Fountainhead… the movie fails!
Print
iView Author: Tanul Thakur (Urbana Champaign, USA)
Email : thakurtanul [at] gmail [dot] com
Fountainhead… the movie fails!
First things first. People differ over what Fountainhead represents and an endless debate is ensued over this fact, I don’t want to get into any of that. I intend to talk only about ‘Fountainhead the movie’.
What was strikingly different from the novel is the depth of characterization. In the novel’s beginning, you could feel for Roark’s frustration when he laughs sitting on the cliff or his indifference to everyone to the extent that he saw no one walking in the street so much so that he could have walked naked beyond concern. That is the relationship (love or loathe) one forms with Howard Roark in the first two pages of the novel. You can feel Roark’s frustration when he is sitting in the dean’s office and is being unfailingly persuaded by the dean. The dialogues between the dean and the student are fantastic.( Agreed, they are filmy and a bit impractical, but, so is the whole of premise of the novel, if you may so please). The dean is furious that Howard is unapologetic, the dean can’t believe that the name ‘Stanton’ can’t shake his will, that for the first time he has encountered someone who considers an individual above the institution, that the person who is going to expel the student feels more clueless than the student who is being expelled.
Contrary to the novel, the movie begins quite abruptly with Howard being in the dean’s office and he says that he will have to expel him. For someone, who might have not read the novel would take some seconds to gather, relax what’s happening? There is no conflict of ideas between the Neo and the established, between the unconventional man and the conventional world, no groundwork has been set, you don’t feel Roark’s stubbornness neither do you see Dean’s helplessness. And that was the beauty of the novel I feel. I mean, for a second, f**k all talk about Objectivism and everything, whether you buy it or not is inconsequential. What matters is every character in the novel was beautifully etched, and you could have easily said that I hate/love this character. There is no such feeling in the movie. And that, I feel is the problem of the movie. That it never goes deep into the psyche of the characters and just sets it up on the screen. Probably for the heck of it. Everything happens in a daze, in a non sensical hurried fashion that makes you sit and wonder – what’s up with the pace? And that is my grievance with the film, that it doesn’t do justice to the novel. Now, some people might say they that had they gone into the history or detailing of every character the movie itself would have been too long. Yes. I agree there too, because if you go on to do full justice to the novel the movie could well be more than three hours long which would have been a torture in itself( or may be not. Who know? Gone with the wind, Lagaan, Sholay were all more than 210 minutes long!). Also, the characters in the novel are such that they are difficult to portray on screen. It is practically impossible to take out each and every detail from a book and incorporate that into a movie. I agree. Successful adaptations of the ‘Mystic River’, ‘The Godfather’ bolster this point.
So, my point is ‘The Fountainhead’ shouldn’t have been made into a movie. At least not the way they made it. Gary Cooper fails miserably as the ‘hero’. Or, may be anyone who will play Howard Roark will fail. Because, the image that people have come to associate with Howard Roark is difficult to fathom. Isn’t it difficult to portray someone who didn’t exist? Someone who will not exist?
Gary Cooper( the then superstar) lacks conviction while delivering his lines, may be didn’t understand most of it. (He wanted the courtroom speech to be curtailed because he was finding it difficult to memories and understand most of the lines). When Cooper (Roark) refuses the commission for a bank, his ‘No’ is a flat. It lacks the authority. When Howard Roark says ‘No’ I expect it to spit fire on screen, the ‘No’ should spit venom, have the stamp of authority and pummel the man conversing him in such an ignominy that it makes a mockery of anyone who is even thinking of trying to convince Roark . When Henry Cameroon says on his death bed, Do you want to have a similar fate like me, Cooper’s ‘Yes’ is again non- authoritative. May be I’m expecting too much? May be I’m being a bit too judgmental? May be yes, because I almost adored the novel, the power of Rand’s writing blew me and compared to that the movie was pale. The main thing about Rand’s writing is you can either love her or hate her. She doesn’t allow you to tread a middle path, but, after watching the movie my emotions didn’t tilt towards any extreme (which certainly did while reading the novel). I was plain indifferent and disappointed.
Tags: World Cinema
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
I saw Fountainhead years back and of course after having read and been thoroughly influenced by the novel. I quite agree with most things you have said Tanul. The movie failed to impact me the way the book did. It did not draw me in. The characterisation was damp. But more importantly the adaptation was weak. The screenplay was patchy and guess the director/writer missed the point of the novel by editing out parts which were important to the narrative as well as the philosophy. All Rand’s characters are nothing but exponents of her philosophy. She creates them for the precise reason of expounding Objectivism and its tenets of Pursuit of Happiness, meaning of Selfishness, reason and capitalism. The movie missed this point I think and tried to tell the story of Roark and Dominique above telling the philosophy of it. That is where it lost its ground.
Gone With The WInd has been edited a lot too but the beauty of the movie is it stays true to the spirit of the book despite removing chunks and chunks of the narrative. Guess its not easy to make adaptations…
loading...
Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged is also probably going to get made into a movie with Angelina Jolie in the lead…check out the imdb page
loading...
the only part which had some essence of novel was the last speech by Roark to defend himself.
Ayn Rand wrote the screenplay, and the movie shows her compromise.
loading...
