As a film fan, I can find plenty wrong with the film. But honestly, all that says is that it is not a perfect movie. And very few, if any are.
The acting is a bit uneven, but overall strong. The production design shows the limitations of the budget. And the tone of the film visually can be a bit uneven.
Having said that, some have complained about the acting, but basically this misses the point. To a large degree it is the characters themselves which can leave people cold. This is because the characters are not your typical protagonists. They aren't overcoming personal flaws in order to succeed. They don't take the "Hero's Journey". Some people are unaccustomed to these kinds of characters, in same way they don't recognize the antagonists.
And this is the point, "Atlas Shrugged" is objectionable to some people because in it's own way it is an experimental film by the standards that most movies are made in the 21st century.
But the characters are Ayn Rand's.
Mostly however, I think some will be bothered by the fact that it challenges what so many these days consider to be the new progressive "good" as it relates to how economies work, and more over, how they think they should work.
Many viewers can't imagine their politicians doing things that seem so obviously right and fair to them, actually being unfair and decidedly wrong. And so, they are left with an uncomfortable dilemma. They much more closely identify with the antagonists, and so feel uneasy and believe this to be the fault of the film in some way.
This is exactly the point of the story. That governments effort to be "fair", can trespass on a much more significant moral rightness.
Despite it's flaws this movie does what the story of Atlas Shrug is designed to do. To challenge and dare the individual. The scale of the piece is large because large themes are easier to understand. As such this is a bit of a melodrama. Again this is intentional, not a flaw.
The quick short question of Atlas Shrug can be seen in the following question: "Should Michael Jordan and the Chicago bulls have played less then their best, so that other teams could be champions or so that other players could be stars?"
If you wouldn't ask it of them, why would you ask it of anybody.
The acting is a bit uneven, but overall strong. The production design shows the limitations of the budget. And the tone of the film visually can be a bit uneven.
Having said that, some have complained about the acting, but basically this misses the point. To a large degree it is the characters themselves which can leave people cold. This is because the characters are not your typical protagonists. They aren't overcoming personal flaws in order to succeed. They don't take the "Hero's Journey". Some people are unaccustomed to these kinds of characters, in same way they don't recognize the antagonists.
And this is the point, "Atlas Shrugged" is objectionable to some people because in it's own way it is an experimental film by the standards that most movies are made in the 21st century.
But the characters are Ayn Rand's.
Mostly however, I think some will be bothered by the fact that it challenges what so many these days consider to be the new progressive "good" as it relates to how economies work, and more over, how they think they should work.
Many viewers can't imagine their politicians doing things that seem so obviously right and fair to them, actually being unfair and decidedly wrong. And so, they are left with an uncomfortable dilemma. They much more closely identify with the antagonists, and so feel uneasy and believe this to be the fault of the film in some way.
This is exactly the point of the story. That governments effort to be "fair", can trespass on a much more significant moral rightness.
Despite it's flaws this movie does what the story of Atlas Shrug is designed to do. To challenge and dare the individual. The scale of the piece is large because large themes are easier to understand. As such this is a bit of a melodrama. Again this is intentional, not a flaw.
The quick short question of Atlas Shrug can be seen in the following question: "Should Michael Jordan and the Chicago bulls have played less then their best, so that other teams could be champions or so that other players could be stars?"
If you wouldn't ask it of them, why would you ask it of anybody.
Tell Your Friends