.

Posted by: JuiceinLA at April 18, 2011 4:21 PM

Protoguy:

You need to contact the Patient Advocate Foundation (patientadvocate.org) right now. They will help you through the bullshit of doctor and insurance denials and they also can help you with co-pays when you start on medication. They have a team of lawyers and accountants and policy people whose sole purpose is to go to bat for cancer patients when the payment issues pop up.

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 18, 2011 4:23 PM

And if we can just shout at someone about something Juice in LA, I have some notes...

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 4:24 PM

PaddyDog is such a class act.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 4:26 PM

I have to chastise myself now for taking so long to realize where the awesome people being awesome line came from Mrs. J.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at April 18, 2011 4:26 PM

@Markus

Honestly, the best place to go for a quick summary would be the Wikipedia page for each. They are very similar. Libertarianism is more of a political ideology, Objectivism is dressed up as a natural philosophy. They support the same value system.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 18, 2011 4:28 PM

Fredo - In any case, didn't the economic collapse of the last 3 years kind of punch a gigantic hole in Rand's theories? The hard workers and manufacturers and people who busted their asses to succeed got the short end of the stick while the corporations were the ones who got to suckle at the teat of government aid.

I think thoughtful folks who also read Rand would say that we have too much government intervention in business right now to make conclusions of her theories based on our current system, especially when we're saving the assholes at the expense of individual citizens (taking my tax money and giving it assholes on Wall Street). It is my understanding that Rand's world would be free of government subsidies to corporations as well - the laissez-faire part.

While there are a lot of people who take things way too seriously (such as Rand...or the Bible...or Star Trek), I think the most useful lessons come from listening *truly* openly and considering the idea from the other person's perspective. Rand, and the Bible, and Star Trek are perhaps not meant to be taken literally (though I know tons of people try), but to give us a new option for thinking. I think you have to be really open to an idea before you can actually dismiss it.

Posted by: SBrown at April 18, 2011 4:29 PM

I've yet to see anyone explain exactly WHY they hate Ayn Rand so much

I'll tell you exactly WHY I hate Ayn Rand:

She was the WORST kind of hypocrite. She wrote these political screeds about how government should not provide any sort of social safety net for citizens, then took Medicare and Social Security.

To me, any and every argument she's made is invalidated by that fact.

There, I just told you why *I* hate Ayn Rand.

Posted by: MM at April 18, 2011 4:31 PM

Ayn Rand movies! Yes! Because chunks of pedantic dialog that could choke a porn star horse are GREAT in a visual medium.

Seriously though Paddydog wins for helping someone rather than just being a wisecracking asshole. As a wisecracking asshole, I encourage others to be decent human beings so I don't have to. Which I believe makes me an Objectivist.

Posted by: mrcreosote at April 18, 2011 4:32 PM

Mrs. Julien, it feels like we all might need to- I'd keep those notes handy.

I still want a margarita first though.

Posted by: JuiceinLA at April 18, 2011 4:39 PM

Nice, mrcreosote

Posted by: Yossarian at April 18, 2011 4:40 PM

@Yossarian: Thanks!

Posted by: Markus at April 18, 2011 4:41 PM

Juice in LA Avoid the rim.

::shooting star:: The more you know.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 4:50 PM

I had a copy of an Ayn Rand book once. A friend gave it to me. Both of them ended up in the bin.

Anyway, the film:

HAH!

Schadenfreude? You betcha!

Posted by: zeke the pig at April 18, 2011 4:51 PM

Tried and failed to read this in college. That was one long-ass speech. Ever hear of brevity or editing, Mr. Galt?

I was kind of hoping that this would at least be fun to look at: Armani-clad men with scythe-like cheekbones and excellent backside views. Alas, it looks as thought they failed at that as well.

Posted by: klingonfree at April 18, 2011 4:52 PM

Indeed, thank you Paddy Dog.

Sorry to kinda derail things. I have tried to read Rand on a number of occasions, both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, and honestly, I couldn't get far enough in to even realize what her political views are. And I've voluntarily read Moby Dick.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 18, 2011 4:58 PM

Well, regardless of our political leanings, I think we can all agree on one thing... How much splicers suck.
Goddamn splicers...

Posted by: Blake Shrapnel at April 18, 2011 4:59 PM

Reminds me of a giant Suburban I saw the other day, it's ass-end plastered with anti-Obama and anti-Socialism stickers, and on it's rear-view mirror a handicap parking placard.

Posted by: IneptFake at April 18, 2011 5:05 PM

@Blake Shrapnel - Would you kindly leave the splicers out of this? :)

Posted by: Markus at April 18, 2011 5:05 PM

There are some interesting ideas in the "philosophy" of Objectivism, or laissez-faire capitalism if you would rather call it that (as I would).
Posted by: Yossarian at April 18, 2011 4:04 PM



Actually, Yassarian, Objectivism and Laissez-faire are not the same thing. There's some cross-over, but they're not the same. They do share the common trait of being failed ideas, though.


And what is with everyone when we get a political post and people post their political thoughts? People start crying about how they can't stand it, and they'll come back when it's over or some variant of that. Yossairian continues:


as you consider tossing your petard into this meaningless discussion, arguing past each other, discussing hypothetical and simplistic worldviews, consider the pointlessness of it

Isn't that also true of every article and every post? Why do you get so upset by comments that have a political side to them?

