Once again, i'm not sure why the producers insisted on making three movies instead of opting for a TV show. Nowadays this seems to be a gateway to a broader audience. Besides, the book Atlas Shrugged had enough contents and ideas for eight to ten one-hour episodes. Details Edit. Release date September 12, United States.
United States. Atlas 3 Productions. Box office Edit. Technical specs Edit. Runtime 1 hour 39 minutes. Related news. Jan 6 Collider. Jan 3 MovieWeb. Contribute to this page Suggest an edit or add missing content. Top Gap. See more gaps Learn more about contributing. And why, if no one knows the answer, does the entire world know his name?
As she fights to save her railroad, Dagny struggles to understand why incompetence, which she believes to be powerless, seems to be stopping her at every turn and winning every battle. And to answer that question, she must grapple with another one: Why does the man she loves say that she is responsible for the victories of her enemies? His greatest achievement, a new alloy he calls Rearden Metal, has the potential to revolutionize the economy.
But Rearden soon finds his metal under attack from the government, the media and so-called scientific experts. Rearden loves his work, but he does not regard it as a moral achievement and is unconcerned with defending it and himself from intellectual attack.
But as Rearden begins to understand the importance of championing his work, he starts to see a connection to why he is unhappy at home, where he is surrounded by a family who mocks and scorns him, caught in a loveless marriage, and plagued by a sense of guilt over his sexual desire, which he regards as a low, animalistic urge. But what will happen as other players make their own backroom deals, threatening the very existence of Taggart Transcontinental? And what does his response reveal about his soul?
Unlike the heroes of the novel, he is not a creative giant, but he is unfailingly conscientious and deeply devoted to Taggart Transcontinental. Through Eddie we see that those of greater productive ability do not exploit those with less ability, but benefit them by giving them the capacity to be even more productive. Eddie also reveals the way in which the best of the men of average intelligence require the creation of a rational society: whereas the heroes can create such a society, Eddie may very well perish without them.
For Rand reason is needed not just by a theoretical scientist in his lab, but by all of us at all times. They choose their goals and values by a process of thought, never putting their desires above the facts. As a result, they are in constant conflict with reality and achieve nothing. Atlas Shrugged challenges many conventional notions about good and evil: that sex is a low, animal desire; that money is the root of evil; that man is sinful by nature. One of the most prominent is the notion that selfishness is evil and self-sacrifice is good.
The heroes of Atlas Shrugged are condemned for their selfishness, while the villains tout their selflessness and the moral duty to sacrifice. In their dealings with others, they seek to gain by trade, with the result being a profound benevolence toward other such self-interested characters. Thus in Atlas a code of rational self-interest emerges as a Morality of Life and the conventional code of selflessness and self-sacrifice emerges as a Morality of Death.
Atlas Shrugged is a favorite book among businessmen, and for good reason. Many of the heroic characters are businessmen who deeply love and excel at their work. Right after a large discussion on freedom and not letting others think for you, the man names the woman character. He just tells her, this is now your name. Which seems suspiciously not like the freedom the man was fighting for and others have tackled the issue in a much more agreeable and artistic manner.
All sarcasm and jokes aside, I simply do not think this book is well written. I could honestly not care less about the political aspects, its the literary aspects that cause the low rating. I came, I read, I shrugged. However, the office had AC, heat and tons of paid vacation. Perhaps I'm just bitter about the time I was sent home for listening to a DFW interview on Bookworm because it was 'spreading liberal propaganda in the workplace. Sorry, I'm most likely the asshole in this situation.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Nov 20, Manny rated it really liked it Shelves: too-sexy-for-maiden-aunts , science-fiction , blame-jordan-if-you-like. In some ways, this is a very bad book. The style is stiff and clunky, and the world-view she is trying to sell you has holes you could drive a train through. There is a nice putdown in One Fat Englishman. The main character has just been given a precis of Objectivism. He says "I bet I'm at least as selfish as you. But I don't why I need to turn that into a philosophy".
