J. Neil Schulman
@ Agorist.com
@ Agorist.com
This will be a briefer first draft of a full review that will appear later this year in Mondo Cult Issue 3. See also Karl Hess Club Talk: Atlas Opened.
–J. Neil Schulman
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1
Director, Paul Johansson
Screenplay by John Aglialoro and Brian Patrick O’Toole
From the Novel by Ayn Rand
The Strike Productions / Rocky Mountain Pictures
Starring Taylor Schilling, Grant Bowler, Matthew Marsden, Michael Lerner, Graham Beckel, Rebecca Wisocky, Edi Gathegi, Jsu Garcia
Atlas Shrugged — Part 1
There were around thirty ticket-holders at the Torrance, CA midnight showing of Atlas Shrugged – Part 1 last night. I was not the only person in the audience who had driven from Nevada for this showing; there was also a couple from Henderson (Las Vegas adjacent). The audience bonded in lively conversations before the showing, and I discovered that many in the audience were, like me, great admirers of the novel who’d been waiting for this event for many years.
Just before the movie started I heard a soft prayer from behind me: “Please don’t suck.”
Ayn Rand was one of two libertarian novelists who inspired me to follow in their footsteps — the other being Robert A. Heinlein — and Ayn Rand would have fiercely objected to being called a libertarian. Ayn Rand objected to so much of her culture that she even developed a philosophy which she called Objectivism. That’s not what she meant by the term, but her philosophy begins with such a trenchant deconstruction of the proclaimed ideas that much of the human race lives by that my explanation for the term is at least as good as hers.
Ayn Rand did not base her life choices on what other people thought of her. This was a good decision because she spent much of her life pissing people off. Oddly the more closely they agreed with her, the more pissed off they were.
Ayn Rand refused to support the candidacy of the one elected president of her lifetime whose political ideas were closest to her own: Ronald Reagan. Her reason for not supporting Reagan was pure left-wing feminism: Reagan opposed a woman’s right to have an abortion. Yet, did Ayn Rand get any street cred from feminists for this? With exceptions notable for their rarity, no.
Ayn Rand thought the War in Vietnam was a mistake. She opposed the draft. Her individualism was so deeply taken for granted in her philosophy that one of her friends had to bug her to write about how racism was a form of collectivist evil. Her portraits of empowered women in her fiction and drama make Rand far more worthy of having her face minted on a dollar than Susan B. Anthony or Sacagawea.
Rand’s 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, was viciously attacked by William F. Buckley’s iconic conservative magazine, National Review. It was universally panned by liberal and left-wing critics as well. The only support for this novel came from millions of readers, and that number continues growing half a century later, at a rate so high it still outsells most novels ranked on best-seller lists.
Rand had her own philosophy of literature and drama which she termed “romantic realism,” and her style was crafted to her own standards, not those of reviewers, critics, or university English departments. Her bold style, the literary equivalent of writing in primary colors, is easily attacked as comic-bookish, and if she were a young writer today you can bet the farm she would have been a star at Comic Con.
So, when the first movie made from Atlas Shrugged hit theaters yesterday it was a no-brainer prediction that film critics would dismiss and attack the movie in terms identical to the literary condemnations of its source material.
Ignore these critics as background noise. They’re not who the movie was made for.
The odd thing about Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is that based on its actual plot — not all the rhetorical flourishes about capitalism and working for a profit — Michael Moore should love this movie. It’s about honest working people who care about their jobs being foiled by corporate lobbyists conspiring with politicians.
In a scene you’d never see in any other movie, Railroad magnate Dagny Taggart tells a union representative who walks into her office intending to threaten her with a walk-out that all she wants the union members to have is to make their own free choices about whether to work on what’s being called a high-risk job. Boy, is that pro-greed and anti-union.
Let’s address the elephant in the room. Despite Atlas Shrugged‘s status as a super-best-seller for over fifty years, the major studios choked for half a century on making this movie. To make this movie up to studio standards would have cost as much as Avatar and there is no James Cameron in Hollywood today who could love Ayn Rand’s philosophy expressed in Atlas Shrugged enough to put themselves at odds with the rest of the movie industry.
Like a new type of steel, a new petroleum cracking process, a new railroad line in Atlas Shrugged: Part 1, the Atlas Shrugged movie itself could never be a product of business as usual. The movie could only be an indie production, and that means severe budget limitations. Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is at the upper edge of independent movie financing — approximately $15 million — and an order of magnitude above the costs of most indie films today — which make equity investors shake in their boots if more than $1 million is being spent.
So Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 has both the merits and limitations of an indie film. It has the bold, iconic vision of an indie film that can never exist in studio green-lit productions which are made within the boundaries of cookie-cutter formulas. It therefore had to choose between spending its production funding on building sets and massive CGI, or on A-list star salaries which are often enough higher than this movie’s entire production budget.
With a star director like Steven Spielberg or James Cameron, a star writer like William Goldman, and star actors like Aaron Eckhart and Scarlett Johansson, Atlas Shrugged could have been a perfectly executed movie. That’s what’s made possible when any production roadblock can be solved by throwing gobs of money at it. You get cinematic perfection, even if it has to be re-shot or fixed in post.
That movie could never be made. The people who okay writing checks that enormous share the values of the people Ayn Rand was attacking in Atlas Shrugged. They’re the big businessmen Atlas Shrugged skewers and damns to atheist hell.
So what was possible in the real world was an indie production made without stars, without iconic talent, and which — I can tell you this from my own experience as an indie producer/director — you do the best you can on the day, then the 1st AD says to the director, “It is what it is.” The director says, “We’re done here. Call lunch.” The 1st AD shouts, “Lunch! We’re on the wrong set!”
Given these standards, Atlas Shrugged; Part 1 is as good as it gets for an indie film production from a novel that demands ten times the money it was made for. Blaming it for not being as polished as a studio film shows either ignorance of the movie business or is just a cheap way of cursing at it by people who hate its authorial viewpoint and look for new and better ways to attack it. When you hear a critic lambasting the production values of Atlas Shrugged, they’re lying. They’re attacking the production values of an ambitious indie film because they can’t attack the movie’s content without admitting their bias.
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is as faithful an adaptation of Ayn Rand’s half-century old novel as could survive the transition of an epic — and sometimes dated — novel to independent film. It has none of the bombast of Ayn Rand’s literary style; if anything the production look and directing style is nuanced and understated. The storytelling is necessarily economical.
There is, in the movie, a new railroad bridge made out of a new kind of steel — lighter, stronger, and cheaper than steel — and this bridge is elegantly simple.
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is that bridge.
If you’ve loved the novel and understand the limits of independent film, you should appreciate the film adaptation.
I love the novel and came out of the theater thinking, “This movie is Atlas Shrugged.”
Industrialist/inventor, Henry Rearden, repeatedly asks one question of a government official who wants to pay him any figure just to protect existing industry from his new product. Rearden repeatedly demands, “Is it good?”
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is good.
If you’re not already a fan, be prepared for something you’ve never seen in a movie before: a fundamentally honest depiction of the nature of the struggle between those who pull and those who ride free in this country … and why Ayn Rand, speaking from the grave, has shown us why both honest working for profit and true charity from the heart are destroyed by a malignant virus called “self-sacrifice.”
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is not a demented defense of psychopaths like Wall Street‘s Gordon Gekko or Avatar‘s Parker Selfridge, but a demand for freedom from exactly those demented psychopaths who demand that your shoulders be yoked to their plough. We who think we’re called to something higher need to shrug these thugs in business suits off.
If you don’t understand the difference between larceny and production, you need to see this movie. Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged — John Aglialoro spent fifteen-million dollars of his own money making Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 — so you can see the clear difference that these criminals will pay anything to hide.
My comic thriller Lady Magdalene’s — a movie I wrote, produced, directed, and acted in it — is now available as a DVD on Amazon.com and for sale or rental on Amazon.com Instant Video. If you like the way I think, I think you’ll like this movie. Check it out!
April 16, 2011 - 11:46 pm
Neil, thank you for this review! way to go to drive that far to see the film. i live in utah and considered driving to colorado, but was lucky to have the film come to Salt Lake. I love the “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 is not a demented defense of psychopaths like Wall Street’s Gordon Gekko or Avatar’s Parker Selfridge,” for some reason many miss this point… The book and philosophy makes a clear distinction between the good and the bad. Social class or how rich or poor one is has nothing to do with it. Thanks again! I did see the movie friday night 7 pm showing. the theater was 90 – 95% full and people clapped in the end! I made a video review it’s on my channel. Take a look and pass it along. I hope it gets people to see the film. Let’s add to the buzz and get the film into 3000 theaters.
