Will the movie version of Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged' divide audiences?

"Someone who knows what it's like to work for himself, and not let others feed off the profits of his energy." So begins the trailer for the movie version of "Atlas Shrugged," based on the book by Ayn Rand. It's coming to theaters April 15, as "Atlas Shrugged: Part 1."

"Atlas Shrugged" is a book that's part science fiction, part paean to capitalism. When the 1,168-page book came out in 1957, Robert Kirsch wrote in the L.A. Times:

It is probably the worst piece of large fiction written since Miss Rand's equally weighty "The Fountainhead." Miss Rand writes in the breathless hyperbole of soap opera. Her characters are of billboard size; her situations incredible and illogical; her story is feverishly imaginative. It would be hard to find such a display of grotesque eccentricity outside an asylum.

But Kirsch was not the only one to weigh in. Another staffer, Paul Jordan-Smith, found it entirely more palatable.

It's a book every businessman should hug to his breast, and the first novel I recall to glorify the dollar mark and the virtue in profit. ...

How the shabby little left-wingers are going to hate it!

Will the movie be equally likely to split audiences?

-- Carolyn Kellogg

Comments

[Christine]

I have read Atlas shrugged too many times to remember...I would like to believe the film business will get the movie version right, but I highly doubt.....most people miss the point of the book -especially the movie business.

[Squarf]

Ayn Rand: "These body fluids are mine! You can't have any!"

[AndreaU8]

Moronic liberal actors playing John Galt and Dagny Taggart?!!! Please NOOOOO!

[Al Senor]

Obviously Robert Kirsch had the intellect and foresight of ant. But that may actually be an insult to ants.

[motodude]

How the shabby little Fox Nooz-watching wingnut capitalist tools will drool....

[Robert]

No! What an insipid trailer. I'm disgusted.

They've turned one of the most important books of the 20th century into a Lifetime TV-movie. All they need is Joan Van Ark and a "Very Special Appearance" by Tracey Gold as the girl who conquers her anorexia thanks to the love of John Galt.

[rumblestrip]

Absolutely yes, between folks who hated it before and a whole new group of haters (ie, nonfascists)

[Brett]

Gee a movie version of possibly the worst novel of all time? What do you think it will be like? The trailer alone had me nodding off, and it's a two part movie!

[Jamie R]

It shouldn't be too hard to dramatize pure selfishness.

[Che Nesacio]

We live in a world where triumph of dogma over evidence and logic is rewarded. For this reason I too worry that the point of this great book turned movie will be lost to Hollywood. What will this movie be about? I worry that the holy keepers of the public myth (behind the scenes) will, without taking a breath, and despite all evidence against them, continue to coddle and care for public myth and without fail. The sole purpose is to let those who wish to believe, who desperately need to be told that what they believe in is real and to give them affirmation to continue to believe. The "true believers", rather than face their own self deception and denial, have to know that all is well, and that their ultimate savior, the all powerful and all knowing authority, is there for them and that they will always be safe as long as the believe.

They are maintained through graft not to change a society, but to maintain it. They benefit those in power by maintaining the status quo and are rewarded for playing along. Their job is to make sure the rest of populace (fence sitters) never questions existing state of affairs.

[Trevor Pierce]

I am almost certain this movie will divide audiences, for a couple of reasons. First, there will be purists who point out the obvious flaws or lack of translation from print to film. Certain things such as internal dialogue or stream-of-consciousness events, so richly described in print, cannot generally be presented in film. The setup takes too much time and doesn't usually serve to advance the plot.

Second, and most importantly, the very idea of Objectivism rubs a number of people the wrong way. Social welfare and the good of the public vs. unfettered capitalism and job creation wasn't a new theme in 1957 but is one still being debated in 2011.

Regardless, it's a tale that has grown and challenged readers for over 50 years and has the chance to reach an entirely new audience if done well.

[pete]

Awful trailer. No sense of what it's about. No recognizable stars. This is the best they could do?

[VineL]

To the person who wrote: "Absolutely yes, between folks who hated it before and a whole new group of haters (ie, nonfascists)." I love it -- people have become so dogmatic in their view of the world that they do not even bother reading a book or watching a movie before forming an opinion of it. I am a Democrat, and not a particular fan of Ayn Rand, but I am terribly bored of people such as yourself who resort to name-calling as a means of insulting anyone who disagrees with your world view. What a pathetic attempt to try and win an argument or even make a point. By the way, your silly comment did accomplish one unintended objective in that it has provided yet another example of the apparent infallibility of Godwin's Law.