Posted by: John G. at April 18, 2011 5:06 PM

Also,

Even if Prisco won't lay claim to it, I do understand Ayn Rand. I took an entire class just devoted to her at my University. I've read all her books. I've read biographies of her as well. She was a nut-job, who came from Soviet Russia with a mystic idea of what America represented, she took this cartoonish idea that wasn't based in reality, and she entertained several rich business men in the 1960's who didn't have much in the way of liberal arts education, so they were easily duped by her simplistic ideas. Not to mention, her ideas made them out to be the heroes of the world at a time when America was at peak power. They formed secret societies, drank a lot and talked about how great they were. They called everyone who wasn't them "parasites" and had a grand old time. And it wouldn't have been more than a tiny footnote in history, except for the unfortunate fact that Donald Rumsfeld and Alan Greenspan were part of the silly little club, and they went on to positions of power, ironically in the very government they supposedly despised.

Posted by: John G. at April 18, 2011 5:15 PM

Nice try, "John G", with your transparent Ayn Rand- inspired nickname. I'm on to you, buddy. Take it on down the street.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 18, 2011 5:20 PM

I knew this was going to be a flaming pile of fecal matter.

Why? Because I read The Fountainhead many years ago.

Posted by: The Wanderer at April 18, 2011 5:25 PM

Oh, and your juvenile pun on my name (also a literary homage, except to a book that doesn't suck) did not go unnoticed. You, sir, are the ass. Why if there weren't popcorn munching, margarita swilling ladies present I would have half a mind to engage you in fisticuffs.

Posted by: Yossarian at April 18, 2011 5:27 PM

Why does Yossarian make it sound as if "popcorn munching" is a form of sexual deviance?

Posted by: PaddyDog at April 18, 2011 5:33 PM

I warned ye. I'm like the crazy old guy at the outskirts of a New England town in a H.P. Lovecraft story and y'all didn't believe me about the strangeness your actions would bring. But no. You insisted on entering and now you're descending into madness. I can't save you from drowning in the abyss. I can only hope to warn others away from taking the bait and falling into the mouth of madness.

Posted by: Robert at April 18, 2011 5:37 PM

i read this book in college. what a piece of shit. everything about it was shit. the plot was shit. the characters were shit. the themes were shit. it was a shitstorm of shit. just shit.

Posted by: splinter at April 18, 2011 5:42 PM

Any popcorn left? I like this place.

For the record I did read the review, and, yes, it qualifies as a "review." Only a few paragraphs somewhat go outside the lines and delve into Mr. Prisco's views on Objectivism, but - with such a known contention at the center of this film and its author's source material - doesn't it make sense to address that issue somewhat? Film is not just about what happens on the screen; it's how it interacts with each of us personally. I think it's clearly stated here which parts of the review fall into which category.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at April 18, 2011 5:45 PM

Ok, challenge accepted, re: why I don't like Rand. Her writing is terrrrrrrrrrible. Just awful. To this day, I don't know how she got published mutiple times.

I'm an English teacher, and I've noticed her books are almost never studied in American high schools (as a class; there are certainly those crazy souls who take on reading her stuff independently). Want to know why? Her writing is terrible.

Once a well-meaning 10th grade teacher in my district suggested the kids read some Rand. That we should teach one of her books as a district. Fifty-four other high school English teachers, of ALL kinds of political leanings, turned to her and said variations of "Good God, WHY?"

So I'm not surprised at all to hear the film version of such a horribly-written book is, well, horrible. I'd be surprised if it weren't.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at April 18, 2011 5:46 PM

Hey, I am just here for the amoral liberal orgy. Quit confusing me with all this intellectual stuff.

Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at April 18, 2011 5:49 PM

is no one going to mention that that ayn rand was a pretty hot dude?

Posted by: gp at April 18, 2011 5:51 PM

Well Snuggiepants, who says you can't publish a turd?

Posted by: Odnon at April 18, 2011 5:51 PM

Well Snuggiepants, who says you can't publish a turd?

Hopefully, you at least polish it a little before you publish it.

Posted by: MM at April 18, 2011 6:10 PM

OT- Protoguy, sorry to hear about your diagnosis.

Posted by: TWoP_Fan at April 18, 2011 6:15 PM

"Atlas Shrugged" is perhaps the most boring book written in the history of mankind.

By comparison the Old Testament (NOT the New One) is a real roller coaster--endless sex and violence to be had there.

Posted by: NeoCleo at April 18, 2011 6:17 PM

I actually have a special place in my heart for Atlas Shrugged. I am pretty much as liberal/left-wing a person as you will find anywhere, but I still was able to appreciate some of the points Rand made in her writing. Yes, a lot of things get over-simplified, and could no longer really apply in the modern world, but for a woman coming from communist Russia, she held a lot of hope for an America that would foster the abilities of individuals. You have to think about where she was coming from, the time she was writing, and all that jazz. And Prisco, I always love your reviews, but when one of your main issues with the movie is Ayn Rand's book, but you allude to the fact that you've never actually read it (you said something about imagining that Dagny might come off as stronger in the novel), there's a bit of an issue there. I think the source material could actually have made for a great movie - Its faults probably mostly lie elsewhere. Anyway. I was excited for this movie back in the days when it was rumored that Angelina Jolie and some other big players were attached to it. But when I saw the trailer for this, I knew it was going to be doodoo... and would only further the bitching about Atlas Shrugged coming from people who I usually agree with on everything else.

