Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Vashirdfel Simply A Masterpiece

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Siflutter It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

filmbay The memorable, and ultimately appalling, thing about Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life,the new film biography of the right-wing novelist-philosopher, is that it is perfectly true to its subject. Just as Rand, who was born in 1905 in Leningrad as it was convulsed by revolution, declared that she had not changed her ideas about anything since the age of 2½, this reverential documentary presents her thoughts as uncontested truth.The evangelical tone is set by filmmaker Michael Paxton, quoted in the press material as saying that he first found Ayn Rand when he was an adolescent trying "to find a book that would answer all of my questions and give my life meaning." A Sense of Life contents itself with interviewing her friends and acolytes. It acknowledges that she was much criticized, and even considered a crank, but her critics don't appear on screen and their views are not explained.But neither Rand nor the film should be dismissed, if only because she is widely read and her ideas have been deeply influential. They lie behind much neo-conservative commentary, which recasts democracy -- essentially an untidy contest of ideas and interests -- as a secular religion (she called it Objectivism) where competing points of view are greeted with adolescent impatience.But more particularly, Rand's influence helps explain the concealed romanticism of much right-wing commentary, which replaces iconic figures from other belief systems with buccaneering businessmen and entrepreneurs. As this film unwittingly makes clear, Rand herself was one of the great romantics. A worshipper of Hollywood, and partly successful screenwriter, she laments that the film version of her novel The Fountainhead "lacked the Romanticism of the German films she had loved as a youth." That these films were the precursors of fascism seems to have escaped the notice of Rand and her disciples.This appealing simplicity, a charming oblivion to her own contradictions, gave Rand a widespread following among those looking for answers, even as it exasperated intellectuals. She believed that each individual has a sacred core of personal talents and dreams which can be expressed in a free society. People may choose to co-operate, but these choices must ultimately serve their self-interest. If an action is truly selfless, she often said, it is "evil." Her reasoning was that selflessness in one's own life can be enlisted by political systems such as communism that call on human beings to sacrifice themselves for the state.These views were apparently burned into Rand's consciousness by the horrors she witnessed during and after the Russian Revolution -- a period the film recalls through family photographs and archival film footage. She decided that capitalism was the only hope for mankind. "Capitalism leaves every man free to choose the work he likes," she declares on screen, oblivious to the deadening monotony of most people's jobs, not to mention unemployment.Like her spiritual successors she prefers the grand and distant vista, and does not approach closely to see the outcasts and victims who are part of every great undertaking. She loved "the view of the skyscrapers where you don't see the details," declares the film, unselfconsciously.This made her a formidable popular writer. She was seriously able to declare that Marilyn Monroe seemed to have come from an ideal, joyful world, that the star was "someone untouched by suffering." The hero of her last novel, Atlas Shrugged,was the direct descendant of Cyrus, the hero of a boy's adventure story she read at the age of 16. Like most libertarians, she had a deeply childish world view.Never beautiful, Rand's intensity (and searching black eyes) seduced more than a few men. According to Harry Binswager, one of her academic admirers, "her idea of feminity was an admiration of masculine qualities." This was also Hitler's idea of feminity, and Rand's screenplays invariably include an idealized hero or heroine standing on a distant promontory, Leni Riefenstahl-style, but these fascinating parallels are of course not examined in A Sense of Life.Rand had a powerful, if not searching, intellect. In many on screen interviews seen in the film, she gives apparently convincing answers to her critics. But the answers are always framed in absolutes -- "man wants freedom, suffering has no importance" -- which are essentially empty postulates. But they have an attractive ring.A Sense of Life is worth seeing because its naive presentation of Rand is consonant with Rand herself. In fact, it feels like nothing so much as an in-house biography of the founder of some fundamentalist religious sect. It acknowledges its subject's imperfections (her infidelity to her husband of 50 years, for example), but only to declare them redeemed by her quest for truth.Rand was, of course, a lifelong atheist. But her work is a testament to the yearning for belief. The film concludes on a lingering shot of a poster for Atlas Shrugged,"Don't call it hero worship: it's a kind of white heat where philosophy becomes religion." Or, perhaps, the ashes that are left when you turn up the temperature on a new belief system to the point where human community and compassion are burnt away. Conrad Alton, Filmbay Editor.