[Alfred Brock]

Ayn Rand was an immigrant from Russia. Her family fled the oncoming Communist takeover and she HATED communists beyond all reason because they uprooted her family and took away the advantages to which she believed she was entitled. Her Czarist education led her to write some of the worst capitalist propaganda ever seen but because of and not in spite of its cartoonish appearance it was welcomed in Hollywood because it was easy to translate her simplistic language into a screen play. Not much to it and that says a lot.

[Peter Grundy]

Atlas shrugged- people yawned!

[Linda]

As a novel, Atlas Shrugged is melodramatic and tedious. But almost no serious readers view it primarily as a novel -- rather, it is a vehicle for exploring and explaining Rand's philosophy of Objectivism...and of course, THAT will divide audiences, as it always has: between Producers on the one hand and Moochers on the other. We can only hope that now, with the economy in a mess due to Moocher-dominated (a.k.a. Crony Capitalist) policies, even those who sup at the public trough will see that Rand was right.

[rusoviet]

I'm guessing the same that was fired at Dr. Folsom's vetted treatment of FDR per his 'Raw Deal' will be the same that loath the film version of 'Atlas Shrugged'.

Here's one I'm sure Bill Maher will enjoy . . .

"The GOP wants to bad mouth FDR for pulling the USA back out of the dark hole the GOP and that kind Rich put us in and yet they glorify GW Bush - a man who destroyed the republic and will live in infamy as a war criminal.

Every working man today wants the New Deal, wants the Great society not the necons...neo feudalist society they have brought us."

I want my I want my I want my FDR.....I want my I want my Iwant my FDR

[durhonka]

Typically when people claim that Atlas Shrugged is poorly written they offer no specifics or details. First, Ms. Rand rejected "naturalism" - the modern school of thought which says that fictional characters should be "realistic" or like the "folks next door." Ms. Rand's characters are somewhat abstract; they always embody ideals or principles. Some ignorant people claim that this makes her characters simplistic or "one-dimensional." That's not a complaint about Ms. Rand's writing abilities; it's a complaint about her philosophy of art.

Second, Ms. Rand is clearly a genius at plotting. My favorite scene in Atlas Shrugged is Jim Taggert's wedding, where Ms. Rand seamlessly weaves together the main plot and almost a dozen subplots and makes them all interact - in just a few pages. She is also amazing at dialogue and character interactions. I can think of no other modern writer who introduces two characters in different scenes and the first thought of the reader is "holy smokes, I cannot wait to see these two characters interact!" For example, in the first section of Chapter 1 of Atlas Shrugged we meet James Taggert, in the second section we meet his sister, Dagney, and then in section three we are treated to the first of many delectable dialogues between the two characters.

Finally, I should point that Robert Kirsch's review of Atlas Shrugged was typical of the reviews in the mainstream media. They all hated the book for it's political philosophy (but, again, he was short on specifics as to what made the book so awful). But Kirsch is unique in that he went back and tried to claim that the Fountainhead was also a poorly written book. Reviews for the Fountainhead were generally favorable - including the New York Times, which described Ms. Rand as a writer of "great and subtle powers."

Remember, the goal of those who trash Ms. Rand's writing is to goad her many fans into saying angry things, to convince those who have never read her books that it's not worth their time, and to shade your opinion of her writing if or when you do pick up one of her books.

The fact that they simply cannot handle a serious right-wing thinker (who is also probably the most influential female intellectual of all time) is a sign of the extreme anti-intellectualism of the left.

[Hanna]

People who buy into Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, based on her godawful writing, really aren't very smart people. They like to think they are, though.

(They tend to get very defensive when challenged. Sorry, Al Senor, Christine and Robert, if I have a chuckle at your expense.)

[Stephen Dimig]

Ugh. Ayn Rand and Nietzsche are two bits of modern intellectualism are never care to partake of again.

[Quatermass]

Right. Who are today's "producers" and who are the "moochers"? I see the financial sector producing nothing and taking government bailout money. I see corporate raiders like Icahn strip-mining companies and destroying them, but producing nothing. I see hot-air machines like Beck and Limbaugh, neither of whom every produced anything other than balloon juice.

