tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post3295350096269342375..comments2024-03-14T12:01:17.079-04:00Comments on ROBERT BIDINOTTO: Meditations after viewing "Atlas Shrugged" for the second timeRobert Bidinottohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-69188293904513628012013-07-24T19:07:59.383-04:002013-07-24T19:07:59.383-04:00"The typical audience member is looking simpl..."The typical audience member is looking simply for a good, absorbing story, told effectively enough to hold his interest. The experienced film reviewer or critic, though, will focus far more on the 'how' of the film: on cinematic technique, including the nuances of the writing, dialogue, direction, camera-work, etc."<br /><br />The movie (and its also weak sequel) did not do better precisely because of the weaknesses of all these different aspects, and especially the script.<br /><br />The post confuses the question of whether a viewer is able to articulate what is good in a product, and his ability to perceive those aspects at all. People who are especially good at articulating what they see and why it's good or bad may become critics, let's hope honest ones. But inability to articulate or pick out consciously as one is seeing or reading or listening does not mean that all the things wrong with a production don't add up and don't have an impact on a person's enjoyment. Viewers certainly responded positively to the fact that the movie is offers a vision of entrepreneurs that is not available in other cinema. In that respect it may be water in a desert. But it could have been fine wine, and it isn't. <br /><br /><br />Sallynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-44959729910706444232011-05-03T23:05:48.002-04:002011-05-03T23:05:48.002-04:00R. writes: "The typical audience member is lo...R. writes: "The typical audience member is looking simply for a good, absorbing story, told effectively enough to hold his interest. The experienced film reviewer or critic, though, will focus far more on the 'how' of the film: on cinematic technique, including the nuances of the writing, dialogue, direction, camera-work, etc."<br /><br />This isn't really true, or there would be no cinematic art as opposed to purely literary art. And who is the "typical" viewer? A great many movies have crap stories but get by on slickness, giganticus special effects, actorial charisma, etc.The Watchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-42232491998759401492011-05-03T22:58:28.366-04:002011-05-03T22:58:28.366-04:00I saw the movie tonight.
I agree that it's d...I saw the movie tonight. <br /><br />I agree that it's decent but not great. The basic story is fine, and the acting is fine. Special effects aren't perfect, but the main problem is that the scenes are unnecessarily abbreviated throughout. <br /><br />Of course there's a legitimate concern about being talkier than can be sustained cinematically. But the makers overcompensated here. Ten scenes could easily have been five minutes longer and showed more of the psychological and philosophical drama going on between characters. The movie is only an hour an a half long. Suppose on a wish list of ten scenes, only five could have been reasonably expanded to make a two-hour movie. Why not do that? More and meatier dialogue between characters doesn't seem like a cost issue. And it's not about the limits of dramatic adaptation. The story would still have moved along briskly. <br /><br />We don't, for example, see any buildup to the conflict between Lillian and Dagny at the anniversary party. Francisco's encounter with Rearden on the same occasion seems perfunctory, with no buildup. Was there no way to dramatize Francisco's interaction with the woman who claimed that love of money is the root of all evil? The writers certainly solved the problem of condensing and rendering Francisco's speech about money--by eliminating it. Yet without any version of the speech, which is delivered for Rearden's sake and not the woman's, Francisco's reference to the words he's giving Rearden "for the time when you'll need them" makes little sense. It seems to me that even a viewer unfamiliar with the novel would vaguely sense a problem here, even if he were unable to pin it down.<br /><br />There are other weaknesses in the movie (including a confoundingly premature revelation toward the end), but the film is definitely better than the ideologically hostile critics are making it out to be. It is drastically under-publicized, and it needs to be better publicized to counteract those critics.The Watchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-41471833015919203012011-05-03T00:03:57.720-04:002011-05-03T00:03:57.720-04:00Robert. I had written a review of "Atlas Shr...Robert. I had written a review of "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" for Modern Conservative. In my review, I expressed my disappointment for how the movie was executed versus what it COULD have been. Even still, I was writing from a point-of-view of respect for the novel, which I consider an epic classic.