Don't See Atlas Shrugged
Recently, I saw that they are going to make a movie of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". This really puzzles me, as I don't see how they can credibly make a movie of it. It stars Angelie Jolie, who is supposedly a great fan of Ayn Rand (which is puzzling also, in that Angelina has a charitable mindset, while Ayn Rand thought charity was evil - seriously. But then again Hollywood starlettes are not known for great intelligence).
For those of you who have managed to get thru Atlas Shrugged, it is about a "strike" where the competent people of the world refuse to work for the incompetents, and create their own utopia in a hidden valley deep in Colorado. And the incompetent world collapses, mostly due to the fact that all the competent people left. I'm not going to analyze all 1100 pages or so of the book.
The problem with the book is that it is largely unreadable. It's the opposite of the DaVinci Code - a book that is easy to read that is completely full of bunk. Atlas Shrugged is a book where the plot is devised to deliver you to the core of Ayn Rand's neo-Neitzheian philosophy (despite what her followers state, it is neo-Neitzheianism that she preaches, largely). And, also, this is the book that made Ayn Rand the high priestess of capitalism. Before Ayn Rand, capitalism was an economic system; after she wrote, it became an ideological system, too.
The fact that the literary qualities are horried does not stop it from becoming the most influential book written in the 20th century. This is not the first time that a horrid piece of literature became so influential. N.G. Chernychevskii wrote a book 100 years before entitled "Chto Delat." Literally, translates as "what's to do?" Actually, a better translation of the title is "Here is the plan." It was a book that taught the radical Russian intelligentsia what to do to prepare for "the Revolution." Like Ayn Rand, the literary merits are horrid. The characters are wooden, and the plot is unrealistic and pendactic. But it did inspire the Revolutionaries to engage in their activities. I am now convinced that the chief cause of the Russian Revolution was the fact that there was a 100 year effort by the Revolutionaries to overthrow the Tsar (and create the world in their own image), the last 50 years before the Revolution consisting of terrorism. As it taught two generations of Revolutionaries how to behave (and ultimately succeed), this book was quite influential. Being from Russia, and receiving a post-Revolution college education, she probably was quite familiar with Chernochevskii, who was nearly deified after 1917 in that country.
Unlike Ayn Rand, however, it was inspired by socialism, the opposite of capitalism. Nonetheless, it goes to show that one doesn't need to have good literary skills to become an influential writer.
Not that Ayn Rand was an incompetent writer. Her prior novel, the Fountainhead, while somewhat unrealistic, is quite a good piece of literature. And a popular one, too. So much so that it became a major motion picture - starring Gary Cooper - eight years after the first publication date.
I saw both the movie, and read the book. Which is why I do not go to movies for books I have read. I go see Harry Potter, but that is a father-son thing (since we both read it). And the movies are more often about a high school soap-opera than a good-versus-evil tale. Any my favorite character, Peeves, is omitted. Harry Potter is not about a love triangle between Harry, Ron, and Hermoine, like the movies like to portray, but about Harry Potter's attempt to destroy Voldemort.
In any case, The Fountainhed omitted a lot, which is common. And there was an attempt to omit the most important part of the movie, a six minute speech by the hero of the book. But Ayn Rand fought and fought to keep it in the movie. And so it stayed. And that was in 1948.
In Atlas Shrugged, the most important part of the book is a speech that takes up over 70 pages. I believe it is over three hours long, at least what the book indicates. Without the speech, Atlas Shrugged is essentially a worthless piece of literature.
But a movie will be made. Which means the most important part of the book will not be there. Consider that a. Ayn Rand is dead and cannot advocate to put it in, b. It is three hours long as compared to six minutes long, and c. This is 2006, when peoples attention spans are much shorter than those who were adults in 1948. A six minute speech in a movie was considered very long by Hollywood in that day (and holds the record for length of a speech in a movie), and the people of today do not have the attention span for a six minute speech, much less a three hour one. In any case, a three hour speech makes for a very bad movie, so will not be included. And every part of that speech matters.
Ironically, Ayn Rand wanted a movie to be made of it. But that was by the 1970's, when I believe she had several mental disorders. Not only was she a psychopath (how else would you equate charity with evil?) , but she denounced homosexuality (an odd position for an avowed athiest who preaches that all decisions should be made rationally and was a bit of a sexual deviant herself), believed that the rape was the only way one could have good sex, and basked in a cult of personality (another thing she denounced, but not when it applied to her). She also thought that no problems could be created by smoking - she would have made the perfect spokesperson for the tobacco industry! I think that her mental state of mind by that time was completely blown to bits, by who-knows-what, and in fact, her support for a movie of it argues against attending it.
Now, not that I am anti-Ayn Rand. She is the only philosopher I have studied in depth. I have absorbed many of her beliefs. I just don't agree with her athiesm (yes, there is a God), nor do I believe that charity is evil. Yes, it is a way that some people like to exaggerate their virtue (or hide the fact they have none), but there are people who really cannot provide for themselves, and they do need people to help them.