Thank you, Kingsley Amis. But on the plus side, the book is a page-turner; it does a great job of helping people brought up in a In some ways, this is a very bad book. But on the plus side, the book is a page-turner; it does a great job of helping people brought up in a left-wing tradition to understand the right as not just deluded or evil my friend Gen said she had the same experience after reading it ; and it is good at voicing the frustration that competent and honest people feel when they are surrounded by incompetent and dishonest ones.
And the romance between Dagny and Hank is emotionally very satisfying. I was so disappointed when she But I fear the author's desire to push her philosophical agenda got in the way of the story. I haven't exactly changed my mind on any of the above, but, as Jordan persuasively argues, it's kind of missing the point.
And, with all due respect to the other reviews here, most of them are also missing the point. Well, because we're answering the wrong question. Some people uncritically adore this book. Guys, dare I suggest that you might want to broaden your reading tastes just the tiniest amount, and see if you still feel that way?
A rather larger group of reviewers can't stand Ayn Rand, and point out various obvious flaws: lack of feeling for English prose style, lack of character development, lack of realistic dialogue, interminable sermons on Objectivism, and sundry other charges. Of course. All of that's clearly true. But here's the question I find more interesting: if the book is so terrible, how come it's been such a gigantic success?
It's been said that only the Bible has had a greater influence on 20th century American thought. It must have something going for it.
So here's my second attempt. I think the book is dishonest, but it's dazzlingly dishonest, on a grand scale, and that's what readers find fascinating. As everyone knows, the basic thesis is that people should be more selfish, and that this will in some mystical way be good for society as a whole; a boldly paradoxical idea, and, at first sight, it's complete nonsense.
I can well believe that my selfishness might be good for me personally, but why on Earth should it be good for anyone else? It flies in the face of at least two thousand years of Western ethical thought, which has been largely focused on making people less selfish, not more.
As has been widely pointed out, Objectivism is pretty much the antithesis of Christianity. Which does suggest the question of why many people on the American Right claim both to be Christians and at the same time supporters of Rand's ideas, but let's not get into that right now.
I don't really understand how the American Right thinks, so it'll be more productive to consider my own reactions to the book, which were by no means all negative. In particular, I find Dagny a sympathetic main character.
Yes, she's the Mary Sue to end all Mary Sues, but that's exactly it. Rand believes in her so completely that I can't help being swept along. I am aware that few real women are hypercompetent technical and managerial geniuses, who think nothing of working 48 hours straight and then looking drop-dead gorgeous in a designer gown.
If the movie ever does get made, though, you must admit that Angelina Jolie was a shrewd piece of casting. Even if Dagny doesn't exist, I want her to, and I've seen many worse role-models for young women.
That mixture of beauty, intelligence and passion is appealing. And sure, most of the other characters are one-dimensional stereotypes, but, when you're as self-centered as Ayn Rand was, that's how you see things. It's a subjective view, and I find it interesting to look at the world through her eyes. Now that I've admitted that I love Dagny - I must admit that I can't decide whether I want to be her or sleep with her; probably a bit of both - let's get on to analyzing Rand's big con.
A large part of the book is a lavish, over-the-top, melodramatic romance. Will Dagny get her guy? She's hopelessly in love with Hank, who feels just the same way about her. But Hank's ghastly wife, Lillian, seems to be an insuperable obstacle to their happiness.
Hank's got all these mistaken principles , see, which mean he has to stay with Lillian, who doesn't appreciate him one bit, rather than go off with his true love. The best scene in the book is the confrontation at the party. Hank has created his new miracle alloy, which is a thousand times stronger than steel and a cool blue-green color to boot.
The very first thing he makes from is it a bracelet for Lillian. And is she grateful? Of course not! She's actually going around complaining to the other women about this ugly thing her dumb husband has given her to wear on her wrist.
Why couldn't he give her a diamond bracelet like a normal guy? But Dagny, in a blazing fury, goes up to her, and in front of everyone says that she'll be so happy to swap her own diamond bracelet for Hank's unappreciated present. Honestly, if you're not on Dagny's side at this point, I fear you have no heart at all. I was certainly cheering her on, and given the general success of the novel I assume I was one of millions.
