Ron Pisaturo: Exposition vs. drama in the Atlas Shrugged movie

Posted on April 8, 2011 7:09 am UTC by Joshua Zader

There are people who understand Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and then there are people who understand Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. The latter are in the best position to offer insightful criticisms of the new movie.

Ron Pisaturo offers exactly this kind of sensitive, insightful criticism in his essay “Exposition vs. Drama: A Scene Viewable Online from Atlas Shrugged, the Movie vs. the Scene from the Novel,” which explores differences between the viewable clip “Henry Rearden Comes Home” and the corresponding scenes from the novel.

With his finely tuned sense of Ayn Rand’s purposes, Pisaturo is not happy with the movie. And for anyone with a deep appreciation for Rand’s genius and subtlety — and more than a passing familiarity with her essays in The Romantic Manifesto — at least some of Pisturo’s criticisms will ring true. His criticisms also seem compatible with Katheryn Schwalb’s review, published at the Atlasphere.

Pisaturo concludes:

My purpose here is not to ascribe blame. Perhaps the movie’s deviations from the novel were intentional, perhaps not. It may be that the director and actors had less time to prepare for this scene than I took to critique it. Also, what is written in a screenplay is often very different from what ends up on the screen. Nevertheless, whatever the intentions and commitment of those who worked on the movie, this scene from the movie is what it is. If some good is to come from this scene, I think it will be that that the scene will serve as a foil to enhance understanding of and appreciation for the Romantic, dramatic style in the writing of Ayn Rand.

Virtually any adaptation will be inferior to the source material, and many criticisms from inside the Objectivist movement ignore just how much worse the movie could have been, in less sympathetic hands. (Dagny Taggart as a prostitute, anyone?) Really, what are the odds that anyone in Hollywood would have produced a movie even close to this one in faithfulness?

So even Pisaturo’s criticisms should be held firmly in context. That said, I confess I’d be fascinated to see a full-length script for the movie by someone as sensitive as Ron Pisaturo.

Come to think of it, maybe we should just have a thousand Atlas Shrugged movies.

About Joshua Zader

Joshua Zader is co-founder of Atlas Web Development and founder of The Atlasphere, a networking directory and dating service for admirers of Ayn Rand's novels with over 20,000 members from around the world.
This entry was posted in Atlas Shrugged novel, Ayn Rand's philosophy, Previews, Reviews, Story line. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QSRXWQ57VFJO2UNPHCVKSKFDPQ honestann

    I disagree with the analysis. Having said that, I can see why someone would come to the stated opinion. Let me explain why I agree with the general idea stated, but completely disagree with its application to this scene.

    I prefer to leave my life out of this, but I need to supply context. Since I got out of school, I’ve been a self-employed scientist, engineer, inventor and product developer. I started with $2000 of savings and made a life for myself without help, without loans, but with endless antagonists… like those portrayed in the scene described. So I have a context that gives me a perspective somewhat like Rearden.

    When I deal with my work, my focus is complete. I may be juggling facts, ideas, contexts, approaches, relationships so overwhelming in number and complexity that I can barely keep from “losing it”. And I’ve done this 8 to 16 hours per day, sometimes 72 hours non-stop (to keep everything I must fresh in mind) for decades… until recently lightening up… a little.

    During this time alone, doing my work, or even in the cases where I must interact with others concerning my projects, I do indeed behave much like the character advocated in the review. It is just me and reality, and I am in completely active, engaged, in control.

    However, what happens when I get dumped into an environment that is NOT related to my work? The author of this review assumes I would or should behave the same. Well, I don’t. In fact, I behave more like Rearden acts, and like the reviews discourages.

    Why?

    Most importantly, at the root of my being I accept those others have just a much right as I do – to have their own interests and tastes and to run their own lives. Oh, I most certainly disagree with many of the interests and tastes of others, but simple consistency and civility restrains me from pushing myself on them — when not in the context of my work or my direct personal interests (that do not overlap theirs significantly).

    So “what’s the point” is the attitude I would have upon arriving home in the described scene. As a true individualist who internalizes “live and let live” at the core of her being, I consider myself primarily an observer in these situations, especially since I have no interest in participating in such drivel.

    Of course, I’m not like Rearden in some ways. I would have thrown most of those jerks out of my life long ago. Sure, they’re welcome to be jerks, but I want none of that in my life. So yeah, I’d be different in that way. Nonetheless, I’ve been in similar situations where I was not in my own house, in my own domain. And in such cases I most certainly would automatically adopt the attitude of “remote observer”, as someone merely on the edges of the activity, and wanting to stay remote from what I consider utterly banal to revolting. Why would I want to taint my life with such baby-minded foolishness?

    Of course, we’re only responding to a single scene here. Frankly, if a similar passiveness was presented by Rearden at his factory when events important to his metal or business take place… then the critique supplied would be entirely appropriate, if not understated.

    When watching a film, keep the context in mind folks. Sure, I’d be happy to see both versions filmed and see how they both come across to me. But having a somewhat similar mindset as Rearden, I find the portrayal to be completely understandable, reasonable, and appropriate. And not because it is “naturalistic”. When the context is properly understood, the film clip portrayal is appropriate and I believe also qualifies as “romantic realism”. But yes, lacking or ignoring the appropriate context, that might not be obvious.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QSRXWQ57VFJO2UNPHCVKSKFDPQ honestann

    I disagree with the analysis. Having said that, I can see why someone would come to the stated opinion. Let me explain why I agree with the general idea stated, but completely disagree with its application to this scene.

    I prefer to leave my life out of this, but I need to supply context. Since I got out of school, I’ve been a self-employed scientist, engineer, inventor and product developer. I started with $2000 of savings and made a life for myself without help, without loans, but with endless antagonists… like those portrayed in the scene described. So I have a context that gives me a perspective somewhat like Rearden.

