Review: Atlas Shrugged Part I
On Friday evening, a close friend and I filed to a local theater with about a 100 other movie-goers to catch the first of three installments of Atlas Shrugged on its opening night. We were both excited to see the movie, based on the book that is considered to be Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, but there was also skepticism because every fan of the book knows that this would not be an easy film to make.
There has been talk of trying to bring this very long, very in-depth novel to the Silver Screen for close to 40 years. Albert Ruddy, producer of The Godfather, approached Rand in 1972 about bringing the novel to life. Rand wanted final approval of the script, and because of this, Ruddy declined to proceed. Talk of turning Atlas Shrugged into a movie or miniseries would come and go throughout the several years. As recently as three years ago, it was reported that the movie was in the works, it would have a $70 million budget, and Angelina Jolie would play Dagny Taggart, the book’s heroine. In all too familiar fashion, it fell apart.
John Aglialoro, a businessman, bought the right to make the movie with full creative control from Rand’s estate in 1992. With his rights to make the film running out, Aglialoro began production in June of last year with a $5 million budget – though producers have recently said the budget wound up closer to $10 to $15 million.
For those of you not familiar with Atlas Shrugged or any other of Ayn Rand’s work, let me briefly explain. Rand, who lived in the Soviet Union until immigrating to the United States in 1926, believed very much in laissez faire or free-market capitalism. She opposed collectivism and statism in all its forms; communism, fascism, and socialism. Over the course of time, Rand developed her own philosophy, which she called Objectivism. This philosophy placed emphasis on her economic beliefs and the concept of rational self-interest. Rand described it as “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
Atlas Shrugged Part I, directed by Paul Johansson, is set in the not so distant future and establishes what would happen when the producers of society, tired of being persecuted for making money decide to abandon it, or strike. Throughout the course of the film, various men are approached by a mysterious character, John Galt (Johansson), and lured to a place where the producers of society can live without being persecuted by a government that only seeks to punish them for their success.
The film opens with a stream of news headlines tumultuous economic times, very similar to what we witnessed in our most recent downturn and news of another wreck on Taggart Transcontinental’s Colorado-based Rio Norte rail line. With the company losing business to a competing rail line due their failure to maintain replace aging tracks. Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling) tells her incompetent brother, James Taggart (Matthew Marsden), that she has canceled their contract with Orren Boyle (Jon Polito) struck a deal with Henry Rearden (Grant Bowler), owner of Rearden Steel, to use his new, untested alloy to replace the 100 year old tracks on the Rio Norte Line in hopes that they can save the company.
Because of her brother’s reluctance to trust Rearden’s metal, Dagny leaves Taggart Transcontinental taking the Rio Norte line with her to shield the company from any damages should the line falter. Her intention is transfer it back into the company’s possession should it be successful. Dagny changes the name of the Rio Norte to the John Galt Line and, after a long search, is able to find funding through Ellis Wyatt (Graham Beckel), owner of an oil company that could benefit from the line, Rearden and others.
Rearden is approached by the government with an offer to buy his metal and a warning that they “cannot afford to allow the expansion of a company that produces too much.” Rearden establishes that the metal is his property, the fruits of his energy, and he would not sell it. He becomes a target of his competitors and, who use the government to stifle his success. Legislation is passed to prevent any person from owning more than one business, forcing Rearden to transfer ownership of his other companies.
Another piece of legislation, the “anti-dog-eat-dog rule,” is passed to prevent competition among railroad companies. This new law, orchestrated by lobbyist Wesley Mouch (Michael Lerner) and James Taggart, single-handedly wipes out Taggart Transcontinental’s biggest competition, the Phoenix-Durango Line.
After a successful run of the 300 mile John Galt Line, Dagny, Rearden, and Wyatt celebrate over dinner. Rearden and Dagny begin a relationship, which helps the movie earn a PG-13 rating. That same evening, Wyatt answers a knock at his door from a man offering a place where producers are treated like heroes, not antagonized by looters and moochers.
Mouch is later appointed to a new position as nation’s economic planner. He announces in a speech that a moratorium is being put in place on rail bonds and a new tax would be applied to the state of Colorado, which has been fortunate in these very tough economic times, to “equalize our national economy.”
As Mouch’s intentions are announced, news breaks of a fire in Wyatt’s oil fields in Granby, Colorado. Dagny drives to his home, which is close to the fields, runs up to the top of a hill overlooking them in disbelief. As the camera pulls back, we see a sign that says, “I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It’s yours.”
