The doves are set free, the message has openly been stated and is, hopefully, circulating and simmering in the sludge minds of the masses (no offense intended GG regulars). Rand's philosophy, I've said it many times, is chicken soup for the human soul (particularly the American soul). Never has the time more relevant for the concepts of Objectivity to be understood. Will the trilogy do that? I'm sure it has to some degree.
My hats off to the producers. You have done what many said couldn't be done AND others have hated you for attempting. You have my respect and admiration. Thank you.
I just got back from watching it at the third theater showing it in Las Vegas. Wednesday @ 5PM is a slow time for the theater (there were only 3 cars in the lot other than mine) and I thought I'd be alone in the theater, but just before it started, 6 more people showed up. I'll watch it in the last two theaters this weekend.
Just got my "Atlas Shrugged: Now non-fiction" hat. I'll be wearing it proudly.
As far as the sex, I think they were just paying homage to the author. Being that Dagny, the heroine, had intercourse with the three main heroes of the book. The sex is an amalgamation of a central theme of Atlas Shrugged; celebration. Though hidden under the muck and mire of collectivism, the antithesis of this scourge is to appreciate our champions. And there aren't many strong competitors in the reward category than the giving of one's self intimately.
The sex part was not only because Dagny had feelings with three main heroes in the book, but I think Ayn wrote the sex in the story to show her personal appreciation for sexual freedom. Watch some her old interview videos. I vaguely recall seeing another story mostly about her sexuality and the variety of young men she appreciated. Ayn really practiced what she preached.
That's okay, I usually view those things like something that might be added to writing in parentheses, (sex). Not necessarily part of the story but added to draw viewers or just something to talk about. I'm not for it, but then again not against it either. It made me a little uncomfortable however as we had our special needs daughter with us, but then again she is an adult and will ask if there is something she doesn't understand about it. There are some viewers out there that need some kind of perversion or something like a hot sex scene to get them to go to a movie. Perhaps they might consider that in doing the mini-series, perhaps not.
There is talk around. I forgot what I heard specifically, maybe just my imagination. I'll contribute again if they do it, like I need another T-shirt. I never wear T-shirts except under another shirt. Search this site and the movie site, perhaps more info there. ????
The people of The Gulch did not get where they are by espousing that sex should just happen whenever and wherever and not be connected to sharing and commitment of two lives toward a higher goal of a better life for all. The film did not depict that and IMO the scene was unnecessary to convey the ideology of Rand. It was a detraction rather than an attraction to the ideology and the movie.
I think I see what you're saying now: it's the way the sex scene was handled in the movie (with too much of the build up left out) that bothered you. In retrospect, it did seem a little sudden in the movie version. I think I was filling in from what I knew from the book version, while watching the movie.
Yeah, I was actually a little uncomfortable with the scene myself. Maybe because it came across as too real? I mean, I can fall asleep during a Game of Thrones orgy, so I didn’t quite understand why I was feeling so modest.
Anyway, I think the point they were trying to make is that in that moment Dagny had made the decision to take the solemn oath for herself, “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” Then, they traded value for value. ;)
Exactly how I felt, it didn't fit in naturally or with expectation with the rest of the movie, definitely in your face. And for that reason, whatever the point was they were trying to make, to me didn't come across that way, just another planted sex scene like all the other movies these days that exploit such behavior as that is what life is all about. Didn't leave me with a, I want to tell others to see the film feeling as it would have without it.
Did you read the book? It's definitely there. In the book, the sexual tension built palpably over time. They had never even touched each other (except for Galt carrying her after her crash) and I would expect that the tension to be overwhelming at this point.
I think some of us are rather disappointed that she'd flop on her back anywhere. Sex scenes are seldom important to story telling. Here is this intellectual giant, this reasoning objectivist... and even she can't control her hormones?
It took me a long time to 'get' what my parents used to complain about then-modern movies. "They can't *wait* to rip each other's clothes off." Most sex scenes I see on tv and in movies don't look passionate; they look desperate. Like a starving man wolfing down his first meal in days... or more accurately... like a drug addict "Jonesing" for a fix. Which is essentially the case.
