Reviews

I read the book the first time as a late twenty-something, and again every 3/4-decade or so (I'm in my mid-fifties), getting something new each time. I think it has something to do with growing up. This time I arranged it so I'd finished the first part almost to the day I saw the film.

The producers did a truly excellent job, considering the immense egos, dinky budget, and rights-related time pressures they had to deal with. Other reviewers have handled the basic plot review well already, so I'll concentrate on the things that I feel absolutely MUST be done in Parts 2 and 3. Messieurs Aglialoro and Johansson, kindly note.

Francisco D'Anconia is, IMHOP, one of the towering heroes in all of literature. If Hank and Dagny's struggles are backbreaking, endless, and ultimately Sisyphean, then Frisco's are utterly inhuman and fighting them really does require the efforts of a god. His burden is doubled - not only has he already endured the agony of going on strike as one of the very first, he has appointed himself an emissary of sorts back into the "real" world. He has gone on strike, without totally going on strike. The worst of both situations.

Frisco's caught between watching the two people he admires most getting mercilessly pummeled as they learn the hard way, and slowly, about the sanction of the victim, while realizing he MUST NOT reveal that concept to them outright. He knows they MUST discover it for themselves.

The D'Anconia role is one that could be for the ages, like The Man with No Name, Dorothy Gale, Jim Stark, or Charles Foster Kane.

The question: is Jsu Garcia up to it?

In Part 1, I feel he's competent, but only that. Garcia will have to develop D'Anconia much more extensively, and he'll need to take his acting efforts to the next level. I really like the point made by an earlier reviewer:

His challenge is not to play a worthless playboy who is impersonating a businessman; he must play a businessman who is impersonating a worthless playboy. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

'Frisco becomes absolutely critical in Part 2. His speech on money, and his talk with Hank in Reardon's office are a fair substitute for Galt's speech - and FAR more adaptable to screen dialogue. They have GOT to get 'Frisco right.

~*~

The buildup to the run on the John Galt Line and the ride itself were absolutely first rate. But the Wisconsin trip was done very poorly and just seemed to suck the momentum right out of the film.

The scene in the book where Dagny discovers the motor in the junk pile at the abandoned factory was actually quite compelling. As an engineer, she recognizes it for what it could be, drops to her knees and starts feverishly pulling it out of the pile, smudging her clothes and face, ripping her nylons, and cutting her hands.

Rand's premise is that the motor derives power from static electricity in the air. It would've been a far better explanation than the hopeless mumbo-jumbo the filmmakers foisted on us. Nikola Tesla had theorized the static electricity angle - he did his most important work around the turn of the 20th century and could very well be one of the men Rand meant, speaking through Dagny:

"It was the coil I noticed first - because I had seen drawings like it, not quite, but something like it, years ago, when I was in school - it was in an old book, it was given up as impossible long, long ago - but I liked to read everything I could about railroad motors. That book said that there was a time when men were thinking of it - they worked on it, they spent years on experiments, but they couldn't solve it and they gave it up. It was forgotten for generations. I didn't think that any living scientist ever thought of it now. But someone did. Someone has solved it, now, today!...Hank, do you understand? Those men, long ago, tried to invent a motor that would draw static electricity from the atmosphere, convert it, and create its own power as it went along. They couldn't do it. They gave it up...but there it is."

This could have been lifted almost word-for-word and delivered by an excited Schilling. Unlike the rest of the movie, the dialogue in the Wisconsin scene was poorly-written and delivered hopelessly wooden, stilted, and just DID NOT WORK. For me, anyway. It dropped my rating a full point from an eight to a seven.

Yes, I know it was the same order in the book. Yes, I know the motor is a critical part of the plot and strongly agree it had to be in there. But they blew the scene, which is all the more frustrating because they had the great old factory, Schilling and Bowler, and everything they needed right there to do it right. This would be the one must-change/re-do scene in any director's cut.

A last beef: 250mph on a winding track through the Rockies? No #$$&ing way. We're talking laws of physics problems here, simple centrifugal force considerations. 150mph?...maybe. They need better technical advisers on Part 2 to prevent gaffes like this one and the motor explanation from happening again.

These are meant as purely constructive criticisms, to be considered when making Part 2. I *liked* the movie and can't wait until next April.

The time is right. READ THE BOOK. SEE THE MOVIE.

No one can be John Galt, but we can surely aspire.

If you've had enough gasoline explosions, car chases, and bang-yer-head obvious plots, here is something Completely Different.