Rand has stacked the deck, but she's not exactly the first author to do so. The reasonable point she's making here is that, in romantic matters, people should often do what they want to do, rather than than what they feel they ought to do. Straightforwardly selfish behavior is better for everyone; people need love, which makes them happy, rather than pity, which ultimately makes them miserable.
At least, it's true in this particular case. You're sitting there willing Hank to understand what's so blatantly obvious. And, once she's got you to buy into her idea, she switches the cards right under your nose. In just the same way, she argues, people should always act selfishly! See, if you're given something you haven't truly earned whatever that means , it won't make you happy.
Moreover, the people who are actually entitled to it will feel hurt and frustrated, just like Dagny, and in the end they'll lose their motivation. And thus, um, if you tax multi-billionaires at more than whatever the fashionable rate is, civilization will collapse. I may have condensed the argument a little, but I think that's roughly it. As already mentioned, this is nonsense, and shows that romance authors, even quite good ones, shouldn't try their hand at political philosophy.
But that needn't stop you from appreciating their romances, and I certainly did. Next week, I will be reviewing Barbara Cartland's commentaries on Kant.
To be continued. View all 87 comments. Mar 30, Mario the lone bookwolf rated it did not like it Shelves: facepalm-trash-bin. The premise: Everyone is stupid except the faith and ideology I want to spread with awkward, bad writing and glorifying sociopathy with a touch of ethical thoughts to make it not look even more inhuman.
Great, beautiful misogynist vs ugly women. Any kind of wonderful fascism-, eugenic-, master rac The premise: Everyone is stupid except the faith and ideology I want to spread with awkward, bad writing and glorifying sociopathy with a touch of ethical thoughts to make it not look even more inhuman. Any kind of wonderful fascism-, eugenic-, master race- driven lunatics vs all other humans.
Wise feminists vs bad men. Environmentalists vs evil bureaucracies. Ingenius racists vs the inferior population. The good political party vs the evil political party.
One understands the sheer stupidity much better in such an ironized context and it shows the immense main problem of misusing fictional literature to implement agenda and bias in a work of fiction to manipulate so many people in real life to think that destructive ideas are great. Why so many adjectives and extreme contrasts in her writing you may ask? Well, if an author is unable to explain things by showing, not telling, and being an objective and talented storyteller, there have to be many little helpers to make it understandable.
I mean, what about dialogues or interacting with the world instead of endless, boring inner and outer monologues? Looks like some people never get out of pubertal defiant phase. So many people saying that they got influenced by this piece of capitalist propaganda show how the misuse of literature can be instrumentalized to promote an inhuman and disturbing point of view. In the contrast, I tend to feel ashamed about my first world problems, lack of motivation, procrastination, all these luxury problems, and have a strong attitude towards improving the world by spreading the knowledge about the good, proven, logical, human, alternatives to the stupidity that ruled the earth for millennia.
A kind of obligation to be thankful, mindful, positive, and progressive. Because they are superior. Extremism is always the same, boring concept, look at all the great historical examples with the same mentality, I live in a country with a history lesson around that you might have heard about. View all 36 comments. Jan 03, Stephen rated it liked it Shelves: literature , audiobook , , science-fiction , classics-americas , epic , classics , world-in-the-shitter , philosophy , polly-sighs-and-pubic-policy.
A review many minutes in the writing and several hours in the photo finding. A review so important that one Dr. Hyperbole had this to say upon seeing it This review will pull no punches as it discusses all aspects of the novel and includes opinions that run the gamut from 5 stars of love to seething cauldron's of 1 star rage It is a book of new and radical ideas being passionately expressed by someone who believes deeply in them. Whether you agree or disagree whole-heartedly or belong somewhere in the middle, it's right and proper to respect the passion and conviction that Ms.
Rand feels for her subject. Call it controversial, call it inflammatory, even call it wrong, but it is impossible to call it irrelevant. There is little question that as a book of ideas, Atlas Shrugged is a monumental book and deserves its place as one of the most important books of the 20th Century Ain't I right there Normie.