Posted by: b at April 18, 2011 6:19 PM

Rand's shrill screeds infected the minds of several friends when we were young. It was an odd time for same, as the Summer of Love had just taken place and most of us were busy putting flowers in our hair and channeling the liberal philosophies espoused by New Deal/Great Society/Equal Rights Act liberal Democrats into our heads, hearts and souls.
To humor a young lady that I was aching to kiss, I accepted her demand that I read "Atlas Shrugged" and discuss it with her. After slogging through it - my GOD, what a horribly written novel - and telling her that it was the most turgid piece of misguided pseudo-philosophy I had ever endured, she invited me to leave and never return. No huge loss, really. Anyone who could find anything good in Rand's writing wasn't a person with whom I would associate.
It astounds me that so very many of my contemporaries did, in fact, allow their very souls to be corrupted by this swill and yet the evidence is clear by looking at the current crop of politicians (and their progeny) who are polluting our government.
Mr. Prisco's review was apolitical. He made comments on both the novel and the film (which, admit it, almost none of you have seen) and criticized based on the fact that both are pretty much awful.
I am ashamed that thin-skinned political extremists of all stripes have seen fit to come here and spew their ignorance across the comment sections.
A final point: Many Americans settle for being poor because they still labor under the pretense that, with hard work they, too, can become rich and that's why they never criticize our burgeoning plutocracy. They genuinely believe the long-gutted promise of "The American Dream", that they too can become a Taggart or a Reardon. The best example of
this misguided thinking can be found in the Tea Party regulars - not the corporate overlords who feed them propaganda the way corporate farms overfeed cattle - but the average Joe and Jane who watch their circumstances spiral downward while the Objectivists on Wall Street prepares them for slaughter.
That is all.

Posted by: Spender at April 18, 2011 6:29 PM

I don't have a dog in this fight. Ironically, I have no part in the flame war. See what I did there? FLAME, get it? It's funny. Meditate on it and get back to me.

Mrs. Julien, use a coaster. That's teak.

And yossarian, remember how we fought? I'm sorry. Accept this tastefully arranged basket of seasonal flora as my apology.

Posted by: The Gay at April 18, 2011 6:34 PM

"Well Snuggiepants, who says you can't publish a turd?" - Odnon

Not Mythbusters. In Episode 113, Adam and Jamie proved in November 2008 you could:

http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbusters-polishing-a-turd.html

So what's Rand's excuse?

Posted by: Mad Jack Deacon at April 18, 2011 6:35 PM

"John G" is a memento reference isn't it?

Posted by: idleprimate at April 18, 2011 6:44 PM

Is there any full frontal male nudity? It might be worth seeing for that. Otherwise, no. I couldn't even make it through the wikipedia description of the book.

Posted by: snapnhiss at April 18, 2011 7:02 PM

Lenny!

Moustache.

Grin.

Posted by: zeke the pig at April 18, 2011 7:06 PM

@ idleprimate

Probably. Or it's a real name. I was just being a smartass.


@ The Gay

Accepted and reciprocated (it was hardly a fight, more a mild misunderstanding), although dabbling in floral arrangements is not the way to shake that nancy image. (sorry, being a smartass again)

Posted by: Yossarian at April 18, 2011 7:10 PM

"I know little of Ayn Rand, but allow me to destroy her, her work and anyone who appreciates it. Of course, if you disagree, you are a paranoid Christian conservative with an agenda, possibly even Glenn Beck."

Posted by: agent M at April 18, 2011 7:22 PM

Gorram lib'ruls.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at April 18, 2011 7:28 PM

Teak?! Pajiba is so classy!

I think it's best then that Tracer stop wiping his hands on Kballs, and Kballs should put his pants back on.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at April 18, 2011 7:36 PM

I've seen this movie. In fact, I went to see it on opening night, because... Yes. I liked the book. I don't agree with all of the philosophy, but there were parts of this movie that made me want to cheer out loud.

And then I realized that I'm one of those people who can't disassociate a great book from a bad or "it could have been better" movie. Case in point: I liked the movie "The Golden Compass" because I loved the book, the characters, the plot, all of it. I loved everything about that horrible, wretched excuse for an adaptation of one of my favorite books.

Philosophy aside, I actually enjoyed the plot of Atlas Shrugged. She may not be a great writer, but I think because of personal struggles, I gave her characters strong ambition and qualities that I enjoyed. I gave that story life in my head, and I agreed with large swathes of the philosophy because I agree with the idea, if not with the extreme.

And when watching the movie, I found myself enjoying those little bits of the movie that I had created or infused in the book. I could overlook the fact that the main character was being played by a woman who looks like she found one "face" a few years ago, and hasn't been able to take it off since. I could overlook the fact that the fabled train was a horrendously low-budget CGI that had nothing going for it but technically accurate lighting. I could even overlook the fact that they left out some of the best parts of the book that really, for me, defined the initial scenes...

but honestly?