http://www.youtube.com/getthrobbing
April 17, 2011 - 3:53 am
That’s a croc of bull right there. “Blaming it for not being as polished as a studio film shows either ignorance of the movie business or is just a cheap way of cursing at it by people who hate its authorial viewpoint and look for new and better ways to attack it.” NO, it’s completely OK to go after the production value. Especially with a project like this where major league film stars have actually shown interest in participating. Why this then? Because you shouldn’t laud someone for overreaching their abilities. They knew they did not have the funding to give the book justice but went ahead anyway. If you want to make bone china but only have clay, you should scrap that plan and make earthenware instead. Likewise, you want to make an epic three part movie that requires grand sets and character actors with a certain gravitas to make the script work, but you have the budget and time constraints of an indie movie. Well, then maybe you should scrap your plans for the epic and make a movie about two people in a car instead. Some of the beat movies I have seen have been about two people in a car and were shot on a shoestring budget. But if you go ahead and try to do something epic as an indie movie, then critiquing the production value is not just right, but proper. You know, if someone tried to make a shoestring budget version of a Tom Clancy novel, it would also be lambasted for the cheap production value. You wouldn’t complain that the critique was based in a disagreement in the message of the movie in that case, now would you? No, you wouldn’t, so don’t do it with Atlas Shrugged, just because it’s Rand and not Clancy.
April 17, 2011 - 4:50 am
Here’s another interesting review of Atlas Shrugged, from, I suppose, a paleocon perspective: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/selfishness-the-movie/
It makes the interesting observation that Rand wrote about industrialists, whereas today’s America has shipped much of its industry overseas.
And that modern self-made American billionaires (e.g., Zuckerberg, Jobs, Gates), are the sort who embrace altruistic business philanthropy.
April 17, 2011 - 11:40 am
James Kirkpatrick’s review is titled “Selfishness, the Movie.” The same conservative altruists that hated the book in 1957 have been disinterred to hate the movie.
April 19, 2011 - 5:40 am
Good review from someone who understands film realities…
http://www.facebook.com/LibertarianInternationalOrganization … Let folks know about your movie there…
April 19, 2011 - 12:06 pm
Fifty years of studio development hell is enough. John Aglialoro, himself, tried for 18 years to set up a major studio release. Half a century is enough proof that a high-budget production of Atlas Shrugged was simply never going to happen.
To criticize John Aglialoro for finally deciding to put his own money on the line to produce Atlas Shrugged as an indie film after optioning the movie for close to two decades seems to be the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Make a movie yourself, bud. Studio or indie. Then I’ll take your yapping from the cheap seats seriously. The ability to buy popcorn and plunk your ass in a movie theater doesn’t qualify you to express a competent opinion of whether a movie should be made.
April 19, 2011 - 5:50 pm
>>When you hear a critic lambasting the production values of Atlas Shrugged, they’re lying. They’re attacking the production values of an ambitious indie film because they can’t attack the movie’s content without admitting their bias.
Okay, first off, I’m unaware of a single critic who lambasted the production values without ALSO attacking the movie’s content. When a movie works as entertainment, no one gives a crap about its production values. “Blair Witch” and “Swingers” were huge indie hits despite looking like crap. When a movie does NOT work as entertainment, and “ASP1″ doesn’t even come close to working as entertainment, THAT is when one’s eyes begin to wander and notice that on top of that, the production itself sucks.
You have it the other way around, Neil. The fact that YOU are in the position of defending the criticism of the production values (by making excuses for them, basically) RATHER THAN the criticism of the content suggests that you have no defense against the fact that the movie is a lumbering, confusing and deadly boring slab of nothing.
And incidentally, no, the movie is not at all follow-able by those who have not read the book. I dare you to find me someone who hasn’t read the book who not only enjoyed the film but can explain its plot top to bottom. Good luck with that.
And telling people that they shouldn’t listen to the critics because it wasn’t made for them is just ridiculous and pathetic. The movie wasn’t made for…grown adults with opinions? Okay, so it was basically just made for the Randophiles? Fine. Admitting that is the first step. But couldn’t you guys have just had a private Rand-fans-only screening, then? Why bother the rest of us with this turkey?
April 20, 2011 - 9:33 am
So it comes down to you claiming that for me to have an opinion I have to have professional experience in the field? How very droll of you mr. Schulman and very much something I more expected to hear from a stateist, not from a Libertarian. I do hope you have the same level of experience you crave of me for everything you criticize here on your blog, it would be sad if you were to be found out to have double standards. But I guess it’s easier than defending your cop-out of denying anybody the right to lay critique on the movie, because if they do, then it OBVIOUSLY have to be because of disagreement of the politics.
