atlas shrugged movie part 3

Ok, to conclude the series. Part 3. As usual mainly focusing only on the parts which were incorrectly or correctly shot and leaving out the parts which were reasonably well shot but were not absolutely necessary to mention about. However I must add that I’m already bitter after writing on the first two parts of the movie. The more I think about it, more the bitterness :

Scene 1 - workers meeting in the factory : ok. Fine. No problem here. But I would like to repeat. Cutting the scene in which Jeff Allen explained the story in part 2 is unforgivable. the biggest blunder to make.

Scene 2 - showing what is happening in the world : not clarifying that Ragnar danejskold only looted government owned cargo (and not private cargo) seems to be a clever attempt to malign ayn rand. By making people believe that she supported looters, hence there was a flaw in her philosophy. This seems to be a highly crafty ploy to bring a bad name to her and is absolutely unpardonable. I’m saying this because from time to time these people, behind the movie, keep passing vague hints (without saying that clearly in as many words), off and on, by suggesting their agreement (with libertarians or other similar groups) that she was not 100% moral or perfect (so that makes other similar philosophies as good as objectivism) – just to gain popularity through dilution of her ideology, as a milder version of objectivism would obvioulsy be more appealing to the average man.

Scene 3 – after the crash when galt meets dagny first time : What was the need of showing the plane broken up in such a bad way ? It was not broken that badly actually, according to the book. Anyway this is not a big deal but little odd because it would have been better to mention that galt had the infrastructure inside the valley to repair a slighly damaged plane.

Scene 4 – first meeting between dr. akston and dagny : Such a poor actor this guy is. He is talking to dagny as if he’s her student or employee or something. Such a hyped up guy. embarrassing. Again such an insult to the character of “the Dr. Hugh akston” (as they did in the first part.

Scene 5 – dagny first time in galts house : fairly well performed. No problem in this one.

Scene 6 – showing Ragnar’s picture for the first time : firstly why are they showing his pic ? He did not give an opportunity ever to anyone to be able to click him. What the hell ? Secondly, wrong actor picked for Ragnar’s role. He looks like a body builder. No. this sends a wrong message to the viewers. Ragnar was an anemic sort of a skinny tall guy. And they should have picked such an actor for the role. It was important because of two reasons – firstly because Ragnar, even if not as important as galt but surely was the number two hero and its regretful that this movie did not give importance to his identity. Secondly Ragnar was “the professor of economics inside the valley” signifying his stature (along with galt) in the book. Does this guy look like a professor of economics ? Give me a break. This “bouncer looking” kind of actor ruins the image of Ragnar, as if muscle was his strength. His strength was economics and intelligence and integrity and courage. Not muscle. Ragnar’s character has been very subtly defined by ayn rand, in the novel, signifying him as high or closest to galt, by few indirect messages or paragraphs, which it’s obvious the people behind the movie have not understood. There is a reason why ayn rand didn’t openly glorify him as much as galt, but I won’t go into that.

Scene 7 – the party at Midas mulligans house : started off well. But galt abruptly said “dagny we are on strike”. Again this is misrepresentation of the book due to some people trying to act over smart. It was extremely important to film it as in the book. Dagny asking the group “what are you doing, all of you ?” and galt standing behind her saying “we are on strike”. It was crucial because ayn rand wanted to name the book “the strike” originally and it is the base of the book. Now another huge disappointment in this party scene, by choosing such a soft looking character for Ellis Wyatt. The way he introduced himself and talked was so out of line with his stature. As if dagny had higher ability than Wyatt. Lol. It’s such a basic fundamental concept which people have not understood i.e. Dagny and rearden getting major roles in the book doesn’t make them as big as or bigger than Francisco danconia or Wyatt or Ragnar or Hugh Akston or Midas Mulligan etc. It’s just that the script demanded bigger roles to rearden and dagny due to the story.

Scene 8 – mentioning Ragnar sinking ships containing copper : not clarifying that the copper belonging to Francisco and was just sunk and not looted (in contrast to material looted only from government ships carrying relief supplies) is disgraceful.

Scene 9 – dagny meeting Ragnar in the market for the first time : again some people trying to act over smart by trying to make the public believe they have better ideas than Ayn rand. Such a light casual explanation given by Ragnar, makes a mockery of his status. Unbelievable. The tone of the discussion was more like as if its humor. Such a huge insult by making it look like a comedy scene instead of a serious objective discussion which was in the novel (at galts home). It was unavoidable to exclude the crucial meeting between dagny and Ragnar as in the book and Ragnar explaining through following paragraph as in the book “I am doing just what he (galt) is doing — only in my own way. He is withdrawing man's spirit from the looters, I'm withdrawing the products of man's spirit. He is depriving them of reason, I'm depriving them of wealth. He is draining the soul of the world, I'm draining its body. His is the lesson they have to learn, only I'm impatient and I'm hastening their scholastic progress. But, like John, I'm simply complying with their moral code and refusing to grant them a double standard at my expense. Or at Rearden's expense. Or at yours."

