The Passion of Ayn Rand

Having read almost all of Rand's works and considering her a brilliant philosopher and writer, I was apprehensive about seeing her personal side in a movie. I was not disappointed. I understand her work very well and was able to completely separate her personal conduct from her philosophy. Was her personal conduct in conflict or harmony with her philosophy? An esoteric question, and I don't care.

She was once quoted as saying that the character Kira, in her book 'We The Living', was the closest thing to an autobiography that she would ever write. Kira was a pure character with heroic characteristics. Ayn Rand in real life was probably not. Again, I don't care. None of this detracts from her philosophy. By the way, don't miss Rand's book-turned-into-film 'We The Living' starring Rossano Brazzi and Alida Valli filmed in Italy during WWII without Rand's knowledge or blessing. It is a cinematic feast. Italian actors, Russian setting, English subtitles and well adapted. Reportedly, Hitler had it canned after one showing because it criticized totalitarian dictatorships.

Back to this movie. It is reasonably well done and very interesting. Hoving subscribed to her newsletter, 'The Objectivist', I will never forget the short column she wrote therein, something to the effect "Nathaniel Branden is no longer associated with me, etc" (after she had dedicated Atlas Shrugged to him).

There is a human side to every hero.

Above all, read 'The Fountainhead', her greatest work. Forget the film, it was poorly adapted (by Rand?) and Cooper/Neal did not do the book's characters justice.

"The Passion of Ayn Rand" is an interesting film about the famous and controversial philosopher, adapted from a book by Barbara Branden.

Due to the fact that the script was derived from Branden's book, the emphasis is on her and her bad marriage and less on Rand and her philosophy.

In the movie, Rand (Helen Mirren) becomes involved with Nathaniel Branden (Eric Stoltz), a psychiatrist 25 years younger than she is (and Barbara's husband), and sets up the Nathaniel Branden Institute. When he becomes involved with another woman, she has him banned from the Nathaniel Branden Institute. The movie doesn't say that, but that's true. Stoltz is very good, if somewhat cold. He comes off as a smart man and a sex addict who is unethical.

Helen Mirren likes these roles that de-emphasize her glamour and beauty. She played Alma Hitchcock but she was too glamorous. Ayn Rand was a homely frump. Makeup and clothes did a great job, but Mirren never comes off as frumpy. Nevertheless, she is fantastic, sporting a Russian accent, tremendous passion, and an energetic personality.

As to why Nathaniel would be attracted to Rand, she was a brilliant woman and I imagine charismatic. Barbara, well played by Julia Delpy, was an insecure woman, and his marriage to her was not satisfying.

Peter Fonda does a fine job as Rand's husband, Frank O'Connor, a man Rand loved, but who himself just went along with her and concentrated on things like painting and gardening.

In the movie he becomes a hopeless alcoholic. Part of Rand's philosophy is that you think only of yourself but don't make anyone else unhappy. So she and Branden asked permission of both their spouses to start an affair. Don't tell me they weren't hurt. Branden becomes an integral part of her work until he starts seeing someone else. Not really rational thinking, is it?

When Barbara becomes ill and desperate for help, she calls Ayn, who is having sex with Nathan at the time. Ayn says, "Don't you ever think of anyone but yourself?" And hangs up. That's a true story, too.

I know something of Ayn Rand from reading The Fountainhead and seeing her interviewed. What has most impressed me about her is her prescience, as so much of what she wrote has come to pass.

However, whether she wanted to admit it or not, she was a woman and a human being despite aspirations to be something else. She championed selfishness, capitalism, and reason (you can't make something true just by wanting it to be true). A good example of her philosophy is the phrase "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" which she considered to be the wrong way around.

The problem with Ayn Rand's philosophy is that, like many philosophies, it's impractical. Once it's off a piece of paper, it involves human beings. For instance, she yells at a screenwriter for writing things he doesn't believe in for the studio. I suppose he could quit -- and if he were a brave soul who didn't care about working or money, he could. But most people aren't brave souls and most people can't get along without money. Why not write what you believe in and hand the studio the dreck? That way you can make a living while working to live your best life.

In The Fountainhead, the main character sticks to his beliefs and loses jobs because he won't adhere to the design the client wants. Okay, but it was his business, he wasn't working for someone else. He stuck to his beliefs and found people who bought into them. That's what artists do. The screenwriter would have found a market for his script as well, if he wasn't dead from starvation by then. In The Fountainhead, Howard Roark doesn't have a side job, but most people like Howard Roark probably do.

