I’d briefly like to address the
giant elephant in the living room that no one dares talk about: the Atlas Shrugged movies. Frankly, I
will admit that I did enjoy both movies.
However, this enjoyment came mainly because of three primary
reasons:
·
I love the novel and also
understood that both movies were low-budget indie flicks, so I had both context
and an open mind
·
I helped promote both films,
especially the second one, even at my own financial cost, therefore I was
emotionally invested in psychologically convincing myself that I enjoyed them
both
·
I honestly wouldn’t mind playing
Seven Minutes in Heaven with either Taylor Schilling or Samantha Mathis. [Ah, the things I missed out on in high
school…]
He wishes! |
While I enjoyed both films, I really
have to admit that they were both mediocre.
Yes, I said it, get over it already.
You have greater things to worry about than my opinions, such as your
significant other cheating on you, or your total lack of a significant other… [No, I will not give you ice for that burn;
quit being a socialist and buy it yourself with one of your John Galt gold
dollars.]
Anyway, I stand by my statement on the
films, so before any crackhead libertarian or angry objectivist gets mad at me,
I fully believe we as liberty activists owe it to the great Ayn Rand to see
that only the best adaptations of her prolific works are made. Do you
dare defend crappy mediums for communicating some of the most important ideas
in modern history??? Didn’t think
so.
Even
if I forget about the soul-crushing cameo of Sean Hannity—a double
standard-bearing neoconservative ideologue—in the adaptation of one of the
greatest libertarian works ever written, there are two glaring problems with both
movies.
First,
changing the cast was lame and a half. Even though I
probably would be inclined to run off to Vegas with Samantha Mathis and be
married by an Elvis impersonator minister at a drive-thru wedding chapel, I
still have to stick to my standards, even if it means no Vegas wedding. Sorry Sam!
The producers should have just stuck with the same cast from Part I and
simply put a gun to their heads to command better performances. Switching faces only confused and alienated
potential libertarians. I get the
argument about making Part II able to stand alone as a film, but the very fact
that its part number is anything other than “1” fully undermines that cute
notion.
Second,
and most importantly, the length of time is a problem. I understand the constraints of a low budget
and blah-blah-blah, but some of the greatest movie classics have been made on
shoestring budgets (Clerks, American Graffiti, Rocky, etc.). Besides, the
entire saga takes place in a business office, on a railroad track, and on a
mountain in Colorado. Not the costliest
of venues!
The
budget issue is no longer an excuse, especially with Part II having a larger
budget. Because of the length of the
novel (over 1,000 pages of minimal action and maximum philosophy), the movies
need to be at least 2 hours and 40 minutes each.
The short length of both films meant
that they had to cut short all the prolific speeches that define the characters
and their objectivist philosophy. The
most important speeches cut brutally short were Francisco D’anconia’s “if you
saw Atlas” soliloquy and Hank Rearden’s “I own it” testimony at his trial. While I do feel that D’anconia’s speech in
the movie at least captured the spirit of the book’s intent, the trial scene
certainly did not.
The
speeches themselves are well-written and propose excellent arguments, and it
misses the point to edit them down to short sound bites. Remember, these speeches by D’anconia, Galt,
et all are what psychologically breaks the characters down and makes them check
out of the society to which they desperately clung for so long. The speeches need to be long, emotionally
intense, and actually convincing to the audience! And all the best quotes that could have been
used in the movies are in the book already.
Imagine that!
Furthermore, Rearden’s on-screen speech
was basically limited to “I built that, screw you.” Uhh, negative, ceasefire! What it needed to be was a lengthier and
wordier version of the following points:
·
I scraped together the investment
capital to start my business. “The
people” neither helped me muster it nor pay it back to the investors.
·
I directed the entire growth and
expansion of the business. It was my vision
and leadership alone.
·
I did not force any one of my
employees to work for me, nor did I force them to take their beginning
salaries. They freely and voluntarily
agreed.
·
I paid for every piece of
equipment and every hour of labor, not the government nor “the people.”
·
I and I alone dreamed of my metal
and poured the capital and brain power into developing it.
·
When the economy began to tank, I
never took a dime of bailout money from the government or “the people.” I made it the entire way on my own money and
my own ideas. I did not have
“help.” I had employees who did exactly
what I said and were well paid for it.
Only the moochers who received government money should be required to
give anything to the government.
·
Furthermore, the government
condemned my metal, my business, and I at every step of the way.
·
I’ve been right the whole time
and you’ve all been wrong. I will not
turn over my property and ten years of time, money, and labor to those who did
absolutely nothing.
Hell, even if he had just listed those bullet
points in the movie and said nothing else, the scene would have been saved. I myself would have applauded it! Instead, it was simply Rearden arguing “It’s
mine, mine, mine, I don’t have to give it up.”
Remember
folks, just saying something that people—the left and most moderates/centrists—already
disagree with will not make them suddenly agree with it. It will only reinforce their notion that
libertarians and conservatives are all heartless bastards. However, explaining a libertarian idea with
the above points might actually sway a few newcomers to our side. Keep in mind, oh smug liberty intelligentsia,
that the goal of our movement isn’t to be right about economics and generally
be smarter than everyone; our goal is to get a majority of society to at least
nominally agree with our ideas and to demonstrate such at the voting booths.
Atlas Shrugged Parts I and II could have
been a medium for swaying the masses to our side, but unfortunately they were
not. However, there still is a chance
for the producers to come up with a gem in Part III. It needs to be long, it needs to be
philosophical, and the speeches need to be emotionally intense and
jarring. No more short scenes, no more
speeding through the plot, no more cutting corners, no more excuses. And if
Part III has another new cast, I will commence punching innocent bystanders on
Santa Monica Boulevard in my frustration.
The innovation in Galt’s Gulch needs to
be both impressive and understood, not just eye capitalist eye candy. After being broken down into donating Rearden
Metal to the government, Rearden’s encounter with Ragnar the pirate needs to be
a tense scene that convinces the audience that the pirate is the one who’s
morally correct, and that Rearden did the right thing in crossing the line by
helping a fugitive escape from the police.
Furthermore, John Galt’s radio address could be one of the greatest
movie speeches of all time.
Make the effort, Mr. Putch, Misters
Sandefur, O’Toole, and Scott. I have full
faith in your ability to win an academy award for Ayn Rand’s epic
masterpiece. If you’re willing to take
my criticism seriously, I’d even be more than happy to personally join you in
this endeavor, working late into the night with you all in a writing office in
order to make a cinematic masterpiece.
* * *
"I am John Galt" protestor photo by "HKDP" and used via CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
Atlas statue photo is in the public domain.
German monorail photo by "Stahlkocher" and used via CC BY-SA 3.0 license.
All three images were obtained via Wikimedia commons.
Some of you may ask, if I call myself a libertarian, how is it that I can justify punching random people on Santa Monica Boulevard (or anywhere in the world)? Elementary, my dear Watson! Simply so: if the filmmakers want to slay Part III in the womb by giving the trilogy yet another fresh cast, then obviously the pillars of libertarian philosophy no longer matter since their desecration would become the norm. The same would apply to the non-aggression principle.
No comments:
Post a Comment