We watched it on Friday evening.
The film is badly dated in syle. Well - 1949 - it would be wouldn't it? Gary Cooper, never a favourite of mine, did his best with what was in the script, as did Raymond Massey. Patricia Neal, though, as love interest, was almost comical in her hamminess at times. Dialogue (also screenwritten by Ayn Rand ) was uncomfortably stilted, characters were cardboard cut-outs used only to drive home, with a sledgehammer, Ayn Rand's belief that what she saw as individualism is more important than what she saw as collectivism. Key words: "what she saw as"!
Basic plot: An architect who has avant garde ideas on design and construction, refuses to compromise his designs to make them more acceptable to the public; rather than do so he opts to go manual and work in a quarry for a spell. (The quote in the illustration, by the way, relates to his designs, not to his woman!) His bloody-mindedness wins through. He also, eventually, gets the gal. The end.
The book is likely to be far more nuanced than the almost 2-hour film. The novel's long enough, if it's not more nuanced, then what on earth is the rest of it about? The bare storyline could be told as a novella or short story.
Individualism versus collectivism? Why does it have to be one versus t'other. They could, and should, quite happily complement and compliment one another in my view. I admire individuals - those with vision, inventiveness, foresight, not of the crowd, marching to their own drummer. I also admire those who aspire to make life better for the rest of humanity, those who consider others equal to themselves, those who think of themselves as part of a whole. Why did Ayn Rand decide the two could never relate, never complete the picture together? Because she had a mind-block, possibly brought on by whatever it was she endured in early life. Because she had no tolerance, no sensitivity, no empathy. Perhaps it had been knocked out of her. It isn't for me to judge her, but that's the picture I'm getting thus far.
