Atlas Shrugged: Will Moviegoers Do the Same?
The new big screen take on Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” doesn’t just adapt the novel to cinema, it adapts it to the current political climate. But will viewers buy it?
When the film Atlas Shrugged Part 1 came to Washington, DC for a preview on March 2nd, an array of libertarian and conservative groups were invited to the screening. CEI, FreedomWorks, Reason, Cato, the Daily Caller, and the US Chamber of Commerce all had reps in attendance. (FrumForum was not formally invited; I learned about the event through Facebook and made sure to get as near the front of the line for “overflow fans” as I could). The credits for the film included a very important disclaimer: “This movie was made with the permission but not the participation of the estate of Ayn Rand.” An additional disclaimer could have been: “This is a piece of fiction, please don’t forget that.”
Of all the staff in the FrumForum office, I was the most excited to see this film. I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in 12th grade and was very familiar with the plots of both. From a technical perspective the film actually does well considering its budget of under $20 million. Taylor Schilling and Grant Bowler give strong performances as Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, bringing natural chemistry to the scenes they are in. They carry the highly implausible plot with dignity. If you understand that this film was made with a budget smaller than some HBO TV specials, you can excuse some of the mid-ranged CGI.
In terms of the quality of the adaption, the film trades depth for speed. Several characters get reduced roles. Eddie Willers and Francisco D'Anconia suffer the most in this regard, with Willers having far less to do and D'Anconia being given no backstory to explain why we should care about him. If Parts 2 and 3 of Atlas Shrugged get made, I bet we won’t get a chance to meet Cherryl Brooks or the Wet Nurse.
People who are unfamiliar with the novel might be confused by some of the developments: how does Wesley Mouch go from being a lobbyist to a super-bureaucrat? Why does Rearden stay with his awful wife? And why does everyone either love or hate D'Anconia? It may have been impossible to do real justice to all these plot points in under two hours.
The flip side to that is that the actual story that drives Part 1, the construction of the John Galt line, is told clearly and with energy. Though I would have preferred more time spent on the climax of the train’s actual run (it’s one of the best chapters in the book) I understand that the filmmakers had limited resources and so chose to focus on our leads, Dagny and Rearden. A lot of love went into this film. Schilling and Bowler in particular should be commended for not just giving passable performances, but strong and memorable ones.
But there is still a problem with the film. It didn’t just try to adapt the novel to the cinema medium, it tried to adapt it for the current political climate. The result is that it’s simultaneously relevant and anachronistic. The film is set in “2016”, in a world where the stock market is volatile and oil spills occur in the gulf. The government responds with price controls and trucks from the “Ministry of Welfare” which distributes food to the poor. The politicians and lobbyists in the film warn about industrial monopolies and reigning in the selfishness of CEOs like Rearden. The film tries to speak to anxieties about the current economic crisis but its real target is FDR’s National Recovery Administration.
The organizations and groups which will promote this film, of course, won’t let such technicalities get in the way. While at CPAC, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe said that his organization will do its part to promote the film, and it will likely get a boost from other outlets from the conservative and libertarian media. The filmmakers and fans hope that the film is seen by a wide audience, but it’s more likely to be distributed and enjoyed by the self-selected Tea Party crowd.
Those who hope the film will evangelize Rand’s message are trapped by the fact that not everyone sees the world as Rand saw it. There is very little Rand-moralizing in the film but when there is, it’s blunt. Dagny claims that a motor company in Wisconsin failed because of the “stupid altruistic urges” of its unionized employees. We learn that Rearden thinks the looters and moochers who survive off his brilliance are “a bunch of miserable children trying to stay alive”. Is anyone who does not already think Obama is a secret communist going to buy these statements?
By seeking to set the movie in the current political climate, the movie reinforces the worst tendencies of the libertarian and conservative movements. They continue to have selective memories regarding the Bush tax cuts (they were in place before Obama was elected; Obama continued them, and they didn’t prevent the financial crisis), the financial crisis (the Community Reinvestment Act was not the only reason the crisis happened) and the role of Wall Street (the “best and the brightest” got off the hook).
Instead of that reality, watch this film and you can come out believing that the real problem is that our society doesn’t value “individual achievement”.
When I came back from the film, David Frum suggested one way that the film could have been more effectively modernized to really speak to the problems of the current political climate. You could have had society become dependent on John Galt’s static-electricity powered motor only to have it fail and him survive by receiving a government bailout.
This game of making these larger than life characters face the problems of the real world can get very fun. Imagine Hank Rearden facing recalls of Rearden Steel since it turns out that not having the government inspect the new wonder-metal meant that nobody noticed it was actually radioactive and caused cancer. You could also have Galt’s Gulch deal with an increase in automobile deaths and accidents since the libertarian utopia doesn’t have seatbelt and helmet laws.
The best example of how the movie has been modernized is that Dagny no longer lights a cigarette every five minutes to be a metaphor for “the fire of man’s mind”. (Even FDA warnings can be based on objective truth.)
If I sound harsh, its only because I appreciate the story as a fun and entertaining side show. The movie does effectively capture some of the crazy two-dimensional depictions of its characters. The film really is set in an alternate universe where the goodness of someone’s character is determined by how perpendicular their jawline is, and that can be fun. I know I will see the movie again and will drag along many much less eager friends to sit through it, and that they will ask questions like “why on Earth are trains so important in this world?”
The problem with the movie, is that it seems too eager to take itself too seriously and to insert itself into the political climate. Libertarians will enter into the film excited and leave with their political opinions reaffirmed. Reviews of the movie from more mainstream sites will start appearing and they won’t be kind. It has already been described as “incomprehensible gibberish” and “a laughable failure”. I just offer one piece of advice for libertarians who think that people who don’t enjoy this film are either socialists or moochers: check your premises.
Tweet