

Atlas Winced - mhb
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/04/atlas-winced/237405/

======
simonsarris
If you are looking for other reviews, Metacritic (27%):

<http://www.metacritic.com/movie/atlas-shrugged-part-i>

Rotten Tomatoes (10%):

<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/>

------
blhack
Oh come on, the movie wasn't _that_ terrible. I saw it yesterday morning in a
completely sold out theater (every showing has been sold out so far, with a
line around the theater of people trying to get in).

My "exit polls" (overhearing people talk about it as we all shuffle out)
indicate that most people enjoyed it.

Sure it wasn't transformers, it was slow (but somehow not slow enough), and
not very nuanced (the dialog the article is talking about), but it was an
alright way to spend 105 minutes.

If you're a fan of film, I think you should go see it, if for no reason other
than to try and see how the producers are trying to translate the story to
film. It's also pretty culturally significant.

Hopefully with enough interest (and money) the second one will be done
properly.

------
daimyoyo
There are several things to consider before seeing this movie. First and
foremost, it's an ashcan project. The film had to be rushed into production to
retain the film rights, so the writers didn't have the time to prune out lines
like the one mentioned. Also, Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings are
nearly the same length, yet this film is just over half the run time of The
Fellowship. Finally, the budget of this film is not nearly what it needed to
be, so don't go in expecting to see a visual masterpiece. It's a shame but
maybe someday a Peter Jackson level director will give this story the proper
treatment it deserves.

------
omouse
Does anyone here actually _like_ Ayn Rand and her writings?

~~~
maxharris
I love Ayn Rand! Atlas Shrugged had a huge, positive impact on my life, and
it's still my favorite novel over a decade after I first read it. I love the
way that Rand stylizes her characters because it makes for very clear mental
images while reading. It also it creates the framework for all kinds of subtle
things that you _don't_ notice the first time through.

------
wmeredith
This is really too bad. I loved the book (in spite of it's heavy-handed
preaching) and was always afraid this would happen in transition to the big
screen.

------
nhangen
I hope the OP isn't posting this simply because it's fun to bash Rand.

I'm a huge fan of the book (though I prefer the Fountainhead), but didn't
expect much more from this movie. I haven't seen it yet, but with that cast,
and a production team that can't even hire a logo designer (check the stock
vector used for the signage logo), I'd expect nothing short of a
disappointment.

~~~
sudonim
I didn't get the sense that the article was critical of Rand. It seemed more
like it was bashing the movie.

An Atlas Shrugged movie could be awesome. The book conjures such vivid images
of grandeur and destruction. It's a shame this trilogy seems like it should be
missed.

~~~
nhangen
I agree with you, but I've seen so many reviews use this bad movie as a chance
to bash Rand that I was hoping to avoid that here.

This one has had a lot of troubles getting off the ground, and I'm guessing
that the film reflects that, which as you say, is sad.

------
gnosis
Ayn Rand was an admirer of child killer William Hickman, who dismembered a
little girl.

<http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm>

~~~
rbanffy
Ad hominem fallacy this early in the morning?

I don't have to remind you one lapse of judgment doesn't invalidate all of
one's ideas.

(and, to be fair, I think Ayn Rand's "wisdom" is highly overrated)

~~~
gnosis
It's not an ad hominem, since I wasn't trying to refute Rand's arguments (such
as they are).

It's quite telling, however, that that was the sort of man she idolized.

~~~
Tycho
The author of that article did not really give an honest interpretation of
what was written in her diaries (about Hickman).

~~~
gnosis
Care to elaborate?

~~~
Tycho
The author ignores that Rand would have quite limited access to information on
the whole story, for a start. But more importantly he deliberately downplays
the fiction/adaptation angle. Rand was fascinated by _what she glimpsed_ in
the news story (namely the 'I am like the state; what's good for me is right'
quote, and the mob-mentality of the public reaction), because _it gave her
some ideas for a work of fiction,_ regardless of the _facts_ of this
particular case. Writers don't have to be accountable for what strange things
inspire them, just what they actually publish. Prescott leaves the
exhonerating quote to the very end (padding the rest of the article out with
random references to Neitsche and snippets of unrelated dialogue grabbed
without context):

\------------ "I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be
this at all. In fact, he probably isn't. But it does not make any difference.
If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough. There is a lot that is purposely,
senselessly horrible about him. But that does not interest me..."
\------------

She freely admits that her _impressions_ of the case are probably wrong, but
it rightfully doesn't matter to her because she's just planning how to create
a work of fiction based on some ideas it brought to mind, not publish an
editorial on the Hickman trial. When you untangle the whole business, that's
all you're left with: a novelist who privately took inspiration from a
strange/shocking event, but did nothing to sanction or glorify it in the
resulting fiction. Not particularly unusual: look at all the characters,
tyrants etc., that Shakespeare put in his plays while finding profound truths
about humanity. I'd say the whole thing would be analogous to me turning on
the news, listening to something Col. Gidaffi was saying in defiance of the
hypocritical NATO alliance, and then (without having the luxury or desire to
research Gidaffi's own integrity), being inspired to write a story about a
benign dictator who brought prosperity to the land, loosely basing him on
Gidaffi's mannerisms.

