The Passion of Ayn Rand (1999)

Waste of time

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

"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.

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.

I hope every fan of Ayn Rand's Novels and Philosophy would sit down and view this film. It is an extremely disturbing view of a brilliant Cult Charismatic writer who started "Objectivism" which in reality is a disguise for Hedonism and Rationalism (Truth as one defines it). To say it simply, the woman was demented, selfish, perverted, and evil. Barbara Branden's (Ayn's best friend and Wife of Nathaniel Branden) Book tells the disgusting truth that would make a sailor blush. Helen Mirren is brilliant as Ayn Rand playing her with such honesty that one wonders which one of the artists is on display. The sex scenes with Helen Mirren (Almost 60?) and Eric Stoltz will shock you with its passion -- and only two fine actors could "perform" these scenes without one wondering if this is a joke in poor taste. Peter Fonda proves once again that he is one of our finest actors playing Ayn's supportive alcoholic husband.For those of you who felt that Ayn Rand's Novels "changed your life," I suggest that you view this film and see what kind of behavior spurned such "Heroic Individualism" which in my opinion is crap served up as an appetizer. Does anyone actually believe that you have to love yourself before you can love others? True love is sacrifice of one's self at your own peril for the sake of others. Ayn Rand had none of the qualities to admire in a Heroic figure!

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.