Atlas Shirked The Musings of Scott

Atlas Shirked

by Scott on May.11, 2011, under Movies, Politics

As you may or may not know, Atlas Shrugged is still in theaters. It holds the unique qualification of being one of the few movies to get almost universally bad press (although the media has been sure to not mention it at all whenever possible). Having seen it this past weekend, I went in with an objective eye (being sure to not let my love of the book taint my review of the movie), and I left that theater angry.

I was not angry at the adaptation, in fact I quite enjoyed the movie (as did the 3 other people I saw it with). No I was angry at the overwhelming negative reviews: simply put, many them are unwarranted (and I left wondering if many had been “prewritten” before the movie was viewed).

Before I address the common criticisms of the movie, I did have a couple of criticisms of my own. I am an adamant movie buff, watching many per week. While I truly enjoyed the movie, I do think there are some improvements to be made before the next installment:

Editing
There are a couple scenes, including an early one between James and Dagney, where the production editing is noticeable. I am of the opinion that if the viewer thinks about the editing in a scene, then it needs more refinement. Just as in a book, an author needs to develop his/her plot seamlessly, so the reader forgets they are reading. I figure that the editing was choppy in a couple scenes as they tried to shave time without content. While I appreciate the incredible job they did condensing the first book into a screen play, perhaps a more seasoned editing crew is required for the next installments.

Romance
One of the few aspects that did get shaved from the book was the build and release between Dagney and her love interest. In the book Rand offers a slowly paced sexual tension that builds to a passionate affair. The movie didn’t have time for such a plot line, and as a result the relationship ends up more shallow to the audience. The actors compensate for this with a palpable on-screen chemistry, but criticisms of the prudish sex scene are valid. There’s no need to pander to a conservative audience, or the MPA, Rand never did/wouldn’t.

Trends I saw in negative reviews-
Budget: These had to come from folks who knew the low cost of this movie going in, and then searched for evidence of it. If you gave the audience the “Pepsi Challenge” on this movie, and had them guess what the budget was they would likely have guessed it was 2-3x what it was in reality ($20 Million). Anyone who thinks you need to spend hundreds of millions on a movie for a quality product clearly hasn’t watched enough Michael Bay movies. There was only one part that I felt the budget criticism was warranted, and that was about 1 minute of TV-quality computer graphic bullet train. Given that it was such a miniscule part, and today’s TV quality CG was Hollywood’s standard 10 years ago, I think most would not notice unless looking for it.

Acting: You will not see Will Ferrell, Angelina Jolie, or Morgan Freeman in this movie. You will see plenty of familiar faces. In fact the casting was one of my favorite aspects of this movie, there is not a single character I would recast. My favorites:

Jsu Garcia as Francisco D'Anconia

Micheal Lerner as Wesley Mouch (/Barney Frank?)

Armin Shimerman Dr. Potter of the State Science Institute

Taylor Schilling as Dagney Taggart

It’s politically slanted: This one was flat out wrong. As I mentioned in my previous post on Rand (Who is Ayn Rand?), she lambasted conservatives and liberals alike. Contrary to some reviews out there, the characters are not just spouting political opinions non-stop, but rather those of personal philosophy and work ethic. Words not heard once in this movie: liberal, conservative, democrat, left, right, etc. There is only one brand of politician in this movie: the corrupt. In fact, one could say that this movie is non-partisan on the subject of politics, as it illustrates how the self-serving can corrupt the good intentions of the patrons of the two-party system. Anyone who denies the reality of rampant corruption in our political system needs to get out of the theaters more.

Things not mentioned in the reviews:

True Feminism: It shocked me how true to Rand’s intentions Dagney ended up on screen. Not once will you see cleavage, leg, or any other instance of her objectification (sorry guys, the most you are going to see in this movie is some bare shoulder). People seeking low entertainment would be better served by a Hollywood blockbuster. Dagney is a true feminist in that she accomplishes everything with her intelligence and determination, never once feeling a need to pander or remind you that she is a “disadvantaged” female. She earns the respect of her peers and underlings not by the fact that she surpasses any woman they have known, but because her skill in business surpasses any human they know. She welcomes people underestimating her due to her gender, and is glad to crush them when they attempt to block her progress. Meanwhile a key antagonist, her brother James, rides by on taking credit for her actions, simply because he is the “man of the family.” While James is always looking to get things done the easy way, Dagney is not afraid to get her hands dirty to achieve her goals. This is truly a girl power story.

Cinematography: This is the aspect that truly shines about this film in my opinion; there are a couple of scenes that were incredibly artful. If this is what a “budget” director can do, then perhaps Hollywood should run some cost-benefit analysis on their current budgets. Again, if a viewer went into this movie without preconceived notions thrust upon them, they would not know a studio did not make this film.

Note:

150+ International Reviews Got Submitted, it’s only playing in the US to my knowledge. These reviews averaged disproportionately low. There is a ton of dogma out there informing zealots to denounce this cinematic heresy. I am guessing that a majority of these low international reviews did not visit the US for the sole reason of seeing a movie they wouldn’t like.
Women liked this movie more than Men in every age bracket EXCEPT in 33-40 year olds (Gen X). This bracket scored on Average 2nd lowest only to the boys bracket (who we can let off the hook for being younger than the age of reason). Meanwhile, Young girls were least likely to review this movie, but those that did overwhelmingly liked it leaving the highest average rating. This underscores my feminist protagonist point (while the sex scene may be costing points from those 16 year old boys and Gen X ladies apparently).
The score distribution is skewed, the minimum score does not fit the distribution, and thus brings down the overall average. According to this, 1 in 5 people are going to hate this movie with a blinding passion (and for some reason this mindset makes you much more likely to be a professional film critic). Meanwhile the typical person will give it 8/10. If you’re reading this far into my post on the movie, you should probably give it a shot.