Among these detractors was one P. Whether or not you believe her vision is skewed or biased, there is still much that her book can add to the debate on the proper role of government in the life of the individual. People are people and everyone is entitled to being judged for who they are. Walk around your house and pick up the products that you use every day and that make your life easier and ask yourself how many of them were made by people who made a lot of money off them my guess is most of them.
The world we be a lot worse off without the inventors, the builders and the risk takers and they deserve our thanks and not our animosity There were additional negative reactions raised about Atlas Shrugged and this review promises to tackle them in depth.
One very controversial subject deals with attacks on Ayn Rands views on sexuality which are certainly on display in the novel. This does nothing but preach to the converted and has all the persuasive power of a political attack ad. State your opinion once and that is laudable. If it is overly complex, maybe you repeat it a second, even a third time. One disgruntled reader stopped reading the novel halfway through and said simply Many found the prose less than noteworthy but were very taken by the plot.
Still others liked the passion of Rand's convictions but found her message lost in a myriad of meandering speeches. Until then View all 34 comments. When my mother gave me this book and said, "I think you will like this; I read it over a vacation in a week when I was your age," I took one look at the massive text and couldn't believe it.
She also said that I reminded her of the characters And that is exactly what I learned from this book: that pride is most beautiful thing, and to live on this earth means that one must understand its reality, and learn to use one's mind to make it what one wants When my mother gave me this book and said, "I think you will like this; I read it over a vacation in a week when I was your age," I took one look at the massive text and couldn't believe it.
And that is exactly what I learned from this book: that pride is most beautiful thing, and to live on this earth means that one must understand its reality, and learn to use one's mind to make it what one wants it to be. It is about truly loving life and all that it means to 'live' it. It is the reason why I understand myself as a man who belongs on earth It is very long almost pages , so get ready for an epic.
I won't try to say it is great literature, though if the style fits the person who is reading it, it will certainly be an amazing read. It can be long-winded and wordy at times, but what philospher isn't?
My advice: stick with it through the first half of the first section: it takes it bit to get going in the book, but once it starts, it is worth it To the proposition that we all have inside of us the inherent values to be heros: we just need to learn the virtues that will bring those values out of us View all 12 comments.
Mar 09, David rated it did not like it. This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here.
The first false premise is that there are only a dozen or so people in the country who are worth a damn. The second false premise is that every government employee is a lazy no-good who has nothing on his mind but pillaging the bank accounts of the lucky dozen. But beyond that, the government is inherently evil, to the point of passing laws that inflict major economic damage and suffering on virtually everyone in the country with the exception of the privileged government leaders.
This evil government is all-powerful and has total control over every newspaper, television and radio station. Fat chance. She has no concept that other governments have not tolerated the oppression that she found there. The third false premise is that the rest of the people of the U. Further, they have no ability or process to provoke change.
They wander around like a bunch of sheep being led to the slaughter. The country has a middle class composed of about 24 people who are the trusted, loyal assistants of the elite. When the elite disappear on strike , their trusted assistants are left behind to bear the misfortune of the rest of the poor slobs. These magic things were, of course, invented by the intelligent elite who use them to help wreak havoc and despair on the rest of the million people of the country in order to punish the evil government.
Dagny Taggart, the heroine and only intelligent woman in the universe, has sex with three of the elite. She dumps the only real relationship with Rearden in favor of the demi-god John Galt who she barely knows along the lines of a teenage girl throwing herself at one of the Beatles.
Her favorite encounters are sado-masochistic. They think the only path to change is to take their football and go home. You have to wonder how brilliant these people really are. The author spends great quantities of print describing and re-describing thoughts and feelings of the characters ad nauseum. The redundancy is overwhelming. This poor attempt at science fiction with a supposed moral message demonstrates how a page book can be padded to become a page behemoth.
Elitists, libertarians and others paranoid about the government will undoubtedly enjoy this book. Paramilitary groups will love it. View all 24 comments. Sep 28, Nandakishore Mridula rated it did not like it Shelves: general-fiction. I read this book as a teenager while recovering from a long bout of viral fever which had left me bedridden for almost a month: I had exhausted all my other books and forced to rummage through old shelves in my house. Ironically, I read The Grapes of Wrath also at the same time.
