14

A Review of AS3

Posted by straightlinelogic 9 years, 6 months ago to Movies
42 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

This will go up later on straightlinelogic, but I thought I'd let the Gulch have it first.

Making Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged into a movie, even one of multiple parts, is monumentally daunting, not just because it is epic, but because more than any other book written in the twentieth century, it explicates ideas. Movies are not the natural medium for ideas, books are, usually nonfiction tracts. Rand’s magnum opus was the foundational statement and defense of her philosophy, objectivism. Disregarding usual literary practice, she had her characters delineate that philosophy in a series of long speeches, most fully in the lengthy broadcast by John Galt. The key question in Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt?, the finale of the movie trilogy, was how its makers would handle that speech.

The three movies have had, disconcertingly, different casts each time, but Kristoffer Polaha as Galt is a strong contender for the best performance by any of the actors. (His chief competition would be Jason Beghe as Henry Rearden in Part Two and Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt in Part One.) Unlike some of the actors, Polaha delivers his lines not as self-conscious incantations of a strange, obscure sect, but with the understated confidence of a man who knows he’s telling the truth. Ayn Rand often wrote and spoke of the “sense of life” implicit in dramatic works, creative choices, and people’s personalities. The sense of life of Polaha’s Galt is the absolute confidence of a man supremely competent in philosophy and technology; fully committed to reason, his values, and the discovery of truth; who thinks, speaks, and acts accordingly. Reality is never faked, giving Galt clarity and grandeur. His compelling rendition of the climactic, albeit dramatically shortened, speech is the highpoint of the movie.

The movie’s dramatic structure coalesces around the romance between Galt and Dagny Taggart. Laura Regan is not as strong as Polaha, although she gets stronger as the movie progresses. In one great scene, she announces that she will leave Galt’s Gulch, and Galt harshly tells her that she must swear to not reveal its existence, its occupants, or the strike. Regan subtly conveys Taggart’s discomfiture at the realization that for Galt, the Cause transcends the Romance. In one somewhat weird scene, she pleads, through a closed door, for Galt not to return with her. It would seem that these two titans would address each other face-to-face. A problem with the novel was Taggart’s obstinacy; it never seemed quite plausible that it took her so long to see the light. That problem remains in the movie, but at least it amplifies viewers’ emotional satisfaction when she finally takes the oath.

The action moves well and sustains attention. Most of the Gulch actors do a good job with limited screen time. Doctor Thomas Hendricks gets more time in the movie than the book, seemingly to get in some jabs at socialized medicine. The director, James Manera, and the writers and producers were certainly aware of the cinematic danger of filling the movie with speeches, and the last twenty minutes have the pacing and tension of a good thriller—the heroes heroic; the villains villainous. One quibble: the many mustaches, beards, and GQ-type unshaven faces are incongruous, given Rand’s well known aversion to facial hair, and Ellis Wyatt’s waxed handlebar mustache is simply ridiculous.

A more substantial criticism concerns sins of omission that only those who have read the novel would detect. The movie did not seem long and there were certain dramatic scenes and dialogue that could have been profitably added to it; even Galt’s speech did not have to be so short. The suicide of Cheryl Taggart, James’ wife, seems like a hurried snippet, rather than an integral part of the story. It could have been a more fully developed subplot, along with James’ affair with Lillian Rearden. The manipulative vixen never puts in an appearance in this movie, but was one of the more interesting villains in the first two. Galt’s confrontation with Robert Stadler seems tailor made for the movie, but was not included.

Philosophically, Rand would almost certainly have objected to the thematic omission of religion; all three movies stay resolutely focused on the political and economic. In the book, Galt spent pages decrying mysticism, irrationality, and faith. Rand was an atheist, which makes many conservatives who would like to embrace some or all of her political and economic views queazy. Perhaps the movie’s makers are trying to broaden its appeal, which probably also explains cameos by Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Ron Paul, but in terms of fealty to the book, the omission is a gaping hole. The cameos, by the way, do little for the movie, but that’s another quibble.

The final Atlas Shrugged movie is the best of this excellent three-part effort, especially in light of the time and money constraints their creators faced. It is a shame the trilogy did not receive the full Hollywood treatment—big budgets, extensive advertising, and widespread distribution—but fear and loathing of Rand run deep in Tinseltown. Part three will be pilloried by the usual snakes, and may garner less of an audience and have a more limited run than its predecessors. Over time, however, the movies will bring Rand’s seminal and important novel to the attention of those independent souls who ignore serpentine attacks and think and see for themselves. That gives them far more enduring value than Hollywood’s usual glop.

Ayn Rand hoped that Atlas Shrugged would prevent the dystopian future it portrayed. On current trends that hope will not be realized. At the end of Atlas Shrugged: Who Is John Galt?, the lights of New York City go out. The only one that stays on is Lady Liberty’s torch: a beacon—this darkness too shall pass. The lights are going out, but when civilization turns them back on, Atlas Shrugged—book and movies—will be there for those who would honor and restore logic and liberty.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 6 months ago
    SLL - good review. I mostly concur. I would say that the cameos do more to detract than to add (but I'm sure that in the case of Hannity and Beck had reasons other than cinematic for their inclusion).

