I read the novel, which I enjoyed at the time, and saw that there was a movie adaptation while watching TV or something. When I saw that Ayn Rand had written the screenplay, I decided I should check it out. It's hard to butcher your own work, I'm thinking. Big mistake.
It starts off terribly. Three rushed monologues to get through 50 to 100 pages of book material. I'm not saying the book is perfect, but it at least made these sequences seem natural. I also don't need three identical scenes of random people we haven't been introduced to telling Rourke, who we also don't know yet, that he'll never succeed unless he conforms. My guess is that they are going for dramatic effect, to get you right into the picture. It doesn't work.
The movie doesn't get any better. The dialog hurts my ear. Maybe the book is this bad, but I could mentally tone it to be sarcastic, and therefore funny. The way it's said in the movie, it's awful. Watching these people talk, Rand's philosophy pisses me off. If these are what the people are like who agree with her, I want no part of it.
After 50 minutes of "You can't expect us to stick our necks out" and "Nothing controversial" and "so good you will fail," I wanted to stop the movie. I'm not saying "greatness" is always recognized when it's created, but it's usually realized at some point. The movie just comes across as hammer-headed, which is somewhat fitting given Rourke's character, but also annoying. I get the point. Move on to another theme. The only reason I managed to finish the movie was by working on the internet while it played in the background.
Short summary of the story: Rourke is an architect with uncompromising vision who defies the odds and shows the world his way is the only way. Before the end, he rapes and falls in love with a woman who'd lost faith in humanity, until she meets Rourke of course, and a newspaper magnate in a similar state of mind. Unfortunately, the magnate doesn't make it.
What's up with Wynand committing suicide? That isn't in the book.
The cornerstone of this story is Howard Rourke, but he's also the most minor character. He doesn't change. He doesn't grow. That's why people love him. He's the ideal, a man that answers only to himself, almost like God. So why would anyone think that he would make a good movie? The book works because it spends so much time on everyone else. The movie doesn't achieve this. Toohey and Keating are minor, two dimensional characters, where in the book they have almost equal time with Rourke. Rourke really should be a common thread in every other character's story, instead of being the story. The only hint of that structure is the time spent on Wynand, but unfortunately we see little of his growth. That may just be the terrible acting and casting though.
The movie has Rourke as the main focus, but horribly miscasts him. He should be a man of uncompromising strength and envy, but should have a knowing smile or something. He's too serious in this movie, too wooden. In the book, I got the vibe that he would have a permanent smirk, always enjoying his life because he knows more than the world. Why wouldn't a man like that laugh at everyone else every once in a while? He has no reason to be sad. Instead he's a tree, standing tall in the middle of the frame, barely moving, not emoting anything.
This movie really makes me think too much about Rand's story. While reading the book, I chalked a lot of quirky things up to the time period. Now, I'm really wondering how much any person in the world has ever cared about architecture, to the point that an architecture critic has any amount of power with any person.
And the idea that Rourke wouldn't go to jail for blowing up Courtland, preposterous. He'd have some sympathizers, but he still destroyed public property and cost the city millions of dollars. We're supposed to accept that the deviation from his vision is a good enough excuse to waste all that money? Really, the trial would not be about artistic integrity or whether Rourke is an "egoist." The bottom line would be that he destroyed property. His reason for doing it might impact the punishment, but he would, or should, be punished. You don't get away with murder because your significant other cheated on you, so why would you get away with this destruction?
I've never bought Toohey's motivation. Jealousy I suppose? The book may have explained it better. Here, I'm not sold on his reasons.
One major problem may be the acting, which is terrible. I feel like that is more a reflection of the time period, because I never like acting from movies in the 40s, but I could be wrong. According to Wikipedia, Rand thinks the same thing about this movie.
Gary Cooper is way too old for this role. Maybe it works for the end of the movie, when Rourke is supposed to be near 50, but it doesn't work for the beginning of the movie, when he should only be in his 20s or 30s. The guy playing Wynand is also disappointing. I can't say he's too old, but he should be better looking.
First Viewing: 2+1+1+1+1 = 6