I watched the new film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged yesterday. I’ve written about Ayn Rand’s ideas before so I don’t mean to analyze/critique it all again. (Also, I’ve only read her fiction–We the Living, The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, none of her non-fiction). This movie was saved by my own recollection of the book, which allowed me to fill in the gaps of character detail in the movie with the characters from the book. Hank Reardan (Rearden?) was cast a little too young, not sliver enough. Dagny Taggart was too sorority and not enough Tilda Swinton. Francisco was too sloppy and boyish. Rand’s grand detail in her books will never be sufficiently translated in a film. The movie, just like Rand, definitely simplifies the differing degrees of reality and existence and makes no account for the variety of influence in the world of business, capitalism, and the individual. I wish the movie would’ve just taken place in the same era as it took place in the book, and the fact that it did not, but rather, took place in the future changes the whole intent of the film. Does the movie express Rand’s philosophy, or does it express an agenda which can be supported by Rand’s book? The movie is not good in regards to cinema, it is transparent. Of course, Ayn Rand was very straight forward, although, her ideas aren’t revolutionary, they are paltry. Existence neutralizes her extreme posture. Fiction yields complete control to the author, which is why I want to read her philosophical books that are more objective. Atlas Shrugged-shrugged, exactly. Ultimately, I enjoyed watching the movie, but it pales in comparison to the book. Also, as unfair as it may be to the film, I can’t help remove the stink of political agenda in relation to the timing of its release.