Rand's creed was that you are absolutely free to think any way you want to, as long as it is exactly like her. She was a chain-smoking neurotic whose appeal is to adolescent power fantasists who ALL imagine themselves as Galt, Rearden or Taggert. 50-page-long harangues won't translate well to the screen, so at least we'll be spared that drivel.

[Jack43]

I am an unashamed objectivist. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. The Republicans are hypocritical and the Democrats espouse immoral programs of social justice under the guise of compassion while villifying those who make these programs possible. I'm already divided about this film. I have given away many copies of Atlas Shrugged in hopes of enlightening those around me and waited most of my adult life to see this story reach a broader audience through film, and I fear the result of tinkering by a liberally oriented film industry. I guess that I will just have to wait and see.

[MichaelRyerson]

I give you real-life William Edward Hickman, Ayn Rand's 'ideal man' and the model for her fictitious John Galt. This is really all you need to know about this smug, self-indulgent blowhard.

[Yogi]

It is a life changing book for those of us that felt alone in looking down at the moochers and looters and approvingly at the producers and hard working. Who is John Galt? It was a pleasure to find out. The single greatest work of fiction ever written.

[John]

Since apparently even Rand's admirers think the trailer looks awful, here's how audiences will be "divided" - they'll be arguing over whether it's a flaming piece of dung or merely a dried-up piece of dung. I hope the five people who see this eventually come to some agreement.

[Mike]

Posted by Hanna:

"People who buy into Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, based on her godawful writing, really aren't very smart people. They like to think they are, though.

(They tend to get very defensive when challenged. Sorry, Al Senor, Christine and Robert, if I have a chuckle at your expense.)"

Really? So if you challenge someone you want them to bend over and take it? What if they change your mind?

[katy]

When I was 12, I LOVED this book. When I was 9, I loved Gone With the Wind.

Thankfully, our tastes and outlooks grow as we do.

[Marcelo]

Never read the book, but here's how the whole life thing breaks down: if you're strong and have no reason to fear getting eaten by a stronger animal, you cherish power. If you're weak and/or fear getting eaten, you do whatever you can to empty the power of those above you in the food chain.

In the case of humans, we do that intellectually, creating ideologies to demonize power and its use by man against man. To a certain extent - to the extent that it fosters a culture of giving everyone equal access to empowering opportunities, that demonization can be a good thing. The problem is when it is used as a tool not for equalization of opportunities, but to artificially cause the powerful to get weak, and the weak to get powerful and start oppressing the former oppressor. That creates a culture of vengeance that inhibits true cooperation and true evolution. The trick is getting the exact balance between exalting the evolutionary-friendly, progress-inducing aspect of power and preventing abuse of power, at the same time.

[Lee Paxton]

Rand, another adamant airhead who never understood the first principles about philosophy, other than acknowledging Aristotle as a great thinker; surely she never read him. She, unfortunately, inspired other shallow thinkers such as, Alan Greenspan; well, we can see where that extreme libertarianism has led. Why waste time on a movie about such an outdated author, unless to acknowledge her pernicious influence on the uninitiated. As a thinker, completely off course; as a novelist, well, if you like cardboard and cartoon characters, then go for a plunge.

[John Donohue]

durhonka has the best comment so far.

[spoiler] Ihope the best line from that wedding party gets in the film, although I don't know if they can get the setup right. It's when Cherly goads Dagny with the line "I'm the woman in his life now" and Dagny's delicious comeback: "That's okay, I'm the man.

[zaglossus]

This looks cheesy from the insipid music (it sounds like almost every other film score nowadays) to the B actors (I didn't recognize any of the leads) playing unpleasant but immaculately groomed two-dimensional people. Are the Koch Brothers behind it? The book was essentially about a plutocracy arising out of libertarian social contract.

[Michael]

A very difficult work to transform into a film, the good news is that the producers will not be relying upon the readers of the book for their box office draw. Or will they?

[M. Scott]

Does it bode ill that the only person I recognize from the trailer is the Ferengi Quark from DS9?

[Tiny]

All of you people are so closed minded. Can't you even fathom there might be other ways to do things? Can't you allow other people to think for themselves without being ridiculed? All Rand did was portray a scenario in which socialism is depicted as a bad thing. Sure, it took her a 1,000+ pages to do that, and sure, most of the commenters here didn't like it, but, hey, it was her personal freedom to get up on her soap box and write until her fingers bled. That's what freedom's about. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[contraryjim]

I haven't seen a movie in years but his one I'd like to view. Her books provide concept not a do it your self plan. The slow of mind will not find anything there.

