Tags

, , , , , , , ,

I thought about writing a review on the new movie, Atlas Shrugged, Part 1, but I came across the review below, among others, and found this to perfectly represent my viewing of the movie and my opinions on the characters and deviations from Ayn Rand’s Magnum Opus. The following is the closing paragraph from the review published in the “Objective Standard”, the official journal of the Ayn Rand Center: (click the link to read the full review)

“…But Atlas Shrugged: Part I is not the novel and it does not pretend to be. It is a fairly competently made, credible adaptation of one of the most complex novels ever written. Even with its flaws, the film is enjoyable and has wonderful moments, including some in which it captures the power of the novel—such as the party during which Dagny gets the Rearden Metal bracelet, the scene during which Hank hands over his ore mine to Paul Larkin, and the already mentioned scene during which Dagny and Hank discover the motor. Fans of Ayn Rand’s masterpiece likely will enjoy these scenes in particular and appreciate the movie generally. Those unfamiliar with the story will probably enjoy the movie as well and may find their curiosity sufficiently piqued to read the book. If so, they will be even more richly rewarded. All in all, Atlas Shrugged: Part I will be a satisfactory journey for many viewers and could help increase awareness of Rand’s work.”


I agree that the movie will help increase awareness; however, it will not increase understanding of the underlying philosophy of Objectivism. Hopefully, the movie goer will want to learn more and will make an effort to obtain and read the book. All in all, I found the movie better than expected considering the heft of the material that the book offers. It’s pace is erratic and at times inconsistent with the scene, action or relationship portrayals one expects having read the book, but the medium is not designed for such conveyances. :

The adaptation focuses primarily on Dagny’s and Rearden’s characterizations (illustrating the theme of egoism versus altruism), their efforts to stave off the country’s total collapse, and the plot elements surrounding these efforts. Less attention is given to subplots and to the development of secondary characters. For instance, Francisco d’Anconia (Jsu Garcia) comes across as a complete lout in Part I because the film lacks those great moments in which Rand provides intriguing clues that he may be more than he at first appears. The script also excises all of the flashbacks found in the novel, so we do not learn about the childhood relationship between Dagny, Francisco, and Dagny’s assistant, Eddie Willers. In fact, Eddie, a favorite of many of the novel’s fans, is reduced to the barest of supporting players, his contribution to the film being mainly to call Dagny and let her know how her brother, Taggart Transcontinental’s president, is trying to destroy the railroad.”

All in all, I’d give the movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Compare the review in the Objective Standard to the review appearing in the Billerica Townie News by Anthony Ventresca. Ventresca’s review is a positive one, but in it; he reveals that he lacks the understanding of Rand’s philosophy to be an effective advocate or proponent. Ayn Rand made it clear that her philosophy can never be split and fused with others philosophies. It’s strength relies upon adherence to principles of

1. Metaphysics:

(Objective Reality: The branch of philosophy that studies existence is metaphysics. Metaphysics identifies the nature of the universe as a whole. It tells men what kind of world they live in, and whether there is a supernatural dimension beyond it. It tells men whether they live in a world of solid entities, natural laws, absolute facts, or in a world of illusory fragments, unpredictable miracles, and ceaseless flux. It tells men whether the things they perceive by their senses and mind form a comprehensible reality, with which they can deal, or some kind of unreal appearance, which leaves them staring and helpless. ~ The Ominous Parallels, Leonard Peikoff).

2. Epistemology

(Reason: Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason—or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses—or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality—or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty—or is he doomed to perpetual doubt? The extent of your self-confidence—and of your success—will be different, according to which set of answers you accept. ~ Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand).

3. Ethics,

(Rational Self-Interest: “What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code.

The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?

Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?” ~ “The Virtue of Selfishness”, Ayn Rand),

4. Politics (Capitalism: “a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.)

The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.” ~ “Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal”, Ayn Rand)

Neither the book nor the move were produced to promote America or American values as they are commonly understood per se. Ms. Rand’s perspective is not grasped by Mr. Ventresca and is only cited when doing so supports a point in need of means. Objectivism does not preconceive an outcome, but uses knowledge objectively obtained and proven to answer the question why in order to find the proper end. Atlas Shrugged was written to promote laissez-faire capitalism as a political philosophy that rightly proves the natural rights of man valid. Objectivism requires rational egoism (selfishness) as a moral opposition to the slavish insistence on Kantian ideals such as altruism (forced self-sacrifice). It also makes clear the difference between rationalism (knowledge) and mysticism (beliefs handed down). It rejects the pragmatism of principle, but it recognizes that common ground can be attained in some issues while holding onto principle throughout. Altruism has been in vogue among progressives and their elite form of intellectualism for decades. Under the whimsy and mysticism of Kant, society holds no one responsible for individual failures, but rather puts the burden on those who are successful, who sacrifice their time, their energies, their ideas, and risk their wealth and their humanity to provide for those who lack similar degrees of courage, creativity and faithful devotion to living a full, uncompromising life. Under Kant, achievers are punished and failures or moochers are rewarded. Under Kant, knowledge is unattainable and beyond human understanding and therefore deprives man the ability to judge good or bad or to even claim with certainty that good and bad exist. There are no such confusions with Objectivism and those who allude to or state otherwise have no understanding of Objectivism or principled living as the leader of the Billerica Watchers Group clearly demonstrates though his ignorant opinion on Rand and Objectivism. Highlighting the underlying fundamentals of Objectivism is where the movie, because of its inherent medium, falls flat, and why it is important that people turn to the book for a more complete understanding of the movie’s message(s).