<br /><br />That being said, I read some of the negative review which -- aside from being similar to mine in that they noted the technical problems of the movie -- used their reviews for gratuitous attacks on Ayn Rand's politics and sense-of-life. I had given the movie a three-star rating, which for me was a "bad review."<br /><br />I, too, watched the movie a second time, to be fair to it. The last time I repeatedly watched a movie over and over at the theater, in order to let it grow on me, was in 1990, with "The Godfather, Part III." I believe "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" in the same category, although not nearly as technically proficient, the script had similar problems.<br /><br />You remarked: "If I'm watching a film and constantly thinking such things as, 'Wow! Look at that tracking shot!' -- that is flawed storytelling."<br /><br />Yet, that's the problem I had with some of the movie. There were too many out-of-place shots panning the beautiful autumn foliage. They took me away from the story. The story worked best when it went slowly, taking its time with just letting the plot and characters to develop. If the rest of the movie were made as thoughtfully as the scene "Henry Rearden comes home," I would be hailing it as a masterpiece (and that's the truth, before God, because I made such a statement on your Facebook page when that clip was released).<br /><br />Before Aglialoro and crew go back to the set and location, they need to spend a lot of time watching excellent movie adaptations from the 1930s and 40s: "Dodsworth," "Gone With the Wind," "Rebecca," "Now, Voyager," and "Double Indemnity" were movies that made the viewer reLIVE their source material, rather than just reCALL it, as "Atlas Shrugged" did.<br /><br />"Eyes Wide Shut": Ditto. "Blue Velvet": I must disagree (partially); it is one of the best suspense thrillers I've seen, and Dennis Hopper's psychopathic villain Frank Booth is on par with James Cagney in "White Heat" and Robert Mitchum in "Cape Fear."<br /><br />Sense of Life, and here is where I am coming from. I agree that the projection of the benevolent sense of life, of heroism and aspiring to being better than one's potential is a transforming experience rarely encountered in the movies. For decades, I have been arguing that, as much as I love the movie "Taxi Driver," that it DID deserve to lose out to "Rocky" in the Oscars, and that Rocky was a far superior movie. This speaks to your point about the camerawork being "invisible": "Taxi Driver" was made from the montage perspective, whereas "Rocky" employed the more old-fashioned (but more apropos) mise-en-scene. The average viewer will be reached more directly by the latter, because the story comes before the technique ("Rocky" has much to admire for technique that it hasn't been given credit for. One example is that the "Steadicam" was invented to follow Rocky Balboa around on his workouts).<br /><br />I'm hoping that when Parts II and III of "Atlas Shrugged" are made, a few additional scenes can be fimed to fill in the narrative gaps in Part I.Robert Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14082174982285449782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-50309397688373206402011-05-01T18:00:14.113-04:002011-05-01T18:00:14.113-04:00Brian, glad we could reconnect. And I'm glad y...Brian, glad we could reconnect. And I'm glad you're seeing "Atlas" again. The producers need ever vote of confidence they can get.<br /><br />You're right, my old host was JournalSpace, whose servers were apparently sabotaged. I assume Blogger is a wee bit more reliable!<br /><br />I'll be opening a second blog in a few weeks -- that one devoted to fiction (my own work, thrillers, and the sefl-publishing revolution). So stay tuned.Robert Bidinottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-77865583555171923802011-05-01T09:57:49.396-04:002011-05-01T09:57:49.396-04:00I am going to see it again, at your urging. Maybe...I am going to see it again, at your urging. Maybe today, as the ticket will be 1/2 price.<br /><br />BTW, this is the first I've seen of your blog since you lost it some time ago, when something called JournalSpace (if I remember right) melted down. Glad I re-found you!Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12517206341706066753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-20644260160717262912011-05-01T01:21:21.136-04:002011-05-01T01:21:21.136-04:00The producers should post the first half hour or s...The producers should post the first half hour or so of the movie at youtube. It would counteract the smears more effectively than a trailer and a few brief outtakes alone. Moreover, the novelty of doing so would get a fair amount of press. I've submitted the suggestion to the official AS-Part I site.The Watchernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-87234954281590279342011-04-30T10:32:05.795-04:002011-04-30T10:32:05.795-04:00Like Wyatt's Torch, your words comfort me, all...Like Wyatt's Torch, your words comfort me, allowing me to think that there are still brilliant minds shining day and night.<br /><br />Diane ViewingDiane Viewingnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-81049177833255236952011-04-29T23:44:30.406-04:002011-04-29T23:44:30.406-04:00Hi Alan,
I think I remember that review.
