Do you remember reading this book? I bet you don't. I am one of the seven people in America that read this book of their own free will, by which I mean not as part of class requirement for university or to get in with the hot girls at the Young Republicans meetings. Let's be honest, most of those people didn't read it either. But I did. You see there used to be a time where I believed that once you started a book (or a movie or television show) that you had to finish it based on the notion that starting it was some type of social contract whereby the reader vows to finish the book at any and all cost and the writer agrees to write a book that is worth finishing. I didn't figure out until I was in my late 30s that many writers and even more readers were failing to hold up their end of the deal. If the book sucked from the reader's perspective, there was a clause in the contract that allowed you to complain about the quality of the writing, citing in detail with examples if so desired passages which utterly failed. By virtue of the social contract between Ayn Rand and myself I retain the right to any and all criticisms of the novel, Atlas Shrugged. First of all, it's longer than the Fountainhead which was plenty long enough, thank you very much. It's also downright pastoral in places describing what you see out the train window - reminding me on more than one occasion of the great Russian writers but without any of the interpersonal drama that at least makes those books interesting. Do we even want to go into the politics or gender issues? At least on the latter it was better than the Fountainhead, in Atlas Shrugged a woman could run a company and be subservient to a man instead of just being subservient to men. Okay, you really want politics? I don't think you can handle the politics, but I'll toss a little your way. The book is not as dense as the Fountainhead in this area, not that it was terribly dense. This book is the pinnacle of Libertarianism, wherein is put forth the notion that every person would be allowed to earn what he is worth, which he does by working hard. Oh, and I guess one or two women should get paid too, at least until they get married and can live on what their husband is earning. While the man is working hard and being fairly compensated the government should keep it's hands off his money. Period. There should be no taxes, regulations or required deductions, no exceptions. So, what about the people who can't provide for themselves? If they are unlucky enough not to have a man in their family that can help them out, never fear, because the ultra-capitalists are not immoral - they will give nicely to charity if asked. Rand is so clear in this book writing about politicians - there are no good ones. Thee is nothing that the government does which can be achieved by unfettered ultra-capitalists work in to let the market take care of itself. I must mention that Rand's idea of the ultra-capitalist (my term not hers) are self-made men who are captains of industry, and everyone striving to become these things. They make the best product they can, provide the best service they can, because it is a direct reflection upon their personal character - shoddy work or product equals shoddy character. The left is not very fond of Rand's works, but the right is very fond. The problem I see with this is that if they truly believe in her philosophy (google this and see who claims to be devout believers in her ideals) they will not go into government because all politicians, nor matter how well intentioned must at some point compromise their principles and therefore are not being the best capitalist they can be, and I do mean any compromise at all, not just with opponents. Not to mention that as a politician you take money from others whether they want you to or not, whether or not you are providing a service they want - this would be taxes. Few of the business people on the right could truly be for Rand's ideals because you are morally obligated to succeed or fail based on your own virtues - you can not take a loan or subsidy. Period. I think in some ways Rand and Marx are a lot closer than anyone would like to admit - while Marx thought the oppressed worker would rise up to overthrow the decadent and worthless bourgeoisie, Rand thought that the true captains of industry would rise up and overthrow the decadent and worthless bourgeoisie - same goals, just from the other end of the field.
I realize that no one is even reading at this point because Rand's long-windedness has inspired a bit of my own, but I feel obligated to at least give my impressions of the film.
The first thing you will notice in this film is the acting. It is truly mediocre at best. Every character is being played uni-dimensionally. I find it impossible to get emotionally involved with cardboard cut-outs. Some of the acting isn't mediocre, it's just downright bad and looks and sounds like the actor is reading off a cue card. Some of this is due to the source material - Rand's characters live in a black and white world with very clearly drawn lines. But the screenwriter and the director can still make that seem interesting.
They've updated the story in a few respects to make it reflect modern trends and to be set in the near-future. I don't mind this at all. I do think it is important to mention that the film's makers do not point the finger at one political party, and in fact it's implied that the problems facing the nation have been going on for some time which implicates both parties, but party politics are only implied at best as they really are sticking to the idea that all politicians are sanctimonious demagogues looking to cheat hard-working people out of their money. Kudos to them for staying on point.
Acting aside, because a good film with bad acting is still tolerable, this isn't a good film. I have mentioned it in this blog before, the one sin of film-making, whether it be for the small screen or the large screen is that you can not be boring. You can make me laugh, make me cry, make me howl with anger, but you can not let me fall asleep or change to something else.
Not a show stopper like the issue above, but just downright em brassing in this day and age, you can not use sub-par visual effects and expect to be taken seriously. You can be cheesy for comedic effect, but even that can not just be bad. There are several scenes of the train making it's maiden voyage on Rearden Steel rail lines that look horrible by having the train look crisp even though the scenery is not so sharp. And even bigger, the train traveling through shadowed areas but the shadows never falling on the train. There is one stretch along a waterway where both of these problems coincide, and then the train traveling right to left across the screen moves up a pixel while the backdrop stays still - I don't mean a bump in the track, I mean the whole train moves up a pixel for what must be two dozen frames and then moves back down. How sloppy.
Atlas Shrugged on IMDb
No comments:
Post a Comment