I've said this argument in the SVU vs Adam-12 posting of mine; what they *don't* show adds to the story. In the prudish olden days of movies, the man and woman might kiss, or embrace... or both... then the lights would go out, fade to black, the story picks up the next morning.
Then again, back in those bad old days they also didn't have scenes take place while men use urinals or take a dump.
My point is that those quotes were the views of the person who wrote the book which is the basis for the movie we're discussing, and they just might have some relevance to a discussion about the sex scenes she penned. Ayn Rand described sexual interest as a response to what you value. Do you take issue with that, or with something else she said?
Yes, well that was the whole reason John Galt's life was suddenly at risk: because he and Dagny consummated their relationship sooner than good judgment would have dictated. And he knew it going in.
I have mixed feeling about the movie. It was good and it sounded a message that most people should hear. It did communicate the essence of the book. But so much of the story was left out of this part, in that respect I was disappointed. It seemed like they were rushed to make it and did not plan it out well. I would recommend it to everyone regardless of my mixed feelings. Its message is still true.
There would be no way to include significantly more of the story, i.e., the plot, in the length of the movie. Including all or most of the story in even a three-part movie is not the criterion, and wasn't in Ayn Rand's plans for the movie either. I haven't seen part 3 yet, and other criticisms, including your sense that it seemed rushed, may be valid, but as much as we would like to see all of Atlas Shrugged convincingly acted out in a movie, including all or most of the story isn't the standard for a successful AS movie.
While you certainaly are entitled to your option, and I respect that. The points you mention are with out need for an explanation as they are obvious. I fail to see why you feel the need to comment on something thats just my option. And before commenting perhaps you should see the movie.
I did not comment on the movie, I commented on the standard you invoked. Why be "disappointed" over something that is not possible? Much of the story had to be left out.
The "need" to comment is that this is a discussion. Do you think more of the story could have been included in part 3? What kinds of things would you include that you regard as feasible under the time constraint? Do you think something crucial was omitted? Is that what you meant?
So happy to see this story finally told. I was sad that funding was so limited which forced to film to be limited.
There was SO much that had to be left out. Particularly I was disappointed by the method and limited nature of the Taggart Bridge destruction, and the minuscule role of Project X as well as the the portrayal of Robert Stadler. The accident that killed him was crucial to the story as well.
Both my 16 Year-old-son and I enjoyed the film but we both wished it had been able to have been realized more accurately.
Quite possibly the worst feature film I have ever seen in a theater. Yet, I did appreciate the visual that brought the Gulch, and the community there of, to life.
My hats off to the producers. You have done what many said couldn't be done AND others have hated you for attempting. You have my respect and admiration. Thank you.
Just got my "Atlas Shrugged: Now non-fiction" hat. I'll be wearing it proudly.
Anyway, I think the point they were trying to make is that in that moment Dagny had made the decision to take the solemn oath for herself, “I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
Then, they traded value for value. ;)
It took me a long time to 'get' what my parents used to complain about then-modern movies. "They can't *wait* to rip each other's clothes off."
Most sex scenes I see on tv and in movies don't look passionate; they look desperate. Like a starving man wolfing down his first meal in days... or more accurately... like a drug addict "Jonesing" for a fix. Which is essentially the case.
I've said this argument in the SVU vs Adam-12 posting of mine; what they *don't* show adds to the story. In the prudish olden days of movies, the man and woman might kiss, or embrace... or both... then the lights would go out, fade to black, the story picks up the next morning.
Then again, back in those bad old days they also didn't have scenes take place while men use urinals or take a dump.
I miss the bad old days.
And before commenting perhaps you should see the movie.
The "need" to comment is that this is a discussion. Do you think more of the story could have been included in part 3? What kinds of things would you include that you regard as feasible under the time constraint? Do you think something crucial was omitted? Is that what you meant?
There was SO much that had to be left out. Particularly I was disappointed by the method and limited nature of the Taggart Bridge destruction, and the minuscule role of Project X as well as the the portrayal of Robert Stadler. The accident that killed him was crucial to the story as well.
Both my 16 Year-old-son and I enjoyed the film but we both wished it had been able to have been realized more accurately.