    When I deal with my work, my focus is complete. I may be juggling facts, ideas, contexts, approaches, relationships so overwhelming in number and complexity that I can barely keep from “losing it”. And I’ve done this 8 to 16 hours per day, sometimes 72 hours non-stop (to keep everything I must fresh in mind) for decades… until recently lightening up… a little.

    During this time alone, doing my work, or even in the cases where I must interact with others concerning my projects, I do indeed behave much like the character advocated in the review. It is just me and reality, and I am completely active, engaged, in control.

    However, what happens when I get dumped into an environment that is NOT related to my work? The author of this review assumes I would or should behave the same. Well, I don’t. In fact, I behave more like Rearden acts, and like the reviews discourages.

    Why?

    Most importantly, at the root of my being I accept those others have just a much right as I do – to have their own interests and tastes and to run their own lives. Oh, I most certainly disagree with many of the interests and tastes of others, but simple consistency and civility restrains me from pushing myself on them — when not in the context of my work or my direct personal interests (that do not overlap theirs significantly).

    So “what’s the point” is the attitude I would have upon arriving home in the described scene. As a true individualist who internalizes “live and let live” at the core of her being, I consider myself primarily an observer in these situations, especially since I have no interest in participating in such drivel.

    Of course, I’m not like Rearden in some ways. I would have thrown most of those jerks out of my life long ago. Sure, they’re welcome to be jerks, but I want none of that in my life. So yeah, I’d be different in that way. Nonetheless, I’ve been in similar situations where I was not in my own house, in my own domain. And in such cases I most certainly would automatically adopt the attitude of “remote observer”, as someone merely on the edges of the activity, and wanting to stay remote from what I consider utterly banal to revolting. Why would I want to taint my life with such baby-minded foolishness?

    Of course, we’re only responding to a single scene here. Frankly, if a similar passiveness was presented by Rearden at his factory when events important to his metal or business take place… then the critique supplied would be entirely appropriate, if not understated.

    When watching a film, keep the context in mind folks. Sure, I’d be happy to see both versions filmed and see how they both come across to me. But having a somewhat similar mindset as Rearden, I find the portrayal to be completely understandable, reasonable, and appropriate. And not because it is “naturalistic”. When the context is properly understood, the film clip portrayal is appropriate and I believe also qualifies as “romantic realism”. But yes, lacking or ignoring the appropriate context, that might not be obvious.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HIZRT6QXIYPSGXUSXCTA6S63GI Phil

    Ron Pisaturo has written a powerful, thoughtful, insightful essay.

    And he gives some reasons for thinking a movie made of the book could indeed capture the spirit of the book. His analysis of the Rearden scene is persuasive: it could have been done in a way that showed HR to be less passive.

    I agree with Joshua Z that RP’s ideas are quite good and if he were somehow miraculously to become involved in parts 2 and 3, it might be a very good thing.

    But I disagree that the scene from the movie lacks drama. I share with honestann the idea that someone can be a “remote observer” in such situations. Legitimately.

    Is that Rearden in the novel? Not entirely. But passivity is indeed an issue with Rearden. He’s passively accepted the moral code around him, passively accepts guilt for his affair with Dagny, etc.

    So, yes, the psychology in the scene works – as does the scene. Whether the movie as a whole ‘works’ is a question that will have to wait till I’ve seen it.

    And how much of the book the movie does not include – whether of necessity or because of bad casting or lack of insight – are all questions that RP’s essay does not (yet) persuade me regarding: Saying the rather effective Rearden scene -completely- lacks drama because it doesn’t reflect internal conflict and is like throwing a handful of rocks at a masterpiece seems to me to be greatly overstated.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HIZRT6QXIYPSGXUSXCTA6S63GI Phil

    Ron Pisaturo has written a powerful, thoughtful, insightful essay.

    And he gives some reasons for thinking a movie made of the book could indeed capture the spirit of the book. His analysis of the Rearden scene is persuasive: it could have been done in a way that showed him to be less passive…and different in several ways, as well as a subtle shift in the motivations of his family members, especially Lillian.

    I agree with Joshua Z that Ron P’s ideas are quite good and if he were somehow miraculously to become involved in parts 2 and 3, it might be a very good thing.

    But I disagree that the scene from the movie lacks drama. I share with “honestann” the idea that someone can be a “remote observer” in such situations. Legitimately.

    Is that Rearden in the novel? Not entirely: he is both more active and more benevolent and less cynical in the scene in the novel. But passivity is indeed an issue with Rearden, so it’s reasonable to show it here. He’s passively accepted the conventional moral code around him, passively accepts guilt for his affair with Dagny, has imbibed unchallenged the conventional view of sexual desire as “low”, etc. (You can’t show all of this in the movie, so the scene is an acceptable shortcut to showing the -effect- on him of certain ‘conventional’ premises that affect him when he steps outside the realm of his work. You -have- to show him being different in work and at home, that’s part of the mind/body dichotomy of Hank Rearden.)

    At the same time, when you have under two hours of screen time, you do have to simplify the very complex characterization of the novel. You can’t have the audience puzzled or confused or not able to ‘place’ the character too easily into a type they can recognize if you want the movie to have impact on a mass audience, especially those entirely unfamiliar with the novel.

    So, Ron P is mistaken: the psychology in the scene is effective. It works well. Whether the movie as a whole ‘works’ is a question that will have to wait till I’ve seen it.

    And how much of the book the movie does not include – whether of necessity or because of bad casting or lack of insight – are all questions that RP’s essay does not (yet) persuade me regarding: Saying the rather effective Rearden scene -completely- lacks drama because it doesn’t reflect internal conflict and is like throwing a handful of rocks at a masterpiece seems to me to be greatly overstated.