Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

blanche-2 "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.

jazzfantastic As a casual viewer with a cursory knowledge of Rand and her movement, this film, shown through the eyes of someone who had good reason to bear Rand some resentment, was enlightening about Rand and her background, her circle, and to a lesser degree, her movement and philosophy. It's very worth seeing for those things, as well as the excellent performances of all concerned.I fault the Director for not aging the characters over the 15-17-yr. span, especially the pivotal role of Branden. By the time Branden takes a young student as his lover, he was old enough to be her father, just as Rand was old enough to be his mother when their affair commenced. Not even his weight, attire, or hair were modified, much less his baby face, to show how the passage of time would've affected who he did and didn't find appealing as a lover and life partner by the time he was 40'ish and Rand 60-65.Rand's pain and fury over losing his love and sex and being dumped for a girl young enough to be her grandchild apparently sealed his fate in the Movement, so failing to age the characters was a key error in an otherwise well-done film.Rand had the spirit and confidence to go after a man half her age, and the magnetism to land and hold him. Women past 40 are normally confined to older men, and much older, the older the woman becomes. Refreshing. Rand was shown to find the sexual affair intensely pleasant and intellectually freeing, as creative men do. In fact, Rand acted the traditional male role throughout the film, her husband the female role. Also refreshing.The conscious attempts by all Movement characters to make their actions conform to their belief system was one of the things that consistently elevated this film above a simple adultery drama. Hence, Rand and Branden sought their spouses' consent for their affair, even if they underestimated its duration by a factor of 15 years. Branden and Barbara married as a heroic act despite lack of personal 'fit', etc.Only Branden seemed to be consistently weak and therefore prone to violating Movement principles via lies and obfuscation, and even he proved to be capable of emotional growth by the end. An interesting and enlightening film with superb performances.

Jack I read Atlas Shrugged in 1964 and thought I'd discovered Atlantis or something. I learned that a friend had seen Ayn Rand speak at Ford Hall Forum was also excited by her ideas. It was a couple years before we learned that there had been a split between Ayn Rand, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden -and many more years before we learned the split had occurred years before we were told about it. (And it was clear that information was covered up, repressed for years.) So when Barbara Branden came out with, The Passion Of Ayn Rand, and it later was made into the movie - I paid attention and compared what was presented with my memories. Most of what is in the movie corresponds to what I remember. I like the movie's frankness for it shows how damaging Rand was to other people's relationships and how disappointed she was with the men in her circle who consistently fell short of her fictional male characters. It is notable that every biography of Rand starts with her terrible experience under the Soviets - but none make much of that experience's role in forming Rand's later attitudes and philosophical stance. Her resultant "anti-collectivism" is completely valid on its face but in practice it becomes an excuse for rank selfishness and coldness toward "inferior people."Rand's fascination with men as fantasy heroes and sexual controllers of women has always been evident and was acknowledged by Rand herself. It is never mentioned how this contradicts Rand's forcefully promoted "principles." She punished all who violated her rules but never thought her own transgressions affected how she should be regarded as one promoting a moral system. The movie should be seen by all those who have read Rand's works and know at least something of her actual history. It provides the balance of her human flaws to offset the alleged purity of her ideals. A balance she as a writer never accomplished.

rbeschizza Occupant-1 writes " it would be a good idea in future film treatment of her character to use a European actress, not an American one, to portray her - as done here. It takes a European to play one, since they have a different educational history than what American public education has afforded its actresses. In other words, most American actresses couldn't handle the literate dialog."I'm sure you can see this one coming: In fact, the actress in the film, Helen Mirren, is European. Perhaps one of Britain's most well loved theatrical exports.Occupant-1: Perfect logic, hopeless premise. Exemplary objectivist argumentation.