The film sports excellent production values, capturing the '50s beautifully. There are a couple of faux pas -- in one, Frank makes reference to "King of Kings," the silent version, emphasizing that it was the REAL King of Kings. This indicates there was another, but there wasn't until some years later. Also at one point Nathaniel offers to call his wife a cab. It's New York City. You don't call for cabs. Minor points both.

Helen Mirren is always worth seeing. You'll have to make up your own mind about Rand.

I saw this film three times (but then, I see many films more than once), and if I were to rate it, I'd give it 7-8 (out of 10), for its artistic merits. I knew nothing about Ayn Rand before seeing this film, and it piqued my curiosity. (I then discovered that "The Fountainhead", a very good piece of cinematic work, was based on her book.) But I am basically writing this only to correct what a reviewer said (back in September 2001), quite emphatically and with considerable reasoning behind the statement: that Ayn Rand shouldn't have been portrayed by an "American actress". She wasn't. The role of Ayn Rand was played by Helen Mirren, a truly great British actress. Moreover, Ms. Mirren herself is of Russian extraction, just as Ayn Rand was.

This dramatization of about 17 years in the mid-life of novelist Ayn Rand focuses on her intimate relationship with one of her much younger disciples, one Nathaniel Blumenthal, who changed his last name to Branden (get it? – bRANDen) after establishing a platonic friendship with the author. Eventually the relationship evolved into a love affair with the full if resentful knowledge of their mutual spouses. Although the heart of the film is the love relationship we are also introduced to the social circle of the controversial Rand whose novels featured larger-than-life heroes whose glaring individuality and egoism pit them against the common mass, or "second handers" as Rand called them; she elevated personal selfishness to a high ethical principle, and revered the capitalist way of life. The film is set during the period when Rand was writing her last mammoth novel, ATLAS SHRUGGED, which she believed would rock the world and spark a revolution of human creativity and a rebirth of individualism and entrepreneurial, creative spirit. When it became a mere best seller she was shattered and in her demoralized state allowed the young Blumenthal to influence her next career move by founding the Objectivist movement which carried her message in the form of a periodic newsletter and public meetings. Through the device of capturing snatches of conversation at dinners and small meetings as well as question-and-answer sessions at public gatherings, the film takes the time to explore the mind-set of the Rand followers, including the ugly confrontations within the innermost circle as members are emotionally humiliated for not uttering the correct Objectivist formulations in deadly group meetings in Rand's smoke-filled living room. The cult atmosphere is well captured. But the "passion" here is heavily on the sexual-romantic side and lacking in the arena of philosophy. The makers of this film probably felt the TV audience wouldn't sit still for too much cerebral content so some may wonder why people felt so strongly about Rand that they would attach themselves to her the way her followers did.

But the real power in this TV movie comes across in the four central performances by Helen Mirren as Ayn Rand, Peter Fonda as her passive, dispirited, alcoholic husband, the always excellent Eric Stolz as "Branden" and Julie Delpy as his long-suffering wife. Each of these excellent actors has mastered the art of "less is more" in conveying depth of emotion with a minimum of hamminess and take the viewer inside the cult mentality. Rand could easily have been depicted as a monster but Mirren and the screenwriters take care to show us her vulnerable side. You have to admire her whether you agree with her or not. She was a tragic figure worth exploring. Her novels still sell in the hundreds of thousands of copies many decades after their initial release because there is a kernel of truth in what she wrote, something about the value of the individual and the beauty of reason. What she made of those truths is debatable.

This was an entertaining, thought-provoking movie. This film will be a valuable resource for the ingenue researching Ayn Rand's life and work for the first time. The film succeeds because it portrays Ayn Rand's character in all of its complexity without emphasizing any one single as- pect.

Some of Miss Rand's devotees may find this production oversexu- alized, but as someone familiar with her life and work, I find the account of her behavior and her thinking to be consistent with much of what I've read about her and heard in interviews. Considering Ayn Rand's passion for the consistency of principle and action, this film is in no way disparaging to her in character, even while it may not be as compli- mentary as some would like.

In fact, this movie may become an important historical resource for those who are unfamiliar with Miss Rand's life and work and want to research her. Like many outstanding biographies, this production provides a well-rounded view of her character and philosophy. It leaves the viewer, as the historian, to draw her or his own conclusions about the strength or weakness of Miss Rand's character, without in- doctrinating her point of view. This movie is an accurate and fair por- trayal of a woman who often incited controversy with her powerful commitment to the consistency of her actions with her ideals.