My teenage mind was captivated by the "dangerous" ideas proposed by Ayn Rand. At that time, India was having an inefficient "mixed" economy comprising all the negative aspects of capitalism and socialism, and Ms. Rand I read this book as a teenager while recovering from a long bout of viral fever which had left me bedridden for almost a month: I had exhausted all my other books and forced to rummage through old shelves in my house.
Rand seemed to point a way out of the quagmire. Almost thirty years hence, I find the novel if it can be called that - Ayn Rand's idea of fiction is a bunch of pasteboard characters put there as her mouthpieces to be silly beyond imagination. The premise is laughable; the characters entirely forgettable; and the writing, abyssmal.
The idea that governments governing the least and allowing a "winner-take-all" economy to flourish will solve all the world's woes "Social Darwinism", a word I've heard used to describe her philosophy will not wash anywhere today, I would wager - even with the hard-core adherents of the GOP in the USA. Especially when we look at Europe, where capitalism has gone into a downward spiral. Rand, sorry to say, Atlas didn't shrug: Atlas collapsed!
View all 30 comments. Apr 13, Monica MizMiz rated it it was amazing Recommends it for: Any reader interested in philosophy or just a good story. Shelves: favoritesforpleasurereading. The Concept: Rand follows the lives of society's movers and shakers first-handers, in her words, and business men, scientists, inventors, and artists in her novel as they resist the societal pull to become second-handers and to remain true to themselves and their live's work.
Meanwhile, something is happening that is shaking the very foundation of society. These are a few examples from an exhaustive list of advances in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Ayn Rand argues that economic freedom liberated these great creative thinkers, permitting them to put into practice new ideas and methods.
But what would happen if economic freedom were lost? Atlas Shrugged provides Ayn Rand's answer to this question. In the story, she projects the culmination of America's twentieth-century socialist trend. The U. The rest of the world has been swallowed up by communist "Peoples' States" and subsists in abject poverty. A limited degree of economic freedom still exists in America, but it is steadily declining, as is American prosperity.
The successful are heavily taxed to support the poor, and the American poor are similarly levied to finance the even poorer people in foreign Peoples' States. The government subsidizes inefficient businesses at the expense of the more efficient.
With the state controlling large portions of the economy, the result is the rise of corrupt businessmen who seek profit by manipulating crooked politicians rather than by doing productive work.
The government forces inventors to give up their patents so that all manufacturers may benefit equally from new products. Similarly, the government breaks up productive companies, compelling them to share the market with weaker less efficient competitors. In short, the fictionalized universe of Atlas Shrugged presents a future in which the U. Twentieth-century realities such as heavy taxation, massive social welfare programs, tight governmental regulation of industry, and antitrust action against successful companies are heightened in the universe of this story.
The government annuls the rights of American citizens, and freedom is steadily eroded. The result, in Rand's fictional universe, is a collapse of American prosperity. Great minds are shackled by government policies, and their innovations are either rejected or expropriated by the state. Thinkers lack the freedom necessary to create new products, to start their own companies, to compete openly, and to earn wealth. Under the increasing yoke of tyranny, the most independent minds in American society choose to defend their liberty in the most effective manner possible: They withdraw from society.
Atlas Shrugged is a novel about a strike. Ayn Rand sets out to show the fate that befalls the world when the thinkers and creators go on strike. The author raises an intriguing question: What would happen if the scientists, medical researchers, inventors, industrialists, writers, artists, and so on withheld their minds and their achievements from the world?
In this novel, Rand argues that all human progress and prosperity depend on rational thinking. For example, human beings have cured such diseases as malaria, polio, dysentery, cholera, diphtheria, and tuberculosis. Man has learned to fly, erect cities and skyscrapers, grow an abundant food supply, and create computers.
Humans have been to the moon and back and have invented the telephone, radio, television, and a thousand other life-promoting technologies. All of these achievements result from the human application of a rational mind to practical questions of survival.
If the intellectuals responsible for such advances abandon the world, regression to the primitive conditions of the Dark Ages would result. But what would motivate intellectuals to such an extreme act as going on strike?
0コメント