Atlas Shrugged...Shrugged...

[SteyrAUG]

So I finally finished the trilogy. If you didn't even realize a trilogy existed, you aren't alone.

Possibly the most important book regarding Objectivism and libertarian views. Far more comprehensive than "The Fountainhead" which was successfully made into a film with Rand as the writer of the screenplay.

Sadly "Atlas Shrugged" didn't get the same treatment. The book is massive, repetitive and needed a talented editor and screenwriter if it was going to be successfully made into a film. It apparently had neither.

It was released in three parts, Part I in 2011, Part II in 2012 and Part III in 2014. The first big problem is Part I wasn't Star Wars and the subject matter isn't going to captures audience interest to follow along over the course of three films. The second big problem is I think Part I is the only one that got a theatrical release and even that one got little promotion and only showed in the smaller theaters, usually on the "homie" side of town where nobody gives a damn about this kind of film and those who are interested in this kind of film really don't want to see it in the theaters that were showing it. Despite being a huge Rand fan, I didn't want to see it in the theaters where it was being shown.

So I waited for DVD.

The next problem was each installment had entirely new actors playing characters in a complex and involved storyline. And it is hard to give a damn about the story when you can't relate to the characters because they are new actors in each film. Imagine the Godfather with Michael Corleone played by Al Pacino in Part I, Sylvester Stallone in Part II and Paul Sorvino in Part III. A little different right? I should also mention that each film had a different director as well and swapped writers with no writer being involved in all three films.

Then comes the big problem. A massive storyline told over three films. Rather than produce a comprehensive treatise on the subject each successive film actually becomes repetitive and more simplistic than the first making each installment far less interesting than the one which came before it. By Part III even I no longer gave a damn and felt my time was wasted with the entire trilogy.

Almost sounds like sabotage right? In a lot of ways it reminds me of the 1987 miniseries "America" which was seen once, then never seen again. It was only mentioned if it was being dismissed as unrealistic, poorly written and boring. In fact it was a fairly accurate depiction of what life in the US would be like under Soviet, and by extension any socialist ruling government. If freaked out leftists because they feared it exposed their naked emperor and the rest of us ignored it as soon as we discovered it didn't have the action of "Red Dawn." People got bored and watched the Cosby Show instead.

So what could have been one of the most powerful films ever made about "individualism" is given a half assed treatment and promptly forgotten.

By contrast "Reds" (1981) had high profile writers, actors and directors, won academy awards and was listed as one of the ninth best film in the epic genre by the AFI. It was a sympathetic portrait of notorious American communist and radical activist John Reed.

[sevenhelmet]

Thanks for the review. I've thought about reading Atlas several times.

Sometimes I wonder if Americans don't want this to be a communist nation (certainly a lot of the Hollywood types seem to). Trouble is, they don't know what Communist nations are really like, and most of those nations didn't know either until it was too late.

[brushy bill]

Oddly enough, I just recently finished Atlas Shrugged (book). As indicated in your post, I found it overly long and repetitive, with unnecessary detail. There were some nuggets here and there, but I really didn't see what the fuss was about with the novel, let alone a screen play. Yes, there are some good commentaries on the failed logic of liberalism, socialism, communism, but for me, the juice didn't justify the squeeze. Once I started, was determined to finish, but it wasn't a book I just couldn't put down and had to trudge through.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

I liked The Fountain Head, but balked as Atlas Shrugged. The funny thing to me is that you could 're-make' Shrugged with all the extraneous stuff and not run afoul of the copyright....

[nimdabew]

I believe I read to the point that that dudes house burned down and then stopped. I thought I was making great progress on my kindle and then noticed I was only 25% of the way through (or there abouts). I quit since the story wasn't as engaging as Dune, The Homecoming Trilogy, or even the Ender's series.

[Hank6046]

Yeah, I didn't know that they made it a movie or miniseries. I read that book right after highschool when I was going through that "I can change the world through ideas" phase. It didn't do anything for me, and because people recommend The Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged together I didn't bother to read that either. Jack Kerouac's On The Road did more to push me into the rights of mankind than Atlas ever did, but I think your right the action of Red Dawn really and truly drew me into the cause.

[SteyrAUG]

Oddly enough, I just recently finished Atlas Shrugged (book). As indicated in your post, I found it overly long and repetitive, with unnecessary detail. There were some nuggets here and there, but I really didn't see what the fuss was about with the novel, let alone a screen play. Yes, there are some good commentaries on the failed logic of liberalism, socialism, communism, but for me, the juice didn't justify the squeeze. Once I started, was determined to finish, but it wasn't a book I just couldn't put down and had to trudge through.

Today the book is almost irrelevant. We've accepted so much "socialism" as "beneficial" a large part of the message is lost and hard to even relate to for most people. At the time it was written, despite cries of "McCarthyism" there really was a dedicated and organized communist infiltration movement designed (ironically enough) to achieve the level of acceptance which we've had for a couple decades now.

But Rand suffers from beating a dead horse twelve different ways and believing she has expressed twelve unique ideas. A shorter and more concise book would have served her purposes far more effectively. The other problem is she worked in fiction and didn't do it nearly as well as writers like Orwell or H.G. Wells. She'd have been much better off writing accurate political essays.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

She was Russian, what do you expect? The measure literature by the kilo.

[Hank6046]

But Rand suffers from beating a dead horse twelve different ways and believing she has expressed twelve unique ideas. A shorter and more concise book would have served her purposes far more effectively. The other problem is she worked in fiction and didn't do it nearly as well as writers like Orwell or H.G. Wells. She'd have been much better off writing accurate political essays.

Were you reading this off of the Cliff Notes , if not I'm impressed

[SteyrAUG]

She was Russian, what do you expect? The measure literature by the kilo.

Perhaps it's a cultural thing. Her lecture on Global Balkanization is one of the most astute things I've ever heard. It was done in 1977 and she was pounding the X ring hard.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-w...anization.html

Well worth the hour to listen to it.