This really was a bad movie, and had I not read the book, the first ten minutes would have had my head spinning with character introductions, motive creation, etc., it was all done so crazy-quick that I half-expected the friend I brought (who has a self-professed love of Ayn Rand, but never read Atlas Shrugged) to either get lost, ask a lot of questions, or just simply give up. They took the first quarter of the book, and rammed it into four minutes of news stories, exposition, and completely out-of-left-field dialogue.

I can only hope they do the same thing to Galt's speech. I skimmed those pages, and I sure hope they don't make me sit through it in real time! Here's hoping for two more parts, if nothing else, it'll give something else for the Pajiban's to bitch about!

Posted by: Spiffy McFly at April 18, 2011 7:40 PM

Posted by: jmag at April 18, 2011 3:25 PM
Well said. And thank you Mrs Julien for warming my little nerd heart with the Restaurant reference.

While unfamiliar with Rand’s writing, the actions of those who supposedly adhere to it- including the author herself- speak volumes (see Griftopia, chapter: The Biggest Asshole in the Universe). Those who love to privatise gains sure rediscover the virtues of socialism when there are losses to be had.

Posted by: Dave Shepherd at April 18, 2011 7:59 PM

Yossarian, they're manly flowers. You know, the kind that eat insects. Like peni-- ahem-- Venus flytraps.

And it really doesn't matter if Kballs puts his pants back on at this point or not; I'm burning that chaise at the end of the night anyway.

Posted by: The Gay at April 18, 2011 8:05 PM

Haven't seen the movie (and may not)-have read the book. Thus, I'm not surprised that it came off as a steaming pile of fecal material. This is coming from someone who's pretty anti-authoritarian (was a Cold War baby, and staunch anti-communist, although pretty socially liberal-growing up black and poor in St. Louis circa late '60's may have had something to do with that ). Anyway, a painful read!

OT: Protoguy-wishing you all the best for a speedy recovery and permanent remission!

OOT: By the way, where's the great amoral liberal orgy-and can I have a threesome with Helen Mirren and Rachel Maddow?

Mike

Posted by: MadMike at April 18, 2011 9:47 PM

I read Anthem once. Because it was short.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at April 18, 2011 10:24 PM

For a pair of cents: If you think the problems of the last few years were caused by or "laissez-faire capitalism", you're either woefully mistaken as to the way our economy works, or what laissez-faire capitalism is, or just as simple-minded as the purest objectivist thinkers out there. For what it may be worth, I think the best way to view Atlas Shrugged is as a poorly-written dramatization of what happens when political policy causes the best and the brightest to give up. It's right there in the title. The claim that the golden-parachuted assholes on Wall Street are the "best and the brightest" according to Objectivism is a bit off base. They and so many others are the perpetuators of crony capitalism...I suppose they could be called the best at gaming the system for their own gain. It has little to do with producing anything of actual value and it's the fact that there is a "system" which allows that kind of thing to happen. A few brilliant and creative minds continue to press on, but I truly believe that many end up just going "what's the point?" and they either give up, or realize that to get ahead you have to fall into line. And so the middle class is being crowded out by a system that can be exploited by and fallen back upon by both those at the top and the bottom. At the top we have "too big to fail." At the bottom, we have a system in place that makes it easy to stay poor -- we'll give you food stamps, subsidized housing, and watch your kids 9 months of the year until they're 18. It's not a great life but a good number of the poor are made complacent by the belief that Democrats will take care of them in this life and Jesus will take care of them in the next. Or alternately, numb themselves with their novocaine of choice.

Posted by: Matches at April 18, 2011 10:29 PM

Firstly, I am just glad that the diagnosis of serious illnesses amongst our own doesn't stop the flow of pants-less margarita night.

Also, I saw Atlas Shrugged as part of a curiosity experiment. AS has always been a blind spot for me. Never needed it in college, never read it for fun, never discussed it for any reason. I knew NOTHING of what it was about. All I knew is that on an episode of South Park, a character read it and declared that it was so terrible that he would never read another book again.

I saw the movie in a theater that was pleasantly full. I say "pleasant" because I thought no one would see this other than high-faloutin' book aficionados and Ayn Rand scholars. The types of people who I see at the Met Opera simulcasts on Saturday mornings. They laughed loudly, kept leaning and whispering excitement to each other, and clapped vigorously at the end. It was so nice to be amongst the scholarly, I felt great afterwords.

Over the next few days, it would slowly dawn on me whom I was actually sitting amongst in the dark for two hours. And I'll confess, it made me feel a little dirty.

Posted by: Skyler Durden at April 18, 2011 10:31 PM

Awesome story^ aside, my take:

It was convoluted, talky, and very, veeeeery boring. But I really just thought that *I* was the dumb one and the movie was just too clever for me to get.

However, there were, IMO, some great moments. The train scene was great, and I was a fan of Dagny's ball-busting brand of feminism. She was take-charge without ever seeming cunty.

The shadowy figure intrigued me, as did the disappearances. The final scene, which I won't describe, is exciting. And the final shot is beautiful and horrifying. I left the theater wanting to run straight to my computer and learn everything I could.

It was a reality check, to be sure, to come home and learn that it had 5% on Rotten Tomatoes that day. Shit, even Season of the Witch had a higher score.

In short, it was bad, but not THAT bad. Reviewers are a being little hybolic on this one. They can pretend that personal bias doesn't factor in, but obviously that's not true.

