| | I agree with a comment Sam made a while back... I have no idea how this looks to someone who is not an Objectivist, or has not read Atlas Shrugged, just an average American - no idea. And how does it strike a college-aged, average Americans - again, no idea.
---------------
Overall I would have given the film an 8 out of 10 and I really enjoyed it.
Here are my criticisms (which I hope prove constructive):
There were times where the pace seemed slow. For example, the time spent in Reardon's anniversary party seemed long for what was needed to advance the plot.
The Galt Line train trip was a little misfocused. They decided not to make it a sex scene, which was really serving two purposes in the book - advancing the story line on Dagney and Hank, but also celebrating a success - human achievement. Since the movie left out the sex, they needed to focus on celebration. The special effects were good, but the train never looked like it was doing 250 mph and that was mildly distracting. They only focused on the techology and lost the celebration aspect. They should have had the surprise of Dagney and Hank at seeing people lining the track at every crossing and every town. They could have woven in the story of the overwhelming number of engineers, conductors, oilers, etc that volunteered. It needed more concretes to reinforce that celebration, that exhaltation. That scene could have been more powerful by a factor of 3 or 4.
I think the director and the actor playing Franciso missed the mark a bit. This Francisco was not just too shaggy looking, but his self-esteem seemed a bit low, with him hunched over, looking down, and playing the part of the playboy. I remember the book as him allowing (encouraging) people to attack him as a playboy and to see that false negative view without much effort on his part. He didn't need to act flirtatous with two or three party girls in a sleazy way- the gossips did that for him. I hope they will clean up Fransciso and give him a more powerful demeanor. The art of what Francisco did in the book was to let others, small minded people, build the image of the playboy out just a few events (like the Ice palace party) and he never behaved in a self-degrading way in person.
Dagney needs to be played with more power. In the book she was able to laugh at many of the things that Eddie brought to her, as no problem. Real power can be shown as calmness, good humor, and laughing at the things that others are frightened of. A very natural leadership. This portrayal was a little too flat. It is very hard, I imagine, to play someone of really high self-esteem, someone who wields power very benevolently and easily.
The character of her brother came across as too nice - I wanted to see more of a brittle, frightened man lusting for power and for the respect of his slimey friends, and that he would appear to show great presence and power at first, but then looking behind the scenes just a tiny bit and you see it is a phoney fascade that he puts on as he walks into a board room, and later, in private, a disgusting level of whining creeping into his voice. Maybe more of this view is put out in part II.
They didn't do justice to starnsville and that was important - a key plot advancement is showing that community that was once the heart of civilization on the technological edge had become a primitive place by adopting the altruistic approach - that is the summary and encapsulation and metaphor for what is happening on the larger scale with the world. That was cause effect on political, moral levels and a direct tie to the idea of abuse the mind and you will lose it's product and benefits. They also hit a false note on the story line with the trip - in the movie they went to seek the special motor and too convienently found it behind that sliding shelf - like a secret compartment. But in the book they went to seek out standard factory machines and stumbled across Galt's engine parts which were never scavenged because others didn't see any value in them. But that was a minor thing.
It appears that they chose not to pursue Reardon's mixed premises that led him to feel shame for his weakness in giving in to his lust for Dagney, and her shock at his attitude, quickly followed by her understanding it was the best in them that drew them together and her chuckling that she didn't care as long as he brought that lust to her. That was important to a view of humans that are conflicted with anti-pleasure premises and making a choice involving the command to sacrifice or else feeling shame. But this is a case where they may not have had time to put that theme in.
They didn't get much out of the scene with Hugh Atkins at the dinner - they did a close up on the cigarette with the dollar sign, but not much else. I assume they will weave that in later. A minor thing.
Again, they are so pressed for time, but I didn't FEEL the loss of Owen or McNamera - there was Dagney's assertion but no emotional grab at me. Their importance hadn't been objectively demonstrated.
They relied way to much on Dagney's lines about people disappearing (and those headline-like "Gone missing" texts). Again, maybe it was the time, or maybe they will enhance this in part two, but I'd have like to seen some other people making very short commments - to make it feel more like a real mystery, more of a real phenomena.
Mostly I think they need to look at this wonderful movie they've made and see that they can pick up the pace and that they need to layer things so that they can be showing things flash by as scenery, and as physical movements, but use headlines, or snippets of conversations, or listening in on thoughts being connected... layered over top of the movement, the advancement of the physical story line, as a way to drive home the key points or key emotional highlights.
And each of the actors can find some really good coaches to work with to grasp how they can portray their character with more depth - this is the only good thing about the delay between the parts - they have time to analyize Part I and make improvements.
My biggest complaint is that part 2 won't be till next year. I think that takes so much away from the experience.
------------------------
Despite the criticism, I loved the movie. The cinematography was outstanding. Wyatt was played with real power and Becker was just excellent. Even though I think that Dagney and her brother can be improved, and that Francisco needs to be rescued just a little, they didn't harm things, just didn't bring home all the value that could have been pulled out. Hank Reardon was played fantastically - he was really up to the mark. His wife was also right on target.
|
|
