Rating: 
Summary: Mirren mesmerizes
Review: Ayn Rand appears to have made a mark of sorts on 20th century America. I read The Fountainhead in about 1959. It made a strong impression on me at the time, but I can hardly remember anything about it now. The Gary Cooper film I only recall as being pretty poor. I have since tried to get through Atlas Shrugged, but it was so badly written I couldn't complete it; and I still don't know what it is about. However, I've met one or two Rand fanatics, and therefore bought this dvd. This review is only concerned with the film as a work of interest and entertainment, not with the pros and cons of Rand's Weltanschauung. It seems to me an absorbing movie, with an incredible performance by Helen Mirren. On this evidence she impresses me as one of the greatest of living actresses. The story, however, seems extremely unedifying. Three wishy-washy personalities are presented as falling under the total dominance of an extraordinarily self-centred woman, with the hint that she is driven by a demonic need to exorcise the memory of her childhood traumas in Soviet Russia. She is only two-dimensional, however, and appears to lack a stabilizing emotional third leg. The characters she controls are very typical of those that fall victim to the various strange cults which seem to spring up with disconcerting frequency in the USA. In very many films and books this society appears over-intense, empty and humourless, with a fatal inability to laugh at itself. At the end of the film the Fonda character mutters that he never knew what it was all about, which just about sums it up.
Rating: 
Summary: Nice production, no script--read the book instead
Review: Barbara Branden's book is a clear-eyed view into the turbulent times when Ayn Rand lead the Objectivist Movement. Rand, a philosopher and novelist, had a circle of disciples around her, drawn by her magnetic and forceful personality as well as her bold philosophy that was antagonistic to liberals and conservatives alike. Despite the fundamental tenet that logic should determine one's emotions, the Objectivist movement was torn apart by the emotional fallout from an affair between Rand and her intellectual heir at that time, Nathaniel Branden. Barbara, his wife, wrote of these events in The Passion of Ayn Rand. Alas, this nicely produced movie lacks a script and relies on the assumption that the viewer will know the events and philosophy and fill in the blanks. That was a wrong assumption. A good script, showing Rand's dream of the heroic man and her inability to reconcile that with reality, plus her denial of facts that twisted her emotions, would have saved this film and given it coherent meaning. Instead, there was far too much Victim-Barbara (which is not how Barbara Branden portrayed herself in her book) and too little of what made Rand and her philosophy alluring to so many. The only thing they got right in Rand's portrayal was her quick wit and rapier repartee when questioned about her ideas. Helen Mirrin was a brilliant casting choice as Rand. Peter Fonda does a very true-to-the-book Frank O'Connor. Both Mirrin and Fonda look remarkably like Rand and O'Connor. But Eric Stolz is merely sleazy as Branden, who was not a sleaze even by Barbara's admission. Branden would have been better played by Kyle MacLachlan (Blue Velvet) and given a role as a deluded, manipulated idealistic young man, not an opportunistic bed-hopper. The jazz score, by the way, is wonderful. Oh well.
Rating: 
Summary: an agenda other than integrity
Review: despite admittedly good acting, especially by helen mirren as ayn rand,this movie does justice neither to ayn rand herself nor to the barbara branden book of the same name on which it purports to be based. it is a blatant ad hominem attack on someone whose controversial philosophy is undoubtedly perceived by the producers as threatening. furthermore, like other rand adversaries, they cannot miss the opportunity to at least imply that AR's followers (one of the closest of whom was Alan Greenspan,now chairman of the federal reserve)were like a cult. "our relationship is nothing if it is not sexual" says AR to nathaniel branden in the movie. this line (which appears nowhere in the book) and the entire emphasis of the movie completely misdefine the real "passion of ayn rand," i.e. the hero worship of a woman for her ideal man, which in ayn rand's own life first existed with a boy name leo back in russia, somone with whom AR never had sex. this essence of AR's "passion" is made clear by barbara branden at page 98 of the book. AR's affair with barbara's husband nathaniel (entered into openly and with the consent of both spouses and the focal point of the movie) does not even begin until page 259 of the 422 page book but the preceding and succeeding in depth discussion of ayn rand's amazing journey from soviet russia to the USA to success as one of the great writers and philosophers of the 20th century is of only passing interest to the producers of this movie. sex and alleged psycho-pathology are all the producers of this movie are really interested in. i guess that is what they think will sell. the famous slapping scene when AR first confronts NB after finding out that he has been cheating not only on her but on barbara with one of his psychotherapy patients (whom the movie calls "caroline" even though her real name was patreecia), is intended to show AR as unreasonably unforgiving and vindictive. however, the producers in their zeal to do so, notably fail to show the viewer the many months of suspicion, deception and lies that preceded the ultimate revelation. during those months, as the book makes clear, AR agonized over vague "problems" in the AR/NB relationship and tried for hours on end to discuss the situation with NB to help him deal not only with their relationship but also with his relationship with barbara, which was likewise suffering at that time. yes,the book describes her slapping NB furiously and thereafter acting very vindictively against him, and a rational assessment of her actions might indeed find her to have over-reacted. but the movie does a disservice to any such rational assessment by completely (and i would say deliberately) ignoring the many months during which AR invested so much of her psyche trying to help someone whom she mistakenly trusted with a "problem" about which he was being untruthful and deceptive. nor does the movie bother to emphasize the supreme importance of "integrity" to AR or nathan's place in her life as a "hero" who embodied (she thought) her values. it simply makes no real effort to examine, one might say, the righteousness of her indignation. the movie has a line where barbara asks AR to show "compassion" to nathan because "that's what people do." this line appears nowhere in the book and is just another example of the producers putting their own anti-rand agenda ahead of the very source material on which the movie has purportedly been based. although i suppose it has nothing to do with the above-described rand-bashing agenda, their contempt for the truth even goes so far as to make up a character named richard for barbara to become involved with!!!! i could cite other examples ad infinitum but will simply end by suggesting that rather than waste time watching this garbage, one might better spend one's time reading the much more even-handed and respectful barbara branden book itself or, even better, watching the excellent documentary on vhs entitled "ayn rand: a sense of life," which received an oscar nomination in the early 80's. actually, one should not bother with any of the above prior to reading rand herself: atlas shrugged, the fountainhead, we the living, anthem, etc etc etc, all of which i strongly recommend. she was a great woman, the obvious opinion of the producers of this movie to the contrary notwithstanding.