So really there's nothing to it, and that article would have died a quiet
death, EXCEPT for this passage:

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a
whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always
something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the
'majority.'... _It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and
crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..._ "

Now that is a horrible thing for Rand to say - most people have worse sins
than child murder?? But this is where Michael Prescott has 'done the dirty' -
the sentence I italicized was, if you read the whole passage from the diary,
not referring specifically to this murder case, but to the general instances
of mob indignation (eg. could be tax evasion cases, MP expense fiddling,
bankers bonuses, Monica Lewinsky, Fred Goodwin, the BP ceo, public figures
making un-PC remarks, etc). Which is not an altogether unfair observation, in
my experience. Mass self-righteousness is seldom pretty.

~~~
gnosis
_"The author ignores that Rand would have quite limited access to information
on the whole story, for a start."_

She may not have had the _whole_ story, but how much of the story did she
need?

Hickman's entire claim to fame was the cold blooded murder of a little girl.
What nuances could Rand have been missing that could have mislead her on that
point?

Here's what the author of the original article had to say about Rand's
knowledge of the case:

    
    
       The gory details of Hickman's crime were indeed reported in the newspapers
       of the day. (They didn't call 'em the Roaring Twenties for nothin'.) Nearly
       all the info I presented was taken from contemporaneous newspaper accounts.
       Rand followed the case closely enough to know the day-by-day events of the
       trial, so she surely knew what Hickman had done. She just didn't care. She
       mentions not one word about Hickman's 12-year-old victim in all the hundreds
       of words she penned about the case.
    
       If you've read Rand's journals, you know that she did present her ethical
       positions in detail, even when writing for herself.
    
       Objectivists typically bend themselves into pretzel-like shapes to avoid
       acknowledging Rand's obvious psychological problems. The facts are, Rand
       knew exactly what Hickman had done and admired him anyway. Make of this what
       you will.
    

(The above quote is from one of the comments to this article:

[http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/20...](http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2005/06/ad_hominem_ad_n.html)
)

 _"Rand was fascinated by what she glimpsed in the news story (namely the 'I
am like the state; what's good for me is right' quote, and the mob-mentality
of the public reaction), because it gave her some ideas for a work of fiction,
regardless of the facts of this particular case."_

Even if that was all that fascinated her about Hickman (doubtful), it's quite
interesting what conclusions she drew from his words: not that that kind of
attitude could lead egomaniacs like Hickman to senseless murder but rather
that they are ideals to be emulated and praised.

 _"But this is where Michael Prescott has 'done the dirty' - the sentence I
italicized was, if you read the whole passage from the diary, not referring
specifically to this murder case"_

Are you kidding me? The section she wrote it in is titled "The Hickman Case",
and it's clear she is talking about that case in particular from beginning to
end. The entire section reinforces what she said in that quote. She said it
and meant it about the Hickman case. There's no doubt about that.

Read for yourself:

<http://books.google.com/books?id=2Gkx0STfl5kC>

Just search for the phrase "Hickman Case" (including the quotes).

~~~
Tycho
We still do not know what information Rand had when she wrote what. The whole
point is something made an _impression_ on her and then she explored that
emotional response to come up with ideas for a story. If you want to judge her
on her emotional response, you at least need to be sure what she was
responding to: for instance, I might have an emotional response to Saddam
Hussein grandstanding in the crimes against humanity trial if I saw that on
television, one quite different if the tv spot had simply featured images of
his chemical attacks or torture victims.

" _Even if that was all that fascinated her about Hickman (doubtful), it's
quite interesting what conclusions she drew from his words: not that that kind
of attitude could lead egomaniacs like Hickman to senseless murder but rather
that they are ideals to be emulated and praised._ "

It's less interesting when you consider that other parts of her philosophy
include a total rejection of violence.