Inciden...Hi Alan,<br /><br />I think I remember that review.<br /><br />Incidentally, I hope you are in better health these days. I lost track of you since we last spoke. Drop me a private email and let me know what's going on, okay?Robert Bidinottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-6549532215475739632011-04-29T22:03:35.631-04:002011-04-29T22:03:35.631-04:00Hey Robert, If you want to see Roger Ebert's b...Hey Robert, If you want to see Roger Ebert's bias in full-throated screech check out his review of "Eye for an Eye", based on Erika Holzer's book. Here its crystal clear that his tirade is moral/philosophical and his little to do with the film's worth--he's almost kind to "Atlas Shrugged" in comparison.<br />--Alan Ladnealadnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00568255928016481311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-44039087384633725182011-04-29T21:46:52.019-04:002011-04-29T21:46:52.019-04:00I very much appreciate that, Judd.I very much appreciate that, Judd.Robert Bidinottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-32047583062167188022011-04-29T21:05:21.092-04:002011-04-29T21:05:21.092-04:00Robert. Excellent.
Good writing is good thinking,...Robert. Excellent.<br /><br />Good writing is good thinking, and communicating it well. Having something interesting or important to share is the point. It's the fundamental reason to bother organizing words together. How you choose to share what's on your mind (voice, technique, style) is a tool. <br /><br />Some great insights here. Thank you for sharing.Judd Weisshttp://hustlebear.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-9817021825908044772011-04-29T19:13:27.888-04:002011-04-29T19:13:27.888-04:00Larry and Michael, thanks so much for your generou...Larry and Michael, thanks <i>so</i> much for your generous compliments.Robert Bidinottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-42876521863030905922011-04-29T18:08:28.022-04:002011-04-29T18:08:28.022-04:00Robert-
I went to see the film for the third time...Robert-<br /><br />I went to see the film for the third time last night. I had similar problems to yours at my first viewing, but loved it anyway. <br /><br />At the second viewing, I saw things that had escaped me completely the first time. <br /><br />Last night, I cried, marvelling yet again at what a great story Atlas Shrugged is, and at the courage it must have taken for John Aglialoro to remain so completely committed to Ayn Rand's vision.<br /><br />Thank you for your thoughtful comments.Michael Harveynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-29980549515023426242011-04-29T18:07:13.850-04:002011-04-29T18:07:13.850-04:00Darlene may be tired of saying it, but she is righ...Darlene may be tired of saying it, but she is right.Larry Abramsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-80075816540210492632011-04-29T17:46:55.611-04:002011-04-29T17:46:55.611-04:00Darlene, you always manage to do what critics neve...Darlene, you always manage to do what critics never could: You leave me without adequate words.<br /><br />Thank you, my dear friend.Robert Bidinottohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11777797272563802442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28127675.post-39943298615022920282011-04-29T17:36:52.486-04:002011-04-29T17:36:52.486-04:00I am so tired of saying this - but you are one hel...I am so tired of saying this - but you are one hell of a writer; your use of language, the way you pack so much into so few words, the clarity of the concepts, your underlying passion and your overriding logic. Delightful. Absorbing. A bit of word wizardry going on there...And I so deeply appreciate this championing of a film worth championing.Darlene Bridge Lofgrennoreply@blogger.com