L. Neil Smith: They all went to the theater expecting to see a film, and saw a movie, instead

Posted on May 16, 2011 6:10 am UTC by Joshua Zader

Libertarian science fiction author L. Neil Smith has published his review of the Atlas Shrugged movie.

A number of scenes, he says, “very nearly brought me to tears.”

After considering the film’s pros and cons, and the various reactions among the intelligentsia as well as fellow libertarians, he concludes:

The worst problem is that they all went to the theater expecting to see a film, and saw a movie, instead. There’s a big difference, according to my friend and fellow movie fan, Lenda Jackson. A film is a horrible, boring, wrist-slittingly depressing exercise—anything by Ingmar Bergman comes to mind—to which you take your college girlfriend to convince her that you’re an intellectual. I tried that once, and walked out, annoying my enamorata, the associate editor of the campus newspaper. The Fountainhead was a film, too, and it sucked.

John Wayne made movies. Tom Selleck, Clint Eastwood, and Kurt Russell, for the most part, reliably make movies. Star Wars, Star Trek, and J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter adventures have generated dozens of wonderful movies, conveying their outlook and philosophy (even when we don’t agree with them) in a manner that’s exciting and fun.

Atlas Shrugged will be a movie, once it’s finished, and a great one. But it won’t happen if we let the enemies of liberty have their way.

For my part, I’m gonna go see it again, as soon as possible.

See his full review for more.

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 Reviews. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Leon Brozyna

    An interesting distinction. Let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about an art film:

    a focus on the thoughts and dreams of characters, rather than presenting a clear, goal-driven story

    Well. I’ll be…

    This explains a lot.

    When Part I was coming out, there was talk of it having a niche market, of a limited opening in a few select theaters. Those that had read the book knew that it’s a book full of many expository monologues, of deep challenging ideas; many were probably expecting such a film. Imagine the reaction of the film critics all geared up to rip apart a film and, instead of a film, they then got hit with a movie!! No wonder the critics were steamed. It wasn’t a boring film filled with ideas they hate … it’s an action filled movie expressing the book’s ideas and ideals that they hate in a goal-driven form. The ideas made real! The critics weren’t just steamed, they were doubly steamed.  This will never do … the movie might *gasp* attract even more people to Miss Rand’s ideas !!

    Put in this context, Mr. Aglialoro’s movie is even more of a success than anyone realizes. Forget the box office numbers … they merely reflect poor marketing. The movie was marketed as a film, aimed at a niche market (Tea Party and Ayn Rand admirers). Well, that can be fixed with DVD marketing. Drive that wedge into the public perception, coupled with proper marketing for Parts II and III, and the critics will be all but forgotten. The public will lap it up.

    Ah yes … Part II. That one will be a real bear to make as a movie. It is this part of the book that is chock full of lengthy delivered monologues and intense character inner monologues. Easy enough to do if doing a film, but as a movie … that’s the real challenge.

    After considering this film vs. movie distinction, I think Mr. Aglialoro understands what he’s doing. He’s been talking about this and future installments as movies, not films. He may not be aware of this, but he gets it. What’s more, his success is even more awe inspiring in that, rather than go the easy route and make a boring film, he’s gone the more difficult route of making a movie.
     

    • Anonymous

       The screen play was lousy. The rest follows from this. The film should have been 30-40 minutes longer. I have had screen writing training and experience and have been hailed as good at it. In addition, it is a basic principle of business that you don’t under capitalize a venture. If you do, you’ll cut corners and have a failure. And yes, I have business startup experience. Mr. Ag made the film in a hurry and on the cheap. It shows. He should have thrown a few more million into the hopper or just skipped the project. And he demonstrates a complete ineptitude about marketing. He sent ads to msnbc, cnn, etc. What for? To piss them off? Rejection was predictable and these little markets aren’t the target market. Had they accepted the ads, it would have been money wasted. He was looking for a fight. He asked for it, he got it and he lost. He made a second rate movie, a B grade movie. Thank heavens for remakes. Oh well, who is John Galt? O,r as the Jews say, “next year in Jerusalem.”

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2QJH7OCSK4GUYCYZ3Z3HCQE2SY Michael

        I found the screenplay an amazing job of essentializing and adaptation of some incredibly dense material, done in an astoundingly brief timeframe.

  • Leon Brozyna

    An interesting distinction. Let’s see what Wikipedia has to say about an art film:

    a focus on the thoughts and dreams of characters, rather than presenting a clear, goal-driven story

    Well. I’ll be…

    This explains a lot.

    When Part I was coming out, there was talk of it having a niche market, of a limited opening in a few select theaters. Those that had read the book knew that it’s a book full of many expository monologues, of deep challenging ideas; many were probably expecting such a film. Imagine the reaction of the film critics all geared up to rip apart a film and, instead of a film, they then got hit with a movie!! No wonder the critics were steamed. It wasn’t a boring film filled with ideas they hate … it’s an action filled movie expressing the book’s ideas and ideals that they hate in a goal-driven form. The ideas made real! The critics weren’t just steamed, they were doubly steamed.  This will never do … the movie might *gasp* attract even more people to Miss Rand’s ideas !!

    Put in this context, Mr. Aglialoro’s movie is even more of a success than anyone realizes. Forget the box office numbers … they merely reflect poor marketing. The movie was marketed as a film, aimed at a niche market (Tea Party and Ayn Rand admirers). Well, that can be fixed with DVD marketing. Drive that wedge into the public perception, coupled with proper marketing for Parts II and III, and the critics will be all but forgotten. The public will lap it up.

    Ah yes … Part II. That one will be a real bear to make as a movie. It is this part of the book that is chock full of lengthy delivered monologues and intense character inner monologues. Easy enough to do if doing a film, but as a movie … that’s the real challenge.

    After considering this film vs. movie distinction, I think Mr. Aglialoro understands what he’s doing. He’s been talking about this and future installments as movies, not films. He may not be aware of this, but he gets it. What’s more, his success is even more awe inspiring in that, rather than go the easy route and make a boring film, he’s gone the more difficult route of making a movie.
     

    • lostlegends

       The screen play was lousy. The rest follows from this. The film should have been 30-40 minutes longer. I have had screen writing training and experience and have been hailed as good at it. In addition, it is a basic principle of business that you don’t under capitalize a venture. If you do, you’ll cut corners and have a failure. And yes, I have business startup experience. Mr. Ag made the film in a hurry and on the cheap. It shows. He should have thrown a few more million into the hopper or just skipped the project. And he demonstrates a complete ineptitude about marketing. He sent ads to msnbc, cnn, etc. What for? To piss them off? Rejection was predictable and these little markets aren’t the target market. Had they accepted the ads, it would have been money wasted. He was looking for a fight. He asked for it, he got it and he lost. He made a second rate movie, a B grade movie. Thank heavens for remakes. Oh well, who is John Galt? O,r as the Jews say, “next year in Jerusalem.”

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2QJH7OCSK4GUYCYZ3Z3HCQE2SY Michael

        I found the screenplay an amazing job of essentializing and adaptation of some incredibly dense material, done in an astoundingly brief timeframe.