 _"Are you kidding me? The section she wrote it in is titled "The Hickman
Case", and it's clear she is talking about that case in particular from
beginning to end. The entire section reinforces what she said in that quote.
She said it and meant it about the Hickman case. There's no doubt about
that."_

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote... but I strongly disagree. Here's the
whole paragraph:

    
    
      The first thing that impresses me about the case
    

^ so she starts off addressing a specific event

    
    
      is the ferocious rage of the whole society against one man.
    

^ and then picks out a more general phenomenon present in this case

    
    
      No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the "virtuous"
    
      indignation and mass-hatred of the "majority." One always feels the stuffy,
    
      bloodthirsty emotion of a mob in any great public feeling of a large 
    
      number of humans. It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and 
    
      crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud
    
      and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society.
    

^ And then describes the _general phenomenon_ as she has observed from other
instances. _Then_ she goes back to talking about Hickman. Prescott omitted the
middle sentence of the last section above to make it sound worse, which I
think is very dishonest

~~~
gnosis
_"It's less interesting when you consider that other parts of her philosophy
include a total rejection of violence._ "

That's kind of ironic, if not outright hypocritical considering that outrage
against violence is exactly what she's railing against in this journal entry.

She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there.

 _"And then describes the general phenomenon as she has observed from other
instances."_

First, it's not clear whether the last sentence you quote (the one you agree
is dispicable were Rand referring to the Hickman case) is _directly_ referring
to the Hickman case or to the subject of the previous sentence, the "mob in
any great public feeling". She doesn't mention the Hickman case by name in
that sentence, nor does she explicitly mention she's talking about subject of
the previous sentence.

But even were we to grant that she wasn't talking about the Hickman case
directly, but was only talking about "a mob", she'd still be talking about the
Hickman case _indirectly_ ; since it's obvious the mob she mentions is a
general phenomena of which she saw the Hickman case as a particular example
of.

So either way, she's talking about the Hickman case. Directly or indirectly.

In fact, the rest of the journal entry makes it crystal clear what Rand says
in that sentence is indeed what she feels towards the spectators and
prosecutors of the Hickman: _"It is repulsive to see all those beings with
worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal,
proud and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society."_

Read the rest of the "Hickman Case" section from her journal and you'll see
that very sentiment expressed by Rand towards the spectators and prosectors of
the Hickman case. You can virtually see the scorn and contempt dripping from
Rand's lips, not at some abstract and general example of "a mob", but
precisely at those people who were outraged by what Hickman had done.

~~~
Tycho
_She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there._

This is getting a bit silly, I mean, why would she? It's her private diary
which she's using to plan works of fiction. She doesn't need to explain to
_herself_ that she doesn't condone violence.

Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins'
than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that,
but I think the only reason anyone _has_ is because Michael Prescott ellipted
the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still
speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally.

Thirdly, she does indeed have many (other) negative things to say about the
mob in this specific instance, but they are reasonable criticisms. For
instance the enthusiasm of the newstand boys crying 'they're going to hang
him!' It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-
_relishment_ of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to
associate themselves with the moral highground.

Basically she saw this case, saw the public reaction, and detected something
in that reaction which wasn't motivated merely by the crime itself, but the
criminal's open defiance of the social order. It inspired her to write a story
about someone who also cared nothing for the social order, who wanted his own
success above all alse, but was not a phoney or a hypocrit in any way, _or a
danger to others_ , and committed a crime for which he was widely hated: not
because of the crime itself, but because he refused to acknowledge its
wrongfulness. The initial story was never written but you can see the same
pattern in The Fountainhead when Roark blows up the housing complex then goes
on trial. Rand was not interested in Hickman, but in a parallel to the Hickman
story that shared _some_ of the same elements.

There were, of course, many, many other murders which Rand wasn't interested
in whatsoever.

~~~
gnosis
_"She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence."_

Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was
outraged by Hickman's murder?

 _"Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins'
than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that,
but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted
the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still
speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally."_

Even if we take her statement to apply more generally towards _"a mob in any
great public feeling of a large number of humans"_ is it really any more
excusable? She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those
people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage
expressed against any murder.

 _"It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of
a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves
with the moral highground."_

And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach
than Hickman's own crime?

~~~
Tycho
_Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was
outraged by Hickman's murder?_

The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is
detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray -
violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write
about it.

 _She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who
expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed
against any murder._

She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a
more _hypocritical_ mass-response. Here the public response to Hickman wasn't
hypocritical (except for his wife-murdering cellmate), but there were other
things she didn't like about it. Let's note that most murders actually _don't_
provoke a mass outrage - people are just quietly glad when the murderer is
caught/sentenced. Mind you, Rand's early years probably weren't that far
removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual
mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable.

