Atlas Shrugged Part 1
Ayn Rand is well known as a writer whose works have produced a manifesto for modern conservative thinking. Her best known work is ‘Atlas Shrugged’ (while personally, I consider her best work to be ‘The Fountainhead’). I never had much respect for her as a writer as I considered the dialogue stilted and her story lines to be a bit trite and one dimensional. However, if you view her works more as a political and economic treatise that uses fiction as its’ platform to deliver the message, then you can appreciate it more from that perspective. Republicans claim her work for their own with an almost religious fervor, even though I think her beliefs line up more with Libertarian thinking. The philosophy is Capitalism 101. While this may not seem revolutionary, one must consider the age during which it was written. During the first half of the depression era 20th century, all political beliefs were up in the air and being debated by intellectuals. There were strong communist and socialist movements happening here and abroad and our current economic and political system was by no means guaranteed. The Russians went the route of Communism, while the Europeans leaned towards Socialism, and here in the States, after a brief flirtation with Socialism during the New Deal, gravitated towards capitalism.
Enough of the history lesson. This movie is part 1 of a 2 part movie. I was wondering how this movie would translate to modern day as the story dealt with a Rail Corporation trying to survive in a country turning away from its’ Capitalistic values. Trains have not been a major economic force in decades (ironically, many surviving on the government subsidies this story claims to despise). In a not-so-clever plot device, this movie takes place in far flung 2016 where the price of gas and steel have made air travel unaffordable and trains are the only practical mode of transportation (okay, weak I know, but I will give it a pass as this story is too closely bound to the train industry to be able to change the type of business and remain faithful to the story).
Introducing Dagney Taggart (Taylor Schilling) and her brother James (Mathew Mardsen) as owners of Taggart Rail Co. Dagney is the protagonist and a Capitalist with a capital ‘C’ who is portrayed as beautiful, smart, and driven. Her brother is her opposite. He is weak and not very bright. He complains about unfairness in life instead of taking responsibility and he is slowly driving their company into the ground due to alliances and deals he makes with the government. Dagney is trying to save her company, but she is not too busy to notice that the world’s remaining business leaders are disappearing. They vanish without a trace after coming into contact with a mysterious individual who seems to explain to them something so radical that they decide to drop everything and go with him. Dagney is left to try to keep her company afloat in an environment where the government is increasing the country’s economic crisis through collectivism, subsidy and business limiting legislation. The more the government tries to make things equal, the more chaos it causes the economy. All the while, Dagney tries to understand the mysterious phrase ‘Who is John Galt?’ which seems to be whispered everywhere.
Dagney finds a kindred spirit in the form of steel tycoon Henry Reardon (Grant Bowler). Henry is a self-made man whose entire family leeches off him to maintain their high society lifestyle. All the while they resent him for their dependence and travel in circles that seek to enact socialist initiatives contrary to everything Henry believes in. Reardon is not concerned with them, rather he is focused on creating his business and contributing to the good of mankind through creation rather than charity. Dagney needs his steel to build her rail lines and Reardon needs Dagney’s company to take a chance on his experimental steel. They have no interest in governments or unions, they just want to create something and make a profit while doing so. This is the basis of Ayn Rand’s philosophy. Everyone must be productive and earn. Charities and subsidies (when forced by the government) are a drain on society.
Dagney and Henry face continual and growing opposition from the government that does not want them to become too successful. Their success might adversely affect their political cronies and hurt other less productive businesses. They struggle to succeed in a country that has come to resent free enterprise and will do anything to stop it.
The movie is obviously low budget and from what I understand had trouble getting funding to be made given Hollywood’s left leaning climate. I’ve never paid much attention to right wing conspiracy theories, but I must confess that this movie made me wonder. This has not been well promoted on line. I couldn’t even find it showing it was released in theaters on Yahoo until today (17 April 2011). The Yahoo movie page does not list the times it is showing at local Chicago theaters (or that it is even there) and there are no critic’s reviews of the movie. I’ve never seen anything like that before. The only reason I knew it was showing is because I saw another movie the evening before and noticed it in the theater. I would hope a major online company like Yahoo would not blacklist a movie merely because of a political philosophy. That would bring up much larger questions in my mind than the movie tries to address.
I don’t think the movie is that good nor will it change any minds that haven’t already been made up. This book was revolutionary at the time, but today it doesn’t contain anything that we haven’t heard thoroughly before. The story seems cliché and, since it follows the book closely, the dialogue and acting is awkward and clunky.
As a political treatise, I found this to be an effective way to illustrate the philosophy. As a film, I found it lacking and unengaging. In those ways, I find this film faithful to the book.
I rate this movie 1 star: *
No comments:
Post a Comment