Posted by: Skyler Durden at April 18, 2011 10:41 PM

I am just now realizing that Atlas Shrugged works like a Medieval morality play - the "everyman" plays performed at church festivals in Medieval Europe. The characters aren't characters in the modern understanding. They are symbols, in symbolic, illustrative situations showing what to do and how the world works.

The problem with adapting Atlas Shrugged to film is Rand, actually. There's a lot of goop on the spare, formal interactions of incarnate ideas. (You don't have to agree with a bit of it to appreciate a parable.)


That's sad. There's a nice trilogy in there, almost like you could make following on the Matrix Movie. (Any word yet on a sequel?)

- First, an adventure. In Matrix-land it's "Neo Takes the Red Pill." In Shrugged-land it's "A Lady Builds a Railroad."

- Second, a crisis of understanding. In Shrugged-land it would be "Why Is Everything So Hard?" In Matrix-land it would be "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility."

- Third, a trip to Shangri-La, then Gulliver (Dagney) returns to the world with new understanding, ending the Hero's Journey. In Matrix-land it would be "Life Goes On".

They really ought to make a couple sequels to the Matrix movie. Shame to waste all that world-building.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at April 18, 2011 10:49 PM

/Political Thread

@Markus,

Objectivists, and especially Rand considered Libertarians apostates. (And isn't it fascinating how much religious language is used by what claims to be a rationalist movement.)


@Crony-Capitalism

The villains in Atlas Shrugged are crony-capitalists and their symbiotic co-parasites, the political operators who sustain them. So, AIG & Company, GM, whoever else are the bad guys. A practicing Objectivist would sputter and fume at those bail-outs and special accommodations in a way that would make Beck seem measured. (Think about that, for a minute. Yes, there is more batshit than Beck.)

@Libertarians

Some libertarians argue for limited government because that's most moral. Some of the rest of us, called libertarians argue for limited government because the more it does, the more it makes a tempting target to hijack.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at April 18, 2011 10:55 PM

I was very surprised this film actually came out -- felt like they settled, cast-wise.

For someone who went through a big "Ayn Rand" phase and came out (thankfully) as a woman who emphasizes balance & compromise when approaching any issue of social justice as pertains to government intervention in poverty issues, I can honestly say (and I was a HUGE fan of Ayn Rand -- the gifting of the book was very meaningful to me -- my brother gave it to me when I graduated boot camp on Parris Island) that when I read it, as much as I credited it with me helping to slough off much of the puritanical self-righteousness of my christian upbringing -- I really thought in a lot of ways, "this just isn't as good as the Fountainhead."

The thing that annoyed me (as many commenters have already posted) was that Atlas Shrugged was so incredibly blatant it was unimaginative. It did feel like reading someone's manifesto; not a novel.

Whereas The Fountainhead was actually a good story, and hinted at many of the issues that (I know now) Rand was centering her life/work around -- and as much as I adore my brother and love what that book meant at the time for both of us, coming out of what we were -- it's just not a very good work of fiction.

If you can't recognize that, then you're probably not a good judge of the film either. Which, judging off the previews, looks like a cross between a Hallmark Election Day Special bred with a little dose of Lifetime Movie Network.

Posted by: eliza at April 18, 2011 11:07 PM

I agree with Ann. I can therefore maxup my individual hard labor by borrowing a piece of the magisteel. I will reverse engineer it and have it produced by orphans, widows and prisoners aka Chinese commies at one third the price. I will dump on world markets forcing labor costs down. I will further tear up rail lines as they are nasty government granted easemets and create my own lines driving them over poor peoples shacks. I will add massive amounts of high fructose corn syrup to their diets making the masses inert obese junkies. I will make my finances a casino and force all loses onto the junkies.

Posted by: Bearinatux at April 18, 2011 11:29 PM

Here's why Rand's philosophy is barely that. It was realizing this that broke me of her, when I was a Randroid myself(look, it was the South and she was an atheist. It seemed daring):

Rand stacks the deck by basing the whole thing on the premise that you are right.

Of COURSE all the rest would follow from that. (she's like the anti-Hume) Therefore her philosophy is useless by its radical SUBJECTIVISM. It does not encourage questioning of your initial desires, or methods, or goals or whatever, but rather starts from the premise that you have a right to these things and rationalizes its way back from that. It's the id, given logical-seeming justification.
And the thing is, something can be fiercely logical within faulty premises. Look at Catholicism. But it doesn't mean those parameters are valid.

Posted by: John Roberson at April 18, 2011 11:59 PM

There are no children in any of Rand's books.

Discuss?

Posted by: TheBoy at April 19, 2011 12:16 AM

There are no children in any of Rand's books.

Discuss?

Ooooooo, nice one @TheBoy. I'll bite.

Children aren't in Rand's popular fiction because she's making a (possibly insane and wrong) point about how capable, conscious people should interact with each other. It's back to the morality play. (I'm using "morality play" as a kind of literature. I'm not claiming that the morality being proposed is - er - moral. What would I know about "morality?" I hang out on a web site that celebrates boobies & compliant pandas.)

The phrase "Children and Madmen" tags this issue in a lot of anarchist & libertarian writing, perhaps borrowing it from In Defense of Anarchy. The problem is, while you are setting up rules for capable people who can make their own decisions, what do you do about people not equipped that way?