Rating:
Summary: Hatchet Job by Rand's Critics
Review: Don't waste your time. If you're interested in Ayn Rand's history, rent the Oscar-nominated "Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life." This piece of cable TV melodrama is based on Barbara Branden's ax-grinding book -- hardly an objective source of information, as proved by the contradictions between her account and her husband (Nathaniel's) account of the same facts in his own autobiography. This film will go down in history as nothing more than a curiousity, a cheap little movie that answers the question "What would result if people who despise Ayn Rand made a movie about her love life?" The answer isn't pretty.
Rating:
Summary: All Too Human
Review: Having studied Rand's philosophy prior to watching this movie, I was put off by her uncompromising, unemotional, atheistic ideas. By watching this movie, I was happy to learn that not even the creator of this pseudo-philosophy could abide by its rules. Ayn Rand is introduced as a cold and calculating philosopher, berating people who do not follow her ideals entirely. But she turns out to be as human as anyone. No John Galt, no superman (superwoman?), her very actions revealed the emptiness of Objectivism. Rand is the best-portrayed character, although the movie would have benefited from more of her background - the only hint of her past is a brief conversation at a wedding reception. There was a lot more to Ayn Rand than her philosophy and her libido, and the movie failed to show this. Breathing onto a NYC store window, she draws a dollar sign and proclaims it her emblem. Why is this? What personal experiences led Rand to develop this view? The movie leaves these important questions unanswered. The other characters seem one-dimensional, especially the angst-ridden, emotionally fragile narrator. The production of this movie, while okay for a made-for-cable show, leaves much to be desired. Perhaps the most revealing scene is when Rand is asked, during a lecture, what "love" means to an Objectivist. She cannot truly answer this question.This fits with so-called disciples of Rand I've encountered: empty souls, a lack of compassion and confusion. Rand's so-called philosophy still has a cult following, and this movie may anger them. To those who reject this film's message, I suggest the following adage: "Never let a few facts get in the way of the truth."
Rating: 
Summary: the objectivism of Helen Mirren
Review: I have never seen any footage of Ayn (pronounced iron) Rand but Helen Mirren's portrayal for this Showtime release comes across as brilliant. It's only a pity director Christopher Menaul sidetracks us with other plots. Based on the book by Barbara Branden which tells of the impact Rand had on a young married couple, it presents Rand after the success of her The Fountainhead, and covers the years it took her to finish her follow-up novel Atlas Shrugged, which was a critical disaster. Clearly what is needed to finalise a draft is an affair, even if it is with someone as dull as Eric Stoltz. The infidelities that pepper the narrative (with Menaul going all out with nudity and jazz on the soundtrack) raises the issue of celebrity behaviour, at least for Rand. Does being one make otherwise immoral activity acceptable? Rand amusingly rationalises her affair (she too is married) with logic, and it's hard not to see the flaw in her principles when "her ideal man" is unable to inspire her Muse. Mirren 's Rand is a pretentious tyrant, disdainful of emotion yet frightening in her intensity, a woman who dresses in expensive clothes yet remains a frump. She claims to have ascended from Russian aristocracy but she is pure peasant when she is angry. When her lover reveals his infidelity she slaps him with "It should be me you love". This Rand inspires such insipid awe that she is encircled by claustrophobic ego-based romances. Colleagues have so much respect for each other that they keep tumbling into bed. Perhaps they need the solace from Rand's shameful disappointment. Her new frontier, her principles of individuality, objectivism and self interest are also convenient for a writer, who needs to be narcissistic and able to deflect any interference to their output. One can consider that Rand creates the environment for her agenda - she is sexually frustrated by her husband (she screams at him "Must you always ask my permission" when he kisses her gently), she is attracted to Stoltz and her expression of the desire undermines his marriage so that his wife withholds sex, making him sexually frustrated. And with their mutual admiration society, it's only logical ... some might call her passive aggressive. Thankfully Mirren gives us a glimpse of a sense of humour too. When Stoltz arranges public speaking for her and is pleased by the large audience, she quips "Maybe they think I'm Dietrich". What is missing in the screenplay is Rand's evolution as a writer and an intellectual. We are told she landed in Hollywood as an extra, named Alice Rosenbaum, but where did her politics and form of intellectual gymnastics spring? Julie Delpy's Barbara Branden provides a remarkable act of imagination since she records events she was not witness too. The disadvantage to this is we become adrift from Mirren and get mired in Stoltz' and then Delpy's extra-maritals. The only redeeming thing of these scenes is a joke at Delpy's expense, when she asks if one is able to dance to slow jazz, and she is told "Unless you're Amish". The music score by Jeff Beal used to define the 1950's is also misused to give Rand's affair with Stoltz some unnecessary exoticism, being an older woman-younger man type. As Rand's ineffectual husband, Peter Fonda may lack his father's technique, but he substitutes a likeable vulnerability that his father never had. Menaul tries for some visual tricks, eg when Delpy has an anxiety attack over Stoltz extending his arrangment with Mirren, but his best moment involves the silent withdrawal of a wife in favour of a mistress.