My problem with the movie is that it will not at all reflect the book, and the core of the book will be removed. Hopefully, though, many leftists will be inspired to read Atlas Shrugged after seeing it - although I doubt many will be so influenced by it, due to it's unreadability.
For those of you who have managed to get thru Atlas Shrugged, it is about a "strike" where the competent people of the world refuse to work for the incompetents, and create their own utopia in a hidden valley deep in Colorado. And the incompetent world collapses, mostly due to the fact that all the competent people left. I'm not going to analyze all 1100 pages or so of the book.
The problem with the book is that it is largely unreadable. It's the opposite of the DaVinci Code - a book that is easy to read that is completely full of bunk. Atlas Shrugged is a book where the plot is devised to deliver you to the core of Ayn Rand's neo-Neitzheian philosophy (despite what her followers state, it is neo-Neitzheianism that she preaches, largely). And, also, this is the book that made Ayn Rand the high priestess of capitalism. Before Ayn Rand, capitalism was an economic system; after she wrote, it became an ideological system, too.
The fact that the literary qualities are horried does not stop it from becoming the most influential book written in the 20th century. This is not the first time that a horrid piece of literature became so influential. N.G. Chernychevskii wrote a book 100 years before entitled "Chto Delat." Literally, translates as "what's to do?" Actually, a better translation of the title is "Here is the plan." It was a book that taught the radical Russian intelligentsia what to do to prepare for "the Revolution." Like Ayn Rand, the literary merits are horrid. The characters are wooden, and the plot is unrealistic and pendactic. But it did inspire the Revolutionaries to engage in their activities. I am now convinced that the chief cause of the Russian Revolution was the fact that there was a 100 year effort by the Revolutionaries to overthrow the Tsar (and create the world in their own image), the last 50 years before the Revolution consisting of terrorism. As it taught two generations of Revolutionaries how to behave (and ultimately succeed), this book was quite influential. Being from Russia, and receiving a post-Revolution college education, she probably was quite familiar with Chernochevskii, who was nearly deified after 1917 in that country.
Unlike Ayn Rand, however, it was inspired by socialism, the opposite of capitalism. Nonetheless, it goes to show that one doesn't need to have good literary skills to become an influential writer.
Not that Ayn Rand was an incompetent writer. Her prior novel, the Fountainhead, while somewhat unrealistic, is quite a good piece of literature. And a popular one, too. So much so that it became a major motion picture - starring Gary Cooper - eight years after the first publication date.
I saw both the movie, and read the book. Which is why I do not go to movies for books I have read. I go see Harry Potter, but that is a father-son thing (since we both read it). And the movies are more often about a high school soap-opera than a good-versus-evil tale. Any my favorite character, Peeves, is omitted. Harry Potter is not about a love triangle between Harry, Ron, and Hermoine, like the movies like to portray, but about Harry Potter's attempt to destroy Voldemort.
In any case, The Fountainhed omitted a lot, which is common. And there was an attempt to omit the most important part of the movie, a six minute speech by the hero of the book. But Ayn Rand fought and fought to keep it in the movie. And so it stayed. And that was in 1948.
In Atlas Shrugged, the most important part of the book is a speech that takes up over 70 pages. I believe it is over three hours long, at least what the book indicates. Without the speech, Atlas Shrugged is essentially a worthless piece of literature.
But a movie will be made. Which means the most important part of the book will not be there. Consider that a. Ayn Rand is dead and cannot advocate to put it in, b. It is three hours long as compared to six minutes long, and c. This is 2006, when peoples attention spans are much shorter than those who were adults in 1948. A six minute speech in a movie was considered very long by Hollywood in that day (and holds the record for length of a speech in a movie), and the people of today do not have the attention span for a six minute speech, much less a three hour one. In any case, a three hour speech makes for a very bad movie, so will not be included. And every part of that speech matters.
Ironically, Ayn Rand wanted a movie to be made of it. But that was by the 1970's, when I believe she had several mental disorders. Not only was she a psychopath (how else would you equate charity with evil?) , but she denounced homosexuality (an odd position for an avowed athiest who preaches that all decisions should be made rationally and was a bit of a sexual deviant herself), believed that the rape was the only way one could have good sex, and basked in a cult of personality (another thing she denounced, but not when it applied to her). She also thought that no problems could be created by smoking - she would have made the perfect spokesperson for the tobacco industry! I think that her mental state of mind by that time was completely blown to bits, by who-knows-what, and in fact, her support for a movie of it argues against attending it.
Now, not that I am anti-Ayn Rand. She is the only philosopher I have studied in depth. I have absorbed many of her beliefs. I just don't agree with her athiesm (yes, there is a God), nor do I believe that charity is evil. Yes, it is a way that some people like to exaggerate their virtue (or hide the fact they have none), but there are people who really cannot provide for themselves, and they do need people to help them.
My problem with the movie is that it will not at all reflect the book, and the core of the book will be removed. Hopefully, though, many leftists will be inspired to read Atlas Shrugged after seeing it - although I doubt many will be so influenced by it, due to it's unreadability.
posted by EricMatthew at 11:03 PM
<< Home