Note: Before I begin writing, I want you to know that the embedded links lead to different pages involving the book and movie. If for some reason you are thinking about reading the book Atlas Shrugged, (which I highly encourage if you are capable of finishing the 1200+ pages) I wouldn't recommend clicking any links as they could spoil some things. If you never plan to read the book and only plan to see the movie, I would encourage clicking links as it will fill you in on some of the missing story lines. If you plan to read the book it is fine to read this post. I will mention some things from the first section of the book, but I won't spoil anything major and it might just be enough to get you interested. If you have any interest in possibly reading the book, I would say: do not go see the movie. Wait. Give the book a try and if you just can't take it, go see the movie when you have given up on the book.
~~~~~
So last night a few of us went to see the movie Atlas Shrugged....(in the spirit of full disclosure, I should point out that this is my very favorite
book). Anytime a book is turned into a movie, it is pretty typical for the people that read the book to be at least a little disappointed. After watching the movie, I was very disappointed, but not exactly in the way I thought I would be. As I digested what I saw and how I felt while in the theatre, I began to feel really conflicted about the experience, the movie, and whether or not I think people should even go to see it.
I want to start out by saying that if this movie was just made for me to watch, and no one else, or even if you had to prove that you had read the book to enter the theater, I would not be writing right now. I would have simply enjoyed my time watching the film and moved on, perhaps even beginning to re-read the book. I really liked being reminded of some of the story lines, seeing
Rearden Metal on screen, seeing the rail, and the power behind the trains. It wasn't that the movie followed the book that made me like it. It may even be that it left so much out that I was able to fill in the gaps with my knowledge of what was happening underneath the poorly acted dialogue.
Here is a quick look at what the film is about courtesy of Chris Bedford of
dailycaller.com:
The film, directed by Paul Johansson, focuses on two characters: beautiful railroad tycoon Dagny Taggart (played by Taylor Schilling) and genius manufacturer Henry Rearden (played by Grant Bowler).
Set in a dystopian 2016 America beset by economic depression, social disorder and a massively expanding government (sound familiar?), the film pits its two heroes against an array of corrupt businessmen, greedy government officials and leaching family members. Our capitalist heroes’ quest is to use Rearden’s new metal alloy — which is stronger and lighter than steel — to rebuild Taggart’s railroad, which is over 100 years old and completely falling apart. Their success is unacceptable to the entrenched elites, who will stop at nothing to prevent them from succeeding. Meanwhile, America’s best and brightest are disappearing without a trace, leaving behind only one clue: the name “John Galt.”
Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/24/movie-review-atlas-shrugged-part-1/#ixzz1K0ThiCpi
Other than James Taggart, I did really like the casting. Dagny was beautiful and looked a lot like I had pictured her while reading. Hank, Dr. Stadler (in his short appearance), Wesley, Lilian, and Dr. Ferris all looked the part. It would have been nice to get a glimpse of barely mentioned pirate Ragnar Danneskjöld, but maybe that is coming in the future movies. The acting was a little sub par, but these were by no means A-listers, hell, I don't know that they are D-listers. But that's what happens with a small budget. I can deal with that because unlike in most instances, in this I cared about the story being shared, not the acting.
One of my main questions about how this movie would be written was the setting. There was no date given in the book. But the railroad was very important to the world which gave me the feeling that it was before commercial airlines were affordable. I mean who rides across the country in passenger trains? As you can see above, the movie puts us in 2016. I am alright with this and they did a decent job of explaining why trains were again important and what kind of state the USA was in, but I don't see why they had to put a date to it. Also, nobody really smoked in the movie. In the book everyone smoked and there was a certain symbolism in the cigarettes that was lost in the movie. The montage of news reel was a little corny. I don't see why it would be that difficult to just make the movie timeless like the book. We all have imaginations for God's..er...god's (sorry Ayn) sake. Regardless, at this point in the movie I am still thinking it could go either way.
As the movie progressed, I had mixed feelings. (This will be harder to talk about without really divulging information about what happens.) I feel like the dialogue didn't stand on its own well. The writers tried to take several pivotal moments from the book and have the actors say them word for word, without having the buildup to show why they were pivotal. They also left out some very important moments that help you understand main characters (one example later). I felt like this made the lines seem a little corny and took the power right out of them. The same goes for the relationships between characters. We see them meet. The next time we see them they are very close. And it keeps leveling up too fast without proper time or scenes to show the development of their relationships. (I guess this could be the result of trying to take an extremely complex work of literature and turn it into a movie that is a mere 100 minutes and was only filmed with a $10 million budget.) The reason I still enjoyed this is because I already knew all of the subplots that were not being shown, but I felt like the people around me had to be confused or unimpressed. One of these instances is when one of my favorite characters from the book, Francisco d'Anconia, sees Hank at the anniversary party and speaks to him. In the book, he has a very long monologue that really tells you about his character, that he was not always the playboy that the movie shows him to be. This obviously could not have been put into the movie word for word, but could have been shaped down into a still powerful monologue. This excerpt from the book is at the bottom of this post.
There were several other things that irked me about this movie. Most tied to the budget like the silly black and white "missing" freeze frames. I just can't decide if I should be happy that the movie was made at all or if I should be pissed that it wasn't done all out. Maybe it is impossible to put a book like this into movie form. Maybe our beloved HBO would have been the right group to do this in a 12 hour mini series. I guess my final feeling is that if there is any chance someone is going to read the book, I hope they never see this movie because it gives away enough info to satisfy your need to find out more. So that person will not ever read the book, which is a shame. If someone isn't ever going to read the book, they might as well watch the movie. That is better than never having any clue as to what the book is about. And for those of us that have read the book, the movie is a good reminder of the greatness of the book. Maybe it will drive us to talk to people about the book, and get more and more people to read it. Once people read it they will realize that it is a great work.
I feel like Ayn Rand would not be happy with the movie, but is it even possible to be happy with the movie? Why do we ask questions that can't be answered? Who is John Galt?
-A
----------
Rearden heard Bertram Scudder, outside the group, say to a girl who made some sound of indignation, "Don't let him disturb you. You know, money is the root of all evil – and he's the typical product of money."
Rearden did not think that Francisco could have heard it, but he saw Francisco turning to them with a gravely courteous smile.
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Aconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears nor all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor – your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money. Is this what you consider evil?
"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is
made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.
"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except by the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss – the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery – that you must offer them values, not wounds – that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of
goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best your money can find. And when men live by trade – with reason, not force, as their final arbiter – it is the best product that wins, the best performance, then man of best judgment and highest ability – and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality – the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants; money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth – the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve that mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
"Money is your means of survival. The verdict which you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
"Or did you say it's the
love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another – their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride, or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich – will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt – and of his life, as he deserves.
"Then you will see the rise of the double standard – the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money – the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law – men who use force to seize the wealth of
disarmed victims – then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you – when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that it does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes, marked: 'Account overdrawn.'
"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world?' You are.
"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood – money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves – slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers – as industrialists.
"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a
country of money – and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being – the self-made man – the American industrialist.
"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose – because it contains all the others – the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to
make money'. No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity – to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted, or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.
"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide – as, I think, he will.
"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns – or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – Suck it! (kidding, I added that) and your time is running out."
original source: Part II, Section 2, pages 387-391 of the paperback
Text courtesy of James Donald