    I too thought that the whole Cheryl Taggert issue was tacked on, for what purpose, I couldn't understand other than the comment by Dagney as she storms off the stage with Thompson that she deserved better - but that all seemed too forced.

    I also didn't like the voice over of the many transitions and catch ups of the previous story. If necessary, I would have preferred these to be done as news reports or flashbacks (but that would have been confusing with the cast changes - thus would have needed to be refilmed). It seemed like this movie was trying to be a stand alone of the entire book.

    Nobody seems to have commented on it in all the various reviews that I've read, thusfar, but the inclusion of a gratuitous sex scene was totally unnecessary. And even if decided to be included didn't need to be as graphic as it was. Hiking up the hem of the dress and the clash of hips was lewd, as was the thrusting of the breasts upward. This scene added nothing to the movie and was distracting.

    Don't take these critiques as indication that I didn't enjoy and appreciate the movie. It is complete and Harmon and John should be congratulated for getting this done as well as it was, given the huge obstacles. I'm confident that there will be another - probably a mini-series format which might be a better venue for the depth and expanse covered.

    Well done to all involved in bringing this to "life."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by cranedragon 9 years, 6 months ago
      Throughout so much of both the movie and the book, Dagny is seen by just about everyone as a sexless "man-eater" career woman, and I for one welcome the reminders that people with a brain can enjoy the rest of their bodies as well, and do it in a way that celebrates life and their values.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MattFranke 9 years, 6 months ago
    Excellent review, sll; and I agree most all your points. One thing I think you forgot to mention on the casting, was the very poor choice they had for Francisco, a little elderly for the roll I thought. He was supposed to be a childhood friend of Dagny and the story glosses over their 'close relationship' to the point that, if one didn't know the story, they would think that Dagny used to sit on his knee and listen to old war stories or something; instead of being childhood lovers, "exploring the world and everything in it."

    I like Francisco #2 the best and agree on Ellis #1 and Rearden #2. I thought Dr. Ferris and Cuffy Meigs were particularly convincing, as far as acting.
    All in all, I won't complain much and will be taking some people back on Monday to see it again.

    "The cameos, by the way, do little for the movie, but that's another quibble."
    I think I'll take a stab at that elsewhere.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by cranedragon 9 years, 6 months ago
    "A problem with the novel was Taggart’s obstinacy; it never seemed quite plausible that it took her so long to see the light. That problem remains in the movie, but at least it amplifies viewers’ emotional satisfaction when she finally takes the oath." I'm going to take issue with this.

    For me, and speaking as a woman who came to the novel in high school, Dagny's single-minded commitment to the railroad -- her railroad -- and her fidelity to the torch that she carried forward from Nat Taggart was one-half of the strength of the book, and it intertwined beautifully with her realization, over the course of the book, that she could have both her commitment to her accomplishments and her commitment to a man who would value her as she would value him, and the explication of that theme is the other incredible strength that Ayn Rand put on these pages. The strongest characters, the ones of the greatest ability, are precisely those who persevered farther and longer than any of the others in believing that they could prevail over incredible, increasingly impossible odds, just because they were sure that they could not be beaten at their own game. And Dagny is the strongest of all of them.