More subtly, are there preferences that in themselves indicate someone isn't competent? Are there choices so subtle that even sane and rational people are incompetent to make them? Are there choices so subtle that only *some* people can understand them? What about the right to make choices that impact other people (and BTW that's all of them in some degree.)

Rand palms a lot of cards like these in her arguments.

Posted by: BierceAmbrose at April 19, 2011 1:05 AM

Glad to see the book got the movie it deserved. I hate Ayn Rand. I loath her soooo much.

Posted by: Melody Be at April 19, 2011 1:23 AM

OT - thanks for the kind words.

The only positive thing I can say about Rand is that Anthem inspired a decent Rush song

Posted by: Protoguy at April 19, 2011 2:57 AM

"And Sisyphus Farted."

Yeah. I'm with Prisco on this - the movie's a Sisyphean exercise in pointlessness. They roll the rock up the hill, it rolls back down, they roll it back up.

And we pay good money to sit and watch it.

I'm reminded of one Easter several years ago when, by my boss' orders, we had to show Passion of the Christ repeatedly to our clientele. Since said boss is also enamored of Fox News, I anticipate that at some point he'll insist we show this as well.

Posted by: The Wanderer at April 19, 2011 7:00 AM

BierceAmbrose, I'll just say it's nice to see that someone else read Rand the way I read Rand and wasn't afraid to try and explain it here. Kudos.

Posted by: Robert at April 19, 2011 7:22 AM

I was one of those 14 y.o.'s who liked Atlas Shrugged. I now look back on it and chuckle at my naive little self, much as I might think fondly of a old crush on a boy band while today realizing that it's more than a bit stupid. I blame an unformed mind and the giddy thoughts that I could control my destiny merely by working hard and getting stupid people out of my way. Very appealing to the average 14 y.o. Also? Was a total Tolkein geek at the same time...evidence of cognitive dissonance at work.

If anyone would care to read a WELL-WRITTEN book that pretty much crushes Randian ideas (I won't call it Objectivism, because it's not Objective in any way), I highly recommend Matt Ruff's Sewer, Gas, Electric. It's funny, got great characters and plot, and features not only giant sewer gators but also Ayn Rand's disembodied head.

Posted by: Wednesday at April 19, 2011 8:00 AM

I was not particularly impressed with the movie, and I have plenty of problems with the book. However, I am surprised that the author of this piece, Mr. Prisco, would find it necessary to blindly insult a significant portion of the population in writing a review of Atlas Shrugged. A "professional film critic" should keep to his business, rather than insulting the politics of those readers who's politics differ from your own. Or, if one is going to play the political game, why do it in such an ill-conceived manner? The insults do not provide any support for the thesis, and are half-heartedly denied later with the caveat of, "...I am not an economist. I am not a political scientist." Then why bother? Apparently, conservatives are amongst your readership, as you reference the Soul Surfer review. What good comes from alienating a potential demographic? I will not argue that Atlas Shrugged was even a good representation of the book, let alone a good movie, but that certainly could have been said without the seemingly disinterested political diatribe. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their political opinion, and free to publish it as their publisher sees fit, but I would hope that they would possess some tact as well.

Posted by: Austin Bell at April 19, 2011 9:32 AM

There seems to be a big disconnect here between this review and stringent Rand defenders. If the film chooses to focus entirely on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, than Rand's philosophy has to be discussed in a review of the film. The critics didn't write the book, they didn't write the film, and therefore they didn't introduce the philosophy into the discussion. If Objectivism is portrayed unconvincingly because of flaws in the film, it's open season to explain why the logic of that philosophy doesn't hold up in the context of the film. If philosophy is the driving force of the content of the film, it has to be addressed to fairly review the film.

That does not mean that someone is personally attacking you, your beliefs, or your favorite author. They are writing about the film. If the film delves into Objectivism, then a reviewer has no choice but to address the topic. I don't see where Prisco tore apart anyone's beliefs in the Soul Surfer review or where he did it in this review. I do see where people are projecting presumed biases onto him so they can spout hateful commentary against an entire online community through stock arguments that are, at best, tangentially connected to the actual film review. This isn't a case of some grand conspiracy to destroy everything you hold dear in life; it is a case of people aggressively defending a belief against anyone who doesn't fall 100% inline with that way of thinking. The attackers here are the people who claim Prisco attacked their belief structure when reviewing what he thought was a poorly made film.

Posted by: Robert at April 19, 2011 10:21 AM

While I found Atlas Shrugged to be a horrible piece of crap to read, I was actually very interested in Ayn Rand's biography, which paints her as a mean-spirited cult leader who shunned anyone who had the balls to disagree with her. So basically, I think she could've had amazing ratings on FOX, is what I'm saying.

Posted by: TheEmpress at April 19, 2011 10:46 AM

@Protoguy: "a decent Rush song"

No such thing. But that's another thread...

Posted by: klingonfree at April 19, 2011 11:17 AM

Posted by: Odnon at April 19, 2011 11:51 AM

The claim that the golden-parachuted assholes on Wall Street are the "best and the brightest" according to Objectivism is a bit off base. They and so many others are the perpetuators of crony capitalism...I suppose they could be called the best at gaming the system for their own gain. It has little to do with producing anything of actual value and it's the fact that there is a "system" which allows that kind of thing to happen. A few brilliant and creative minds continue to press on, but I truly believe that many end up just going "what's the point?"
Does that actually happen? Are there any people, sitting in the trailer park with a beer on their overgrown bellys with some great idea/work ethic that just don't use it because, "What's the point?" It's such a patently absurd strawman argument.
Further, the big issue, especially once one gets drawn into the whole "parasite/producer" paradigm, is how do we define any of these terms? Was Walt Disney one of these brilliant producers, or did he have a few good ideas and then become a "parasite" who used money and influence to rig the Copyright system in Mickey's favor? Is Steve Jobs the "best and the brightest" or did he have a few good ideas and then leverage that by becoming a parasite of cheap labor/lack of government protection of Chinese workers? So one might say, "You see? These are capitalist cronies, taking advantage of the government!" - Okay, then what's the solution? Get rid of the government? Sure, once unhindered by government, Captains of Industry will rise all boats with their success, no? One could never imagine that without the modicum of protection that a government provides, anything could go wrong.
Look around you and of course you'll see people less and more hardworking. But to subscribe to a philosophy where everyone is categorized as either a producer or a parasite is actually just the height of laziness, and it's why Ayn Rand and her Objectivist Cult have always bothered me.

Posted by: jingowashisnameo at April 19, 2011 11:53 AM

I am a bleeding heart liberal, bra burning, big government loving, deregulating despising, criminal defense attorney. And yet, I loved Atlas Shrugged. One of my favorite novels. And I'm not a Rand fan, in general. But I have to agree with Brian. Watching this movie was like driving stakes of white hot grudgefucking into my eyeballs while simultaenously listening to Dane Cook explain the finer points of sublety in comedy. It was worse than waiting on a couple on a blind date, who clearly can't stand each other, and knowing that when she orders the steak, there goes your tip. It was flaccid, and unsatisfying, so basically a typical Monday night in Western Nebraska. And I don't even have a political opinion. It was just that awful.

Posted by: lawyergirl06 at April 19, 2011 12:21 PM

Apparently Mr Bell doesn't get Pajiba, even with a word-bubble tagline. Or editorial objectivity.

So your argument is; how can you write a review that alienates a portion of your readership?

I think it's called integrity. One doesn't temper or alter one's opinion to court a larger audience. That's why I come here. So I don't get pablum spoon-fed to me. So I can be challenged, so I can read what other people really fucking think. There are enough reviewers out there who pander to popular opinion, who tip-toe their writing around touchy opinions and subjects so as not to "alienate" their "market".

I'd much rather leave feeling like the author was biased, yet gave his honest opinion than leave feeling I was lied to - especially when it comes to dropping $10 for a crappy film they were too afraid to call a crappy film. Reviews are opinions. I can go to Fandango or some other corporate feed-trough to get the tippy-toe treatment, but ya know, truth is more satisfying than pleasantries.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 19, 2011 1:00 PM

Protoguy,
I completely agree that integrity is a critical virtue, and I greatly appreciate it. However, integrity, the unwillingness to temper one's own beliefs to garner support, etc., should not do away with tact. It is possible that people have well meaning, honestly believed, intelligently argued opinions that disagree with you. I do not suggest that you keep silent so as not to offend such people. Indeed, I greatly enjoy arguing with people who disagree with me. However, I can have an argument in which I decry the beliefs of another as being completely ridiculous without seeking to insult them and degrade them. And, if it comes to that, I assure you that such character attacks are based on positions of my argument that I have already fleshed out.

In comparison, what we have here is a series of pithy insults. The pejorative, "Teabaggers," shows up, as well as "Sith-like conservative ghouls lurking the taint of Pajiba." These insults serve no purpose but to drive away anyone who may identify themselves as conservative. This is not an example of a man, bravely committed to his integrity, stating what he believes, no matter the consequence. It's a circle jerk, in which he insults a couple of groups that he thinks are full of shit, makes a few passing references to recent economic and political events, and is then congratulated by those who agree with his politics, for being so right and willing to speak the truth.

Also, I am aware of Pajiba's tagline, "Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People." It is why I read Pajiba. Atlas Shrugged is not a good movie, and when Mr. Prisco actually comes to the points of concerns with the movie itself, poor pacing, terrible acting, etc., there's no argument. Poorly executed films should be held to task for their failures, and well executed films even more so.

If you wish to argue with the politics of a piece, which is understandable, given that Atlas Shrugged is just a vehicle for one woman's politics, that is fine, but actually do it. Don't insult your readers, and then have the audacity to leave it to someone else to explain why they're terrible people.

I've rambled a bit, and gotten a little off topic. Simply put, it is both possible and worthwhile to tell someone you disagree with why their beliefs and actions are wrong and what they should do to fix it, and yet, still come away from the argument respected by that person.

Posted by: Austin Bell at April 19, 2011 3:13 PM

Okay, then the argument is just that you don't like 'how' he expounds upon his opinions. I haven't been here that long, but even I know that this is kinda his thing - not caring what you think. And again, why I like the site.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 19, 2011 5:34 PM

Does that actually happen? Are there any people, sitting in the trailer park with a beer on their overgrown bellys with some great idea/work ethic that just don't use it because, "What's the point?"

There may be some, but I believe most are "productive" members of society, in that they get a decent job and just go along to get along, since they figure it's not worth fighting against the current.

