Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:27 am**

So the second installment of Atlas Shrugged opened last Friday. I went to see it on Saturday, solo style.

This is a story that has had a profound effect on my way of thinking for many years. I was rather disappointed by Part I, as many were. But Part II was a significant improvement, IMO.

Despite the fact that they recast every single role for the second part--I was very pleased to see how well Morales did with the D'anconia role--I found most actors to fit pretty well with their respective characters.

I found some of the movie material to be well adapted, and some not. Some of what was included seemed unnecessary, and some of what was absent seemed strange and disappointing. For example:

Spoiler

Why include the part about James Taggart's wife and not include the scene between Ragnar Danneskjold and Rearden???

Anyway, wanted to throw this out to the community here, see what comes back.

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 7:44 pm**

The parts with Jim and Chreryl (is it just me or did Rand misspell that name? or is it an alternate spelling that is no longer in use?) are, in some ways, just as important as the meeting between Ragnar and Henry, but perhaps their meeting would give away too much before the screenwriters were ready. That doesn't make any sense, of course, because most of the people who will go see the movie have already read the book (sometimes more than once, like me). Anyway...I will most likely go see it this coming weekend--I was not able to get to the theater last weekend.

You say the new cast works better than the first one; I will take your word for it, for now. It is always potentially really bad news to hear that the entire cast has been replaced. I think the problem with the first movie was that they tried to rush it to release; they should have taken their time and put together a more polished finished product. I thought the original Lillian was ideal--she portrayed that charcter very convincingly.

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:16 pm**

Yes, the Lillian from the first part was much better suited to the role. I did not like the change of casting for her.

Other casting comments:

Rearden was a definite improvement from Part I. I don't know the actor's name who played Rearden in Part I, but for me, he was pretty flat on the whole. My absolute favorite part of the novel--yep, I've read it numerous times--is Rearden's quiet investigation and personal discovery of the looters' motives and weapons.

I liked the guy who played D'anconia in the first part, so I was kind of disappointed that he was recast. But Morales did a great job. I felt the treatment of his and Rearden's relationship was pretty well done in Part II.

Characters like Mouch and Thompson and J. Taggart were well played by the new guys. Dr. Stadler was a huge improvement from the first actor!

And the new Dagny did a great job of portraying the dour, nigh-defeated hero that she is in Part II of the story. I really hope they do not recast Wyatt for Part III; He was the most solid bit of casting from the first part.

I was not in the country when the first part was released, so I don't know anything about a rush job. May look into it. I did find it really interesting to learn that the producers refused to let any critics view this movie before its release, basically because they knew from Part I that the critics would only trash it preemptively. Apparently that happened pretty heavily with Part I (which does deserve some strong criticism, IMO)...so it seems that they learned their lesson.

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:31 pm**

Because of so many people's mostly-unfounded fears back in 2007 and 2008 leading up to that Presidential election, Atlas Shrugged surged back to the top of the best-seller lists, I think becoming the best-selling book for 2008. Based on that, I supsect the producers felt they needed to capitalize on the movie while the book was on everyone's minds, hence my suspicion that they rushed to produce the movie. I say "rushed" even though the movie was released in 2011, but going from "no screenplay" to "finished movie" in 3 years can be very rushed unless the screenplay is very good after only the first rewrite.

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 10:47 pm**

It's one of my favorite books ever. Rand's ideas of love are pure insanity (much worse in Fountainhead), but the important aspects are excellent. But I still haven't even seen Part 1. I want to, but I'm kinda lazy.

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:00 pm**

I concur. Unlike some of her truly devoted fans, who think that everything she wrote was 100% correct, I find fault with how she describes relationships--Ms. Rand's real-life personal relationships were nothing to be desired, either, given her affinity for affairs with her devoted followers and her desire to surround herself with sycophants, her support of smoking, and her dismissal of soybeans, the food product without which our daughter would have to find alternative sources of nutrition given her allergy to lactose. Those two attitudes--smoking good, soybeans bad--are so very "50s", though, and are simply the product of her time.

I am wondering how they are going to do "This is John Galt Speaking", which has to be the world's longest soliloquy. If spoken in a calm, clear voice I think it takes over an hour--maybe nearly two--to get through.

Posted: **Mon Oct 15, 2012 11:06 pm**

Thanks for the clarification, Hashi. I'm having an ongoing discussion with a friend about how this movie will affect this year's election. Personally, I don't think it will have much of an affect. I feel like there's such a strong stigmatism attached to this novel (and thus to the movie(s)). It will influence some, but not enough in this short period of time. Ah well...

It's a pretty strong testament to the novel and story that the book has sold over 7 million copies, and the sales seem to continue to increase. There seem to be some different facts out there on this numberswise, but still, it's pretty impressive.

I've always loved the story more than the philosophy contained within it. Though admittedly, it's hard to divorce the two since the philosophy part is so interwoven into the narrative and characters...which only makes it all the more unique in my mind. I mean, the novel sort of stands alone in its own genre. Not sure what to call it, but it's like a mystery tale of philosophy, or something.