 _And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach
than Hickman's own crime?_

Again you are forgetting this is a private diary for planning fiction, not an
newspaper editorial on a public affair. 'Worthy' has got nothing to do with
it. Murders happen all the time. Many books are written about them already.
It's not like this would be the first murder ever and _that_ was Rand's
response to it. This was a murder case with a difference, and Rand wanted to
explore that difference. The question is not 'what is just and fair in this
story,' but 'what is interesting in this story?'

~~~
gnosis
_"The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She
is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray -
violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write
about it."_

True. But you can see she had a strong emotional response to the circumstances
of the Hickman case. She was really outraged, and ranted about her outrage for
pages upon pages upon pages.

But her outrage was focused not on Hickman or on the murder he committed, but
on those people who were outraged at what Hickman had done.

That's what's strange about her reaction. She doesn't seem to be concerned in
the least by what Hickman had done. In fact, she idolizes him, and even writes
a story in which she turns him in to a hero.

And it's not like there weren't plenty of cases of miscarriages of justice in
the 20's that she could have been outraged at. Plenty of cases where she could
have chosen to idolize and emulate someone who really was heroic.

Instead in her journal entry she writes of a child murderer being a hero. You
don't find her choice of heroes to be even a bit strange?

 _"She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a
more hypocritical mass-response."_

What makes you think that? By her own words, she's referring to: "a mob in
_any_ great public feeling of a large number of humans" That includes public
outrage at murders, mass murders, torture, etc.

The fact that she alluded to such mobs in relation to the Hickman case proves
that she wasn't talking about mobs that form only in response to "lesser"
crimes, but rather those of which the public outrage caused by the Hickman
case is an example (ie. murder cases).

 _"Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque
spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most
people now find despicable."_

If she had written about her outrage at the lynching of an innocent black man,
I think most people today would agree with her and indeed find such an event
despicable.

But Hickman was not lynched by a mob (he even got what appears to be a pretty
fair trial, especially by the standards of the day), he was not innocent, and
he wasn't a member of any persecuted minority. Furthermore, his crime was
itself of a particularly despicable sort.

The only way Rand could have chosen a worse person to idolize was if she'd
chosen a mass murderer or serial killer. In fact, Hickman wasn't really all
that far from a serial killer, as there are some indications he'd killed
before.

 _"It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's
response to it."_

But it was a particularly gruesome murder of a child. You'd think that Rand
herself would have been outraged by it. Instead she idolized the perpetrator
and had nothing but contempt for those that would dare disparage him.

~~~
Tycho
Why do you keep saying she 'idolized' him? She didn't, she _idealized_ him,
which is different. She's drawn to the case because she really liked his
statement, 'I'm like the state, what's good for me is right.' From there she
plans a story about a character based on his positive traits, but free from
his negative ones, his 'degeneracy.'

She writes about the mob because the mob will be the antagonist in her story.
She doesn't think the member of the mob in this case had 'worse sins' than
murder in their own lives (I mean you could interpret it that way, but it's a
stretch, plus is uncharacteristically stupid, plus is something Rand would
have actually explained if that's what she meant - she's always crystal clear
about explaining her beliefs), but nevertheless it's the same 'mob-mentality'
at work as found elsewhere. A lynch mob is different, I'm talking about the
crowds of people who turned up to see public executions, basically making
justice a form of entertainment masquerading as moral superiority. The worst
cases would be witch-trials or execution for 'treason', or counterfeiters, or
show-trials in Russia. The modern instances would probably be the Enron or
Royal Bank of Scotland inquiries, where although there was guilt, one has to
say 'give me a fucking break' when all these former-colleagues or regulators
line up to wash their hands and denounce the scapegoat. Then you have the
'celebrity speaks out of turn' stories, where people act like nothing they
ever say in private is just as bad. All cases have different details, but the
argument is that the mob-mentality is somewhat consistent throughout.

Once again this is a private diary for planning fiction. It's not 'Ayn Rand's
Memoirs, Chapter 6: What I thought of William Hickman.' Or 'Ayn Rand: My
Heroes.' Rand is in the process of forumulating a philosophy that eschews
collectivism and along comes a prominent news story where she gets a chance to
study the mob-mentality in reaction to someone who is not a collectivist
whatsoever. Murders are very common, but ones which become huge public
spectacles are not. It is not sufficient to ask 'why is the public so
outraged?' The question becomes 'why is the public so outraged about _this_
instance, but not others?'