FYI I have been involved in indie movies, in front of camera, not back. But I guess that that won’t qualify me to have an opinion either, I have not been in the vaulted position of producer or director like yourself.
To criticize me for voicing my opinion seems to be the worst form of elitism.
April 20, 2011 - 10:07 am
There are plenty of things the audience is entitled to an opinion on without any professional expertise. Like whether to spend their money on tickets in the first place and whether to recommend that anyone else go see it. But to demand a veto over a movie being made because “They knew they did not have the funding to give the book justice but went ahead anyway” isn’t one of them. You’re the one being the elitist here, demanding that your elite opinion is more important than the people putting their money and careers where their mouth is.
April 20, 2011 - 11:04 am
Strawman mr. Schulman.
Nowhere did demand anything, I merely claimed that I had a right to lay critique on the production value of a film, while you lay down a blanket ban on non-movie makers criticizing the film. Just take a step back, look at that and tell me which of the two is more limiting on a persons liberty?
Let me get back to that one sentence you single out. Do I anywhere state that they do not have the right to do what they do and claim veto powers as you say? No, there isn’t, so don’t put words in my mouth. Of course they are free to do that. In the end it’s mr. Aglialoro’s place to make a business decision. I do apologise for not putting in the necessary number of caveats about this being my opinion on the matter and that I do in no way want to force others to follow this. I thought it would be clear for any reasonably intelligent person, but always forgets that in a textual debate I have to cover all angels because weasel arguments based on cherry picking is rife. But I’m off on a tangent. Mr. Aglialoro is free to put his career and money in this, but that does not automatically make it a good business decision and it does not immunise him from critique.
Also, unless you find that when talking about movies the game changes radically, your “this is an indy film” defense falls to pieces. Let’s say we are talking about something else, like say, a train. Someone has bought a patent for a new type of engine car but has difficulty finding funding. Soon before the patent runs out, the owner invests his money in the production, but corners has to be cut, materials substituted with inferior, cheaper alternatives etc. Would you then still be claiming indy effort protects against critique? That it should be measured to another standard than an engine built by a big, established company?
In closing and on the subject of budgets, allow me to copy a comment from Radley Balko’s The Agitator which I agree with:
“If Schulman doesn’t think it’s possible to do low-budget films with good production values, he’s not being as rational as his URL suggests. He’s setting up a false dichotomy — all big-budget movies on the one hand and all low-budget indie movies on the other. Is it better to have more money? Of course. But you can make a lousy movie on a big budget AND you can make a good money on a tiny budget. Off the top of my head, here are a few movies with tiny budgets that found ways to overcome their lack of money:
– Rocky, 1976 — $1,000,000, adjusted to 2010 numbers is $3,786,651.
– American Graffiti, 1973 — $777,000, adjusted to 2010 numbers is $3,769,725.
– My Big Fat Greek Wedding, 2002 — $5,000,000, adjusted to 2010 numbers is $6,023,271.
– Napoleon Dynamite, 2004 — $400,000, adjusted to 2010 numbers is $457,771.
– Once, 2007 — $150,000, adjusted to 2010 numbers is $157,558.
The point isn’t whether you liked these movies or not. The point is that they were done by talented people who knew how to get past the limitations of a low budget. Yes, “Atlas Shrugged” was hurt by having a low budget, but there’s no reason to give it a pass on this, because countless low-budget indie movies has proven that you CAN do a good job of it if you have the right people. The people who made this movie was not competent enough to do professional jobs with the material. The low budget is a limiting factor, but lack of adequate talent and professionalism was a much bigger factor.”
April 27, 2011 - 9:59 pm
Neil, Thank you for a great review.
I do not think the lack of “Hollywood Polish” detracted from this film at all. Actually the use of “Unknowns” in my opinion was a brilliant move because there is no well known actor/actress to detract from the film’s message.
I have not read the book and I had not problem getting “sucked in and glued to the screen”
My only complaint is the film ended too soon.
April 29, 2011 - 1:57 am
Glad I’ve finally found sometihng I agree with!
May 8, 2011 - 1:52 am
Cool:)!
May 23, 2011 - 10:42 pm
…………….The latest news and discussion about the ATLAS SHRUGGED movie…courtesy of the fans of s novels at the Atlasphere………… Noted liberal movie critic Roger Ebert wants everyone to know that not only did he dislike the Atlas Shrugged movie but including even he tells us more than once fans of Ayn Rands novels..He says he was looking forward to a good movie so he could discuss Ayn Rands philosophy which according to him reduces itself to I m on board pull up the lifeline.