For those of you who aren't aware, the first part of the movie version of Atlas Shrugged comes out today. It's one of my all time favorite books, so I'm quite excited about it. In recent weeks, however, I've heard several negative things about the book and the movie that I feel are nothing but biased. In keeping with my "What I've Read" blog, this response is largely coming from Lewis Beale's review of the film in today's N&O.
To begin with, however, I'd like to refer to a situation that occurred a few weeks ago in my History of Literary Criticism class that I feel reflects Beale's view and probably many other people's opinions. For this particular class, I have a brilliant professor. He is extremely well read and has an extensive grasp on the subject matter. This particular day, somehow Atlas Shrugged came up in class. He, along with several others in the class, began talking about how terrible the book was. One argument against the book is Rand's style and voice, which I can't really argue with. In terms of the great literary writers, Rand is merely a footnote, if that. Compared to Steinbeck or Faulkner or whatever "great" author you choose, Rand simply can't compete. (Which is sorta ironic considering her points in The Fountainhead.) Their other criticism, which I feel is in line with Beale's, was about how unrealistic the book is.....I'm sorry, what? "Atlas Shrugged is just too unrealistic." My professor went on to say that Atlas Shrugged is one of those books you read as a 13 year old and think it's a great idea until you become an adult.
I have a couple of problems with this. To begin with, no 13 year old reads that book. No adults read that book. Including myself, I know 4 people who have read the book in its entirety, and I take graduate level classes with English writers and literary experts. Only 4. Though, I suppose my professor has read it, which would be 5. (Which frustrates me more, because once the film is out, people will criticize Rand's ideas who have never read Rand.) My second problem is my professor's (and Beale's) main critique: The book is too unrealistic. Is Atlas Shrugged unrealistic? To a point, yes. Parts of it are simply impossible. However, let us consider the books that are traditionally praised and part of the "Canon"-1984, Animal Farm, Brave New World, Moby Dick, The Old Man and the Sea, and one that my professor constantly references: Lord of the Rings, just to name a few. Now I've read the aforementioned books, and I like, to some degree, all of them. Aren't they ALL unrealistic, perhaps even more so than Atlas Shrugged? I don't think Orwell really thought that by 1984 "Big Brother" would be killing and brainwashing people for reading books. I don't think he thought that a farm would actually be overrun with communist talking pigs. I don't think Melville really thought that man's struggle with nature was actually taking place somewhere on the sea with a giant white whale who seems to be in an epic battle with Ahab. Lord of the Rings? Don't even get me started. I have no problem whatsoever with the "unrealistic" portion of these books. They are, after all, called fiction books. The reader understands that the events taking place are taking place within the world that the author's created. In addition, authors often use extreme and unrealistic situations to convey a point. The Old Man and the Sea would really suck if Hemingway had just said "This one guy's hope is tied up in his struggle with this fish, cause he's a fisherman." Why are these "unrealistic" plots accepted in these other works, but not Atlas Shrugged? The only reason I can see, if one looks at the situation logically, is bias.
Now, onto Beale's article. Let me begin by saying I'm not familiar with Beale. I tend to read the movie reviews that I'm interested in, and I don't recall ever seeing Beale before. The paper titles him a "Correspondent." I don't know what his expertise is or what he usually writes. I tried looking up some of his other reviews, but RottenTomatoes' links are down, and I can't access any of them. (And apparently all movie review links I found are now actually links to RottenTomatoes) Upon reading his review, however, I have several problems with what he's said before I've even seen the film.
He begins by saying that Atlas Shrugged has "three fatal flaws." His first flaw is the plot. He describes the plot as a "ridiculous, paranoid sci-fi fantasy that only a believer in no-holds barred capitalism could come up with." What was the biggest movie of the past decade? Avatar. Wow. Talk about a realistic movie with no paranoia or political bias.....wait a minute! What about Inception? This film also wasn't paranoid or sci-fi or....wait. Beale's criticism is going to start with the film's genre? Is that an adequate grounds for criticism? If a movie stinks because it's sci-fi, you've just ruled out Star Wars, Blade Runner, Star Trek, Frankenstein, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and E.T. Damn that E.T. Him being so unrealistic- it totally ruined the movie for me. My favorite part of Beale's first "fatal flaw" is this quote "[the bad guys] then try to take him [Rearden] down by pressing the government to pass a law mandating no person can own more than one business. (Really, I'm not making this up.)" Oh really Beale, that's so incredibly hard to believe? More difficult to believe than giant blue Avatars? Rand was making a point, not saying that the government actually was doing this. Again, authors use fiction works to convey ideas, not to describe things exactly the way they think it will be.
His second "Fatal Flaw" is the screenplay. He says, "Never known for her way with words, Rand was given to speechifying..." Again, I can't really argue against this point. I don't think Rand was the most artistic writer. I also, as I said, haven't seen the film, so I can't have much of an opinion of how the screenplay was written.
His third "Fatal Flaw" is the philosophy of the film. Let me begin by saying that Rand's philosophy is subject to one's own opinion. I'm just not sure if Beale should have included his in what's supposed to be a review of the film. He says "Unfortunately, Rand's beliefs are elitist and profoundly undemocratic, her heroes ubermensch types who Know What's Best For All of Us and, if they can't get their way, will pout, take their ball and go home." To begin with, this is such a terrible misunderstanding of the book that at this point Beale lost all credibility with me. I wonder if he's even read it, or just jumped to conclusions based on the first part of the film and what others have told him about the book. Again, a critique of Rand's philosophy is a critique of her philosophy and not the film. You may not agree with her philosophy, but by telling people not to see the film, aren't you telling people not to make up their own minds about her views? "Listen guys, this Rand's a quack, you don't even need to pay attention to what she says-just trust me." I would agree that her philosophy is wrapped up in Atlas Shrugged, but by passing such harsh judgement on a philosophy, aren't you simply showing your bias? If Beale just has a problem with Objectivism I suspect he'd hate anything that came out with Rand's name on it. Everyone will have a different opinion of Rand's philosophy, but they should make up their own minds about it.
In conclusion, I realize that once I see the movie I too will likely be a little biased in my review. I tend to agree with a lot (not all) of Rand's ideas. I will likely enjoy the film. What I've attempted to address here are points that I don't see as valid for the critique of the movie. Beale's political views being one of them. I also want to reiterate that while I do love Atlas Shrugged, I don't believe it to be the an example of great writing. I appreciate its plot, entertainment value, and the fact that Rand carried a coherent idea through 1200 pages. Go see the film, or better yet, read the book and make up your own mind.
