In this regard, Atlas Shrugged Part 1 passes with flying colors. Sure it has some technical weaknesses that even a film idiot like me can pick out. Sure there are things in the characters and the story that are missed or could have been done way better. But once the film started, I didn’t look at my watch once. I didn’t think about what papers I needed to grade or classes I need to prep. I didn’t once think to myself: “where is this going? why are they doing this?” I didn’t have one “WTF” moment. There were several moments that I wanted to cheer. When it was over, I had two thoughts: “More!” “Again!”
What this tells me is that, in the essence and for the most part, the filmmakers got the story right, they got the characters right, and they got the sense of life right. Whatever flaws the film has, they never rose to the level of disturbing the experience of the film for me. Moreover, I didn’t think about these flaws until after the movie was over and I started thinking more analytically about the film. Such flaws are not as significant as the ones that pop up while you are watching the film. These more serious flaws disturb the experience, break the absorption. I didn’t experience any such flaws while watching Atlas. There are flaws, to be sure, and these do keep it from being the truly great movie it could have been. But it is still a good, exciting movie.
Some other thoughts:
- I have no sense of how some one who has not read the novel would react to the movie. I read Atlas first when I was 13 or 14, and several rereads over the years. It is too much a part of my mental DNA for me to look at the film except through the lens of the novel. My suspicion is that most new to Atlas will have some trouble following things or miss the motivations for various scenes and actions. I am sure that I filled in a lot subconsciously.
- I wonder what the meaning of the fact that (almost) every lover/fan of Atlas that I know either liked or loved the movie; while the critics almost universally pan it. (Rotten Tomatoes has the critics liking it around 10% while the audience liking it around 85%). Surely a large part of this discrepancy is that the critics have an ideological (political or aesthetic) axe to grind. But it doesn’t explain all of it.
- For what it is worth, I thought the acting and casting were very good. Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden and Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt were fantastic. Taylor Schilling was a very good Dagny.
- The scenery was gorgeous. I think the special effects were as good as they needed to be: the running of the John Galt Line over the bridge was thrilling.
- I hope to see it again soon. I’m sure a second viewing will give me new perspective on the film's virtues and flaws. I’ll be sure to update or post a new blog with any new thoughts.