    It is interesting to contemplate the plot hinge of the plane crash. What would it have taken to budge Dagny, if she hadn't spent that time month in Mulligan's Valley? I would posit that Hank Rearden would not have left without Dagny, and Dagny would have held out much longer, even past the destruction of the Taggart Bridge and the destruction of the wheat crop, but for the image of the Valley in her mind. For all that Ayn Rand has given us strong men -- the triumvirate of Galt, Francisco, and Ragnar, and the other heroes in Hank Reardon, Mulligan, Ellis Wyatt, Ken Dannager, and the like -- Dagny is the still point upon which the plot turns. Until she sees that her cause is lost, and that she cannot win a game where the other side has stolen all the chips, changed all the rules, and turned over the card table, she will not leave her railroad. The one overwhelming weakness that I see in the movie is that it reduces her decision from the novel -- where she saw that her railroad had been perverted into a public "good" and was no longer hers at all -- to a private and easily-portrayed decision to follow her man.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by eilinel 9 years, 6 months ago
    Very good review, Logic. I agree with your opinions of the strongest casting. I welcomed Hendricks' prominence; I'm in healthcare, and I guaran- d*mn-tee you that that's happening now. I liked Akston's talk with Dagny. I hadn't thought about Galt's meeting with Stadler, but you're right- it would have been a powerful addition.
    In closing, I'll echo the quote from the Gulch: "Well done, straightlinelogic. Well done."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 6 months ago
    40 million copies of Atlas Shrugged in 40 million minds produced 40 million movies. Only one was real. I am not going to argue the aesthetics here and now. I will write my own review later. I do agree with most of your criticisms and with all of your praises. I do not agree with all of the negatives. Just generally, everything is a matter of trade-offs. All you are saying is that if you had made the movie - which you did not - you would have done other things for other people to complain about. We all would.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Swardell 9 years, 6 months ago
    Dittos Quote: The final Atlas Shrugged movie is the best of this excellent three-part effort, especially in light of the time and money constraints their creators faced. It is a shame the trilogy did not receive the full Hollywood treatment—big budgets, extensive advertising, and widespread distribution...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wilall99 9 years, 6 months ago
    This movie was bad. Scenes were in that could have been left out and other scenes were not in it that would have made the movie much better. Just a torrent of problems with this last film. I give it two thumbs down or on a scale of 1 to 5 I give it a 2. Question, were they trying to make a bad movie. The first two were far better than this one. My advice don't spend your money @ the movie theaters. If you have to see it then wait for it on Redbox and rent the DVD. It's not worth the blue ray price @ Redbox. I'm sorry to say this, but see the first two movies and skip the third one. Oh! wait, just read the book.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 9 years, 6 months ago
    I like your review and mostly agree. I think Dagny and Hank being the last holdouts was plausible because of their intense love for their professions. Anyone that has stood on the cast house floor and watched a blast furnace being tapped both fearing and loving the molten iron flowing in the trench towards a torpedo car can understand how Henry felt when pouring his miracle metal. Being the heir of the founder of the greatest railroad and knowing you can make it run better than anyone alive is obviously powerful.

    On avoiding the agruments debunking spiritual, mystical, irrational, faith-based ideology I think it is just too dangerous when introducing people to Rand. I have come to believe that reason and reality must be accepted and all things based on faith rejected in order to defeat altruism but this is a tall order and it requires overcoming thousands of years of teaching.

    There were only 8 people in the theater where I was on Friday and if it was widely known that this was about atheism, there would have been fewer and I may have had to push my way through a mob with pitchforks and torches.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 6 months ago
      Thanks. By the way, coaldigger, my grandfather was a coal miner and a member of the UMW. He hated it, because he wanted to work harder than the other miners, make more money, and get ahead. Such is the nature of unions; they penalize the best.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Carolinawahine 9 years, 6 months ago
    Excellent review ... Well thought out and extremely well written. There is a fine line to be walked between audience appeal and philosophy in this movie. Too much of one would denigrate the other. I think, even though some of my personal favorite parts were left out, the writers and director did well with an enormous amount of material. If you re-watch The Fountainhead, you will have the same feeling. Does anyone know how that movie, which is now a classic, was received when it was released?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by slfisher 9 years, 6 months ago
    I also found the lack of any mention at all of religion to be odd. And yes, I thought Cheryl seemed tacked on, as though they suddenly realized they'd left it out and had to go back and stick it in somewhere.

    The 30-40 people I saw it with in Idaho appreciated the cameos. :)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ConductorJeff 9 years, 6 months ago
      Religion? With all the conservative talking head cameos, there's no way Rand's view of religion would be included. This was a movie marketed to conservatives, not to objectivists.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Tigonheart 9 years, 6 months ago
    I jost got back from seeing AS3, I drove over an hour to the theater to see it. I enjoyed the first and the second movies very much. I have my who is John Galt T-shirt and many other items from the gultch store. That being said, AS3 is a steamimg pile of crap. The writing was so disjointed, Please rewrite, reshoot turn it into something worth watching… I am so diappointed…
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tkstone 9 years, 6 months ago
      I am going to ask you yo reexamine your premise on your regard for Ayn Rand and AS. I have a hard time understanding anyone who professes to support at least the legitimacy of Objectivist thought and not finding value in this movie. I can not disagree with some of the critics of this movie. My wife and I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation on the way home on our 100 mile drive extolling our preferences and reediting it our way, but the fact is it was the producers movie and their message was focused on Galt and Dagny. Their chosen vehicle to give a taste of Ayn Rands message. I particularly enjoyed Hugh Akstons conversation with Dagny at the vineyard, and I thought Galt's speech captured a vital thread of the whole. A true fan enters the conversation intent on finding value, not being entertained. The producers of this film had a Hurculelian task before them to condense this medium of an immence novel into a shot of a movie, and personally I found their distillation to go down smoothly with a hint of smoke. Thank you to all who put their necks out for this effort. I found tremendous value in all you did.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 6 months ago
      I was going to give a Thumbs Down for the"steaming pile" comment, but your investment in the fandom buys you a right to your disappointment. I only point to the original review by straightlinelogic which offered several substantive criticisms. I disagree, but I accept that they were based on the appraisal of facts; and they are helpful to anyone considering a remake. Your simple plea that someone else make something else that you can enjoy was unhelpful. As tkstone suggests, your begging contradicts much else in the material content that we are here to discuss.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo