MOVIES: Atlas Shrugged

A while ago on while I was on youtube I saw a trailer for the movie adaption of "When Atlas shrugged Part I".It's seemed interesting and I know that the novel is like a slight sci-fi about a train company and economic problems.The trailer kind of reminded me of "Inception" for some reason.Anyways though,I know that the author of the book that this movie is based on (Ayn Rand) was like a socialist and an anti-Christian person.I dont know however if the theme of anti-Christianity though appears in "When Atlas shrugged" so I'm not sure about whether I should see that movie or I should'nt see that movie at all since it's based on a book by a writer who was anti-Christian.What do you think?.Thank you very much so for your time and opinions.

Rand was a capitalist. I don't' think it's her atheism that's going to anger others in this film, sad to say. It is her economic policies.

I am neither a hard-right capitalist nor a philosopher, however, I'm going to see AS if it comes to my town. I like seeing famous books made as films, generally, if I've read the book.

ICXC NIKA.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was pretty nuts. It appeals to the naive, because it's all about rationalizing and scapegoating. Many critics have speculated that she had narcissistic personality disorder (based on observations of her in her personal life), but it seems to fit well with her philosophy: "I'm right, and if you don't agree with me, you're a parasite on society." She couched it well to make it seem noble and loving, but when you boil it down, there's no reason why it couldn't lead to genocide a la extreme Marxism or nazism.

Why would you want to watch it? First, Rand was a nutball. Her doctrine of Objectivism goes directly against the teachings of the Catholic Church (see Mark Shea's post on the subject: markshea.blogspot.com/2011/03/frank-weathers-reminds-us.html). Why waste your valuable time taking in garbage when there is so much great art and literature to enjoy? Second, she was a very poor writer. Third, this movie was made so that the producers could keep the rights to the novel, so it was made cheaply, hastily, and likely quite poorly. I would not waste your time.

From what I understand, it exposes the ugliness and unfairness of Socialism, something we certainly won't hear from many sources these days (therefore, look for it to be blasted by those on the Left). I'd say go see it. I've heard some very positive things about it, though I haven't had the opportunity to see it personally.

I know I will!!! I've read the book three times, and I can't wait to see the movie!

~Liza

I watched a youtube interview with Ayn Rand hosted by Mike Wallace from the late 1950s. Her thinking is not Christian.

I would encourage anyone wanting to see the movie to get a summary of her philosophy and realize what it actually is.

Peace,
Ed

[quote="edwest2, post:8, topic:236522"]
I would encourage anyone wanting to see the movie to get a summary of her philosophy and realize what it actually is.

[/quote]

That is an excellent idea, Ed.

Rand's philosophy in relation to the proper role of government is spot on. It is essentially a capitalist / libertarian philosophy.

[quote="Christopher68, post:9, topic:236522"]
That is an excellent idea, Ed.

Rand's philosophy in relation to the proper role of government is spot on. It is essentially a capitalist / libertarian philosophy.

[/quote]

I'm less concerned about her views of government but more concerned about her ideas about how people should view each other.

Peace,
Ed

[quote="edwest2, post:8, topic:236522"]
I watched a youtube interview with Ayn Rand hosted by Mike Wallace from the late 1950s. Her thinking is not Christian.

I would encourage anyone wanting to see the movie to get a summary of her philosophy and realize what it actually is.

[/quote]

I guess I'm not clear - are you suggestion to not see the movie because of her philosophy? What does that have to do with enjoying the movie? I do not subscribe to her philosophy, but she wrote a good novel with great characters. I'm going to see a movie. Same as seeing Avatar - I don't believe in flying blue people either, but I would go to see the movie if it interested me.

~Liza

[quote="lizaanne, post:11, topic:236522"]
I guess I'm not clear - are you suggestion to not see the movie because of her philosophy? What does that have to do with enjoying the movie? I do not subscribe to her philosophy, but she wrote a good novel with great characters. I'm going to see a movie. Same as seeing Avatar - I don't believe in flying blue people either, but I would go to see the movie if it interested me.

~Liza

[/quote]

Concur.

I don't go for philosophy much at all, and I've read enough AR, including this book, to fully disagree with hers. I still enjoyed the book and, if I get the chance, will see the film for that reason.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

[quote="lizaanne, post:11, topic:236522"]
I guess I'm not clear - are you suggestion to not see the movie because of her philosophy? What does that have to do with enjoying the movie? I do not subscribe to her philosophy, but she wrote a good novel with great characters. I'm going to see a movie. Same as seeing Avatar - I don't believe in flying blue people either, but I would go to see the movie if it interested me.

~Liza

[/quote]

Sometimes a movie is about flying blue people, other times it is about a philosophy, a way of viewing others and living a life that is against Christian principles. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do. The world of Avatar doesn't exist but Ayn Rand did.

Peace,
Ed

If you can think for yourself, than go see the movie and read her books.

She was an advocate for personal freedom, recognizing that whenever fallible humans try to use authority to establish fairness they fail. It is impossible to be truly fair as everyone's circumstances differ. She observed the cronyism and corruption within the socialist system established in the Soviet Union. She saw how human nature was not compatible with socialism. Similar to the cronyism in our current capitalist system. The novel 'Atlas Shrugged' explores the concept of a government claiming to own everyone's intellectual capital and be the arbiter of how it's utilized. It is the tale of a system where the government and other influential organizations lay the expectation that those who contribute more owe everyone else, that they have to carry that burden regardless of their own desires. And those with less can demand from anyone the fruits of their labor- physical or mental. Think of it as the ultimate in eminent domain.

She of course, to make her point, takes it to the extreme. But it is a worthwhile moral and philisophical exercise- can I demand your coat because you have two and I only have one? Even if I can work and choose not to, or even if I partied my way through high school, chose not to go to college, am using drugs/alcohol willingly, basically chose a dead end job/path? Should fallible humans running a government force those choices? Michael Moore recently was advocating confiscation of the money/property of the wealthy.( did that include him?) It's no different that wondering what's a fair tax level. I asked my kids in CCD how to fix the budget, they said-- tax the rich!!! I asked, what percentage is fair considering many of these folks risked their houses, funds, worked their buns off etc. to get where they are. Average answer- 15% total between state and fed. They were truly shocked when I showed them the actual tax rates for fed and CA and became anti tax. My point to them was, we don't want anyone starving, going without medical care etc., a government has a duty to protect it's people from physical threats- crime, invasion; which all takes money so that has to come from the people. But what role should a government have in taking property from one to give to another and for what reasons? I find it repugnant that my tax dollars are going to Planned Parenthood, confiscation of my property to 'aid the underprivileged' with access to abortion, including aiding and abetting those sexually exploiting and abusing minors.

Anyway, Rand was a hedonist in her personal life, much of her philosophy was not 'christian' but she did raise some important questions about government and justice. If anything, she certainly was an advocate of free will, people being allowed to choose their own paths and deal with the consequences. She was a firm beliver in the idea of contracts, i.e. people entering into and being bound by agreements, each acting in their own interests so that the agreement was mutually beneficial. I have no idea how faithful the movies are/will be to the themes and ideas in the book, if you aren't naive or close minded than you will be able to deal with them.

[quote="edwest2, post:10, topic:236522"]
I'm less concerned about her views of government but more concerned about her ideas about how people should view each other.

[/quote]

Show me one move that did not have any sort of philosophical element to it. Can't be done. All moves do. It is up to the viewer to have the ability to discern between entertainment and message.

styrgwillidar makes these same points, far more eloquent than I.

~Liza

Anyone see this over the weekend.

I read the book over the summer. I enjoyed the movie. It is only part I of III. it was difficult to discuss with my wife afterwards as I do not want to ruin the other two parts if they are released.

I was annoyed at some of the reviews as terms like capitalist and conservative were used. I never hear the word 'Liberal" when a liberal movie comes out.

[quote="Michael_C, post:16, topic:236522"]
Anyone see this over the weekend.

I read the book over the summer. I enjoyed the movie. It is only part I of III. it was difficult to discuss with my wife afterwards as I do not want to ruin the other two parts if they are released.

I was annoyed at some of the reviews as terms like capitalist and conservative were used. I never hear the word 'Liberal" when a liberal movie comes out.

[/quote]

Just bought the book for my own reading and research for some stories I'm creating, before I learned of the movie adaptation.

One link you might find interesting that explains the philosophy of the book is the nature of Rand's definition of objectivism. From what study I've done, the media has again not done the research. Rand was anything but conservative or pro-capitalist.

Waiting to see if it comes to my town…:shrug:

While I am not a fan of AR or her beliefs (and in fact have become less so the more of her stuff I have read), I very much enjoyed the book, and generally appreciate a good film adaptation of a good book.

ICXC NIKA

[quote="Spencerian, post:17, topic:236522"]
Rand was anything but conservative or pro-capitalist.

[/quote]

Not in today's terminology anyway. For one thing, she despised the Federal Reserve, which is the basis of what they consider capitalism (or the source of it) these days. She was also "progressive" as far as women's rights (suffrage, workforce, etc.) go. But then so are many of today's women politicians who are labelled "conservatives."

That said, this is perhaps one of the many books of AR which I haven't read. One of these days I am determined to drop my Latin book for a few hours and read the John Galt speech. :)

Looking forward to it but I will have to wait for the DVD. I don't do theatres anymore :)

I enjoyed the book except for the kinky romance (my opinion) It felt awkward to read. The political philosphy I loved and was uncannily prophetic.

I actually preferred Rand's The Fountainhead because I like architecture and one day I'm going to make a point to see the old B&W movie adaptation of that too.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.