Ayn Rand’s Fountainhead is such a powerful novel, that I don’t think any movie can capture that essence. There is an integral relationship between the art form and the medium of expression. At times, words have such beauty, visualization can never capture. In the concluding paragrapth, when Dominic sees the board of Howard Roark, or when she thinks that if she looks back and then quickly looks ahead again, she can catch the skyscrapper in the act of growing, these are things which can’t be translated. Even the last line, The ocean, the sky and Howard Roark. How can celluloid do justice to them? Rand’s work was just too good and beyond de-construction. However, what is very disappointing about the movie is, it looks very melodramatic, the hero doesn’t look like Howard Roark, doesn’t talk like Howard Roark and all the profound dialogues are spoken like Raj Kumar dialogues. I often think that if this film were to be done today, the following would be a very good casting -
Howard Roark – Russel Crowe
Dominic – Sharon Stone
Guy Winnand – The spiderman newspaper editor.
loading...
@ Kunal: Though I haven’t read Atlas Shrugged. I think that is one horrible miscast. ( No specific reasons
!
@ A just A: More than the speech, I guess the novel’s USP was how it delineated different faecets of human beings almost perfectly.
loading...
Anjelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart is sheer blasphemy! Atlas Shrugged might be holey in its philosophy and Objectivism may not stand the test of time among other stronger philosophies but Anjelina Jolie as Dagny…kya zamana aa gaya hain…
loading...
@fatema,
kyon madam? whts wrong with the jolie casting?
u think she cant pull it off or u think just having her as Dagny itself is sacrilegious??
loading...
Jessica Alba should play Dagney Taggart.
loading...
i like the movie , don’t compare it with the book.
loading...
@ Mitch: Alba? I thought Mamta Kulkarni fits the bill completly. ;)
@ Krishna: Fair enough. It’s your call.
loading...
Ayn Rand’s books aren’t just novels that can be adapted to the big screen I feel. She didn’t write stories (fiction or otherwise) but wrote about a thought / an approach / a philosophy to leading one’s life. The characters she created will never come alive on screen mouthing those dialogues. I read these for myself, If I see these on screen and I may be like – What is happening here. Because every thought of say, Howard Roark, the body language, his attitute, his work, has been drawn so well in the book. No film-maker will be able to capture all on screen. And each is necessary to define HR. To have a HR, DT, DF portrayed by any Hollywood star will be disasterous to say the least.
These books are so personal I feel. Meant to read, absorbed and then just inculcated in one’s life – at whatever level each one does so thats the prerogative.
loading...
@ Tarun: I agree that the movie disappoints a lot. I had read Fountainhead quite a few times and searched all over Bangalore to find the movie CD. It was so very disappointing that I really wondered how did Ayn Rand herself came up with such screenplay. I had later on read Ayn Rand’s biography, and looks like Gary Cooper said he did not understand Roark’s character and specifically the court room speach, so it figures. I do not recall who played Dominique, but even that performance was also flat and overall nothing in the movie made sense. And the end result was disastrous.
The debate about practicality of Ayn Rand themes and characters can go on and on, but the takeaway from any her novels are the powerful characters which are fleshed out in good depth.
In one way it is tough to portray Ayn Rand’ish’ kind of characters on screen, but nevertheless I would be curious to see if some one experiments it again, after all this novel has been popular for half-a-century now….
loading...
@ Anusuya: I guess you got my name wrong. It’s Tanul not Tarun
. Anyways, Patricia Neal played Dominique Francon, and was average to say the best. I agree its difficult to portray Randish kind of characters because it is nothing of the sort which we encounter in day to day life (given they are highly exaggerated version of human emotions), but, I still believe a movie like Fountainhead can still be pulled off on screen. Both in Hollywood and Bollywood. Yes, there is no typo here. Both Hollywood and ‘Bollywood’.!
loading...
I’m still not fortunate enough to watch the movie. From your analysis above I can feel that you still hasn’t got the characterization right. For example Roark can never be venomous, he would be indifferent. The point of being Roark is the simplicity with which he says no. No anger, no venom, no frustration- may be a little disappointment- but just plain NO.
I still think that Fountainhead can be made into good movie, though a little bit lengthy. Anyways I always think length is never a problem if movie is captivating.
@ Krishna- How can you not compare it with book. When you read a book and its on your mind, you can’t just go with a blank slate and say I don’t know anything about it. What could be done is given some concessions for change in format, but integrity should remain intact. Generally Movie and Books both are about story telling, only medium and format has been changed. You give consideration for changes but the soul of the story should remain same. (This is not related to this movie but in general).
@ Subhashish – I always thought Angelina Jolie will be a great choice for Dominique. I always thought she is the only person who can capture beauty, grace, contempt, love , and frustration of being Dominique. Remember that temple scene ‘This is what you were looking for’ to Steve Mallory, I could only envision her. I don’t know why but while reading fountainhead I could not fathom any person as Roark and still could not.
loading...
@ Tapan: You misunderstood me, took my words at its face value. I never meant venomonous in execution, I meant his ‘No’ would be so nonchalant that it would have the same effect as being venomonous. Even I feel that length can never be a deterrent factor for a good movie.
loading...