By TERRILL I. ELNIFF

Having just finished re-reading Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” (after 30 years since the first reading), I have been awaiting the coming of Part II of the movie. I own a copy of Part I, which I have shown to various interested (and sometimes not so interested) parties whenever I could justify it.

Thus it was that my dear wife and I ended up at the Beaucather Theater in Asheville at 1:40 p.m. Friday, Oct. 12, for the very first showing of “Atlas Shrugged Part II: The Strike.”

There were, maybe, a dozen other people in the theater for that matinee showing. I hope that is not symbolic or indicative of things to come, but I’m afraid it will be.  Ayn Rand is still not popular these days among the hoi poloi, but only among a few, very few, devoted fans.

Paul Ryan, the Republican vice presidential nominee, has been criticized for requiring his staff to read the book written by “the atheist Ayn Rand.” Apparently it is OK to be an atheist in today’s culture unless that atheism leads one to Ayn Rand’s conclusion that man owns himself, and is not a property of the society or of the government.

But “Atlas Shrugged” is not a book about atheism; it is a book about the errors of socialism and the empty folly of relativism.

In like manner, this movie is not about good acting, good film-making, or good computer graphics; it is a story about good and evil, truth and lies, producers and looters.

If you go to see good acting or good film-making, you will have missed the point of the whole thing. Stay at home and watch something on TV, where form always trumps content, and style always trumps truth.

Consequently I am not going to evaluate things like the quality of the acting, the techniques of film-making, the use of computer graphics, etc., etc. I’ll leave that up to the arrogant critics of good taste and fine style.  Verily, they will have their reward.  

There was a good transition, however, from Part I to Part II in spite of the fact that the entire cast was changed.  In the first part, the critics panned the movie because the cast was too young for the roles they were playing.

To imagine that Dagney Taggart could operate a transcontinental railroad at an age barely out of her 20s (if that) strained credulity.

All the cast in Part I seemed too young for the roles they were playing. So, in Part II the cast was changed, and all appeared older.

Dagney is now in her mid-40s, or so, for instance. This change made the whole story more believable, and the transition from cast to cast was well done so that after a few minutes, one does not notice the change.

The only change that I thought was wrong was the character of Eddie Willers.  In Part I Eddie was played by Edi Gathegi, who seemed ideal as a principled functioning executive in the Taggart organization.  

In Part II  Eddie was played by Richard T. Jones, who seemed more like an enforcer (read:  muscled heavy) than an effective executive. But that’s an esoteric quibble, by one who raised his three children with round-the-supper-table discussions of “who would you get to play which parts in an Atlas Shrugged movie? and why?”

The transition from Part I to Part II is handled well, mostly by voice-over narrative which ties the two together.

The story, originally written in 1957, is modernized to 2016, describing the economic and social crises brought on by the collapse of the economy.

It is remarkable how much of what Rand portrayed in 1957 actually occurs in our own time. Politicians and their socialistic ilk all sound alike in any age.

Consider this speech from Jim Taggart, complaining about Hank Rearden’s new alloy of steel [this is not from the movie, by the way!]:

“Rearden. He didn’t invent smelting and chemistry and air compression. He couldn’t have invented his Metal but for thousands and thousands of other people. His Metal! Why does he think it’s his? Why does he think it’s his invention? Everybody uses the work of everybody else. Nobody ever invents anything.” (page 262).

Compare Barack Obama:  “You didn’t build that by yourself.”

Ideologically, the movie is about the conflict between those who trade value for value by mutual and voluntary consent, on the one hand, and those who advocate government control and regulation “for the public good,” on the other. The first produces wealth and progress, the latter economic catastrophe and hardship.  

The story is entertaining and instructive at the same time. The viewer will do well to exercise “the willing suspension of disbelief” and enjoy the movie, and then discuss its ideas and worldviews with those who are willing to listen and learn.  

•

Terrill Elniff, CPA, lives in Asheville and annoys his friends and neighbors with talk about “Atlas Shrugged.”