Rating:
Summary: Great Woman, So-So Movie
Review: I like to think I'm qualified to "objectively" review this film. I am a disciple of Rand who really loved the Barbara Branden book. I believe what Branden wrote about Rand, because her portrait of Ayn is complete and consistent. Rand's passion for ideas made her testy with stupid people and willing to break social norms such as those that govern how married people behave. Those objectivists who wish to dismiss this book and film as slander ought to look in the mirror. You are just as stubborn and dogmatic as she.
Which isn't to say she isn't the greatest mind of the 20th century, because she is. Her ideas changed my life. It's the absense of any real discussion of those ideas that sinks this movie. There's are just enough bits of objectivist rhetoric to make Rand sound the leader of a bizarre cult. Only the final scene where she speaks to a group of her disciples and critics does her justice. She sparkles with wit and antagonism while confidently defending every attack on her unique philosophy.
Not surprisingly this is the image I took away from Branden's original book which has several hundred pages to flesh out the Rand's complete and at times flawed character.
Without much philosophy to lean on for support, this movie seems pretty unbelievable. The acting is great of course, its a dream cast. A better script and a director less attracted to the dirt of the story could have made this truly special, an emotionally powerful film about ideas. Chris Spaeth
Rating:
Summary: Great Woman, So-So Movie
Review: I like to think I'm qualified to "objectively" review this film. I am a disciple of Rand who really loved the Barbara Branden book. I believe what Branden wrote about Rand, because her portrait of Ayn is complete and consistent. Rand's passion for ideas made her testy with stupid people and willing to break social norms such as those that govern how married people behave. Those objectivists who wish to dismiss this book and film as slander ought to look in the mirror. You are just as stubborn and dogmatic as she.
Which isn't to say she isn't the greatest mind of the 20th century, because she is. Her ideas changed my life. It's the absense of any real discussion of those ideas that sinks this movie. There's are just enough bits of objectivist rhetoric to make Rand sound the leader of a bizarre cult. Only the final scene where she speaks to a group of her disciples and critics does her justice. She sparkles with wit and antagonism while confidently defending every attack on her unique philosophy.
Not surprisingly this is the image I took away from Branden's original book which has several hundred pages to flesh out the Rand's complete and at times flawed character.
Without much philosophy to lean on for support, this movie seems pretty unbelievable. The acting is great of course, its a dream cast. A better script and a director less attracted to the dirt of the story could have made this truly special, an emotionally powerful film about ideas. Chris Spaeth
Rating: 
Summary: 20 years after her death? Makes you wonder....
Review: I LOVED this lite flick, but ... I rented it... What was so amazing about it was that, 20 years after her death, a whole new generation of kids with cams would be so lathered up over something she must have written that they would yet be compelled to slap out something like this to try and keep her in the ground! Inquiring minds should ask themselves; what DID she ever write that still has folks of a certain bent so intent on safely, if futily, beating her corpse, 20 years after her death? Fortunately, ...most of her works available in paperback, and inquiring minds can easily find out. That is, if they don't just pop in this DVD, take the 2 hour Hollywood hatchet job as all they need to know about this woman, and consider themselves informed. But, if they do...well, God bless their popcorn fed SurroundSound little minds and good luck to them. But, I loved this flick, because it reminded me to refresh my library, which was easy and [AFFORDABLE]. My sister saved my life in '69, when I was 14, simply by throwing a copy of AS at me and saying, "Read this." Over the years, I keep handing out copies to folks, and that part of the library ebbs and flows. Now, my son is about 13, and it's about time for his innoculation against the beekeepers waiting for him at college. ...
Rating:
Summary: DVD Manufacturer HORRIBLE
Review: I received two copies of this DVD from Amazon.com. The first one stopped in the middle, froze and would not play. It was warped. I returned it and they sent another. Very good. The second one I received got me two scenes past the first DVD and did the same thing. Don't order this DVD from AMAZON.com.
|