Scene 10 – the discussion between galt and dagny in the night at galts home : this was the first needless scene of the movie so far. Should not have been pictured to save time for other crucial episodes.

Scene 11 – the first meeting between dagny and Francisco : another stab in the back of ayn rand's philosophy, by these people. That was such an emotional meeting between dagny and Francisco and these guys have taken it so lightly by filming such a formal and non-personal body language of the actors. This again shows how little these people value her "emotions" and worthiness for "love".

Scene 12 – between akston and dagny having wine : unnecessary scene. Could have been excluded for the unavoidable ones which were not filmed.

Scene 13 – galt and Ragnar watching the rearden plane fly by : another waste of few precious seconds in the movie.

Scene 14 – between Francisco and galt having a drink till the point of dagny-galt discussion in the middle of the night : another waste of valuable movie time.

Scene 15 – from the point of the last meeting in the valley, at mulligans house, between the 5 persons till the point galt drops dagny at the airstrip : reasonably well done. Nice performance.

Scene 16 – dagny calling rearden to inform him she’s alive : another stupid act. Rearden talking to dagny in such a casual way as if he’s not shell-shocked and ecstatic after knowing she’s alive. What the hell ? restraining from picturization of such a tender moment.

Scene 17 – between Ferris and potter : this part 3 of the movie is a disaster after disaster after disaster, it seems. Why are they again trying to show dr. stadler in good light ? He didn’t care about the projects of the SSI. Even if he initially objected, he never carried his displeasure beyond a certain point. And in this scene they’re trying to show as if he cares and has signed the letter reluctantly.

Scene 18 – between dagny, Jim, Eddie and cuffy meigs in the control room : ok. Fine here.

Scene 19 – six or seven people including dagny, discussing the Minnesota line over drinks : totally unnecessary scene. Time wasted.

Scene 20 – dagny reaching the terminal till the point she notices galt and runs : extremely extremely well filmed scene. The first efficient performance, direction and production in the movie so far. an amazingly sensitive sequence and so perfectly and beautifully demonstrated.

Scene 21 – dagny entering the room at the underground terminal : again such a vulgar projection of this greatest love story ever written in history. First of all modifying the scene is misrepresentation but I don’t have a problem if there are any alterations or additional aspects joined to any part of the book provided they convey the philosophy in the right way. But all the ideas used by these super genius intellectuals at the institute, added by their own imagination in the entire 3 parts have degraded ayn rand. Such a shame to interpret things in a cheap way. I won’t elaborate why this incident was indecently portrayed because it is not mannerly to describe the reasoning behind such a fiery episode.

Scene 22 – Cheryl taggarts death : the entire scene about Cheryl was again avoidable.

Scene 23 – galts speech : ok overall. But a major mistake by not including stadler asking to kill galt, in the end of the scene. again a major gaffe to exclude that part.

Scene 24 – between Thomson and dagny in his office : well performed scene. Nice acting, especially the last line.

Scene 25 – Ron Paul’s statement on TV : again another act of treachery against ayn rand. She hated libertarians as they first copied her ideas, added idiotic and diluted frills to those (for acquiring popularity) and finally defamed her in front of the entire world. that's why including Ron Paul in the movie is such a big insult to her, specially hearing what he said – “what galt said is in many ways (not completely) correct.” such a clever typical political statement by not admitting that whatever galt said during the speech was "ideal".

Scene 26 – galt getting arrested : ok. Fine. Good job here.

Scene 27 – between Thomson and galt : well done. Nice acting and production. But is it possible for anyone to enter into the dining room of the president of the united stares with his mobile phone hidden inside the trouser ? Really silly and childish experiment I must say. Totally needless and laughable. Hilarious. this management at the institute is straight out of a comic book.

Scene 28 – galt in the state science institute : what the hell is going on here ? Is there any diplomatic pressure from the government on the producers or is it due to political ambitions of the people behind the institute ? Instead of filming stadler wanting galt dead they’re again showing him in good light (and that too the third time). Amazing. Overall a well-directed part of the movie except for two things A. deleting Jim’s comment in the end – “he hasn’t even screamed yet”. B. not filming the scene in the same dramatic thriller movie kind of fashion as Ragnar shot down one or two guards (in the book). It is obviously unrealistic to show such an easy eviction of galt.

a necessary scene 29 which was never there in the end – it was important to show Eddie willers still denying on taking a firm stand and declining to oppose the government. This is a crucial message which ayn rand always wanted to send out to the world – that people who do not gather the courage to side with the good, lose in the end and should deservingly lose and die.

