Post by Chicago Jake on Jul 11, 2011 0:09:22 GMT -6
I recently finished reading Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" (and loved it), and tonight I watched the 1949 King Vidor directed film version, starring Gary Cooper, Patricia Neal, and Raymond Massey.
Reading this book, I figured that it was probably unfilmable. It was far too focused on ideas and philosophy, rather than action, to ever translate to the screen. After watching the movie, I think I was right.
I should probably mention the plot: Cooper plays Howard Roark, an architect who believes that form should follow function. He refuses to design and build what people want; he prefers to design and build what he thinks are good buildings. The architectural community rejects his sense of individuality, and tries to destroy him. But he refuses to submit, caring little whether he thrives or not. He is more interested in his integrity. The movie isn't really about architecture, of course; that is just the chosen example to illustrate any endeavor a man of integrity might choose to pursue. It could just as well have been about making computers, or running a grocery store, or managing a taxi fleet, or running a railroad, or anything else.
The movie actually did a pretty decent job of staying true to the book, which isn't surprising, as the screenplay was by Ayn Rand herself. But it was necessary to perform a radical mastectomy on the plot. I always say, a movie is not a novel, rather a movie is a short story. And a movie is especially not a 700-page novel! But Rand did a good job of selecting the essential scenes to convey her message, ruthlessly jettisoning many wonderful plot elements in order to get down to the necessary run time.
My problem with the film is that I don't think it conveyed the intended message very well. If I hadn't read the book, I'm pretty sure I would have watched this film and gone, "WTF?
" Without all the details and inner thoughts conveyed in the novel, it is difficult to see the author's point. And the point of the book (basically, that individual achievement is good, and collectivism is bad), is really the only purpose of the story.
Great quote: "A building has integrity, just like a man. And just as seldom."
Bottom line: If you loved the book, you'll enjoy the movie. But if you never read the book, you'd probably watch this movie and wonder why in the hell it was ever made. Sorry, Ayn!!
But... I will give it credit for glorious black and white photography. You can't beat the beauty of a good high-contrast B&W palette.
PS - I always thought Gary Cooper was too stiff and emotionless to convey the personality of most fictional characters. But he was a perfect choice for the emotionless, intellectually integrity of Howard Roark. If anything, he was TOO emotional to portray Roark correctly!
Reading this book, I figured that it was probably unfilmable. It was far too focused on ideas and philosophy, rather than action, to ever translate to the screen. After watching the movie, I think I was right.
I should probably mention the plot: Cooper plays Howard Roark, an architect who believes that form should follow function. He refuses to design and build what people want; he prefers to design and build what he thinks are good buildings. The architectural community rejects his sense of individuality, and tries to destroy him. But he refuses to submit, caring little whether he thrives or not. He is more interested in his integrity. The movie isn't really about architecture, of course; that is just the chosen example to illustrate any endeavor a man of integrity might choose to pursue. It could just as well have been about making computers, or running a grocery store, or managing a taxi fleet, or running a railroad, or anything else.
The movie actually did a pretty decent job of staying true to the book, which isn't surprising, as the screenplay was by Ayn Rand herself. But it was necessary to perform a radical mastectomy on the plot. I always say, a movie is not a novel, rather a movie is a short story. And a movie is especially not a 700-page novel! But Rand did a good job of selecting the essential scenes to convey her message, ruthlessly jettisoning many wonderful plot elements in order to get down to the necessary run time.
My problem with the film is that I don't think it conveyed the intended message very well. If I hadn't read the book, I'm pretty sure I would have watched this film and gone, "WTF?
" Without all the details and inner thoughts conveyed in the novel, it is difficult to see the author's point. And the point of the book (basically, that individual achievement is good, and collectivism is bad), is really the only purpose of the story.Great quote: "A building has integrity, just like a man. And just as seldom."
Bottom line: If you loved the book, you'll enjoy the movie. But if you never read the book, you'd probably watch this movie and wonder why in the hell it was ever made. Sorry, Ayn!!
But... I will give it credit for glorious black and white photography. You can't beat the beauty of a good high-contrast B&W palette.
PS - I always thought Gary Cooper was too stiff and emotionless to convey the personality of most fictional characters. But he was a perfect choice for the emotionless, intellectually integrity of Howard Roark. If anything, he was TOO emotional to portray Roark correctly!