I'm assuming you've seen the movie so if you haven't, please read no further.

Anyone who has written a fiction book all the way through (I've finished several) will recognize the writing process as embodied masterfully in this film. That is, being inspired by the oddest and most nondescript objects. Or writing entire chapters and realizing they're crap and don't fit in. Or just the opposite: finishing your story and realizing at the "end" you forgot something critical and need to go rewrite part of it...sometimes a BIG part of it. AND the tremendous satisfaction when you realize you've created something that a) was inside you that just had to come out and b) is the best work you can do and c) others will enjoy reading.

This film is complex enough that there are undoubtedly many interpretations possible. The one I find personally fulfilling, and that fits perfectly with the final twist, is a wonderfully-executed attempt to bring the abstract, weird, and sometimes outright bizarre process of fiction writing to the screen. From INSIDE the author's mind. I've only seen the movie once, but I can't remember a single scene without Sarah in it. This film was about her exclusively, from her POV, about what was going on in her mind...ultimately the creative process of writing. There were other characters, but with very few exceptions they existed as HER characters, walking the stage she created.

A simple example. Franck started as a minor character, a waiter at an outdoor café. As often happens during the writing process, his importance changes. In fact, it was the pool scene with him standing over Julie that first convinced me I was watching a depiction of the writing process. You see, the concept of Franck becoming involved with Julie was a plot possibility, a concept, an idea that became stillborn. AT THAT TIME Sarah discarded it, not wanting to take that plot path. Later, when Sarah had visited the café several times and become more familiar with Franck (real or not, it doesn't matter) she realized he could become a more important character in her story by having Julie bring him into the plot via a more fully-developed twist. And so on.

To those who thought this movie was one strange and convoluted puppy, I'll say that fiction writing is one strange and convoluted process! It's captured as well as I can imagine in this effort.

A previous reviewer perfectly interpreted the smile on Sarah's face in the last scene at John's office -- one of an author's satisfaction and pride on a job well done.

At the very end, Sarah waves to her two creations, not goodbye, but in thanks. Authors are always grateful to their characters wherever they may come from, since without them there can be no story.

As always, Jodie Foster is a joy to watch. She is one of the preeminent actresses of our time, never shy about tackling tough roles. Or, in this case, bringing that extra spark to a role that might otherwise have fizzled into the usual they-hurt-me-I-get-them-back-times-ten flick.

Terrence Howard is also excellent as the caring cop. His chemistry with Foster elevates this film and his best moment is the wonderful reaction to her words during a simple restaurant meeting. You'll know what I mean. I saw at least three distinct emotions conveyed in the space of a few wordless seconds.

Foster herself never disappoints, whether the overall film is a winner or...well, something else. She is what I call a "let it all hang out" actor -- never afraid to crawl inside her character and bare innermost thoughts and feelings. Both the character's and her own, IMHOP.

An exceedingly dark film, darker in some ways even than "Silence of the Lambs" because in this case it isn't darkness pressing in from around her, but a darkness originating within Foster's character herself and relentlessly pressing outward.

~*~

I wonder what Kahr Arms thinks about one of their firearms (and their name) depicted in this way. Interestingly, it turns out Foster gets a pretty good deal on the P9 she buys for $1000 cash. The MSRP on this high-quality piece is $739. I suspect the box of cartridges could be worth considerably more in NYC than the catalog price of $10 - $25. (A "bullet" is what comes out of the barrel; a "cartridge" is what you load into the piece...a common and infuriating error in films). NYC's firearms laws are so draconian they virtually guarantee the complete inability of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense. Er, legally that is.

Foster's out-of-character comment concerning firearms in the "Features" section was preposterous IMHOP, and appears here verbatim:

"The second you buy a gun, fear is yours. You've walked into a culture that immediately puts you in danger and puts others in dangers (sic) of you. I hope that that's the moral of the story in some ways, that buying the gun and putting the gun in her pocket has her go through this Alice in Wonderland that, otherwise, she would never have experienced."

Her moral was completely lost on me -- not what I took away from her effort at all.

Foster uses the word "culture". For a completely different take on the concept of the gun culture, see John Ross' book "Unintended Consequences". As far as I know, Ross coined the term "gun culture".

~*~

My extended (and detached, of course) love/hate relationship with Foster continues. She is a terrific artist, and at the same time I find her politics utterly execrable.

I actually chuckled when her character wailed, "Why don't they stop me?" Probably not the reaction Jordan or Foster intended.

Call mine a guilty pleasure.