Customer Reviews

Fountainhead

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(9)
2 star:		(12)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Genius Ayn Rand can be blamed for lobbying to hire over-the-hill, former cowboy, laconic, lethargic, passive Gary Cooper to play her anti-hero, Howard Roark in this lunatic camp classic. The minute he comes on the screen, you would think he was Howard Roark's father. He's totally devoid of the intense fanaticism that made Roark such a memorable character. Why, oh, why, didn't Director King Vidor over-ride the egomaniacal Rand and consider some of the other hopefuls: tough guy Dane Clark, tough, romantic John Garfield, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas. Orson Welles, still svelte and brilliant, would have been fantastic. etc. Give Rand credit for wanting Greta Garbo for Dominique Francon but by this time, the eccentric, reclusive Garbo had already withdrawn from reality to such a degree she could no longer appear before a camera. Ida Lupino would have been terrific. But no, they went with newcomer Patricia Neal who comes across as just as a pretty American girl with too much money. The miscasting destroyed any hopes of this movie ever achieving greatness. Cooper reportedly demanded star close-ups, camera set-ups favoring him, dialogue rewritten, etc. They should try remaking the movie today,using stage actors and not the pretty bratpack of Pitt, Affleck, Cruise, Depp, etc. As for Dominique, please, God, not Gwenyth Paltrow, Julia Roberts, Winona Ryder, Nicole Kidman, etc.

While it was based on Ayn Rand's book, Ayn Rand personally altered the story to adapt it to film. It is a great movie that really makes the viewer think about many things including individualism, selfishness, and even what is right and wrong. For many people who take these notions as given from a very young, questioning them with an adult mind is a good idea. If you enjoy this movie, be sure to pick up and read some of Ayn Rand's non-fiction.

Whatever you thought of the book - and I loved it - this film adaptation is a failure. The casting, the screenplay (in which Rand herself had a hand) fail to do the book justice. For the definitive film adaptation of Ayn Rand, I highly recommend the Italian-made "We The Living".

I'm not sure what planet Ayn Rand came from, but her dialog bears no relation to the way that people actually communicate.

Peter Keating: "Howard, I'm a parasite, I've lived off of other people all my life and hated myself for it".

Ellsworth Toohey: "I play the stock market of the mind, and I sell short".

Roarke's academic dean: "There's no place for originality in architecture, no one can improve on the buildings of the past, one can only learn to copy them. It's my duty as your dean to tell you that you'll never be an architect".

Are you serious Rand? These characters don't do a very good job of selling your philosophy because they're so absurdly unbelievable.

People are rioting in the streets because an architect dares to be different? Howard Rourke agrees to design a housing project for the poor anonymously, allowing the hapless Peter Keating get all the credit for it, than blows it up because changes have made to the original design? Isn't blowing up a building a felony and shouldn't he have done a little time in the clink for this?

This movie hasn't aged well, to be kind.

The late Ayn Rand was the supreme proof of George Orwell's comment that only intellectuals can come up with certain ideas, because no ordinary person could be so stupid. This film, which is, quite simply, the most unintentionally funny movie I have ever seen,is valuable only because it shows clearly why so many people who ranted (her name really should have been Ayn Rant)about the (very real) horrors of Communism in the years after World War One eventually wound up snugly in the grasp of Herr Schicklgruber and his little elves. (And, yes, I know that Rand wasn't herself a Nazi; she just played one in print -- and here, on screen.) Cooper's architect is an embodiment of the way Hitler saw himself: a Promethean creator, rejected by the Establishment that didn't know a genius when it saw one.It's hard to know which of the film's many inanities is the choicest. The idea that a "yellow"(i.e.,tabloid)newspaper could get the masses of New York worked up into a riotous frenzy over -- ARCHITECTURAL STYLES????? The proposition that, even after years of getting high-profile commissions, Cooper is STILL helplessly at the mercy of unfeeling mediocrities, who can kill off his entire career with one press release? The notion that one can be put on trial for the crime of not following mass taste?(In AMERICA????? -- where the biggest problem has always been ESTABLISHING a tradition, not breaking free of one.)And, of course, like any good fascist, Miss Rand never concerns herself with corny old concepts like right and wrong. ("Beyond Good and Evil", doncha know.)Cooper actually DID commit the act of vandalism for which he is tried; yet his acquittal is treated like a triumph of justice(presumably because no one Miss Rand cared about happened to get caught in that explosion he set off).And the homosexual subtext of this film -in the relationship between Cooper and his former enemy the publisher-is nothing short of hilarious.(When the boys plan their around-the-world cruise together, you don't need to wait for the dialogue to tell you that Patricia Neal won't be coming along).Finally, what makes this whole enterprise even wackier is that Rand doesn't even have the consistency of her own idiocy. The idea that a man like Cooper - proud, rugged, the ultimate loner- would allow a no-talent rival, WITH HIS BLESSING, to take one of his most prized concepts and pass it off as his own makes utter nonsense of everything we have been shown up to that point.In sum, if you want to do justice to "The Fountainhead", invite over any Patrick Buchanan and David Duke supporters you may happen to know, put some bratwurst on the grill, pop this gem into the VCR, and have a ball.

