The Passion of Ayn Rand (1999)

An Exercise In Nonsense

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Although the film promises a narrative on the celebrated writer and philosopher, Ayn Rand, the actual script seems to focus as much on other people. Helen Mirren tries valiantly to portray the creator of objectivism, yet is thwarted by many other characters with their own peculiar passions.Who can say how factual is this expose-type narrative? In a way it plays like "Mommie Dearest," full of juicy tidbits that may or may not be factual. One thing is for sure: we learn much more about the main character's bedroom escapades than her groundbreaking philosophy.It's a strange narrative, straining more to uncover secrets and proclivities than deep philosophical revelations. In the end, it doesn't seem to do much for either, and we're left with a story inclined to nitpick and scratch for things soiled and spent.Rand deserves better than this, and I for one look forward to a more comprehensive treatment of a fascinating and deeply creative artist.

I thought Helen Mirren, Eric Stoltz, and Julie Delpy did a great job, especially Helen Mirren, who can convey such shades of emotion so seemingly effortlessly. The movie held my attention because I kept wondering what she would do next, especially when she was seducing a much younger man.Unfortunately, she failed to make us understand why Ayn Rand had such a hold on (some) people. I blame the script for this, I guess, but the writers may not have understood her success, such as it was, themselves. The places where we come closest to getting it are the scenes with Rand in front of large audiences, where she displays wit and aplomb. In the scenes where she is dominating a small group of regular disciples, it's hard for the viewer to understand what hold she had on them.Other remarks: Julie Delpy's American accent wobbles occasionally, but Mirren's Russian accent is great. Peter Fonda is in this movie, which normally keeps me away, but his natural woodenness fits his character in this movie.

This television film gives a very light handed treatment of a writer and thinker that has had a great influence on many people. Helen Mirren does, as always, a great performance, and the film is worth seeing for her only. I just get a funny feeling about somebody wanting to make such a short and rather mediocre piece of art, about an alleged affair that there to this day is bickering about whether happened at all. As I mentioned; the film is worth seeing for Helen Mirren, but otherwise I recommend Rand's writing, as time much better spent.For those who still would like to see it, I believe it would be useful to know both sides to the conflict between the Nathaniel Branden camp and the Ayn Rand camp. I have not too much interest in this, but just knowing the basics, such as this film does not give you 100% proved facts of the matter, but an adapted presentation of one side of a deep conflict. I think the film would be much improved by taking Branden's story into account and take the other point of view into account as well, and base the film on that. That way the film would at least be something more than a propaganda tool for the anti-Rand camp.

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.