The film, which was clearly made for fans of the novel, attempts to fit the first 10 chapters of the book in a 127 page script in around 100 minutes. Getting to know the characters as well as you do in the book is impossible. There seemed to be chemistry between Bowler and Schilling. Jsu Garcia’s performance as Francisco d’Anconia, left a lot to be desired. The CGI is downright terrible. Also, there could have been more emphasis placed on dialogue between the characters.
Despite the obstacles of a small budget and a cast of no-name actors, Atlas Shrugged deserves more notoriety than it will receive. The book has seen a significant increase in popularity in the last few years thanks to a society that believes, much like plot of this story, that we can punish producers without any consequences. How much longer will those that create the jobs tolerate a government that essentially punishes them for being successful without shrugging? But why ask such useless questions? “How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky? Who is John Galt?”
United Liberty








My thoughts, as someone who has never read Ayn Rand:
I agree with a lot of what you say here. I thought the acting was pretty good, and you’re right about the chemistry between Bowler and Schilling. They made me believe. A friend of mine (who has read the book) thought it was “overacted” a bit in the beginning, but I can’t really say that.
Some of the CGI parts were a little (too?) obvious — the John Galt line test run, for example — but nothing that made me roll my eyes. The only other one that comes to mind is the fire in the oil field.
Atlas Shrugged is not exactly an action movie, and not exactly a thriller, either. So how does a movie like this keep the viewer interested? By moving quickly. That’s exactly what this film did. I never once thought to myself, “my, this movie’s running a little long.” In fact, I have no impression whatsoever of how long this movie is. The filmmakers touch upon many different things without dealing too deeply with any of them — the unions, for example. But they continue to subtly harp away at the notion that government punishes success. I say “subtly” because it’s very obvious that’s what is happening (can’t miss phrases like “Robin Hood”), but they never spell it out for you and thus insult your intelligence. (I think they came close once or twice, though.)
I get that there isn’t time to develop characters as much as in a book, but I thought they did a pretty good job. Not having read the book, the only really important characters to me were Dagny and Rearden. Before we knew much about Rearden, I had already made up my mind early on that no matter what happened (within reason), I liked him and was rooting for him. I’m glad it turned out that way. I felt like Francisco was a story in himself, but there just wasn’t time to tell us about it.
I think my review basically comes down to this: By the time the lights came up, I was invested and definitely left wanting more. I will go see the second part when it’s released.
You’re right, Francisco is a story in himself. I just don’t believe the actor playing him did him justice. He had no gravitas.
I saw the movie this weekend and got about what I expected. The root problem is that the book just isn’t very good. Rand is an excellent philosophical writer, but her fiction writing leaves a lot to be desired. She has a tin ear for dialog in all of her fiction works, and I was disappointed that the screenwriter didn’t fix this. That would’ve gone a long way toward making this movie at least a little entertaining. A few more established actors would have helped, too. The ones in the movie are just not very good actors. I don’t want to be too tough on them, considering what they had to work with.
I knew this movie was going to suck, but went anyway because I love the book (I’ve read it twice). Sigh…
The movie should have been set in the 50’s when railroads were actually important to transportation/industry/economy. The fact that the movie is set in modern times makes the movie experience unbelievable and disingenuous. The acting was terrible and the sex scene was not near as sexy as it was in the book. The director didn’t even try to make Rand’s dialogue more digestible for the movie screen.
Honestly, if you love Atlas, just save your money and read the book again. No movie will ever do the book justice.
I read Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead and expected to be disappointed Friday night. But I absolutely loved it. I too had anticipated having a problem with the movie being set in modern times but the device employed to explain the focus on rail travel made sense. If fuel costs $37.50/gallon rail traffic might well come back to the forefront. OK. Good. And the movie moved very fast.
I note that the majority of reviews I have seen were written by people who had not read the book. I am not sure it is possible to appreciate the ENORMITY of the task of making the movie without reading the tome.
The only criticism I agree with was the lack of gravitas in the role of Francisco d’Anconia. That role could have been done better. But complaining about the quality of the computer graphics seems trivial. Come on! They were plenty good enough. You were expecting The Matrix?
I had no trouble with any of the dialog. I do not think I missed a word or a concept. It all made sense to me and moved very fast. Distilling Rand’s rants into workable dialog is an incredible accomplishment in and of itself.
What I think was crucial was the accurate portrayal of the unholy alliance between socialists, unions and crony capitalists. That alliance has the power to destroy prosperity and that was clearly shown.
I’m not convinced I am reading reviews written by conservatives. These may be “seminar reviewers”!
Post new comment