The novel was actually an interesting study of pre-libertarian libertarian philosophy (objectivism/egoism...not egotism). Characters and plot were good in the novel. Even if one disagrees with the super-onesided argument against socialism (which I did), one can value the strength of Rand's arguments in the book...and enjoy the plot. Not so with the movie: poor (over)acting (reminded me of the pre-talkies over emoting), poor scipt (perhaps unavoidable when trying to condense SO much into a film format), and just dated ideas (such as a woman needed to be raped to enjoy sex), etc. I would not even consider it a B-movie classic, rather a TERRIBLE "A" movie.

The Ayn Rand Institute should hunt down every copy of this video and destroy it. If you've read the book and haven't yet seen the movie... don't. The characters are shallow and the storyline is, well, to be desired. All I know is I loved the book and practically cried when I saw what a mess they made of the movie. But that's just my opinion. SEC

A great movie, romantic and stuck to the essence of the book. Ayn Rand personally wrote the condensed script for the movie. The result is a very real Howard Roark,a great romance and inspirational piece.

Ayn Rand's masterpiece novel loses none of its plot and pace in this, somewhat shorter, film production. The theme of the film is: the individual verses the collective. And the individual, in this case played by Gary Cooper in the form of Howard Roark, is brilliantly portrayed through a sense of self-belief, determination and sheer ability. His ideological opposite, Elsworthy Toohey, is also well acted and personifies the evil collectivist who renounces all individual achievements and believes that men should act as their brother's keepers. Then there are in-between characters too - those of mixed premises - such as Gail Wynand and Dominique Francon. All of these dramatic individuals play their part in a compelling and well thought through story.

Perhaps one of the most impressive (although unsurprising given the author) facets of the film is that it actually has an underlying message: it's not merely a concoction of disjointed and pointless scenes. The climax and meaning to the whole story can be found in Roark's own testimony at his court case: his statement and explanation that man exists for his own sake, not for the sake of others.

This is definitely a film for those who believe in the hero of man the creator, though it will, almost certainly, be too close for comfort for the collectivist crowd!

The movie itself as an artistic film still holds up well, though it may not reach the heights of some other great Vidor films such as The Crowd. Gary Cooper actually does well in his role, though some might find him a bit miscast. The real problems of the movie are its prejudiced portrayal of traditional architecture and the flawed idea that creativity must be somehow new...Much of what is creative is not new.

1. The movie's prejudiced view of all classical/traditional architects as being narrow minded copycats of the past... well, does that mean Michaelangelo and Palladio were not creative artists? Sure classical architecture doesn't readily fit tall office buildings, but it is still beautiful and well-suited to smaller structures. With fresh inspiration, it can adapt and take on many creative directions, for example see Bernini's masterpieces or Thomas Jefferson's Monticello or Robert Adam's brilliant interiors or the many beautiful state capitol buildings. Besides the majority of people love it. And that's a lot more than can be said for most contemporary styles. Interestingly, a new approach to large office buildings may be to build much of it underground with only one or two stories overground in a beautiful classcial style. This fresh approach was successfuly used in Haifa, Israel for some Baha'i buildings.

2. Another problem with this movie is that it portrays people who love decorative detail as being uncivilized. What right does anyone have to criticize people who love classical details like arches and columns? That is what early American architecture was like, isn't it? Back then nobody said loving the majesty of columns and pediments was backwards.

3. The third problem with this movie is that it has a lot of too overtly stated messages, such as the well meant but biased celebration of anything new as being creative. Much of what looks new seems that way because it's just so visually dissonant like some of the rather ugly architecture this movie tries to present as masterpieces. Ironically, everyday people sometimes have better taste than architects brainwashed by modernist jargon and misleading art theories. Overall an interesting film that may mean different things to different people.