pbeat What a horrible woman. I have never read anything by her or about her but was really astounded by this documentary. Basically, she believes that everyone should be selfish and think only of themselves. Government should not take care of anyone. There is no God. she babbles incoherently about the future of the human race and her greatest philosophical achievement is a book about an architect that every selfish conservative in the world has bought next to only the bible. She sounds like a cult. I plan to watch Fountainhead. I wonder how it became the favorite book of Anne Hathoway (The Princess Diary). Wonder what her parents were like? If I somehow come up with a different opinion, I will let you know. Until then, watch this and tell me if you can find any redeeming value. Check out the parts where the audience is watching her on talk shows of the 70's with a collective look of horror as she spouts out her ideas that God doesn't exist, people should not seek help from their government and people who believe in helping others are wimps. Now you will know why conservatives love her and shun Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King and other petty altruists. Ugh....

blanche-2 I may not agree with most of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but I do consider her a great fiction writer, and I found this documentary tremendously interesting in all aspects. "The Fountainhead" is one of my favorite books of all time, as it speaks of mediocrity becoming the highest standard by which all is compared - just watch "American Idol" some time and see it in action. She was right. The book was a tremendous eye-opener for me as an artist. I didn't know much about her until I saw this; she was a most fascinating and unusual woman.The documentary covers Rand's life and work in great detail. It includes her affair with Nathaniel Branden, which didn't seem to keep her from loving her husband - her interview after her husband's death (I believe with Phil Donahue) was remarkable as she speaks about her lack of belief in an afterlife. If she believed in it, she goes on to state, she would have contemplating killing herself in order to join him.I have to admit that my favorite part of the documentary was a description of the making of the film "The Fountainhead." Rand was apparently a woman first and a philosopher second. She adored Gary Cooper from the time she first came to Hollywood and worked as an extra in silent films. Thrilled that he would be starring in "The Fountainhead," there is a photo of her gazing lovingly up at the tall and gorgeous Cooper. I don't remember how many years it took Rand to write the hero's final speech in the book...but after it was filmed, Cooper admitted he really hadn't understood it. As intellectual as she was, I doubt it changed her opinion of him.

meebly Let's face it. Every documentary is biased. No matter how objective (forgive the situational wordplay) a documentary filmmaker wants to be in presenting his/her subject, he/she has a point of view, or else why bother making the film at all?The problem here is not Michael Paxton's bias, although he is clearly an adoring fan of the writer/philosopher. The problem is that in painting a portrait of this equally celebrated and vilified woman, he never shows, and only barely tells of, the vilification. As a result, he doesn't give viewers, not even her most ardent admirers, reason to celebrate her.The film mentions in passing some of her flaws as a person, and repeatedly talks of the criticism surrounding her ideas. But we never hear any of the criticism, any of the arguments against, anything at all to cast her in the light of "defender of the faith," or defender of anything at all, for that matter. She states her case time and again, in interviews, in excerpts from her novels and philosophical works, etc. But we're left with a feeling of "Great. Why should I care?"Not many people will see this film -- 2 1/2 hour docs rarely draw the masses in theater, on video or anywhere else -- so I'll make a rather simplistic analogy. Think of "Star Wars". How compelled would we be to root for the good of the force if we hadn't heard Darth Vader expound on the power of evil (the Dark Side)? How can you convince anyone of any point, positive or negative, without at least presenting the counterpoint?Viewers who already adore Rand will no doubt cheer this film. For them, it's very palatable candy. Her detractors shouldn't waste their time. But a documentary is supposed to educate viewers in some way, and the uneducated will get nothing more than a biography and an unquestioned statement of philosophy. That's not much for any doc, but especially for one this long.