Watch The Passion of Ayn Rand For Free

I love this movie so much

Pretty Good

Good concept, poorly executed.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

But I was. So I'll try to offer some insights. Ayn was an idealistic absolutist. So was young Nathan Brandenburg (at the time). He grew out of it. Barb forgave him (sorta). Ayn was also a narcissist of the first order. She believed she knew the way things should be. When her staunchly anti-socialist books began to "fly" in the '40s (especially on college campuses), her certainty was fueled by a wildfire of intellectual acclaim. Written decades after the events in the film here, Barb's book does a remarkable job of illustrating the popular force of Ayn's views in an essentially conservative era. That Rand's "idealistic capitalism" fell into disrepute in the flood of equally absolutistic, radical liberalism that overwhelmed the collegiate world in the late '60s is no surprise. Ayn was gone when I came to know Nathan a decade later. Objectivism's time had not quite come and gone, but it was slipping. Nathan had -- to some extent -- rehabilitated it as "self-esteem," and the concept took off for a time. Until it, too, began to take a bashing from those who saw it without -really- seeing it. Like so much of what springs forth from the idealistic impulse, objectivism, self-esteem and libertarianism are big concepts that are difficult to maintain in mental, emotional and behavioral grasp. Popular culture will only want as much of such idealism as suits its more mundane purposes. The ideas here that combined with others to become the "human potential movement" of the '60s and '70s were bound to be corrupted. The import of Barbara's fine book is that it makes it clear that the idealist -is- human, and that he (and she) will corrupt their idealisms in the service of whatever narcissistic imperatives they may have. Ayn seduced Nathan to energize her to be able to complete the book. Nathan fell into his own human traps. But it does not mean that the enormous contributions they both made to the further development of self-understanding are any less worthwhile.Unfortunately, the film does not live up to the book. Korder's and Gallegher's screenplay includes all the -facts- that matter, but the presentation of them is flat and, save for those of us who did have some personal connection (even if it's only having been bowled over by -Atlas Shrugged- or -The Fountainhead-), un-intriguing. Or maybe one should blame the director; save for the sex scenes (oddly) and Ayn's reaction to her protégé's replication of her own denied human needs, there's not a lot of "fire" here.And that -is- sad to me. Because the human potential movement in general, and NBI in particular, -are- worth understanding, as much for their considerable contributions to our culture as for the -very- problematic circumstances surrounding many of its biggest "stars" (e.g.: L. Ron Hubbard, Jack Rosenberg a.k.a. Werner Erhard, Jose Silva).The Nathaniel Branden I knew, by the way, had much of Ronald (R. D.) Laing's insight with a very patient and ethical persona. Which is to say that he understood what the "white collar gurus" of the time understood, but he wasn't into using it sociopathically. I'm not so sure, however, that I could say the same thing about some of the people close to him. If you -are- a student (or former member) of the white collar "self-exteem" cults of the '70s and '80s (e.g.: est, The Forum, Silva Mind Control, psi), you may find "The Passion..." interesting for that reason.

As a casual viewer with a cursory knowledge of Rand and her movement, this film, shown through the eyes of someone who had good reason to bear Rand some resentment, was enlightening about Rand and her background, her circle, and to a lesser degree, her movement and philosophy. It's very worth seeing for those things, as well as the excellent performances of all concerned.I fault the Director for not aging the characters over the 15-17-yr. span, especially the pivotal role of Branden. By the time Branden takes a young student as his lover, he was old enough to be her father, just as Rand was old enough to be his mother when their affair commenced. Not even his weight, attire, or hair were modified, much less his baby face, to show how the passage of time would've affected who he did and didn't find appealing as a lover and life partner by the time he was 40'ish and Rand 60-65.Rand's pain and fury over losing his love and sex and being dumped for a girl young enough to be her grandchild apparently sealed his fate in the Movement, so failing to age the characters was a key error in an otherwise well-done film.Rand had the spirit and confidence to go after a man half her age, and the magnetism to land and hold him. Women past 40 are normally confined to older men, and much older, the older the woman becomes. Refreshing. Rand was shown to find the sexual affair intensely pleasant and intellectually freeing, as creative men do. In fact, Rand acted the traditional male role throughout the film, her husband the female role. Also refreshing.The conscious attempts by all Movement characters to make their actions conform to their belief system was one of the things that consistently elevated this film above a simple adultery drama. Hence, Rand and Branden sought their spouses' consent for their affair, even if they underestimated its duration by a factor of 15 years. Branden and Barbara married as a heroic act despite lack of personal 'fit', etc.Only Branden seemed to be consistently weak and therefore prone to violating Movement principles via lies and obfuscation, and even he proved to be capable of emotional growth by the end. An interesting and enlightening film with superb performances.

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.

A soap opera about Barbara Branden, even with the lovely Julie Delpy doing the honors, is not very interesting unless one makes Barbara Branden the main character. But, this is The Passion of Ayn Rand, which of course it isn't. Even though Helen Mirren absolutely nails the part and does a great job of capturing the image of Ayn Rand, we just don't get much of a movie here and the whole production smacks of 'made for tv.' I've always been a big fan of Ayn Rand, even though I'm a liberal, and I guess I hoped for something with a little more quality about her writing, philosophy, and the unusual woman she actually was, you know, the passion of Ayn Rand.