A documentary focusing on the life of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, the author of the bestselling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and originator of the Objectivist philosophy... Read allA documentary focusing on the life of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, the author of the bestselling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and originator of the Objectivist philosophy.A documentary focusing on the life of novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, the author of the bestselling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and originator of the Objectivist philosophy.
- Nominated for 1 Oscar
- 1 win & 2 nominations total
Sharon Gless
- Narrator
- (voice)
Michael S. Berliner
- Self - Editor of Rand's Letters
- (as Dr. Michael S. Berliner)
Harry Binswanger
- Self - Professor and Friend
- (as Dr. Harry Binswanger)
Leonard Peikoff
- Self - Intellectual Heir and Friend
- (as Dr. Leonard Peikoff)
John Ridpath
- Self - Professor: York University
- (as Dr. John Ridpath)
Buzz Aldrin
- Self - Astronaut on Moon
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Neil Armstrong
- Self - Astronaut on Moon
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Cecil B. DeMille
- Self - Addresses Extras
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Phil Donahue
- Self - Interviews Ayn Rand
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Grand Duke Nicholas
- Self - Accompanies Tsar Nicholas
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Edith Head
- Self - Pins Costume
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- ConnectionsFeatures The Mark of Zorro (1920)
Featured review
The problem isn't bias, it's shallowness.
Let's face it. Every documentary is biased. No matter how objective (forgive the situational wordplay) a documentary filmmaker wants to be in presenting his/her subject, he/she has a point of view, or else why bother making the film at all?
The problem here is not Michael Paxton's bias, although he is clearly an adoring fan of the writer/philosopher. The problem is that in painting a portrait of this equally celebrated and vilified woman, he never shows, and only barely tells of, the vilification. As a result, he doesn't give viewers, not even her most ardent admirers, reason to celebrate her.
The film mentions in passing some of her flaws as a person, and repeatedly talks of the criticism surrounding her ideas. But we never hear any of the criticism, any of the arguments against, anything at all to cast her in the light of "defender of the faith," or defender of anything at all, for that matter. She states her case time and again, in interviews, in excerpts from her novels and philosophical works, etc. But we're left with a feeling of "Great. Why should I care?"
Not many people will see this film -- 2 1/2 hour docs rarely draw the masses in theater, on video or anywhere else -- so I'll make a rather simplistic analogy. Think of "Star Wars". How compelled would we be to root for the good of the force if we hadn't heard Darth Vader expound on the power of evil (the Dark Side)? How can you convince anyone of any point, positive or negative, without at least presenting the counterpoint?
Viewers who already adore Rand will no doubt cheer this film. For them, it's very palatable candy. Her detractors shouldn't waste their time. But a documentary is supposed to educate viewers in some way, and the uneducated will get nothing more than a biography and an unquestioned statement of philosophy. That's not much for any doc, but especially for one this long.
The problem here is not Michael Paxton's bias, although he is clearly an adoring fan of the writer/philosopher. The problem is that in painting a portrait of this equally celebrated and vilified woman, he never shows, and only barely tells of, the vilification. As a result, he doesn't give viewers, not even her most ardent admirers, reason to celebrate her.
The film mentions in passing some of her flaws as a person, and repeatedly talks of the criticism surrounding her ideas. But we never hear any of the criticism, any of the arguments against, anything at all to cast her in the light of "defender of the faith," or defender of anything at all, for that matter. She states her case time and again, in interviews, in excerpts from her novels and philosophical works, etc. But we're left with a feeling of "Great. Why should I care?"
Not many people will see this film -- 2 1/2 hour docs rarely draw the masses in theater, on video or anywhere else -- so I'll make a rather simplistic analogy. Think of "Star Wars". How compelled would we be to root for the good of the force if we hadn't heard Darth Vader expound on the power of evil (the Dark Side)? How can you convince anyone of any point, positive or negative, without at least presenting the counterpoint?
Viewers who already adore Rand will no doubt cheer this film. For them, it's very palatable candy. Her detractors shouldn't waste their time. But a documentary is supposed to educate viewers in some way, and the uneducated will get nothing more than a biography and an unquestioned statement of philosophy. That's not much for any doc, but especially for one this long.
helpful•2620
- meebly
- Jan 16, 1999
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Ayn Rand: Un sentido de la vida
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $1,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $205,246
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $26,101
- Feb 16, 1998
- Gross worldwide
- $205,246
- Runtime2 hours 25 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
Top Gap
By what name was Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life (1996) officially released in Canada in English?
Answer