[Aardvark]

Ugh, really? They needed to make a movie of this awful book? Two movies, actually? Hopefully they can leave out the 314,000 pages in the middle where Dagny mopes and pouts and broods for 50 years.

[affableman]

Best left as a children's fantasy book which it is...

[Maxie]

One of the worst books ever written, almost as bad as Battlefield Earth. Like a child making it up as they go along while they play make believe. Unlike Battlefield Earth however, Atlas Shrugged has done tremendous damage to our nation. Low budget crap no one is going to see.

[Marty Kay Zee]

Us don't rule the world. We rule the world.

[Really?]

To MichaelRyerson | February 16, 2011 at 07:14 AM

Thank you for the reference to, "William Edward Hickman, Ayn Rand's 'ideal man' and the model for her fictitious John Galt".

I looked it up in Wikipedia and it was eenlightening.

I read one of Rand's books when I was in the 6th grade and was very impressed. I re-read it in the 10th grade and wondered what people saw in it. The concepts were disfuntional and the writing was underdeveloped (to put it kindly).

Conclusion: Rand is for people who's intellectual development halted at an immature stage. So common now, regretably.

[trust no one]

It's interesting to see the level of hate at this book and now movie. If you feel threatened by idea that profit is a good thing, well, what can one say.

As a business owner, profit allows me to have people work for my company and make very good money doing so, and provides the opportunity to expand to hire more people. That's on top of the service we provide by helping hospitals get better at delivering higher quality of care.

Be careful not to confuse profit with greed.

[michael]

Ayn Rand was a crank whose books are nearly unreadable. The only reason people read her books is because she pushed a right wing "philosophy."

[lwa]

Liberals will be confused about the reason producers are at the point w/ increased dependent-driven redistribution led by the Kenyan causes us to back off, and produce less and less, starving the machine of $ to steal. Get a job, Democrats.

[Zeek Wolfe]

Why does every scene change have to be accompanied by a slam, bang, kawhoosh, whooshkabang, swissshh, hissshhhwisssshm, kapow, kabong?

[M.O.]

It's going to bomb at the box office.

[ar]

I happen to love the story, it is totally unbelievable but a book that is extremely hard to put down. I'm quite liberal and don't subscribe to Rand's philosophy. But I love the story, the characters, and as a business owner myself, I understand the sentiment to some degree. Her premises are plain wrong. I don't have to agree with an author to enjoy a good book.

Having said that, I have a feeling the movie will not do the story justice.

[jt]

Wonderful book. A book that should be read by all. My have a moral about taxation and how the fruits of one man's work should be dealt with. But like many novels not totally realistic thou very idealistic. Afterwards maybe a little "wouldn't it be nice" by the beach boys as background music.

[ChunkLite]

Based on the trailer, this film will definitely divide those who go see it--all five of them.

[David_U]

The various comments so far are quite enlightening. I see one respondent who claims to be an "Objectivist." Rand said you are not an Objectivist, you are a student of Objectivism, her definition of what she called a rational philosophy.
So far no one here has taken real message of the book, which was to promote that philosophy. She claimed that if you followed those principles, you would come to the conclusions she wrote about in "Atlas Shrugged."

Her characterizations of those who do ignore reality, who do evade looking at their own fractures psyches is quite good. You can see examples every day of individuals who try to bolster their self esteem at the expense of rational behavior. She pointed out that self esteem had to be earned by rational action, not by the accolades of others, and this was her theme of selfishness. "My personal mental health comes before the demands of others." To give up my personal well being to serve others is destructive. And this particular idea, brings forth the ire of just about any one with self esteem based on what others think of them, for instance.

You have also seen the effects of her Capitalistic philosophy, as Alan Greenspan was one of her most avid followers, and now we have seen what havoc the unfettered free market can bring. That might have worked in 19th century markets, but today's economic engine, is a far different one.
She was enamored b the writings of the neo-classical economists, and at one time, they were correct in their assessments, but that is no longer the case.

No matter the movie, they will not be able to understand or present the underlying philosophy.

[Annie Oakley]

Atlas Mugged.