Posted by: Matches at April 19, 2011 7:05 PM

I'm a conservative and a Christian, and I'm really interested in this project. But since you alienated me before I could get to the point, I'm no longer interested in this blog post. Thanks for encouraging open minds and hearts -- please find a more positive way to do so.

Posted by: Anna at April 19, 2011 10:13 PM

I am always looking for things on info that I don't know about, even though it might be old news. It's not an easy task to look for things that you don't know about, because what do you look for? ;) This is the type of thing I love to read about on something new to me. Great post! Thank you.

Posted by: pa auto loan at April 20, 2011 2:28 AM


brian is a professional film critic. check.
he is not an economist. check
he is not a political scientist. check.
he doesn't know much about ayn rand. check.

his review takes potshots at conservatives, christians, teabaggers,
etc. ... all the targets for the very tolerant lefties like maher and
olbermann.
in point of fact , rand was as anti-religion as she was anti-government.
i agree with the small portion of the review that addressed the film but offer the major portion which was a political diatribe
as one more proof of the bias of this site..... and confirmation of
the reviewers self-deprecating disclaimers about his knowledge
of economics, political science and ayn rand's writings. even as a
political statement , it was nothing more than the usual knee-
jerk liberal reaction to anything that suggests our big brother
government doesn't know what is best for us.
kerminy for president !!!!!!!

Posted by: snake at April 20, 2011 11:42 AM

I'm athiest and liberal and I'm really interested in Fox news. But since they alienated me before I could get to the point, I'm no longer interested in this entire network.

Sorry, but you can't be fair and balanced if you get your news from one source. You can't get truth if your one source controls the 'truth'. You can't form a true opinion unless you're willing to hear the opposing side's views. Go back to watching blatantly false news that panders to your worldview and let the real trolls get back to work.

Posted by: Protoguy at April 21, 2011 2:59 AM

Any flaws in the film are due primarily to its being a rush job (the producer was close to a deadline that endangered filming rights)on a chintzy budget. But a flawed film is a flawed film, so if you want to pan it for those or any other reasons, go ahead.

But personally, I'm an admirer of Rand's writing who enjoyed the film immensely. And I contend that for people who liked the book, the film will be a satisfying experience for most of them. And by the way, I'm a tree-hugging liberal who blames the current economy on crony capitalism. (Are you confused by that? Me too.)

Even though I disagreed with the review, thumbs up for the humor.

Posted by: Bob Lipton at April 22, 2011 7:50 PM

I enjoyed the book. Through its two-and-a-half-dimensional characters and flawed writing, it managed to make a compelling point or two. The movie did not.

I saw Atlas Shrugged in a theater full of true believers. They applauded at the end. Weird. Yes, they believe in the message and I don't, but how weren't they more annoyed by the desecration of their sacred text?

My rambling-but-insult-free take here.

Posted by: cinderkeys at April 23, 2011 3:13 AM

I love the book Atlas Shrugged, saw the preview for the movie and almost vomited, so this review is clearly the lesser of the two modern commentary evils.

My one complaint is your misuse of apostrophes, like in paragraph and paragraphs 2 and 8. These should be "As", "Bs", and "1970s", respectively.

Please, if you're going to be a professional writer, be grammatically correct.

Posted by: Your Bitchy Audience at April 25, 2011 11:07 PM

Just thought I'd stop in after the Soul Surfer reference to say that Christians can think Objectivism is crock, too. In fact, we can complain about both the tone of the review for Soul Surfer (not the review itself, I might add) and Ayn Rand. Otherwise, apparently terrible movie is apparently terrible.

Posted by: coryo at April 26, 2011 9:28 AM

It was true to the book. And for the target audience that is all it needs.

If you don't like Atlas Shrugged go read Anthem. Much shorter, dystopian future history, explains objectivism outside of the context of profit.


I am neither a conservative or a christian and the tea baggers have co-opted a philosophy that has nothing to do with their goals. They didn't read the book either.

Posted by: Tara at April 27, 2011 11:00 AM

There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That is a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the most important thing will be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly identified as a fair game.

Posted by: Tricor at April 27, 2011 1:51 PM

There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That is a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the most important thing will be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly identified as a fair game.

Posted by: strattera without prescrition at April 27, 2011 1:51 PM

You got numerous positive points there. I made a search on the issue and found nearly all peoples will agree with your blog.

Posted by: cipro buy price at April 27, 2011 5:30 PM

I found your site from wikipedia and read a few of your other blog posts.They are cool. Pls continue this great work. Later on other fantastic American rock acts such as Lynrd Skynrd, The Eagles, America, the Allman Brothers, and the Doobie Brothers would come on the scene and shake up the world with their string of hit songs.

Posted by: get amoxil at April 27, 2011 9:53 PM

I found your site from altavista and it is eye-popping. Thank you for sharing such an incredible article...

Posted by: is crestor available without a prescription at May 1, 2011 6:31 PM

my God, i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insght at the end there, not leave it with ‘we leave it to you to decide’.

Posted by: maison de retraités québec at May 3, 2011 8:43 PM

I found your site from altavista and it is eye-popping. Thank you for sharing such an incredible article...

Posted by: chart of cholesterol levels at May 13, 2011 10:32 PM