Anyway, I love it, it's awesome.

Posted: **Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:05 am**

Rearden's trial is among my favorite scenes in all literature. Heck, that could've been the climax of the book. I think the hundreds of pages that followed served to drive the points home more than they added anything to it. But they did, indeed, drive things home!

Yeah, Galt's "speech" is a big 'un!

Posted: **Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:16 am**

Man, I agree! I love that scene too. The movie does it some justice, though not as much as D'anconia's speech on money being the root of all good. Galt's speech is brilliant, but does sort of bludgeon the reader. Personally though, I enjoy a good bludgeoning while reading, sometimes.

I would say that some parts of the story post Rearden's speech at his trial do add to the narrative, like Jeff Allen's tale of how the phrase Who is John Galt? came into being.

Posted: **Tue Oct 16, 2012 12:35 am**

Oh yeah, there's plenty of good stuff later, all reinforcing each other.

I also love the scene where Dagny shows Stadler Galt's writings on the engine.

Posted: **Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:31 pm**

No, neither the novel nor the movie will have any effect on the election...which is a good thing.

I concur--Rearden's "trial" is one of the best scenes in the book and serves to prove her overall points well enough. Still, by that point there are too many things left unsaid which required the rest of the book to say.

Technically, I would classify this book as "soft science-fiction"--Rearden Metal, the engine, the distortion field, Project X--with very heavy doses of philosophy thrown in.

Of course, we can forgive the few "Deux Ex Machina" that she uses--Dagny just happens to run in to John Allen on the train and he just happened to work at 20th Century Motors, she just happens to stop at Hugh Akston's diner, in addition to being a skilled business executive Dagny also knows how to fly a plane (a skill I, myself, want to develop), etc. Without those, though, it would be too difficult to move the story along.

Aside from my other relatively minor complaints about the book, my notes indicate this timeline:
When Dagny and Hank go to the factory we are 2 years into the story and it had been closed for 7 years, so that factory closed 5 years before the story begins. Ivy says that the plan began 11 years ago and lasted 4 years, which confirms the factory closing 5 years before the story begins. So...Galt has been able to bring the world nearly to its knees in under a decade? I doubt this--much of the world in this book has been on the path to self-destruction for decades only now that process has been artificially accelerated though "the strike".

Ivy Sterns is a very interesting character when you read her story again. This book was published in 1957 and yet Ivy is already living the life of a hippie--she has turned her back on machines, money, and the world enslaved by matter and is "learning the emancipation of the spirit, as revealed in the great secrets of India, the release from bondage to flesh, the victory over physical nature, the triumph of spirit over matter". Was the hippie movement already underway in 1957 and somehow Rand was aware of it? If not, then this is simply a serendipitous prediction.

Of all the "bad" characters in the book, Dr. Ferris is the worst. Make no mistake about it--Ferris knows what pepole like Galt, D'Anconia, and Dagney know but chooses the exact opposite on purpose. When he confronts Henry, Henry is confused because Ferris admits that he is glad that Henry prefers to name things honestly even though he, Dr. Ferris, dislikes dealing with honest men.
Rearden: But, after all, I did break one of your laws.
Ferris: Well, what do you think they’re *for*? … Do you really think we want those laws to be observed? We *want* them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one *makes* them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you can cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.

Also, notice the irony in the fact that all three of Akston's star pupils have become the exact opposites of themselves: Galt, the genius, is a menial laborer...Danneskjold, the librarian and philosopher, is a man of violence...and D'Anconia, the aristocratic heir to ancestral fortune, is a wastrel and an apparent playboy.

As I look back over my notes now, I realize something even though I probably shouldn't say things like this. Every now and then...I would like for the world to wind down similarly to how it does in the book. I think it would be good for us to take a step back and let some of the pressure get released. *shrug* It will never happen, though, at least not in my lifetime.

Posted: **Tue Oct 16, 2012 4:11 pm**

Good stuff, Hashi.
On Ivy: "hippies" per se didn't exist...but the sources it came from almost all did...especially some branches of Beat, which were everywhere at the time.

Posted: **Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:48 am**

We saw it over the weekend and thoroughly enjoyed it. I concur--this movie was a more polished product than the first one, even though I will still go get the first one so that I can have it.

I still liked the first Lillian better, but this one did a pretty good job. This James Taggart was much better and I am glad they introduced Cherryl (I am still not certain it should have two r's but that's just me)--I liked her character despite what happens. I think the most important aspect of the character changes were the ages of the characters. I agree with my wife--the first Dagny was simply too young to be believeable; this Dagny was much better.

Movie bonus: Diedrich Bader playing the most intelligent character he has ever played before.

Move bonus: Patricia Tallman. Trust me--seeing her on the screen is always a bonus.

Super-duper movie bonus:

Spoiler

Teller speaks! This alone tells us how much he likes this book.

Kevin's Watch

Atlas Shrugged, Part II

Atlas Shrugged, Part II