And one more point : as I forgot to mention while writing on the second part last week. Two extremely important scenes were not filmed (in part 2). One, Ragnar-rearden meeting in the forest. And Two, rearden slapping Francisco in dagny’s apartment. And the biggest “double cross” act, the people behind the movie have played on ayn rand if one looks at all the three parts of the movie was the exclusion of the Rearden-Ragnar encounter. Following is the edited conversation which should have been included at any cost in part 2 : (Ragnar) "I should like to speak to you, Mr. Rearden. Go ahead," said Rearden, "provided you don't intend to ask me for help or money." "No, Mr. Rearden," he said, "I don't intend to ask you for money, but to return it to you." "What money?" "A small refund on a very large debt." "What debt?" He extended the package to Rearden, flipping the burlap open. "Did you come here to give this to me?" "Yes." "Why?" "When robbery is done in open daylight by sanction of the law, as it is done today, then any act of honor or restitution has to be hidden underground." "What made you think that I'd accept a gift of this kind?" "It is not a gift, Mr. Rearden. It is your own money. "Why did you care?" asked Rearden. "Much more than you have reason to suspect. Where did this gold come from?" "It was taken from those who robbed you." "Taken by whom?" "By Me." "WHO ARE YOU?" "RAGNAR DANNESKJOLD." THIS IS THE SECOND MOST SENSATIONAL PART OF THE ENTIRE NOVEL AND ITS EXCLUSION IS THE BIGGEST INSULT TO AYN RAND.(Rearden) To what purpose are you giving your mind?" "To the cause of my love." "Which is what?" "Justice." "Served by being a pirate?" "By working for the day when I won't have to be a pirate any longer." "Which day is that?" "The day when you'll be free to make a profit on Rearden Metal." "Even if they're true, the things you said, why did you choose to be a bandit? Why didn't you simply step out, like —" He stopped. "Like Ellis Wyatt, Mr. Rearden? Like Andrew Stockton? Like your friend Ken Danagger?" "Yes!" "Would you approve of that?" "I—" He stopped, shocked by his own words. "I do approve of it, Mr. Rearden. But I've chosen a special mission of my own. I'm after a man whom I want to destroy. "What man?" "Robin Hood." "He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. Well, I'm the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich — or, to be exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich." "What in blazes do you mean?" "If you remember the stories you've read about me in the newspapers, before they stopped printing them, you know that I have never robbed a private ship and never taken any private property. Nor have I ever robbed a military vessel — because the purpose of a military fleet is to protect from violence the citizens who paid for it, which is the proper function of a government. But I have seized every loot carrier that came within range of my guns, every government relief ship, subsidy ship, loan ship, gift ship, every vessel with a cargo of goods taken by force from some men for the unpaid, unearned benefit of others. This is the horror which Robin Hood immortalized as an ideal of righteousness. Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive." Since production and trade— not violence—were decreed to be crimes, the best men of Europe had no choice but to become criminals. The slave-drivers of those States are kept in power by the handouts from their fellow looters in countries not yet fully drained, such as this country. Mr. Rearden. I cannot compute all the money that has been extorted from you—in hidden taxes, in regulations, in lost effort but there is one part of the debt which is computed and on record. "What is that?" "Your income tax, Mr. Rearden." "What?" "Your income tax for the last twelve years." "You intend to refund that?" "In full and in gold, Mr. Rearden." Rearden smiled contemptuously, "Aren't you one of those damn altruists who spends his time on a non-profit venture and risks his life merely to serve others?" "No, Mr. Rearden. I am investing my time in my own future. When we are free and have to start rebuilding from out of the ruins, I want to see the world reborn as fast as possible. That is the love I am serving—and if I should lose my life, to what better purpose could I give it?" Have you heard of what happened to Orren Boyle's steel mills on the coast of Maine?" "Yes," said Rearden—and was shocked to hear that the word came as a gasp out of the sudden jolt of eagerness within him. "I didn't know whether it was true." "It's true. I did it. Mr. Boyle is not going to manufacture Rearden Metal on the coast of Maine. Whoever attempts to produce that Metal, will find his furnaces blown up, his machinery blasted, his shipments wrecked, his plant set on fire—so many things will happen to any man who tries it, that people will say there's a curse on it, and there will soon be no worker in the country willing to enter the plant of any new producer of Rearden Metal. If I were within reach of a phone, I would call the police. I don't think you'll want to understand me, but—" A beam of light hit them with the violence of a physical blow. It was a police car and it stopped beside them. The driver leaned out. "Oh, it's you, Mr. Rearden!" he said, touching his fingers to his cap. "Good evening, sir." “Did you happen to see a man anywhere around these parts, a stranger moving along in a hurry?" "What man?" "You wouldn't believe it if I told you, Mr. Rearden.”Who is that, Mr. Rearden?" he asked. "My new bodyguard,” said Rearden. Good night, sir." The red taillights of the car went shrinking down the road. Danneskjold watched it go, then glanced pointedly at Rearden's right hand. REARDEN REALISED THAT HE HAD STOOD FACING THE POLICEMEN WITH HIS HAND CLUTCHING THE GUN IN HIS POCKET AND THAT HE HAD BEEN PREPARED TO USE IT. Then he saw, lying at his feet, an object wrapped in burlap. He bent, picked it up and walked on. (Another epic scene in the novel which was obviously missed due to the deletion of the entire conversation). one of the most arousing, heartfelt and sensitive sequences in the novel but it seems no one has been able to understand it's intensity and passion. after all up to what extent can anyone be stone hearted or mentally dumb ?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally to conclude – part 3 was the worst part of the series. Then part 2 and part 1 in declining order of filthiness.