Thanks for the memories!

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Believe me, I'm not kidding about how silly/scary some of these sessions could be, even out in the Hinterland. In the movie, they show a young woman, in front of Rand and Nathaniel Branden (Eric Stoltz), coming to tears for not having the correct interpretation of some behavioral peccadillo. It reminds you of a party-loyalty session on the collective farms in Russia and China. But the story is largely autobiographical for Barbara Branden. We see a very important part of Rand's life, Rand's husband, Frank O'Connor (Peter Fonda), as well as Barbara and Nathaniel. The plot focuses a lot on the relationships among them. It starts with Barbara and Nathaniel coming to meet Ayn Rand at her home in California... after Nathaniel had written a most perceptive letter to Rand when he had read her book, The Fountainhead. Ayn and Nathaniel hit it off at first syllogism, then, in a few years, start "getting it on" above and beyond the call of reason.

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.

The movie begins with the success of "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand (Helen Mirrin) and covers the next fifteen or so years of her rise to the top of a collective movement known as "objectivism," which became a kind of cult with Rand as the golden-gowned Inca empress. What a dull movie.Let's see. Mirrin is married to Frank (Peter Fonda), an alcholic wimp who paints and cultivates flowers. The couple take under their wing an admiring young married couple, Eric Stoltz and Julie Delpy. (I'm going to skip the characters' names because they're unimportant historically and dramatically.) Mirrin develops a maternal affection for Stoltz that soon enough blossoms into something more physical. Julie Delpy twigs to this. We know so because she confronts Stoltz: "She loves you! And you love HER!" Mirren and Stoltz meet together with their spouses and tell the truth. They want an open marriage, meaning Mirren and Stoltz get to hump each others' brains out without the same privilege being extended to Fonda and Delpy. The spouses grant Mirren and Stoltz one afternoon a week alone, but the pair have so much fun they begin bootlegging more hours into the arrangement.Delpy, meanwhile, is having anxiety attacks, which are nerve wracking, as I can testify. In despair she calls Mirren from a café, begging to come to her for advice and succor, and Mirren comes back with a blistering accusation of selfishness. I'm not sure the screenplay recognizes the irony here, because Ayn Rand's "objectivist philosophy" is nothing if it is not a glorification of selfishness. Anyway, a kindly passer-by notices Delpy collapsing in the phone booth and he's a sensitive, caring type, a musician, and escorts her home. The relationship grows warmer but Delpy refuses to break her marriage vows and -- yawn -- excuse me -- she asks Stoltz for the same open-marriage arrangement that he's got. He balks.He's got nothing to balk about. He's a practicing clinical psychologist and one of his patients, a beautiful young woman, Sybil Temtchine, develops a severe case of what we practicing clinical psychologists call "transference," not uncommon in neurotics. Rather less common is the way Stoltz exhibits what we practicing psychologists call "counter-transference." He humps her brains out too. To such an extent that Mirren begins musing aloud, "When was the last time we made love?" Are you confused yet? I only ask because I'm a little gemischt myself.At any rate, Stoltz develops a case of conscious or something -- I may have had a period of microsleep at this point -- and resigns from the Institute. Mirren slaps him around, accuses him of treachery, and does her level best to destroy him. But the stalwart Delpy sticks with her husband and resigns in sympathy.In the end, objectivism has become a terrific success after the publication of Rand's last book, "Atlas Shrugged," although the critics bombed it, and she makes lots of dough on the lecture circuit -- bold, unashamed before challenging questions from the crowd, full of wisecracks, reveling in her celebrity and money. It must be wonderful to have no doubts about one's self.No viewer will learn very much about objectivism. It's not the central topic of the movie. The title tells it all -- "The Passion of Ayn Rand." That passion extended far beyond any desire to educate or convert the public. It encompassed power, possessions, and wealth.What more is there to say about this dreary story. There's so much strenuous and lubricious sex in it that it could have shown up late at night on Cinemax except that the girls would all need bigger bosoms, something along the lines of watermelons. The musical score is mostly slow, sad, muted trumpet, straight out of "Miles Davis Plays Music for Lovers." The dialog sucks. "Did you talk to her about our problems?" "OUR problems? You mean that you don't like sex anymore?" There's an interesting story that was waiting to be built around the rise (and subsequent decline) of objectivism. How -- exactly -- does a cult begin? You need a charismatic figure, of course, and Ayn Rand provided it. Then you typically get proprietary sexual relationships and the concomitant jealousies or self abnegation. The difference between objectivism and most cults is that Rand's had a political, even a metaphysical flavor, whereas most are built around some variant of religious salvation. But cults, like Christianity was when it began, need an organizer and solidifier to follow the charismatic founder when he shuffles off this mortal coil. Christianity at least had St. Paul, but who was there to follow Ayn Rand, to organize the objectivists? Her husband Frank? The elderly and reclusive Frank, who lived off Rand's leavings? Frank, the mediocre painter? The wimp who loved Los Angeles because you could grow a greater variety of flowers there? I once spoke to an architect about "The Fountainhead." It's hero's architectural genius creates a gas station that one fictional critic calls, "An insolent 'No' flung in the face of history." "It's all very well," my architect friend admitted, "if you're a genius. But what about the rest of us, who are no more than good at what we do?" Yes. An interesting story is hidden in the shadows of this abject production, but it remains to be told.