"Atlas Shrugged" (2011)

Dwight Dekeyser rating: DDD

Dear Friend,

“Who is John Gault?” is the question asked repeatedly in the making of this iconic classic of Objectivism, the philosophy of  free market capitalism, also known as libertarianism by Russian-born Jewish writer Ayn Rand.  More to the point after having seen Part I of this epic saga of the same name from 1957 is who cares?  This is one of the strangest movies I have ever seen.  It was like the Night of the Living Dead (1968) meets Dynasty (1981-89).   Rich industrialists recite lines with all the passion zombies can muster in an attempt to animate this ponderous screen play from death by rationalism.  It was not that the quality of acting was lacking, it was that the dialogue was so artificial and so cerebral that scenes were devoid of any human spontaneity.  Everything that was spoken was said with such deliberation and sincerity one wonders whether this novel had been written by an alien who had encountered the inhabitants of planet Earth only once or twice.  No, this movie/book was written by someone on the outside looking in – someone not native to the language or culture, someone who made reckless assumptions about that which she did not understand, i.e., human nature and the American scene.

The movie’s dubious legitimacy as a motion picture had its roots in its inception.    The screen rights were leased to John Aglialoro, the CEO of an exercise equipment company in 1992, for a million dollars.  Aglialoro was so impressed by the novel, he was certain it could be made into a major motion picture.   With messianic fervor, he peddled his prized property all over Hollywood.  Despite five or six different scripts, no major studio would touch it.  With time running out on the lease, Aglialoro decided to make the film himself contributing another ten millions dollars of his own and enlisting the assistance of fellow Randroid Ed Snider, chairman of Comcast-Spector.  As of April 2010, this folie-a-deux dream team of novice movie moguls had no viable script, no cast, no director or anything else resembling a film crew or production company – one hundred days before the lease was to expire on June 14, 2010!  Miraculously, a film crew of 250 was assembled and the film was shot in six weeks.  This "triumph of the will" would have been complete had the movie resulted in a coherent narrative instead of a succession of ponderous scenes of awkward dialogue and uncomfortable situations leading nowhere.

Despite being a Vanity Fair release, the production values were credible.  (It is reassuring to know one can buy the trappings of a movie with enough cash in hand on short notice.)  Although, there were no Grade-A Jumbo movie stars, the actors were appealing and well-cast.  Unfortunately, there not enough eggs in the basket for them to scramble an edible omelet.  Grant Bowler (who looks and sounds like a young Cliff Robertson) and Taylor Schilling (who looks like an Americanized Catherine Deneuve) did their best to ignite a spark, but no one could have set a fire on this sinking ship.  They were as trapped as the audience on this Titanic melodrama devoid of any genuine human emotion.   It must have taken all their acting ability to recite such insipid lines with such seriousness of purpose.   A stony Miss Taggart to her brother, “I have never hurt a fly, but if you oppose me, I will destroy you.” Exit stage left.  (Oh, the drama of the corporate board room!  I knew Leona Helmsley could be tough, but nothing like this!)

There is no getting around it, the fault lies with Ayn Rand.  The novel as communicated by the movie is a message with a story as opposed to a story with a message.  If one has a message, by all means: write a thesis, an op-ed piece or a sermon.  Don’t pretend that your philosophy can be literature.  Unless some element of genuine emotion or the human condition is present, no dramatic presentation can succeed.  The promulgation of economic theory and ethical philosophy by two-dimensional characters reciting lines of dogma in unnatural settings is not art or entertainment.  It is a pretentious bore.   The message itself is ironic at best: government regulation of business will destroy industry.  Evidently, Rand was not able to conceive of the idea that it was Wall Street that was to co-opt democratically elected government by corporate lobbyists and their campaign contributions.  (See, my January 4-review of Casino Jack, 2010).  Nor was Rand able to envision this corporate corruption of the democratic process was to be enshrined by the United States Supreme Court which ruled that corporations were individuals under the First Amendment, and were therefore entitled to the same forms of free speech, i.e., campaign contributions.   Further, it was the Congressional rollback of banking and insurance regulations that precipitated the Great Recession of 2008, not government oversight.  In this picture, not only had the drama failed, but its message as well.

Here is the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM

From the vault:  The Sweet Smell of Success (1957).  Directed by Alexander Mackendrick; written by Clifford Odets and Ernest Lehman; starring Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis, and Susan Harrison.   Hard to believe this was released the same year as Atlas Shrugged.  No lack of drama in this film noire indictment of the newspaper business and Walter Winchell, in particular.  “It's a dirty job, but I pay clean money for it.”  How’s that for a business slogan?

Best of luck in your movie selections.  Your faithful friend,

Dwight Dekeyser

© 2011 Dwight Dekeyser, Esq.  All rights reserved.