Why you should see - and then read - 'Atlas Shrugged'

“What’s their fear of Ayn Rand? They hate this woman. They hate individualism.”

Those words from producer John Aglialoro about the critics who have given overwhelmingly bad reviews to the new movie “Atlas Shrugged,” based on Rand’s epic 1957 novel, suggest the very reasons why Rand must be read — and why the movie must be seen.

The movie may not be particularly artful; neither is the book. Indeed, the popularity of the book defies typical expectation for what causes a book to be read — it is neither a melodramatic potboiler, nor a brilliantly conceived artistic masterpiece.

It is instead what is called a “novel of ideas” — and typical of the genre, it is talky, preachy and pedantic. And the movie has all of the faults of the book, with the added problem that the movie is only “Part 1” of three and therefore does not even benefit from the natural drama of a story that has a beginning, middle and end.

But let us be clear. Whatever the artistic faults of “Atlas Shrugged,” the book is eminently readable — exactly because of what it is — a book full of ideas. Ideas about right and wrong. Ideas about the individual’s responsibility to himself and about society’s repression of the individual. Indeed, like Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago,” it is essentially an underground roadmap to revolution — but whereas Solzenitsyn wrote of the oppression of the individual in Marxist Soviet Russia, Rand took on the much more complicated task of unveiling the oppression of the individual in the so-called free democratic capitalistic republic of the United States.

As a former resident of Russia, Ayn Rand was happy to have escaped its totalitarian regime; however, throughout her adult life she watched as the United States adopted more and more of the trappings of centralized government and redistribution of wealth that typified the Soviet experiment in Marxism. “Atlas Shrugged” was her warning to America that if it continued on its projected path, it was inevitable that freedom would diminish, prosperity would disappear, and “hope and change” would be tokens handed out every four years in exchange for the promise of power.

And what appeared to be a form of political science fiction in 1957 looks like dead-on prophesy in 2011 — the book’s theme of government exploiting the weakness of the people to extort control over the strongest members of society is a mirror of the socialist urges that have given birth to Obamacare, corporate bailouts and borrowing from our grandchildren’s piggy banks to pay for our own profligate spending.

That being said, it is no surprise that the intellectual class in America — which has never given up its love affair with Karl Marx — would have savaged Ayn Rand during her lifetime. It is also no surprise that the movie “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1” has been almost universally panned by the critics while nonetheless finding a satisfied audience in the theaters.

I won’t bore you with a plot summary, Most of my readers will already be familiar with the story of Dagny Taggart’s effort to save her family’s railroad from the onslaught of government regulations that make doing business in a businesslike manner almost a revolutionary act. Suffice it to say that Dagny and Hank Reardon, the visionary metal manufacturer, are brought to life in the film by the ideas breathed into them by Ayn Rand — ideas that revolve around individualism, courage and integrity.

Likewise some of the representatives of the academic/industrial/government collective are developed into archetypal villains — in particular Wesley Mouch as the lobbyist extraordinaire who plays politics only to amass personal power and Orren Boyle as the piggish businessman who panders to the government to ensure his place at the trough.

On the other hand, other popular characters are barely developed in “Part 1,” including Francisco D’Anconia, the playboy tycoon who was Dagny’s first love, and the mysterious John Galt, upon whose work (and refusal to work) the entire plot hinges.

But let me repeat — this is not a dramatic masterpiece. It is an introduction to the philosophy of rugged individualism that at one time defined the American character and today is the last tattered defense against the nanny state.

As such, it should be no surprise that the forces of collectivism — those who believe in one truth for all people — have been arrayed against Rand. She represents the wild card of liberty that puts all social institutions at risk, and as thus she is a danger to the established order.

So if you believe in the established order, don’t bother to see “Atlas Shrugged: Part 1.” You will just be confused.

But if you believe in yourself, if you question authority, if you value independence, go to the movie theater and see it. Heck, see it twice. It is probably as good a movie as could be made from a book as thick, as complicated and as revered as this one, and if it inspires you to read the book or to study Rand’s philosophy, then it is more than worth the price of admission — dramatic flaws and all.

You are also doing your part to make sure that the producers are rewarded for taking a chance on the vision of a woman who is feared and hated even more today than when she was alive. Hollywood wouldn’t touch this movie. The critics tried to kill it. They don’t want you to see it. That should be enough to ensure that you do.

After all, “Who is John Galt?”